User talk:FairDinkum

Message from the Rationalwiki Welcoming Committee (there is no such thing)
10:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Vee (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Sysop
Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Stirner fan, eh?
Don't get too many of those around these parts. Vee (talk) 05:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah I can see why, I read the Byington translation about 20 years ago and it had a profound effect on me. I was just discovering the skeptic community at the time. But I recently came across the 'new' (2017) Ludd/Landstreicher translation and decided to give it a read, which did not have the same effect on me that my earlier reading did, despite it being a much better translation. There is a lot of 'anti-liberal' and anti-egalitarian stuff in there that doesn't go over as well as it did 20 years ago, but it is speaking from a 150-year-old anti-Hegellian perspective. I'm pretty sure I rationalized and skipped past some of the passages that I wasn't enthusiastic about, preferring to focus on the ones that struck a chord. The book is very repetetive, I even edited my own 'version' by only including the parts I found inspiring, and for the past 20 years that's the version I've been consulting. As a result, I'm not as gung-ho about promoting Stirner as I used to be. I still find it inspiring from a certain perspective, but I see now how easily it could be used to justify bad behavior. There are plenty of contradictions to that kind of thinking throughout the book, but they seem to be more cerebral than the visceral ones that could be interpreted poorly. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the parts that might encourage bad behavior are easier to read and understand than the parts that contradict that kind of reading.


 * Thanks for the note! FairDinkum (talk) 05:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is certainly a segment of anarcho-egoists/Stirnerites who tend to make egoism itself sacred. That kind of defeats the point of Stirnerite egoism in the first place TBH. Vee (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right, Stirner peppered his book with warnings that such actions should be avoided. Apparently Benjamin Tucker insisted that Byington translate the word 'einzige' in the title, as 'ego'. The new better translation is 'unique', so really 'egoists' should start calling themselves 'uniqueists'. The word 'ego' denotes some kind of metaphysical mental process, whereas the word 'unique' is a materialist description, and Stirner was a staunch materialist. I've also never thought of Stirner as someone who promotes anarchy, even though anarchists are the only people who seem to have any interest in hosting his work.FairDinkum (talk) 09:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Some advice
Did you know it's possible to correct the one (1) typo you found in an article without personally attacking the user who researched and wrote most of said article? Yes, amazing, isn't it? Nope Rocket (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry I did not mean to denigrate your edit with my summary. I am decidedly aggressive with my undos and rollbacks because I think many people on this wiki are afraid to get involved in contentious issues, which is why I am trying to make thorough cases in my explanations. Your edit was not contentious, it was just a misspelling of a single word and your point is valid. I likely would not bother mentioning the name of one of those people whose name is a jumble of numbers in my explanations because that would require more effort than I am willing to make. I also haven't been consistent in including names in my edit explanations, but my inclusion of your name in my edit to your edit was a result of my trying to be more consistent and thorough, it just happened to be one of the first times I have done that, so while it may appear that I was singling you out, I was planning on doing it more often. You have given me pause to reconsider that initiative, though. Also I may have been more compelled to mention your name in the explanation of the edit because you changed a properly spelled word to a misspelling. If you had misspelled a word of your own content I might not have been as compelled to refer to your edit by name. For some reason I think I consider it to be more egregious to mess up an existing piece of text than posting new messed up text. Also, keep in mind that I routinely undo people's edits, whereas I only improved yours. Your name is on your edits, so maybe you should be willing to stand by them when they are referenced in explanations of further edits. Otherwise you might want to consider using a name full of numbers. I can't imagine that I would be irked if someone used my name in an explanation of why they were editing my input, but just because it wouldn't bother me doesn't mean that it shouldn't bother you. To summarize, I appreciate the feedback and I will take it into consideration. FairDinkum (talk) 07:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Look, you seem relatively chill based on your userpage biography, but this wall-of-text lecturing me over a single typo is not a winning strategy. A typo is a typo. Doesn't matter whether the typo was there from the beginning or whether it snuck in with a revision. It's a typo. Fix it, ignore it, or point it out on the talk page. But 1. no typo is worth this many bytes of consideration, and 2. unless one happens to be editing the Oxford English Dictionary, writing a paragraph praising oneself for catching the "egregious mess up" of a single mistyped vowel in a single word is, at best, laughably self-important. Nope Rocket (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I have already brought this behaviour up myself. So, you know, stop it. Acei9 21:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope Rocket, this is my talk page, I can write whatever I want on it. If your attention span is too short to read a 'wall of text', that's not my problem. My response contained some very diplomatic statements and started with "I'm sorry" and concluded by telling you I appreciated your advice and would take it into consideration. You've ignored all those statements to nitpick on portions you clearly did not understand but were obviously butthurt over. I was not lecturing you, I was explaining myself. I could have just said "Whatever" or not responded at all. That 'wall of text' was a result of respect for your issue. You have misquoted me, I did not say that your typo was an "egregious mess up", I said that I may think that it is more egregious to mess up existing text than additional text. With that statement I was explaining that I might have had an unconscious bias. My entire spiel was about me, not about you. Perhaps you have an unconscious bias of being self-absorbed, I don't know, but I do not like you blowing a barely relevent issue way out of proportion on my talk page.

