User talk:Cgb07305

Hi Cgb07305. Nice of you to join us, though I think that you'll find that some of the points you have recently raised may be found on other parts of the wiki. If you'd like to know a bit more about the site please have a look at our RationalWiki:Newcomers' guide.

I looked and didn't see anything close to it other than two cases of numeric contradictions. Mine was more a satire on how hypocritical creationist are...I'm not sure how one would link the two since I'm new to wiki software but it seems like a logical fit to me.
 * You will find wiki editing information in the guide mentioned above. You might want to look at our article Young Earth creationism to see our present article. Cheers.--Bobbing up 15:51, 11 December 2008 (EST)
 * Hey there Cgb, I deleted your article on Moscow because it really didn't seem to do much for the wiki. We generally try (usually phail) to stick to the science and that sort of thing. If it helps, our mission statement may help clear things up. Have a good day. 21:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A sysop.
You are one. Read this and fuck off if you have any questions. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

David Feherty‎
Has no links, no categories, should be a stub and nothing links to it--could you take a look at it please? Thanks. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Flags
I'm assuming there's a fantastic reason why we're getting the flags of the world uploaded? -- Psygremlin  17:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Purely selfish though.  Cgb07305
 * Yes: they're pretty.  Isn't beautifying the wiki a good enough reason?  : )   17:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I like how you think. Cgb07305
 * Like I said - a "fantastic reason" ;) -- Psygremlin  17:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There you have it. No more uploads for me today.  Cgb07305

Um, Cgb...
You forgot to remove the ".jpg" in Uae-flag.jpg.gif. 18:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * When I tried to remove it the image disappeared. This computer talk that makes magic happen on my screen is beyond me.  You're welcome to rename it whatever you like.  Cgb07305
 * I'll see if I can do it without breaking it.  18:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all fixed now. I'm surprised it was that easy.   18:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Now I feel stupid.  >:-/ Cgb07305
 * Not as stupid as you're gonna feel when you realize Nx is deleting all of your uploaded flags and replacing them with ".svg" versions. : )   18:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that already. WTF?  Cgb07305
 * Personally, I think Nx is in a bad mood right now. I mean, he's even all but said "why the frick should I care" when we told him he could put the holiday-themed RationalWiki icon back up, and now he's on a mass deletion spree.   18:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He's going through all the flags on my user page. That little prick.  Cgb07305
 * Yes, I'm in the mood to be a prick. Be glad I am replacing them instead of just deleting them because you failed to follow the simple instructions on the upload form. -- Nx  / talk 18:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say that flags are to be svg. I assumed, as any rational human would, that anyone who saw a flag would immediately recognize it as fair use...so I didn't bother classifying every last one. There was no need.Cgb07305
 * No, it doesn't, but if I'm going to go through the trouble of fixing your uploads, I might as well use high quality scalable graphics instead of crappy gifs and jpegs, and fix the filenames as well. -- Nx  / talk 18:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you insist. Cgb07305

cgb½⅓⅔¼¾⅛⅜⅝⅞
Bring jelly. --  = w =  06:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As you "decided to chime in"
... I answered you on the talk page of my essay.

And sorry if my accusation of parody sounded "wild", as Weaseloid thought it did.

--Earthland (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

A few questions
You're the first person who truly defends the statement that life begins at birth. I've never heard someone who actually believes it, and you're definitely the first person of that kind here in Rationalwiki. I answered to you on the talk page of my essay, but I'm not hoping for an answer that would make any sense. However, as you claim that you have a degree in biology, I do have a few questions for you:

'''Since I apparently now have insomnia I am going to try to answer these questions without fuck snapping. No promises, though. I do it less for you than for open-minded people who may be on the fence. Personally, I am not a fan of abortion, but the fact one holds a position doesn't mean they can throw out all relevant facts, like you apparently have.'''


 * What is fetus before it is born? Is it "dead"? Or non-living? Or simply part of its mother's body? From what species is it?


