User talk:Irrationalatheist

Welcome to the Dollhouse!  ħ uman  04:54, 6 December 2008 (EST)
 * Hi. I really do recommend our RationalWiki:Newcomers' guide with includes information about how to put pretty things on your userpage so that it doesn't come up in red on recent changes.--Bobbing up 15:36, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Flesh out
flesh out Verb to expand on or give more details to: further meetings will be needed to flesh out the agreement Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

It's quite common, actually. Toast 09:17, 17 December 2008 (EST)


 * The term wasn't my issue. Read his edit summary. He states "flesh out" is the opposite of "chill out". As though he's coining a new slang term. --Irrationalatheist 09:28, 17 December 2008 (EST)


 * Ed's always had that seriously creepy habit of trying very hard to sound "hip", or alternately sound like a trusted older figure, like an uncle or something. He always comes off to me as very forced, and very creepy, especially when he's doing that whole "trust kindly old uncle Ed, kiddies" routine.  *shivers* --Kels 09:23, 17 December 2008 (EST)
 * Mmm. I suppose, but narr, not really, if we wigoed everything Ed said that was downright stupid we'd be better off having an RSS feed direct from his keyboard. As Kels has noted, he's more active @ wp lately and we ought to be watching him there more. Toast 09:28, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Message from the RationalWiki Ministry of Demotion and Personal Impediment

 * Damn. Is there any way to appeal this? Can I get another sysop to revert this? Unfair! --Irrationalatheist 06:54, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Boredom
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Special:Wantedpages is a good place to start... plenty of fodder there to have fun with.  ħ uman  16:23, 19 December 2008 (EST)


 * I've been picking at those. But if something comes up, feel free to get my attention. I'll see what I can do. --Irrational Atheist 16:24, 19 December 2008 (EST)
 * We like to help each other here. If you tell us your talents and qualifications we can perhaps advise you how to get new work. Warning!  Don't tell us so much that prospective employers can recognise who you are.  If they know that you post on an atheist website that might put some employers against you. Proxima Centauri 12:54, 20 December 2008 (EST)
 * My user page describes what I'm interested and proficient in. --Irrational Atheist 15:12, 20 December 2008 (EST)
 * You know what I'd like to see? A lot more at Woody Guthrie - including all the original lyrics to "this land"... seem like  good idea?  ħ uman  22:28, 20 December 2008 (EST)
 * Also, you redlinked Lewis Carroll on your user page. Another great place to start?  We could use a handful of articles... him, Alice, hatters, dormice, wonderland, looking glass, jam every other day, etc., etc.  ħ uman  22:31, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Are you good at teaching? How about helping school kids improve their English? When the kids leave school they will need good English to improve their job chances in the recession. How about giving tuition to English undergraduates? You might earn a bit of money that way. It could tide you over till you find a proper job. Proxima Centauri 06:26, 22 December 2008 (EST)

