User talk:ListenerX/Archive2

Comrade!
You're now a bureaucrat. There's prolly a guide somewhere, but I'm sure you can figure shit out for yourself. Congrats. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy abuse your newfound power! -- 16:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Be a man, prove you are not an RW lap dog. Crate TK. Fifth Horseman (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations 17:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Instead of adding Java's Template:Crat pledge, you shold join me with my Template:Evil crat! -- 17:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I counsel you second: swear no oath
 * but what you mean to abide by:
 * A halter awaits the word-breaker,
 * Villainous is the wolf of vows. — Sigrdrifumal 23
 * 17:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That crat guide, it is here 23:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. 02:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats, fellow Minnesotan.The Goonie 1 (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Good having you around
Since this site is not explicitly "liberal", it's great having a strong internal voice from your perspective. I hope you never feel "ganged up" on, since it's likely happened a few times. 08:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ListenerX - as a non-liberal myself I wholeheartedly agree with Human. Ace McWickedModel 500 10:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As a liberal, it's my job to accept your viewpoint and be OK with it as long as it affects no one else. How're the new superpowers workin' out for ya? 20:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not as yet had to use them, except for a test run. As to those people called "liberals" today, my differences with them more concern ways and means than ideals. 22:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a very interesting response, and one I would expect from an intelligent conservative. I only wish there were a greater intelligent conservative voice today in American politics.  "Arguing" with the likes of Sarah Palin hones no blades, and improves no discourse.  Arguing with the likes of you, however, I like to think, hope to think, does.  01:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As the nearest Crat...
Check the recent changes page. Some guy called User:Tmtoulouse wanks off dogs has signed up and I blocked him for an hour for a stupid username. What's the next step for a wandal like that who actually has an account? 19:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) Use the vandal bin, not the banhammer. (2) Usually the user will be renamed to something less awful. Which just happened. 19:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was looking for the vandal bin, thanks. 20:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Any word
Hello Listener. Any word from your friends, or have they just decided to curse us anyway?--BobNot Jim 09:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The notice is still pending approval on the site. 14:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. :-)--BobNot Jim 18:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this the cursing thing? I'd be very much interested to hear the response and perhaps work out with them a way to test it that's satisfactory for both parties, as I don't think this "specific and improbable" thing will work at all, at best it'll generate data that'll be too open to subjective interpretation to be useful and at worst it'll be met with outright rejection and accusations of trying some (non-magical) trickery. 18:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Listener was going to post there. The "specific and improbable" is what I think we should go for.  I'm sure they they will want "vague and nebulous" but I obviously accept that we'll need to see what they offer (if they are interested) and see if we can reach an agreement.  But in principle I can't see why we shouldn't start out asking for something specific.--BobNot Jim 18:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

stigmata
you're quite right, that's the trouble with editing tables - don't always see which is which: turns out that it's not just us quoting PJR - he's quoting Holding! 22:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Plurals
Jotunns, Jötnar, schmotnar. But really the Thor article should be renamed Þōrr then. p.s. GO BLUE!!! NEED VICODIN NOW (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Liberal denials about history #15
I only mentioned 1936 and 1940, instead of adding '32 or '44, since they seemed more likely to be wins due to Great Depression policies. 1932 was pretty much anybody but Hoover, and 1944 would have had more to do with WWII. What do you think? Leaving it wouldn't make much of a difference, I just wanted you to know my thinking. 13:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously 1932 did not apply there, but 1944 did (he was still popular at that time, he easily survived a campaign attacking his economic policies, and his party made electoral gains in the House of Representatives). 16:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I wrote, I can go with it either way. The main point really is that a majority of people must have thought he was doing something right after all.  16:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Redaction
