User talk:Nutty Roux/Archive13

Dear god, why?
http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nutty_Roux/monobook.css&oldid=1322317

I've just tried applying that. My eyes. The goggles do nothing! Don't click here 11:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tee hee! Had to stop drinking early but the room wasn't spinning yet, so I simulated the effect. Or something. Nutty Roux (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Much improved now. Sudo check it out. I forgot how obnoxious the !important directive is. Nutty Roux (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Good will
I have seen you change your mind when presented with new facts, so by me (if it matters) you're one of the grownups in the room. Thanks for what you do here. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks much. I'm interested in all but about 3 people's opinions. Whatever happens, this place is made up of people. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll toss in my vote with Sprocket's. - Grant (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're one of the three. And perhaps one of the least reasonable people I've ever encountered. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's true. I get by in life by being an unforgivable asshole to everyone I meet. I'm the kind of guy that steals wheelchairs for kicks. - Grant (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You pushed your own grandmother down a flight of stairs when she wouldn't give you money for a pint of vodka and a Dutch Master. Nutty Roux (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Damn straight, and I would do it for less. - Grant (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Duh. I wouldn't have started a gang with you if you wouldn't. We're rotten shits. For fun and profit. Nutty Roux (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There's good times and good money in being a nasty son of a bitch. - Grant (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My opinion trumps all others. Kill them all. Acei9 06:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Now kiss. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize 80 year old men liked memes. Neat. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You should consider the tried & true remedy of a muscle car and a much younger fuck buddy. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a distressing mental image. - Grant (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You must be a lot smarter than I am. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey
What's with the rename and the userpage deletion and the removal of user rights? DØØM MĖSSIÅH  …Sate the Suicide Choir  06:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