RationalWikiWiki
Congratulations! You have won a free article on rationalwiki's meta-site. --RWW 17:37, 28 December 2008 (EST)
 * How much do free articles cost these days, anyhow? --Kels 17:40, 28 December 2008 (EST)
 * Too rich for my blood! --Irrational Atheist 17:50, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Vulgar abuse of language
I've been a bit preoccupied with something. I shall return to the SES application in a week or two. Sorry everyone! --Irrational Atheist 18:07, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Edit summaries
When writing edit summaries, the name of the section being edited is enclosed in the  marks. In your last two edits to the WIGO:CP page, you placed the edit summary inside the marks where the section name should have gone, thus resulting in dead section links in the finished edit summaries. 20:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Birth of a Nation"?
Really? 'Cause what, conservatives are fundamentally racist and liberals never are? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that what was said, or are you taking offense at your own perception? Birth of a Nation is not liberal, libertarian, and is not only the first blockbuster film ever, it epitomizes the nature of Conservapedia's arguments and antics. So yes, it is very befitting a Top 20 List there. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How does a film about the Klan epitomise CP's arguments--or even modern conservatism? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not only the Klan but how the North was wrong to have warred with the South in the first place. It makes black men into bogeymen. It makes Lincoln into a tyrant. But I have updated the movies to reflect only those which came out in the last 20 years, to reflect the CP piece properly. So BotN has been stripped from the list. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lincoln a tyrant, eh? You really should read CP's article on the man. he's a touchstone of all that's good for them. As for "black men into bogeymen," CP's relationship with race--like that of modern US conservatism, and the rest of American society, is far more complicated than that. I just really don't like seeing the racist card played in a way that blurs together men in hoods hanging men from trees with actions and discourses from a different time and place in order to score a cheap political point. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, your perception is off here. I'm not saying that because BotN says Lincoln is a tyrant, so does CP. But Lincoln was a tyrant because he held a platform of civil rights during the war. CP argues similar statements about those who want equal rights to homosexuals, or points out that people are traitors for wanting fair trials for terrorists, etc. They are just as guilty of the hyperbole of those they don't like as the movie was about Lincoln and the North. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty subtle, and I think I see where you're coming from--but all the same, the now-defunct edit seemed, to me, to be quick to compare the values directly espoused by the film (pro-KKK) with CP, which really isn't fair. Peace. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Difference of opinions is a great thing for understanding more than one's own ideology. Even if we completely disagree, we come out with a better understanding of a different position than our own. (The More You Know theme plays) --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

year
--  = w =  06:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Orange boxen
You had two, now you have only one. 01:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What one do I have now? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OH, sorry you are so slow you have to ask ;) Go to WP.  04:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I hardly use Wikipedia logged in. My error for not checking there, since you observed no one has even welcomed me there yet. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They are assholes. Here, we welcome single editors.  At WP, you've been there a year and no one welcomed you??? WTF?  06:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

How to say this....
I'm not quite sure how to put this lightly, but since its RW I don't think you will take it very seriously anyway. Your WIGOs stink. Keegscee (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure how to put this lightly, but since it's RW, I don't think you will take it very seriously anyways. Fuck you and learn to click the appropriate button on the WIGOs. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I paved the way for it to be ok for one editor to say that to another. Response is appropriate.  02:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I have a few of the epic WIGOs from the past claimed, a few misses due to boredom with TK is fine with me. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm bored
I'm bored. I'll keep hammering at the morons who post here. Hope no one minds. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "here"? Like in this particular section or on the entire wiki? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Be my guest but be warned, going up against EL can dangerously raise your stress levels. I think that, behind it all, he's benign but he will bang on about killing innocent babies and attempt to upload pictures of destroyed foetuses and then accuse anyone who disagrees with him of appealing to emotion. He uses all the standard tricks, posting pages of response to a simple question and, if you don't answer each and every point then you have failed to counter his arguments and have failed.
 * In short, to misquote the Jefferson Airplane, "Never argue with an Estonian if you're tired." Jack Hughes (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just RW. TK's become a pussy and ran from the fight. The abortion fuck dodged my questions. Boring. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I just recently figured it out how popular it is to talk about me here at Rationalwiki... (behind my back)! Well, guess what, Irrationalatheist. You clearly haven't read my essay and you aren't even paying attention to my replays. I've never heard such nonsense before... you can't understand even the most basic facts.

Do I know you, Jack Hughes? Are you a secret twin brother of Bob Soles? --Earthland (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've heard your kind of argument before. It's bullshit, and I showed how it's bullshit. I'm paying attention to your "replays," because I'm showing how your "replays" contradict your argument. Why? Because you have no argument except an emotional plea that people just accept your morals and beliefs. You got your ass handed to you, and it was funny. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You are just a nasty and mean fucker - a cyber-bully like you accuse many others of being. I am fairly certain you are a small stature, small dicked little fucker who makes up for his low social standing by bullying others on the web. If you knew how excruciatingly boring your constant and daily put-downs of anyone who even mildly disagrees with you sound to everyone else, you would most likely hang yourself or find some other way to end it all. Your life is a misery and you are intent on spreading that around to everyone. One thing you have done right in your hateful life is choose the proper and fitting user name here. You most likely are irrational, blinded by your intolerance and hate, your self loathing. Please save your fellow editors here by getting some electro-shock therapy or perhaps masturbating more. If you can find that little, pathetic pee-wee dick of yours. --BoredWithU
 * You seem rather fascinated with dicks. --Kels (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Love you, too, Earthland. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't me.