You do know that the IP you removed was an anon proxy? And that since RobS is a sysop he could look it up anyway? 21:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was about to make the same point, and also to ask "why?" SuspectedReplicant (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can still read what you removed without too much trouble, all I can't see is the user, who is apparently an anonymous proxy(so what does it matter anyway)? When I first saw the redaction I thought someone must have unleashed a torrent of hatred and insults or something, but it's just speculation about TK. EddyP (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no privacy violation just some slightly paranoid ranting about TK. 22:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above points about any sysop being able to see the IP addy that was hidden are very valid - especially since anyone familiar with our "procedure" could become a sysop in a matter of days with little effort.  So what, exactly, was the point?  Practicing?  22:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I noted in the edit, it was a preemptive redaction intended for the IP address only; I jumped the gun in case someone had by accident edited anonymously from the same IP they used to edit Conservapedia. 23:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't do it again. 23:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for undoing it. 00:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is why Rob shouldn't be a sysop. -- 01:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We probably have any number of Conservapedia brass here under assumed names who have been made sysops. 01:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At least Rob does it under his own "name". 01:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story
fly off the handle indeed. Let's see, Philip said "I object" and "I'll give opportunity for discussion"; yep definitely in a rage, he was. What about me? Hm.. not an exclamation mark or bolding throughout, I acknowledged that some modification (which you suggested, but never carried out) would make it acceptable, and I said your essay on the topic looked well written. I was ranting, to be sure. It's that disregard for facts in favour of a story to fits one's preconceptions that have lead me to ascribe so little credibility to so many evolutionists. Tricksy (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a user box. Waxing all offended about a user box is already pushing it. Indicting a user box on two or three separate counts of being politically-incorrect is flying off the handle. 05:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) it was called offensive, not politically incorrect. Different kettle of fish altogether.
 * 2) from these definitions it would seem that my use of the phrase above is correct, and yours was not.
 * Like I said, disregarding (or perhaps distorting) the facts in favour of a story to fits one's preconceptions (intentionally or not). Tricksy (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, PJR did threaten to delete it in his first comment. 06:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * More distortion. Philip objected, explained the objection, and invited discussion while stating his current intent to delete the template on the grounds of his objection. Calling that a threat is mischaracterisation, although not as much as calling it "flying off the handle". Tricksy (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope.
 * Going by what PJR has permitted on aSK in the past, his extreme reaction to a user box definitely constituted a loss of self-control. But this is irrelevant anyway, since hyperbole is par for the course in the WIGOs; you should learn to tell the difference between hyperbole and serious disputation.
 * Threaten: "To announce as intended or possible." 06:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The number of times Philip has called me "ignorant" after blatantly contradicting thousands of biology papers is offensive as well. Sterile 14:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Selective outrage, much? At one point one of PJR's monkeys got all shirty on me for saying that ASK was offensive (in that I'm offended by passing off silly old superstitions as scientific truth). And somebody who believes in paranormal mystical bullshit like Christianity and Creationism coming here to rail about "disregard for facts in favour of a story to fits one's preconceptions" is laughable. Go fuck yourself, Tricksy. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Listener, (1) Fair enough; "offensive" is now subjective. (2) "Extreme reaction" is the distortion I initially referred to. He didn't like the template, and intended to delete it, but was open to discussion.  So the forbearance with which you contrast this "episode" is present anyway.  There is not sign of a loss of self control.  There is also a difference between hyperbole and mischaracterisation.  You have here attempted to justify the characterisation, which is a fair indication that it was not hyperbole.  Regardless, the hype on WIGO is kind of my point.  The I is for "is", not "I want people to think is". (3)Equivocation?  You skipped the definitions relating to "threat", i.e. a means of coercion and an indication of coming evil, injury or damage.  Anyway, maybe that really does qualify as hyperbole.