 * A fetus is a cluster of human DNA that is beginning the amazing feat of cell specialization. A fetus is the potential for human life.  It is not a separate human life...simply because it is not separated from the mother.


 * In prenatal surgeries, the unborn, still connected to her mother by the umbilical cord, is removed, given anes­thesia, operated on, and reinserted into her mother. The child is called a patient, is operated on, and has her own medical records, indicating blood type and vital signs. If it is not even "alive", then how is it possible?


 * Keep in mind that it is the potential for life. Legally, that fetus is not alive.  In order to have a medical record one has to have a birth date.  Can you cite where you got this information?  I seriously doubt there is any truth to it given that, for one, I have never seen it.


 * Can you quote any competent biologist, embryologist, a reliable textbook of biology or embryology that states that life begins at birth (or at any other time than conception)?


 * I am a competent biologist and I say that life begins at birth. Every textbook on human development states this very clearly.  "In the first three months of life..." "in the first year of life..."  They mean the first three months and year after birth, respectively.  I'm not going to quote to you every scientist that agrees with me.  Basically all of them do.


 * In 1999, an unborn child named Samuel Armas was operated on for spina bifida. His photograph in Life maga­zine captured the world’s attention. As the surgeon was closing, Baby Samuel pushed his hand out of the womb and grabbed the surgeon’s finger. Photojournalist Michael Clancy caught this astonishing act on film. Clancy reported, “Suddenly, an entire arm thrust out of the opening, then pulled back until just a little hand was showing. The doctor reached over and lifted the hand, which reacted and squeezed the doctor’s finger. As if testing for strength, the doctor shook the tiny fist. Samuel held firm. I took the picture! Wow!”

The question is: who was this finger-grabbing patient - a non-living, non-human "thing", according to you?


 * I cannot answer your question. You asked who it was...it wasn't a who.  We can now grow human arms in labs.  Is a human arm that does the identical thing a human?  No.  I doubt even you would disagree with that.  Your argument is that if it barks like a dog, it's a dog.  My argument is that there are many things that bark like a dog and we actually have to take the time to figure out what it is.  Just because it acts/looks like a human life, doesn't mean it is.


 * The unborn child takes an active role in his own development, controlling the course of the pregnancy and the time of birth. How can it be, if it actually isn't alive before birth?


 * You're not going to like my answer here. Cancer takes a role in its own development, controlling the course of infestation and the time of death.  I changed two words.  Actually what you (ignorantly) presented is a perfect example of why the fetus is not an independent being.  The hormones it sends the mother-to-be are very similar to cancer hormones, and act in symbiosis with the mother.  It the fetus were an independent life, this would not be possible.


 * The child may die and the mother live, or the mother may die and the child live - doesn't it prove that they are two separate individuals and the fetus is definitely alive before birth?


 * Absolutely not. Cells inside me are constantly dying, am I a separate being from the cells that make me?  That's an absurd proposition.  If chemo kills cancer inside someone does that prove the cancer was its own life form (because it died and healthy cells making the rest of the person didn't)?

'''I have one question for you: 1. If a fetus and the mother are separate beings, to whom does the umbilical chord belong?''' Etc...

--Earthland (talk) 12:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * " Is a human arm that does the identical thing a human? No." However, to perform that action, said disembodied arm would have to have been stimulated by some external force. No external force acted thus upon Samuel Armas's arm. 09:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So the electrical impulses from EXTERNALLY stimulating the fetus' neurons don't count? After spinal surgery, I can only imagine the neurons of the fetus would be lit up like a Christmas tree.  Let us ignore the fact that the doctor put his finger in the hand and all muscles have automatic reflex...so even our pitre dish arm, if properly innervated, would react. 09:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you then say that obviously the electrical impulses rising from external stimulation of the neurons of a waterboarding victim also count as automatic reflex actions? 20:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh hi again, cgb.