): --ZooGuard (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I should
feel so honored you feel like going through all my edits, the terrible waste of time you must be doing.-- Mie kal  23:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's sad that RW has become a place that an unattractive and not very smart kid with bad judgment like you can throw his weight around and one of the few things anyone ever says anything about it, you've got a smart ass response. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, when im talking to somebody who considers me worthless....-- Mie  kal  23:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're worse than worthless at this point. You're a problem. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Mhm. Mhm. How kind of you, should i expect you to swing back to kind words at some point before calling me worthless again, like you have before or am i just permanently worthless now?-- Mie kal  00:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for being so mean. Please treat new and IP editors the same as you'd treat other editors and stop being so rollback happy. You need to read edits critically and exercise better judgment. You're not alone in misusing the rollback button so often, but you are one of the worst offenders. Try to consider what this place looks like to outsiders and newbies. Not good. You're not helping. Nutty Roux (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This i know, i'll try to be better about these things, ok?-- Mie kal  09:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it really necessary to call him unattractive? You should try and find some kind of stress relief, it's better to approach this sort of thing calmly --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Tech
I have restored your tech rights per e-mail discussion. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandal
? Scream!! (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Saying things you don't like is not vandalism. You know that right? Nutty Roux (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * He does say here that RationalWiki is "only worth trolling". I'm not personally familiar enough with the community standards on people who are only here to troll, but that seems to be a declaration of bad faith by most standards.--The General talk to me 00:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this really how you think? Saying things you don't like is not vandalism. I suspect he was merely expressing his opinion that the community here is sucks, which for his part I imagine seems truer than it does for me, since all he got was bullying from some truly pathetic shits. That is also not vandalism. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That was not very clear. I meant that he was treated badly here, not to discount the bullying he got. Nutty Roux (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that saying things I don't like is not vandalism. I read his comment as a statement of intent along the lines of "this place sucks, I'm only here to cause trouble" and some communities would consider pre-emptive throttling a reasonable response. Thinking about it, I was making more assumptions than would be generally advisable and I wouldn't actually support taking such a hard line anyway. So, yeah, I disagree with my own opinion...--The General talk to me 01:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. Well good on you. If we can't handle the real turds after they've become disruptive and community-harming, we're not preemptively banning people who are justifiably upset and run their mouths because of their treatment by some of these truly great rationalists. Nutty Roux (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The "holier than thou" attitude is a stormer - coming from someone who insulted, decried and repeatedly, if memory serves me well, one brxbrx. Agreed Winston could be worse - he could be a lawyer, which is at least one step lower than a journalist (see e.g. Andrew Schlafly). Thought you'd LANCBd, anyway. Scream!! (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What does my attitude or treatment of someone Trent and I have discussed going to special lengths to sabotage the RW community when it was particularly vulnerable have to do with your mistreatment of a good faith editor? I'm puzzled that you'd even bring him of all people up.
 * There's no need to get so personal when you feel insecure. After nearly 13 years of practicing law, I at least like to think I know how to take a run at formulating logically sound arguments. Give it a shot sometime. All you've mustered is a pathetic tu quoque. And there's got to be something like Godwin's law when you invoke Schlafly in an argument. Didn't anyone ever teach you how to reason? Nutty Roux (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"I'm genuinely curious what you get out of RW. "
I get a place I feel like I don't have to pretend I'm still a creationist christian, without also having ot deal with people who are almost completely "religion is a delusion" as the local atheist movements where i am are. I don't really care if the people here who do talk to me probably wouldn't in real life, this is the internet, not there. For me, RW is just a place I can be and atleast somewhat belong without having to feel awkward about how everyobdy else feels about topics or lie about who I am.-- Mie kal  05:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So, in other words, you gatekeep content by sitting on your rollback and delete buttons, but the place is really just a chat site to you. Good to know. Nutty Roux (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to see it like that. How should I be? Like you? annoyed that the site isn't what you want ti to be like and constantly telling us that fact? -- Mie kal  05:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How else should we see it? You're not a rationalist, you don't do anything to further the site's mission, and yet you think you've got muscles to flex here. The site isn't what a lot of the people who've gotten frustrated enough to leave wanted. Those people built the site you chit chat on. And FFS I hardly post enough to "constantly" tell you anything, but thanks for the hyperbole. Over and over. Nutty Roux (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * When did being a rationalist become a requirement to be on the site, and why does it matter If i am or am not?-- Mie kal  05:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As a relatively uninterested observer, your reflexive rollbacks and blocks sometimes make it seem that you don't have much in the way of criteria for determining whether or not an edit is indeed helpful. Perhaps such criteria do exist, but as we don't follow fields of similar interests I don't look deeply enough into things to find out. While being a rationalist is certainly not a requirement of being on RW, I think perhaps the implication may be that if you're going to be blocking or rolling back other edits, you should be doing so for rational reasons that help further RW's goals and aims. While being a rationalist would not immediately make that happen, perhaps viewing the edits of others through such a lens would lead to different blocking/reverting habits on your part. - Grant (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Mikal, I don't think there's anything to be gained from us continuing this discussion. Nutty Roux (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Likely not.. I do apologize, for being rude in my statements.-- Mie kal  05:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You ECd me trying to do the same. I shouldn't be so mean to you and I'm sorry I did it again. Nutty Roux (talk) 06:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks.. I'll try to be better, about helping RW.-- Mie kal  06:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Look, dude
I'm sorry for being a dick. I've just had a bit of a shit day. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM  Play the best song in the world, or I'll eat your soul  08:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not post on my talk page again. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Second chance
Can we just forgive whatever that happen and give him one more chance please? I felt it is my fault to begin with. --Daniiieeeel (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely not your fault. Brxbrx is responsible for his own misconduct. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I request your impartial arbitration in the chicken coop.
Perhaps I brought up issue with too many people at once, but I would like your assistance regarding the reversion of my recent edits. The issue is up for discussion at the chicken coop, and I would like as impartial a jury as possible. Regardless of your decision, thank you for your assistance and pointing out Miekal doesn't do anything but be spiteful. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Is all you do filter your own recent changes page?
Just curious, but I do know I'm one of the targets. Ikanreed (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Wanna work together on an article of your choosing?