As for you, Ace, get a life and stop stalking me and policing other people's talk pages. FairDinkum (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this "discussion" all over... a typo. 06:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Some advice for Nope Rocket too: sarcasm wasn't a winning strategy. Learn from that. 06:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also FairDinkum: Luigifan got docked a lot in moderation recently, so go easy. I personally would've been far more gentle regarding any prose issues compared to that writing in the diff, but what's done is done.  06:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Stalking you? I engaged you over a single issue, in one place (your talkpage), over a period of around 48 hours. What the fuck is wrong with you? Acei9 06:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Lefty, I posted an apology to Luigifan yesterday. I have no idea why Ace got involved. My concern is that this wiki is starting to look like Wikipedia where much context has been removed over the years; full of half-sentences, relevant info being removed, and irrelevant info being added. Good snark being replaced with lame snark. There are plenty of pages that need work, but for some reason people only seem to want to screw with ones that are perfectly fine the way they are. I believe people should have more respect for the people who wrote a lot of the articles on RW but no longer seem to be active. FairDinkum (talk) 07:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ace, you 'engaged' me on Luigifan's talk page. FairDinkum (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * OK - to sum up. You posted something on Lugifan's talkpage I disagreed with. I made my feelings clear about this. Someone else commented on your talkpage about the same issue to which I agreed with, having 'engaged' with you (why the '*'?) about this same issue. I then took interest in your music taste, being someone who is a music fan and also an electronic music fan, so asked you about it. In your world this means I'm stalking you across the wiki in the hopes of doxxing you? Acei9 07:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, except I don't have my own world. Why did you try to gaslight me with the false statement that you only engaged me about one issue in the past 48 hours? FairDinkum (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no time for your idiocy. Acei9 08:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ace, Nope Rocket and Lugifan's issues were completely different in every possible way. The only thing they have in common is that they're about edits they made. If you're not trying to gaslight me, maybe you're drunk or just naturally sloppy. FairDinkum (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually Nope Rocket's issue was about my edit, which makes them even less similar. I'll be expecting an apology from you, Ace. If you need help figuring out how to do it gracefully without bruising your fragile ego, try reading my apologies to Luigifan and Nope Rocket. FairDinkum (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * …Wow. Just wow. Luigifan18 (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice to hear from you Luigifan! A passive-aggressive 'wow' on your talk page is how Ace began his campaign of harassment, what a coincidence! FairDinkum (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW, Lefty, the example I gave in my post to Luigifan was just the latest example at that time. I could have referenced other examples of poor form that you may have felt differently about (albeit not likely, because you're obviously not impartial). Besides the poor form edits, Luigifan also decided to make an edit that promoted violence. Luigifan changed a sentence that said, "Thankfully, libertarians do not have to face the violence immigrants have." to "Thankfully (or not) libertarians do not have to face the violence immigrants have." Is that passive-aggressive edit kosher with you, Lefty? On a related note, when I complained earlier about good snark being replaced with lame snark, I meant that the confident ambivalent snark that used to be the norm here is gradually being replaced with passive-aggressive, smug, insecure, reactionary goading. FairDinkum (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * passive-aggressive, smug, insecure, reactionary goading Hmmmmm reminds me of someone... Acei9 18:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you think of that while shaving? FairDinkum (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Music
Define unpopular music and what type of electronic music you make/like. I'm interested. Acei9 21:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * He probably makes edm or bass music (dubstep, dnb etc.).ASerb (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, interested in doxxing me, probably... FairDinkum (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What the fuck are you talking about? I just wanted to know what music you liked. You think I am trying to dox you by asking about your music tastes? I stand by my previous assessment. You're a dick. Acei9 06:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ace, you just tried to gaslight me. Anyway I don't promote my music. FairDinkum (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's sum up again....
 * FairDinkum: "I make electronic music"
 * Another User: "Oh yeah, what kind of music?"
 * FairDinkum: You're trying to dox me and besides I don't promote my music
 * No-one can be this fucking dumb unless on purpose. Go fuck yourself. Acei9 08:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Spare me the persecution complex. Yeah I am concerned that a person who just called me a dick wants access to material that would allow them to track down my real-life identity. Yeah, I'm so out of line for that (sarcasm). FairDinkum (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * FairDinkum': "Here's my user page with a a whole lot of information about me and a photo
 * Another User: "It says you make electronic music, what type of electronic music you make?".