Although talking to you is a waste of time, there are number of things that I must clarify. You seem to be a person who likes to bully people by telling lies about them, combined with your irritating and obvious immaturity.


 * I noticed an old post of yours on the talk page of Bob Soles, where you claimed that I am blocking people (or at least you) for "inserting anything I disagree with." You are the only person I have ever blocked for serious reason, in that case the reason was your lie. Your lie was:

"You never said what the penalty for abortion should be. In fact, you went on a rant (to Human) saying something to the effect of: "it's not my place to put a penalty.""

I have never said such thing, double-liar.


 * You wrote that, "You can easily dismantle his argument (if you so choose). All you have to do is ask him to distinguish between an adult stem cell and a fetus. Using his definition of life, he can't. In fact using his definition he can't distinguish between a skin cell and a fetus. One has to talk about the potential for life in order to distinguish a difference between fetal cells and skin cells."

You see, although skin cells posses human life, the fetus is an actual human being. Both are alive, and both are human, but not in the same sense. It is true that the embryo in its early stage of development is not human in appearance, it has only potential skin, potential arms and potential legs and so on, but it is not potentially human being. Organisms are not only adults. But you take adults as the norm, you want to classify animals according to their adult structure. The unborn child does look exactly like a human ought to look at this stage of his or her development.


 * How can someone who claims that has a degree in biology say that the fetus is not a separate human being simply because it is not separated from the mother? A body part is defined by the genetic code it shares with the rest of the body. Being inside something is far from being part of something. To say that the unborn entity is part of its mother is to claim that the mother possesses four legs, two heads, two noses, and so on (and in the case of a male conceptus two testicles.) By any rational standard, the unborn child is a separate individual from its mother. It has its own DNA code, its own fingerprints (not from the beginning, though), and its own blood type. Furthermore, scientists have been able to achieve conception in a petri dish (the "test-tube" babies), and this conceptus, if it has white parents, can be transferred to the body of a black woman and be born white, we know conclusively that the unborn is not part of the pregnant woman's body and is a separate human being.


 * You write that "Every textbook on human development states this very clearly. "In the first three months of life..." "in the first year of life..." They mean the first three months and year after birth, respectively."

You got it wrong. Our tradition to held birthdays is cultural, not scientific. Yes, we say that someone is "three months old" three months after birth, but scientifically it is not true. Most of biology, even developmental biology, deals with life after birth, and it is obvious that most biology books adopt the common parlance, in order to avoid misunderstandings. The branch of biology that examines the life before birth is called embryology. Can you quote any embryologist who says anything else than the fact that life begins at conception?

Well, I quoted many embryologists and encyclopedias. For example, I quoted The Gale Encyclopedia of Science 1996, v 3, p 1327: ”For the first eight weeks following egg fertilization, the developing human being is called an embryo.” and you responded that it repeats your claim that "it is potential for life". By that you revealed your disability to understand even the most basic biological facts. How can something that develops be "not alive"? It is one of the characteristics of life: ability to develop. And if it develops as human being, how can it not be a human being?

Dr. C. Ward Kischer, Professor Emeritus of Human Embryology of the University of Arizona School of Medicine, has said: "Virtually every human embryologist and every major textbook of human embryology states that fertilization marks the beginning of the life of the new individual human being."

Pro-choicers usually do not argue that that embryo or fetus is not a living human being. For example, Wikipedia's article Aortion debate states that: "Pro-life supporters argue that abortion is morally wrong on the basis that a fetus is an innocent human being. Others reject this position by drawing a distinction between human being and human person, arguing that while the fetus is innocent and biologically human, it is not a person with a right to life."

Wikipedia's article about the Beginning of personhood is also interesting reading: "Many members of the medical community accept fertilization as the point at which life begins", “"At that moment conception takes place and, scientists generally agree, a new life begins—silent, secret, unknown.”"