 * I can't think of any religious or science articles I'd like to make additions to at the moment; but you seem to know a lot of interesting things, maybe I could help gather resources on some subject. I looked at the article requests but that's only for creating new articles, is there one for requesting improvement to existing articles? I avoided learning the in's and outs here, but now it's time for me to be more of a team player. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm very busy starting a new business (launching my brand next week!) but I've slowly been reading about cults. I'd like to analyze whether YEC outfits like CMI and AiG are cults and write about it. I think they are. Is this interesting to you? Nutty Roux (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd better apologize.
You're allowed to style your damn recent changes however you want. I don't need to be antagonistic over it. Sorry. Ikanreed (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong and Exiled Encyclopedist
Go here. 16:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I've decided today's my last day; I edited all the articles I wanted to and several I didn't. Thank you for giving me sysops; Ryulong shouldn't be a problem with me gone, just kind of a jerk. I might come back just to say hi some time, but it will be a while; I've been neglecting food, friends and sleep too much. Hopefully by than we will all have jet packs and hover cars, and live high above the pollution clouds and rising oceans; if the Jetsons singularity is to be believed. This place could really use some more optimistic sci-fi than just Star Trek, a page for I Robot would be appropriate, given all the other pages for A.I.

Love and peace. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Have a nice break. Nutty Roux (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention, Ryulong has previously modified the history of their wikipedia talk page to remove their calling mea fucktard when compared to me; white washing your edits is a gross misuse of power. I remember seeing the comment months ago and should have taken a screen shot; instead of assuming white washing edits was impossible, but now it's gone. The missing entry should be right around the time they changed the category for Super Sentei to not include size change in fiction anymore; which they had previously agreed to "allow". I have no idea who to contact on Wikipedia about Ryulongs historical revisionism, I've already warned Meikal about this.

Also it's minor, however David Gerard doesn't seem to bother to include explanation for reverting me. Most of the edits I made to genetic engineering are valid. David Gerard also did not care when I alerted him of Ryulong's wrong doings in the past, and was one of the first to greet Ryulong here. David making a huge fuss about me and deleting edits with no explanation, but not caring about Ryulong seem suspicious.

I'm getting tired of Wiki drama; I'll enjoy the time away, as soon as it actually starts. Good luck holding down the fort, and happy new years. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Have a nice break. Happy new year. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you want to monitor this guy's every edit, please do take on the job. But someone needs to do so while he's not banned - David Gerard (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * David Gerard is edit warring over my references added to slavery and genetic engineering; edit warring is what got his friend Ryulong blocked for 3 days on Wikipedia despite being one of the top 100 contributors. It's either me or these internet misogynistic racist gangsters, this war of words must end. I alerted Sprocket which means I'm probably about to get banned or there's about to be a vacancy left by David Gerard. I haven't looked at the list of moderators in a while, but I would gladly vote for you and ask others to do the same, I really am trying to leave after a few edits that keep getting reverted. I write for Uncyclopedia but not Encyclopedia Dramatica; though they hate David Gerard and might be able to find out whose been white washing Ryulongs talk page for him, along with presumably many more edits. Just compare our talk pages and recent edits histories, and see whose more useful to the wiki and transparent with their talk page.

I really don't want to go onto Dramatica because I think their like the tabloids on steroids; because unlike the tabloids they can legally dox people and call it comedy; websites not being publishers. Talk to Wnt, they are a long time ally from Wikipedia who said my OR on bacterio therapy for alveolar macrophages was neat and worth encouraging; so I'm guessing they are pretty smart and know some skilled people on Dramatica who hate David Gerard and would love some legitimate reason to have J Edgar Hoover banned and no longer the UK spokesperson for the Wikimedia foundation.