 * TOP. No outrage.  The hypocrisy at RW of the constant posts accusing PJR, aSK and YECs in general of being desperate and dishonest while the strident distortions continue on WIGO ASK has long been evident.  I simply selected the most recent (at the time) example to comment - so selective is probably a fair enough description.  Not that I don't think the same about the rest.  Would your comment constitute flying off the handle? Tricksy (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I trust then, as aSK and Philip are so honest that the person who called Dawkins a "moron" will also be blocked by Philip? Ace McWickedModel 500 00:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at it yet but I will note that Philip has said (more than once) that your block was not only for that. Tricksy (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Bradley, it was specifically for calling Sarfati a moron. I have commited no other "offence". Ace McWickedModel 500 01:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's step through what got you blocked. You called Sarfati a moron (1).  The site owner identified that as uncivil name-calling and instructed you to retract and apologise.  You called Sarfati a moron (again) (2) and refused an instruction from  an administrator (3).  You also called Sarfati "uneducated" and "either too stupid ... or wilfully ignorant" (4).  So "moron" was 2 out of 4 insults, plus your refusal to follow a formal instruction.  Your assertion is incorrect. Tricksy (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I looked for the "other person" who called Dawkins a moron, and only found The Emperor's comment that he wouldn't have a problem with calling Dawkins a moron. I can imagine the outcry if that attracted a block in other circumstances.  The comment would fit what Philip already called "skating on thin ice" in the same conversation. Tricksy (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarfati thinks evolution is tied up with cosomolgy = being either a moron, uneducated or willfully ignorant. I am sorry if the truth is insulting. Also, Philip specifically mentioned "moron" and only "moron". Bradley, you sir are a moron. Ace McWickedModel 500 02:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just made myself more comfortable in my chair, so I am a little more on than I was before. You're still wrong about the block.  Philip specifically mentioned the refusal to retract and the other insults.  Also I see you translated Philip's "It's still not a good think to do" on WIGO as "It's ok".  You confirm my point; "Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story".  see 4th paragraph .Tricksy (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Bradley, you know as well as I do that if someone, pre this incident, called Dawkins a moron or uneducated it would not lead to a block so dont be fucking nitwit and insult my intelligence. Ace McWickedModel 500 02:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but we could argue it forever without resolution. It can no longer be tested.  I would expect, though, that we would have the standard process beginning with formal warning and instruction to retract.  Nice  rhetorical device BTW, specifically insulting my intelligence (again) while implying that I have insulted yours. Tricksy (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not "flying off the handle." Colourful language, perhaps. Disdain. But not flying off the handle. My remarks were carefully reasoned. As for insulting your intelligence, If I'm not mistaken, you believe an imaginary being created the world 6000 years ago, and you believe this in the light of overwhelming physical evidence to the contrary. That leaves little room for intelligence, unless you're six years old. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I agree. You were not flying off the handle.  I was merely illustrating my earlier point, which you helped to confirm.  I apologise if I maligned you in any way.
 * Ah, you see, you are mistaken. Tricksy (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Bradley but anyone who can really believe the earth is ~6000 yrs old is either a moron or is willfully ignorant. "Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story" should be a disclaimer on the bible (que braying laughter and finger pointing). Ace McWickedModel 500 03:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * TOP, I think the attribute you are referring to is "Blind Faith" common with 6 year olds and morons. Rad McCool (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * YEC, at least as PJR and his associated mouth-breathers practise it, is a special type of blind faith, in that it thrives  on trying to come up with a "scientific" justification for that which is supposed to be believed in blindly. A true believer wouldn't care about the fact that starlight is older than 6000 years. YECs try to twist the laws of science to make the stuff that undermines their ideological worldview work within that ideology. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Belated reply to LowKey's post of 00:41, 8 September 2009
I maintain that my characterization is accurate. I was only stating that if, as you maintain, it is not, that means nothing since WIGOs are full of hyperbole.

I am certain that when Human used the word "threaten," he was referring to the sense I highlighted in Webster's.