 * You have completely failed to explain what is so important about birth that turns the "mere potential" into actual human being. Oh, you told me, in your charming manner, "You fail to see that this is a drastic change in the environment? Plus, you answered your own question, retard. What is different? The location of the stack of cells!"

How can a "competent biologists" (ha, ha) say that changes in characteristics such as place of residence and independence are changes in the being's essential nature?

Although it is not very good idea to ask questions from a parodist, because dumb people always find some kind of answer and then claim the victory ("Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory") but I still try.


 * Viability is defined as the ability of a fetus to survive outside the uterus without artificial support. Viability is usually attained at around 24 - 26 weeks. How is it possible that the fetus can survive outside the uterus, and it isn't even "alive"? And if it is the point at which fetus can survive outside the womb, that means that it is the point where the fetus has a good chance of not dying. Of course, if something is going to die, it has to be alive first; this is kind of hard to get around.

Please, stop hiding yourself behind your laughable credentials, you obviously don't have them (if you didn't buy them from some kind of catalogue). Btw, you saying about me that "It's seriously like dealing with a 2 year old." is like Andrew Schlafly asking someone to open his mind.

I'm not sure if an intelligent dialogue is possible with you, if you happen to make any kind of respond to me and I won't reply, it simply means I'm tired.

Bye.

--Earthland (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Might I suggest . Regards,  19:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again
Simply wanted to say that I won't answer any of your comments on the talk pages until you answer the questions above. (In case you wonder why I'm silent). If you can answer them, I'll stop pretending that you don't exist and will waste my time answering to these mind-numbingly dumb questions that you raise.

If I sound rude and arrogant, then there must be some reason. Think about it. --Earthland (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wiped you across the board. You are an idiot and simply not worth the time of day.  It is painfully obvious that you have no scientific training, and thus, you shoot shit out your ass.  We can't talk because you are simply too far below me to even comprehend what I am saying to you.  Those with background in science have seen that I murdered you across the boards.  I even had an old professor of mine (that introduced me to this site) e-mail me saying how cleanly I wiped you.  Don't post on my talk page again or you will be vandal binned, troll.  03:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC).

year
--  = w =  06:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you the same person as toast? 17:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Mei is not Toast. Mei is Mei. 17:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha, I'm still soooo lost with this Mei stuff. Maybe some day I'll figure out (or more likely, have it slowly explained to me).  18:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You could just ask Mei. She can probably explain it. 18:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * She might just be endearingly cryptic. She is Mei. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Haiti
I hope your family and/or friends in Haiti are safe. Corry (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As do I. I've never been in an earthquake, but, obviously, it must be terrifying to know someone affected by one. Especially a powerful one. 05:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys! Just got a text from one of them (whew...cell phone towers in port au prince are working).  At least she is Ok.  The quake wreaked utter havoc though.  It doesn't look good for the country as a whole.   06:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey--didn't know you had people in Haiti. Hope everything is good as can be expected...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above; I hope everyone in your family is ok. 17:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Life there is tough at the best of times, for most folks, I believe. Is it much different in Dominica? I've met working class Dominicans and educated Haitians, giving me a sense that one little island harbors two very different styles. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I only just saw the effect of Haiti on you Sean. My thoughts are with you and I hope your friends and family out there are OK. 20:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys! I've been getting intermitted texts and so far, so good as far as people close to me go. Apparently the first responders are doing a pretty good job. So much destruction though...too much. I'm elated to see R/W has taken this up (and isn't bashing anyone helping the situation in the process). What a good group of people here. Spocket, the DR is much different than Haiti in almost every respect. On the border it you can actually see the difference between the two countries. The DR is lush and green, while Haiti barren from all its deforestation. Most buildings in the DR would take the earthquake, plus there are government agencies (fire in particular) that Haiti simply cannot afford. Living in the DR, I got a sense that, while not the richest country, they have the means to get by and then some. The two weeks I spent in Haiti were rough and brutish...even for me. 18:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe a Haiti article would be good to do. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Happily. Will I be accused of not following RW guidelines in creating it?   20:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We have several articles on countries. pick a few to read from Category:countries and get a feel for the style. There's the various US invasions, the Duvaliers, vodoun (spelling?), all sorts of RW-relevant stuff you can do. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I say this is because it has happened before with geo articles I've created or edited.  23:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think under the circumstances, a Haiti article will be feasible. I'd support it.   23:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Consider it done. Just give me a few. =)    23:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