Irrational, your insane gibberish was anything but reasonable. I'm bored, too. --Earthland (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it wasn't. Thank you for your sock post and your current post. I thought you were bored with me to the point that you weren't going to respond to me anymore? Seems like you have to get the last word by acting immature. Argument going that badly for you? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The anonymous comment wasn't from me. I have posted on RW without first logging in previously also, that ip hasn't.

I think you are either a provocateur or a parodist, if you really aren't same stupid like Andrew Schlafly. Search for any random abortion debate and see what kind of arguments pro-choice people use. There's no such nonsense like you have told.

You may try to convince yourself that you are so smart that I just can't answer you, as you "pointed out the illogical nature of my arguments". The reality is that you simply couldn't understand even the basic elements of this debate and you're not even trying to think. Of course, maybe you did on on purpose to try to make me angry. Epic fail.

Bye.

--Earthland (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Idiot, how many times do you have to keep telling me you're not going to respond to me anymore, by responding to me to tell me you're not going to respond to me anymore? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Get over yourself...
...I'm #226. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And I'm #1708. You don't see me running for the hills!   22:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Snarky weekend break over with. Had work to do. Thanks for not getting the joke, fellas. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh, my humor detector has been on the fritz for years. Probably ought to get the batteries replaced.   16:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How does one upload video files?
For anti-science issues, how does one upload a video file for use on RW, from places like YT (assuming that the video file is downloaded properly, and which video formats are allowed)? Is this possible for the engine? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to convert it to OGG (see RationalWiki:Upload for links to stuff that can convert), then just upload it like any other image. -- Nx  / talk 20:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck was that all about?
Not cool, not the way we're supposed to roll. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * He was bitter because I made a positive comment about a negative comment that described him. --Earthland (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Btw, Irrational, it may be a fun for some time, but it gets tiresome if you ban permanently people who you consider to be "trolls" because they refused to answer you (and if you go on to "rant" about everything you don't like, soon it will include the whole RW). --Earthland (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fuck off, EL. This isn't about your page. This is about you needing to anywhere else to troll unnecessarily. Seriously, what did your post add to the thread other than "Hey, I want to be a troll!" Then you block me for pointing this out. I'm sick of your trolling.
 * ToP: Just look at his response on the talk page where I pointed out he was trolling. And the ban he implemented following it. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop abusing the block function.
If Earthland bothers you that much, simply refrain from looking at the one frakkin' page that he edits. Voila. Problem solved. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wrote this for TOP, but I think you would enjoy it. Chuck the following five lines of code in your monobook.js:

click ctrl+f5 and you will no longer see his essay or its talkpage on the recent changes menu. 08:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Something seems weird, I'll play with it for a bit and tell you when it works. 09:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't work. It seems that Irrational is obsessed with me. --Earthland (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't use it, idjit. And anyone who makes stupid accusations should be called out on them. Saying someone is making simple assertions rather than arguments, on a talk page of an essay where there is no real argument, only strawmen and assertions, shouldn't be blasting others for similar. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Twas a pity anyone else interfered in that, I was looking forward to a pure EL/Tolly cagematch. 21:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Administrative Abuse
See here for a discussion of your latest binning/blocking stunts. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fuck off. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

'As per the rules explained to me, this is what the vandal bin is for.'
Let me explain again. The vandal bin is not for that. Cheer up and come back later. --  = w =  21:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-motion in locomotion
Whether or not you return, you've been given back yer powerz per the 3 day sentence set out in Admin Abuse. Use them carefully. 07:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I must admit
That it was much more fun when you were still here. I'm sure that you read my message (I'm not arrogant enough to e-mail you), so please consider re-joining (preferably without the needless attempts to make edits that someone would care about). You see, even your article in RWW has been broadened. It is a clear sign. I'm not making fun. Sincerely, --Earthland (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)