As to your charge of hypocrisy, I put that if we are correct about creationists' "desperation and dishonesty," we are not hypocrites, since we openly acknowledge that our Wiki is stuffed with snark and hyperbole, and most of it is not to be taken too seriously. On the other hand, aSK presents its purported lies as the literal Gospel Truth. 05:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Gay
Yeah, but I don't know Ken Doll's real name. I'm just happy I got to refer to Conservapedia as a blog in my book. BrianKatcher 03:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Indian Summer
You enjoying your Indian Summer this weekend? I got to take one last pre-winter walk across the Stone Arch Bridge this weekend, so I sure enjoyed it. 04:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already put on my long underwear for the winter. This means I do not notice changes in temperature. 05:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I usually don't put mine on until after Thanksgiving, mostly out of self-inflicted ignorance and the hope that it will warm up again. But, after Thanksgiving, I finally acknowledge that it will get cold again no matter how much I object. 05:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I spend my summers wishing that it were winter. 05:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See, and once it is winter I wish winter wouldn't end. It's really a Catch 22 with me; I hate when it goes from summer to winter, but I also hate when it does the opposite. 05:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing vandalism
I can't tell by the fossil records. What was the nature of the vandalism on the WIGO CP talkpage? 03:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The B(s)oN altered the punctuation in several edit comments, most of the alterations being grammatically incorrect. 03:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, I was just curious. Thanks. 03:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Clean up at WIGO CP talk
Thanks for that. 03:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why can you not do it yourself? 03:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed my powers. You don't need to cover my revert, you need to get both edits by Rob, he did a one character edit to his original post. 03:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What
doth "vandal binned" mean? Udon 04:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It means that the IP or user is restricted to one edit every half hour. This acts as a deterrent to vandals while avoiding an outright ban. 04:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology
I'm sorry I called you a Nazi last week. I was completely out of order. you are not a Nazi. Totnesmartin 18:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. 18:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Revert
I am bound to ask: why? 86.171.62.230 21:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It was an uncited and tangential addition to the article in question. 21:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop using rollback. It's for reversion of vandalism. If you're reverting other additions to an article, give your reasons in the subject. Don't wait to be asked for the reasons. I've restored this edit to California. Discuss on the talk page if you think it's an issue. 21:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, after looking at that anon's other edits & the source material, I took the dog stuff back out again.  21:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk page deletion
I wanted to remove that info on my talk page because the cp account it refers to is active again. Is that fair? If so maybe you could burn it for me? 22:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the information again. You can use RevisionDelete on the page if you are so inclined. 23:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No he can't. The whole point of the talk page rules is not to hide conversations. I don't care about your sock operations on CP, you are not deep burning edits. 23:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, if that's the way it is then I will abide by the rules, however heavy-handedly imposed they may be. I didn't want to disclose my cp work in the first place!  02:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a generally good rule, I almost (there probably is an exception somewhere) discuss what I did there. The talk page rules are mostly a reaction to Andy and TK's tendency to remove conversations that made them look bad. We can't criticise them and still do it ourselves. 02:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Protectionings
Sorry about the edit conflict on that. I was doing exactly the same thing as you, but there's no edit conflicting message when you're protecting pages. I think I succeeded in going back and making sure the protection level was what you initially set. 20:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I had cascading protection turned on. 20:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cascading protection protects the /doc subpage. The point of that subpage is to allow the documentation to be edited by anyone while keeping the template itself protected. -- Nx  / talk 20:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. 20:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I like that version...
I like that version even better. No point linking to the other place. TrogL666 18:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Bop
Can't remember the last time I said "Hi", so... "Hi" 01:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Monster X
I'm watching you. --  = w =  03:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Caps
No unnecessary is our style. 05:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The new titles were incorrect, for the same reason that "Andrew layton schlafly" would be an incorrect title for that article. 05:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But are those events really "proper nouns"? 22:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The page titles are names for the events. It is not presented as a great purge, but the Great Purge. 23:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Cum
Why did you revert my edits?????????????????? Keekuh!!!! Kyekye!!!! Oh sister I love you SO much KEEKUH KTHEEKTHUH!!!!! WNism 18:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, we've got a crazy. This could be fun. 18:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) See if you can make sense; then we can have a dialogue. 18:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You say you are an Odinist, why do you believe non-Norse peoples should follow that religion? I believe in the Aryan pantheon as well, and I believe it is an Aryan warrior path, not a peace-and-love hippie creed that all races can follow. Trust me when I say that I believe in the REAL Norse religion, which wasn't liberal-friendly, AT ALL. WNism 19:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) It is the Germanic pantheon, not the "Aryan" one. There is a difference. Get that through your skull. (2) Show me where I said that non-Germanic people are qualified to be Odinists. (3) Try reading the Norse myths and sagas instead of David Lane's natterings about race-war; you might be surprised. 19:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To me Germanic and Aryan are the same, since I see non-germanic europeans as mud races (I consider Finns white too, but I mean Italians and Bulgarians and such are pretty muddy to me) and if you consider that non-germanic "people" are not qualified to be Odinists, why doesn't this site ban you as a racist and a nazi? And David Lane knew more about Norse religion than someone who thinks that it should be a peace-and-love religion does. Yeah, Vikings were REAL hippies...WNism 19:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Being a racist, neopagan pseudoscientist is unfortunately not grounds for removal here. Enjoy your stay. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You see the Celts as muddier than Alpine Germans? Rather surprising.