'Haha, I'm still soooo lost with this Mei stuff'
Where are you lost? Ask Mei. --  = w =  03:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Who are you and why the userboxes? Not that I'm trying to pry, just get my head to stop spinning.   03:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am Mei and userboxes are a thing I like. It allows many people to be friends with Mei! --  = w =  03:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This doesn't advance my knowledge of what is going on. I'll give up trying to "get" it now...it's apparent I never will.   03:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone should be friends with Mei. --  = w =  04:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do I have the feelings this is the inklings of a cult? On that note, I'm in.   04:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I think I get it now. Human, is that you? 05:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All you need to know is that Mei is useful. -- 20:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is all you need to know. And Mei is most certainly not Human. Mei is Mei. 21:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

School of the Americas
Since you, obviously, are familiar with Haiti, I was wondering if you had any knowledge/opinions/thoughts about the School of the Americas. I, myself, am a member and fundraiser for School Of the Americas Watch, and have been to the annual Fort Benning protest 2 times in the last 6 years. 22:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, actually...I'm quite familiar with it. 1. I was tortured in Mexico by graduates of SoA and 2. I was in MARSOC, which started spec ops with SoA grads (basically the main reason I left the Marines). &mdash; Unsigned, by: Cgb07305 / talk / contribs
 * Would you like to help me write an article on SOA here, since it absolutely falls under analysis of authoritarianism? It might take a few weeks before I would be able to help out a lot with it, but I absolutely think we need an article about it. 23:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd love to, Goon. Point me in the direction you want to head (and where you'd like to do it).  It sounds like a great article for here.   23:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I really want to point out and make issue with the fact that it is, in all honesty, the United States' own terrorist training facility. Anything else from there, we can figure out as we go. When either of us starts one (I don't care whom), we can let the other know.  23:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're a good man, Goon. Let's do it.   23:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be a great topic for an article, if you guys remember, can you let me know when you get started on it? 21:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Next Tuesday, provided nothing family-wise comes up, I'll start a sandbox on this. I'll let you guys know. 22:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I started one here. Feel free to add whatever you'd like and bring it in whatever direction you'd like. In fact, once you think it's better than a stub, go ahead and add it to the mainspace. 05:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Guess we already had an article (Who would've guessed?). Oh well, I'm working on re-vamping it right now. Feel free to help wherever and add whatever you can. Cheers.  23:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I shall start adding. It's rough because whenever I think about it, I relive getting the scars on my knees and back over and over.  Grrrr,   03:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yut
What did you do in the Marines? I was a submarine man in a former life. Corry (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Spec ops. I was supposed to train foreign Armies in urban assault and desert combat...linguistics "expert" in the FMTU.   05:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's impressive. I personally never felt comfortable with a weapon of smaller caliber than that of a torpedo.  Corry (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I like HAHO's and brutally long hikes. I'm an odd one though, me thinks.   05:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * HAHO? Corry (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