 * FairDinkum: "He's trying to dox me!
 * Also FairDinkum: "I'm 52, live in a city in Canada and have used this handle since the 80's. Here's something I wrote."
 * You telling me "I make acid house" really narrows down the field in tracking down your real persona. You uncovered my plot. I have no time for your idiocy. Troll better. Acei9 09:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My profile page promotes me, not my music. I also say in my profile that I eat nuts, does that mean I am promoting nuts? The issue is that you simply did not ask the question in good faith. To pretend that I'm some how wrong to be concerned about your intentions given your antagonizing behavior is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, it's not even debatable. It is ludicrous that you would think that you can succeed in your feigned indignation. FairDinkum (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW, Ace, a mature, functional person who engaged in a behavior that blatantly looked like it was heading toward doxing, even though that was not their intention, would respond with something like this: "I can see why you would be concerned, but I assure you my intention was not to dox you." Instead you respond exactly the way a person who was trying to dox me would, that is, by pretending that I'm totally out of line for even mentioning the possibility. In fact, at no point in this discussion have you ever said that your intention was not to dox me. You've just been trying to gaslight me into thinking I made some kind of terrible social faux pas. I think it's rather obvious that the reason you're upset is because I saw through your cringingly transparent plan. FairDinkum (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Did I say you were promoting your music? Not I asked what sort of music you like/make. I like electronic music, as do you apparently. I own about 4 crates of techno records, some rarities too, so figured it might be something we have in common. Upset? I'm not upset - I'm just totally bewildered. Acei9 17:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As to your claim that it would be totally rational to suspect I might be trying to dox you - well that's just fucking crazy. Acei9 18:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Text-file
I take it that file was written in '84 or '85, if you're 53? Jesus Christ that's ancient by Internet standards. I'm impressed. Vee (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm 52 and it was written in late 1985. There are a few things in it that I am not particularly proud of now. It was part of a trend in BBS culture, I didn't get any internet access until 1991 (Usenet). I did not coin the term 'anklebyter', it was a very popular term in BBS culture in my city at that time. FairDinkum (talk) 06:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Accusing users of doxxing without evidence
Don't. That is a serious accusation to be throwing around, considering that people have gotten permabanned because of doxxing in the past. Doing it just because someone asked you about your taste in music is unacceptable. Plutocow (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not accuse anyone of doxxing. I accused someone of possibly being interested in doxxing me and my accusation is based on solid evidence. Has anyone ever been permabanned for claiming someone accused someone of doxxing when no such accusation was made? Look, I knew when I signed up that I would have issues with idiots, that's why I waited so long to make an account. I was kicked off the JREF forum 20 years ago due to similar lies being told about me. I assume I will eventually be banned from this site by dysfunctional primadonnas because there are a hell of a lot of them in the skeptics movement. I'm not going to let that change the way I interact with this site. But let's be clear, I will never lie and I will never knowingly misrepresent. If I do misrepresent I will admit my mistakes. I will have no regrets. If there is even an ounce of integrity in the people who are bullying me (which now includes you, Plutocow) then I predict that someday you may regret the lie you've just told about me, and that goes for the rest of the liars who started all this, too. FairDinkum (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, you are misrepresenting what you claim is 'unacceptable'. I did not mention that Ace was probably interested in doxxing me because he asked about my music. I mentioned it because he immediately went from calling me a dick twice in a flame war, to asking about my music. To pretend that he innocently asked about my music is pure hogwash. Even if he had not intended to dox me (and I still believe he did, he's given me no reason to believe otherwise), suddenly being 'friendly' in the middle of a flame war is disingenuous at best. If he wanted to ask me a friendly question to which he expects a friendly answer, then he should have done so after finding a way to amicably end the flame war that brought him to my page in the first place. Not doing so was a pure, unadulterated act of passive-aggressive attempted manipulation. And if you and your bully friend expect me to grovel for your approval, it's not going to happen. FairDinkum (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My man, you need to calm down and get the fuck over yourself. 14:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I accused someone of possibly being interested in doxxing me and my accusation is based on solid evidence May we see this solid evidence? I'd expect a retraction of the accusation if no solid evidence is presented. Acei9 19:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * also you seem to like the word "gaslighting", fairdinkum. 20:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Do I? I would rather that people not try to gaslight me so that I wouldn't have to use that word. You seem to like to make irrelevant statements designed to insult me. FairDinkum (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And Chef, you have no reason to get involved. Get the fuck over yourself, asshole. I should be making that comment on your talk page. And your | tone policing is pathetic. Do you clowns ever read this wiki or is this just your own little social sandbox? Hint: you're doing everything RW tells you not to do. FairDinkum (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't know if you missed it...