 * There is a large difference between a folkish rite and a "We Want to Kill Everyone Who Doesn't Measure About 1 on the Von Luschan Scale" rite, the Nazi pagan groups belonging to the latter category.
 * The "peace-and-love" style Norse neopagans (at least some of whom know more than Mr. Lane about the myths, enough to know that Ragnarok and Armageddon are not synonyms) do not pretend to be reconstructionists. 19:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe I'm a reconstructionist, because I believe in the original precepts of a Viking Holy War on jews and race-mixers. And no I'm more a Nordicist than a Germanicist, Alpine "Germans" are not White but neither are many Celts, especially most Welsh. WNism 19:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Alpine Germans once worshipped Odin; the Celts, Finns, and Balts did not. Mr. Lane nicked the pantheon, falsely claiming it as a pan-"white" one for political purposes, and had to twist matters a good deal even to make the claim that the (Abrahamic) concept of "holy war" existed among the pagan Germans. 20:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it equals the belief that his political philosophy is always right
The "always right" part only exists in your head. --  = w =  16:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Tell that to all the dissidents who were executed or exiled, not even for suggesting that Marx's works might be wrong, but for suggesting that they were being interpreted in the wrong way. 16:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "communists did it" ---> "communism sanctions it"? That isn't good enough. --  = w =  16:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Marxist philosophy, those who do not accept the truth of it are guilty of "false consciousness." 17:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Atheist Community of Austin
That's the formal name of the group, listed in the credits, and capitalized. So, it should be capitalized for the article.--Mustex 02:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. I have put in a link to their web-site to avoid further confusion. 03:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

a couple of things.
1. I owe you an apology. I said something mean to you last week, and shouldn't have. I might not be a fan of your attitude, but that's no reason to get personal. I am sorry. 2. I'm glad to see you use the SPLC as a reference. There may be hope for you yet. :-). TheoryOfPractice 17:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologizing to this asshole is only going to bolster his smug attitude. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's okay. His smugness is his problem. By making it mine and letting it justify my own assholery, I lose. TheoryOfPractice 18:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, I like the vicious cycle of her being smug, me being an asshole, her being even more smug, me being an even bigger asshole... I really believe it's more satisfying for all involved. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * People ought to say what they mean, if they can help it; it keeps the air clear and maintains a spirit of candor. 18:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Told you so. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know why you guys don't like him. He's wrong a lot, but that's no crime.--Tom Moore fiat justitia
 * I would not invite ill will for being wrong so much as for correctly telling someone else that they were wrong. 17:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Case in point. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow
So, are you enjoying yourself now that winter has finally hit Minneapolis? I know I'm glad that it has, because I can go out jogging down Minnehaha Parkway and not get overheated. 22:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I always like it when old Boreas makes the first strike on the city; it puts things in perspective. I have already switched to taking the evening constitutional indoors. 04:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good times. Gotta love a good ol' fashioned winter in the Twin Cities, man. 04:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

High-resolution troll is high-resolution.
Many thanks. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I like how you're turning my smartass quips into coherent encyclopedic content... that is still pretty smartass. Macai (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Neither ought you or your sister to let anyone take advantage of the emotional fallout of the crime, to modify your thinking while your guard is down"
Fuck you ListenerX, and the horse you rode in on. You are a complete fucking asshole. You are a complete ignoramus. You are are mucking with an editor's utter despair and agony to make some fucking lame political point???? FUCK YOU you are a loser. Please go politely fuck yourself, in private. 05:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not the one attempting to introduce the politics there. 05:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is introducing politics there, other than you. An editor is sharing their pain. Now go fuck yourself. 05:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys please don't do this. I think that ListenerX's intentions were genuine here, as there has, obviously, been an outpouring of much-needed support from the community here. And I am very grateful. This whole thing is, obviously, going to more difficult than anything I have ever endured. Please try to maintain a peace over this. And, yes, I am lurking, and I am listening to every word of advice this community has had to offer me.  05:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Goonie. Sorry Listener. My bad. 05:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All is for Goonie. Acei9 06:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)