High altitude, high opening parachute jump. My record glide is over 8 hours...win!!! 05:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Holy crap. I was in one of the more cerebral corners of the military, so no parachutes for me.  I was officer of the deck for an emergency blow, though.  It didn't last eight hours.  I've spent nearly eight hours on a periscope before, but it's not that fun.  Corry (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Insertions are fun. :-/   05:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The insertions I was trained for involved an intercontinental, ballistic trajectory. Corry (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We got to play with some fun toys too!! =D  Although I'm kind of having fun-toy envy right now.  I wanna play with the missiles!!!   05:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I toured a sub bolted to the dock at the Navy museum in Groton CT (cool place, btw, free admission and displays ranging from rev. war era submersible to polaris missile), it was claustrophobic... but still interesting. 20:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought you were a Brit, Huw. Why would a Brit willfully come to the US?  I don't get it...   02:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Brought here by my parents in '69, 'twas a far richer country back then. But still just as evil, I guess.  Squandered so much...  02:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rotten Groton. Not the prettiest place.  Corry (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting articles.
1. Don't. It's a dick move

2. You can't "withdraw permission" because "Please note that all contributions to RationalWiki are considered to be released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0, or any later version (see RationalWiki:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."

3. What's more, others have edited those articles.

So, to conclude: Stop. Stop right now. -- 04:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My pages, my call to delete. Either you jackass bureaucrats get your shit together or my contributions will be burned for good. They're not "your" articles anymore than they're Thetesseract's articles. They're the wiki's articles. Don't get all fighty dude. Let's talk about this. Why are you deleting them? Are they so shitty I shouldn't take a moment to read them to figure this out on my own? 04:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have been desysoped to prevent any more deletion of pages. Not blocked or vandal binned, just defrocked to prevent us having to clean up for the time being. Acei9 04:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a fair response to his "or else." Ace makes my heart go pitterpatter. 05:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Love in a Time of Cholera... aw... 05:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ace is a liar. I am vandal binned. I am also leaving because I cannot take the completely arbitrary rules of this blog anymore. 05:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ace is not lying. You do not appear to be vandal binned. I checked in case I was mistaken but it doesnt appear so. Acei9 05:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I binned him after what appeared to be a vandalism spree of deletion, but it turns out he just didn't understand what a wiki is. I unbinned him about a minute later.-- 05:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * is his ip still binned?216.221.87.85 (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing on the logs. 05:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Completely arbitrary rules"? The rule is that there are no rules at all. And this rule is being used arbitrary indeed. That's the source of all this horror. --Earthland (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with EL completely. I'm shocked, but that is the most reasonable thing typed here.


 * "AD"-before saying something utterly condescending and juvenile, you might want to think for a second first. I know thinking is not a strong suit of many bureaucrats here, but it should be.  It's great that you are willing to be such an ass behind a computer screen, that really shows character on your part, let me tell you.


 * Perhaps you should all ask yourselves why so many good and reasonable people are leaving this shithole of a "project" that you have. It's not the project-the project is great.  The people now running it are unbelievable though.  Following through on personal grudges is the only thing I see enforced with any regularity here.  It doesn't matter how fucking trivial the grudge is, either, if you pricks have one, you're sure to drive the person away.  It's amazing that this place, as intellectual as it claims to be, is run almost exclusively by people who are anything but.  I'm not saying there aren't intellectuals here, but for the most part, they are not in charge.  All you assholes want to do is bicker and fight and then blame others when nothing gets done.  When something does get done, half the time is spent arguing whether or not it should stay.


