User talk:King Skeleton

Hey buddy, welcome to RationalWiki. Please pull up a goat and enjoy your stay. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey jerk wad, quit censoring CORRECT information.


 * Is your username a reference to that "replace 'SJW' with 'skeleton' " thing that's popular right now? Abed Nadir (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. Some anti-GG types made a macro that replaces "SJW" with "skeleton" and that's what I thought it was about.  But Castlevania is cool too.  Just FYI, when somebody posts to your talk page, you should generally reply on that same page.  We'll keep track of replies via our watchlists.  (Or in my case, I just look at my recent contribs.)  Abed Nadir (talk) 07:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. Most wikis I've been on are picky about answering on the other person's page. King Skeleton (talk) 07:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to see some new, helpful blood around here, by the way. You're doing an excellent job thus far, so I've made you autoconfirmed. IIRC, that should get rid of the CAPTCHA. But it might not, so don't get you hopes up if it didn't. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

When the facts change..
I see you change your argument. She only "cheated" with three guys. The other two are slutshaming by any definition. How is fucking people when not in a committed relationship worthy of public comment? Hipocrite (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with what he did at all, but I don't agree with the idea that "someone cheated on me multiple times" counts as slut-shaming. It stretches the definition of the term to breaking point for no real reason: what he did was bad enough without adding in tenuous claims at making it even worse. King Skeleton (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * How about "someone cheated on me multiple times and also had sex when we were on a break." Is that slut shaming? How about the fact that he names the alleged cheaters-with, except for the ones she fucked when they were on a break. Yeah, it's slut shaming. Hipocrite (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly sure that just proves the whole concept of a relationship break is stupid and just bound to lead to more heartache, but if she wasn't honest with him about that when she got back with him that would only compound the other feelings of betrayal. So yeah, it would matter that she wasn't honest five times over. The issue is that he went to people he knew hated her with this information knowing full well they'd use it to harm her, we don't need subjective judgements about how he handled his feelings of betrayal to make him look like an irredeemable asshole when his other behaviour does a fine job of that. King Skeleton (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Respect?
So I have to call you a fucker to get your respect? Oh, you'll hate me, then. We'd have to be recent exes to earn that label from me. Still, at least we can settle it right now ... that I won't get your respect. MarmotHead (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 *  Respect +10  King Skeleton (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, you win: fucker. MarmotHead (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Even that made me feel dirty. Sometimes, I just want to be an asshole! MarmotHead (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Mop and Bucket
You've been demoted! Try not to fuck anything up.--TiaC (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to resist banning Logicmaster for a hundred thousand years and it's really hard. King Skeleton (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I considered a direct warning about that, but it would be a bit hypocritical coming from me. I did predict some humor from tempting you so blatantly. The five minute block is probably fine, but be careful. --TiaC (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a section in the custodial guide about not blocking people just for being annoying. I know how tempting it can be, but it just gives them another "injustice" to complain about. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Dioxins "artificial"
http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Renewable_energy&diff=1392744&oldid=1392743

Just because dioxins are also naturally occurring doesn't mean they can't still be produced by us and therefore "artificial" (whatever that means, chemicals are chemicals whether naturally occurring or not, hell, water (H2O) is a chemical). Nullahnung (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Produced by us" would generally parse as "synthetic" which is a chemophobe scare-term. If they occur in nature they're not just produced by us, and if you count toxins produced in nature dioxins and furans are pisspoor compared to things like botulism and tetanus toxins which could kill the entire population of the world with the mass of a Pez. King Skeleton (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think your thinking has been influenced towards kneejerk reactions while reading certain terms by reading too much of what chemophobes have to say. "Synthetic" is not really a chemophobe scare-term unless you give undue attention to what they have to say. Hell, synthetic water exists. It's still water. Me calling it synthetic water doesn't mean I'm suddenly a chemophobe just like RW acknowledging that dioxins can be produced at such plants doesn't mean RW is attempting to scaremonger about it, especially when in the next sentence it mentions that there exist proper measures to deal with the dioxins. Nullahnung (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just not particularly sure why it's necessary; they're extremely hazardous substances, they don't need some vague grouping to make them the hazardy-est. Plus the "dioxins are the scariest man-made substance" line gives me Story of Stuff flashbacks. :( King Skeleton (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ok, I do think it was a reasonable edit you made. Nullahnung (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion discussion
You may wish to comment on the ongoing articles for deletion discussion about article "John Duffield". 02:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)