Oh, you...
I leave forever and you go and do that all over the place? Woo! (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're getting close to the danger zone, buddy. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Board
I have nominated you for the 2015 Board of Trustees. Please go here to accept or decline. Noisemobile (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't logged in to RW for 2 1/2 years...
When did the SocJus/Tumblr crowd start infiltrating this place? --Wet Walnuts (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mostly summer. 2.5 years ago might as well be an eternity. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that is an eternity in Internetz time. Is there any way to get rid of them that doesn't involve doing something illegal? Because I'm getting pretty damn tired of these amateur sociologists clogging up every damn website with their bitching. --Wet Walnuts (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Na they're toxic. I'd avoid getting falsely called a misogynist and MRA. But that's me. Nutty Roux (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you truly are unhappy with the "social justice crowd", the only good method to remove them that I see would be to go to the Bar and attempt to argue that social justice topics are nonmissional, and thus should be deleted, which at this point would basically equate to asserting that the current mission doesn't include social justice topics. If this worked, then they at least wouldn't be able to, in your view, clog up RW with their amateur sociology bitching.
 * By the way, Nutty, thanks for that revert. It really is charming -- how you (and a few other editors) complain about how the new editors are bad, without substantiating it or attempting to solve it. But hey. I guess if it's your "bitching", then it's fine to spam it everywhere. 16:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're s gross and dishonest person and I don't usually have the stomach to watch you incessantly run your mouth. I've made my point about the mission and come close to falsely being called a misogynist and MRA, which is revolting. It's too easy for some SJWs to throw these accusations around and I won't be called these things, so I generally consider it dangerous to even engage SJWs. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've beeen called a misogynist several times now (by insinuation) without a single piece of evidence being presented. Welcome to the new RW. Acei9 22:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey what's up buddy. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm gross, dishonest, and incessantly run my mouth, eh? How so? (OK, aside from incessantly running my mouth.)
 * If you truly have almost been falsely called misogynist, then I sympathize, because I fail to see how asserting that some articles are nonmissional is misogynist. But if you truly think that social justice and those who promote it hurt RationalWiki, then I don't see why you wouldn't push to end it. It's just somebody badmouthing you on the internet. 18:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've got thick skin, but I simply will not be called a misogynist, so I will avoid addressing "gender issues" where it's more likely that some of these scumbags will make the accusation. There has been a steady exodus of editors I respect who built this site around core mission material and what else this site embraced from the start. Very very few are left and it's a genuine pleasure to see their names. Very very few have the energy to edit much anymore. I've gotten emails from people who disappeared years ago, some of whom are I friends I'm glad to stay in touch with, asking what happened to RW. I've got my own thoughts on that, but I don't think there's any good to be had by expecting anything can be done to address it. It's over. People qualified to deal with core material have been alienated and moved on. We're left with a bunch of loud amateur hour editors who brook no dissent; years ago we had only a few, and they stuck out like sore thumbs. It's too bad, but it is what it is. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So then in a way, it's our own fault for letting this happen. I stopped adding content here because I got distracted by real-life issues (work, school, family, etc.).  I didn't realize that all that was needed for a bunch of toxic agenda-pushing slacktivists to take over this wiki was the neglect of missional editors.  I guess imperialism is OK when they're the ones doing it, right? (And for the record, I'm not a misogynist, racist, MRA or anything else like that.  In fact, I've actually helped women in real life by defending their rights in court. I'm just an ordinary straight white guy who is tired of scapegoating and cyberbullying.) --Wet Walnuts (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's say it's true that "good, missional editors" have been and are leaving RationalWiki. (I dunno, only been here less than a year.) Why is this occuring? What would make it stop? What would attract new missional editors to RationalWiki? You say "It's over." Why? 19:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please learn how to stop talking. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is asking how you think a problem can be solved not OK? 19:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Nutty, get used to it; unless you're ready to scream from the housetops Hillary Clinton is the best man/person/thing/whatever for the job, and utter a word which remotely contradicts any of her previous wisdom, it's proof positive you sure as fucking hell are a misogynist. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 19:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So now that this group of dissatisfied old-guard editors has convened, what's the plan? 00:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First things first: eliminate users who stick their nose into others' conversations. Noisemobile (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The snark only hurt a little bit. maybe more than a little
 * But if this truly is a problem, what's the solution? 00:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Solution: stop talking. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Photo of Matt Drudge