 * I was asked why I deleted articles. I deleted articles because I was told I had no say in anything because I never made significant contributions.  I decided to get rid of all my non-contributions.  Everything I deleted falls outside of the "mission guidelines" here, so why are you fucknuts opposed to my deletion of them?  REmoving my sysopship only goes to show what hypocrites you are.  I was only touching MY contributions, I wasn't trying to be funny in the slightest, and it wasn't vandalism.   17:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You sound like a baby, grow up dude. Bitching away like a little girl. Come on dude - Pot/Kettle, Mote in my eye/Plank in yours etc. Acei9 02:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You have it utterly backwards. Who started the bitching?  It wasn't me.  I wanted to end it, but you fuckers wouldn't let me.   02:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Great - we are on the same page and now you can end it. Acei9 02:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Come on, long day, tempers frayed, constant HCM... Why don't we let this cool off? Broccoli (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was mostly just remarking that you seem to be very abrasive on talk pages without providing much insight amidst the abuse. That was my general impression of your talk, anyway.  It was pretty childish to try to retaliate by deleting articles you helped contribute to or created, I thought.  I don't know about your mainspace contributions - maybe they're significant or not.  And it seems pretty clear that your promotion to user was to stop you from vanadalizing again, after your clearly stated intentions to do so.-- 21:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's certainly not how it read to me. I never deleted anything that wasn't my creation.  All the pages I deleted were started by me and were written, if not entirely, mostly, by me.  If I haven't made any contributions (your libelous claim), why can't I get rid of them?  I have no intention and never have, of vandalizing this "project."  I may be unapologetically harsh, but that's because for one, I was bitched at for not coming up with a solution (a solution is really fucking simple in this case, no one here has the brains to figure it out though) and then again by you, saying that my opinion doesn't matter anyways.  As one of the very few scientists you had left here, I took that to heart a bit.  Assholes and idiots (like yourself) have driven away the smart people that can actually make good refutations and main space pages here.  Looking back, it's easy to see why they left.   01:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What I said was, "You are usually unpleasant without the benefit of any insight, cgb. It is unfortunate." You seem to have read that as, "You haven't made any contributions" and "[your] opinion doesn't matter."  I don't think that is a reasonable interpretation.
 * I may be an idiot, but at least I can follow the extraordinarily small set of rules, one of which directs us not to delete things in such a manner. If you think your work is worthless, then put a delete tag on it.
 * You are be a scientist, and you may be one of those "smart people" of which you speak. But all I saw was someone coming in at the middle of a very complicated argument and making a sweeping and facile declaration.  I thought it was unpleasant and puerile.  And it is unfortunate.-- 02:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * They have a policy on Wikipedia relating to this; it is called "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point." Usually there is some sort of talk or forewarning before an article is deleted; I am sure no one would have objected seriously to your slapping your articles with delete-tags: .  17:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no such rules here. Around here, there isn't another way to prove a point.  I'm not even sure if my actions did, given how thick-headed many here are.   17:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are going to appeal to the rules, there happen to be rules on this Wiki against unilaterally deleting pages. I was attempting to demonstrate that your attempted justification for violating these rules was not very credible. 17:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I stand by what I did. I was told I made no contributions, so I decided to get rid of my non contributions.  Perhaps the leadership should wise up as to what a contribution is, no?   01:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You made an error of procedure rather than of motive; even supposing you made no contributions, one is supposed to get consensus that they are not in fact contributions before one goes and deletes them. 04:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is funny to read that you agreed with me, but I don't think you understood me correctly. What I said could be said about you and your actions also. When it comes to this "intellectual" questions, well, let's see... Cgb; a well-reasoning and civil editor with higly substantial edits... --Earthland (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Did I make the claim I was any better here? I never remember making it.  Then again, I had no special powers here.  When it comes to anti-intellectualism amongst editors, you are at the very top of the list.  IA did a much better job creaming you than I did.  Then again, I didn't try.   17:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cgb, you are too modest; Irrationalatheist's job was just as "good" as yours. Take, for example, more than half the genetic code in the child matches the mother, therefore the embryo is not an individual. What a "fucking pussy" I am, pretending that I have an answer to such irrefutable and absolutely logical claim! --Earthland (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hang on a sec. Let's examine Cgb's responses in this debate for a moment:


 * Perhaps you should all ask yourselves why so many good and reasonable people are leaving this shithole of a "project" that you have.
 * As one of the very few scientists you had left here, I took that to heart a bit. Assholes and idiots (like yourself) have driven away the smart people that can actually make good refutations and main space pages here
 * given how thick-headed many here are
 * I cannot take the completely arbitrary rules of this blog anymore.
 * I know thinking is not a strong suit of many bureaucrats here, but it should be.
 * "AD"-before saying something utterly condescending and juvenile, you might want to think for a second first.
 * Assholes and idiots (like yourself) have driven away the smart people that can actually make good refutations and main space pages here.
 * And of course: It's not the project-the project is great. The people now running it are unbelievable though. Following through on personal grudges is the only thing I see enforced with any regularity here.  It doesn't matter how fucking trivial the grudge is, either, if you pricks have one, you're sure to drive the person away.  It's amazing that this place, as intellectual as it claims to be, is run almost exclusively by people who are anything but.