How do you know that's not my file? I added it to SourceWatch too, a couple of years ago. Are you a sysop here? How about asking on my talk page before deleting? Scribe (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not getting involved in this, but Nutty is a sysop and is currently a member of the RationalMedia Foundation, which owns this website. Noisemobile (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As I understand it being a member of the foundation gives a user no additional rights. And virtually everybody - including you -  is a sysop.--Coffee (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, it's often enough people associated with the RMF who have exhibited the judgment to pay attention to potential problems of this and more serious natures. Nowhere did Noisemobile say I have more rights, so I can't thank you for offering nothing that's actually responsive. I take it that Noisemobile was merely implying that I'm not capriciously deleting people's files, but we'll let him be the master of his own words. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My pointing out Nutty is an RMF member was simply to establish who he is and the kind of weight he pulls around here. Nothing more, nothing less. Noisemobile (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And my pointing out that that gave him no extra authority was simply to add even more information.--Coffee (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a nice thought, but I have gone through every single bit of good will I had here. You can't really say someone pulls weight with his friends; you all are the only people who care what I think anymore. Thanks though. I was just trying to do the right thing. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do you believe it's "your" file? Nutty Roux (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the original file is used in various modified forms on sites all over the internet (do a google images search), and because my own modification (background removal, gradient insertion) was my own work. It's been used at SourceWatch for years without a problem. Once again, why on earth would you delete it without the common courtesy of asking first? Scribe (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why on earth? Because, as I suspected, you do not own the copyright and, most importantly, absolutely do not have the right to represent that the image is public domain. I didn't have to ask you anything in order to puzzle this out. Perhaps you could justify using the photo with some fair use analysis (hint: you probably can). Nutty Roux (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can do that for me? I'm not sure how that works here Scribe (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok I did it, but I don't like that you put a pink gradient in the background of a picture of a guy you're calling gay in a way I think (hope) unintentionally comes off as a dig. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's humour. I thought that's what the site likes. I aim to give a giggle or two. BTW Drudge is called gay all over the net and in books (biographies). There are people who have had gay relationships with him and gone on record about it. Drudge has never sued anyone who calls him gay. He is gay. Scribe (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, Scribe. But the image isn't funny. Maybe someone else thinks it's a big enough deal to do something about. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Where has the humour gone? It's hilarious that a global warming denier and conservative hack, who pillories and "outs" other gay people, is a closeted hypcrite. Ye gods, why edit this site of you're going to try to be politically correct and let the liars go on unchallenged? Scribe (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * LOLOL I'm politically correct! There's lots of humor. It's just not funny to ridicule a gay dude by putting him in front of a pink background. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You miss the point. I'm not ridiculing a "gay dude", I'm ridiculing a closet gay dude who has, on occasion, made the lives of openly gay dudes a living hell and who aligns himself with gay haters. If you cannot 'get' what I'm about, you are lacking a sense of absurd. Scribe (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't know much about me. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I like one of your edits
Maybe we can all get along after all. Thanks for removing that listcruft, though. Ikanreed (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably not. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Aww. I only fight you because I disagree with one of your presuppositions.  You're probably pretty cool when that doesn't blow into backhanded insults.  Ikanreed (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not that cool. People hate me for a reason. Nutty Roux (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * People hate you because you are cool. And because you're a lame douche with Elephantiasis of the Groin. Acei9 05:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In the last 3 or 4 years since I realized I can't stand loudmouth shits who don't know shit from shinola and impose themselves on everyone around them, I'm a cockass fucker online and in real life too. That's why we became such friends. Pay attention — put ya shoes on:

Nutty Roux (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Say it to my face, asshole. - Grant (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I told you what an unlikeable turd you are last time we talked. Ready for another dose of the Nutty Roux? Nutty Roux (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think anybody could ever be ready for that. - Grant (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, so classy. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ECW, a hint: GrantC and I are friends. Ace and I are friends. We frequently talk offline. When people know and respect each other, it's sometimes fun to horse around like this. Hope I helped. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)