 * Now where have we heard this line of reasoning parroted before? -- 02:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely not. MC was incapable of being useful and making contributions to mainspace, this guy seems to have done some of that.  Haiti is his work.-- 02:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Theemperor, fuck you...seriously, claiming that I'm a troll is pretty fucking low. I'm surprised AD acknowledge one of the many pages I started. Given that I never made any contributions and all... 02:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't say that.-- 02:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Think about lakes. Or rivers. Or brooks. happy brooks trickling their merry way through the counties... Broccoli (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

'''Cbg, Emperor, and AD: this whole fucking flame war needs to die. NOW!''' 03:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks Goonie! Acei9 03:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Goonie is useful. --  = w =  04:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * True dat.-- 04:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So I'm too lazy (or hung over?) to go grocery shopping, and I'm working through the cans and the bread and cheese. Anyone got any great spaghetti recipes I can use tomorrow when I look at the moderately naked cupboard?  04:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you can never go wrong by adding a dash of cinnamon at the end of it. 04:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What happened?
Sorry to see you got disenfranchised. Here, I go away for a few days to clear my head about some absolutely fucked up shit (to say the very least) not involving this site, and it looks like shit spun out of control more so than before I left for Milwaukee. I hope things with you and the others on this here wiki can clear themselves up, as you were one of the more sane people here. Anyways, feel free to drop me a line. Or not, if you so choose. 05:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirect
I redirected your userpage to your talkpage here to get rid of the red links. I'm sure you don't mind, as it looks like you have little interest here anymore, in which case I am sad, because you're a pretty decent bloke. All the best, 17:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I told goons that if he had a specific project he would like my input on that I would be happy to help. I extend the same offer to all reasonable and intelligent people here (of course you are included).  My purpose is to try to put forth factual information to combat mistruths out there.  Frankly I couldn't care less what the others do provided they don't mess with getting information correct.   01:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Thanks for that. All I needed to really clarify what assholes all of you are."
* block sender* -- 00:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand by my words.  01:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, this flame war needs to stop! 03:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Should you return
Should you return, you will see that I have made you a sysop again, as you have made good contributions to this wiki in the past. Anyways, expect an e-mail from me in the near future. I need your help on an article for this wiki. 05:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're a good man, Goons. Thank you.  Let me know.  =)   I'm going to start being busy again in a month   04:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. Can't wait for the return, you were helpful as fuck with some of the things here. Cheers, Gabe 05:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't wait to see you around again, C. 11:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Property
At another place you wrote:"Just because I place it here, doesn't mean I forfeit my right to it". Actually it does, as I type this, between the edit area & the "summary" area it is writ: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.". Sorry. 21:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Susan is 100% correct. See here.  23:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Back again....
....with a new article in tow. Kudos. Aceword up 22:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I see you have returned
For however long said return may be, welcome back just the same. 23:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Marcus
I'm sick and tired of the constant wheel-warring over whether he should be blocked or not or a sysop or not, because some people think he's "a dick who has something worthwhile to say". He doesn't. He's a troll.

-- Nx  / talk 06:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Innocent question...I was just curious if he had caused more damage lately.   06:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Delta "Function"
Hello! Since you created the page delta function, I thought I should inform you that right now, we are holding a vote on whether or not it should be deleted. It does not seem to be relevant for our mission here at RationalWiki. Please take a few moments to come over and let us know what you think. Thank you! Nerd (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)