...and I do not wish to harp on about it but you claim to have solid evidence I was attempting to dox you - this is a serious claim. Can I please see this solid evidence or retract. Acei9 18:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that you can't supply any of this "solid evidence" you claim to have I can only come to the conclusion you're completely full of shit, have no "evidence" and made a wild accusation which you refuse to back-up. So, yeah, don't do it again because as others have let you know it isn't a flippant matter. Acei9 21:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence you are referring to reads, "I accused someone of possibly being interested in doxxing me and my accusation is based on solid evidence." Once again you're misrepresenting what I said. The solid evidence that your actions were possibly going to lead to doxxing is that you instigated harassment and followed it up by asking me about my music. I stand by my claim that I was justified in stating my concern that you were 'probably' trying to dox me. This is not the first time that someone on the internet has engaged in exactly the same behavior for the purpose of doxxing me. Your indignation over the reasonable assumption that your unreasonable behavior may have been leading to doxxing is entirely unfounded and an example of the fallacy of Mala Fides (Arguing in Bad Faith) which also leads me to become even more certain that my doxxing assumption was correct. Furthermore your claim that you were 'Just asking a question' when you inquired about my music while you were still in the process of harassing me has it's own page on RW, where it is known as | JAQing off. You also invoked the fallacy of | Argument from Incredulity when you said there was "something wrong with (me)" for being concerned about the purpose of your inappropriate behavior. In the response I am responding to now, by suggesting that my (temporary) silence in responding to your false accusation that I accused you of trying to dox me, is an example of the fallacy of | Argumentum ex Silentio, because I do not have an obligation to respond to a false accusation. FairDinkum (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * so…. No solid evidence then. Just reckons. Acei9 06:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * you said you had solid evidence. You haven’t given it. So don’t fucking go down this route again. Acei9 06:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Get lost you pathologically lying piece of shit. FairDinkum (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Another accusation - if you are going to accuse me of being a liar please point out my lie or retract. Acei9 07:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You are lying that I did not provide SOLID EVIDENCE that my concern over your idiotic behavior was justified. You also lie about my concern. I am not going to respond to you again shithead. FairDinkum (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I don’t think you understand what evidence means. Pro-tip: “I reckon” does not constitute what most people would consider ‘solid evidence’. Please try harder or don’t try at all. Acei9 07:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also you said you “solid evidence” is was trying to dox you - not about your level of concern. You haven’t provided this despite multiple requests to do so. So… stop. Acei9 07:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have anything to accuse me of, QUOTE ME. Yeah, you're done you lying fuck. FairDinkum (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Driving the point in further
Just giving you another one to hammer the point in since you are continuing your petty grudge almost a week later. If you can't get along with people and accuse them of "harassment" and "bullying" when they disagree with you, then there is no way that you can work on a collaborative project like this one. You've been online longer than I've been alive, you should know better than this. Please grow up and stop pointlessly feuding with other users. Plutocow (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn’t ask a single personal question about you outside your music taste. Jesus fucking Christ man - you’ve offered your age, location, likes, dislikes and a fucking photo of yourself willingly. I ask what music you like and all of sudden I’m doxxing you? Get a fucking grip. Acei9 06:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * PLutocow, I am not "dragging it on for a week" I am responding to people who keep dragging it on. Ace goaded me three times to respond when I didn't respond fast enough for him and insisted I was guilty of malfeasance by not responding. You would know that if you bothered reading this talk page that you are so quick to take a big steamy shit on. Look at who posted right after you accused me of dragging it out? So are you a pathological liar, too? Here's a bright idea, why don't you admonish the people who deserve it instead of the person who doesn't? FairDinkum (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure Ace, I've 'offered my location' by writing that I live in Canada. Pathetic. FairDinkum (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Stating the country you live is far more specific than what music you like numbnuts. I can’t believe you ruined my plot. All I needed was for you to say “I like trance and a bit of Kraftwerk and other early electronic” and my devious scheme to unmask you would have been complete! Foiled again! Fuck man - Get. A. Fucking. Grip. Acei9 07:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Where in the reference manual to the Wonderful World of Stupidity does it say that if I list some things in my profile, I am obligated to answer questions about things I didn't list? Has it ever occurred to you that people list only what they want to be known about them in their profile? Your pitiful argument is that because I listed so much in my profile, I am obligated to answer questions about what I didn't list. Not that I listed so little in my profile as to be mysterious, no, your argument is that I listed so much that it entitles you to know more. You have a knack for coming up with new fallacies, that's for sure. I don't know what the fallacy of demanding that a person who reveals a lot of information has no right to be protective of information he chose not to list is called, but it's definitely ridiculously fallacious. FairDinkum (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No one is saying you're obligated to answer questions. What we are saying is that you're making a big deal and getting all pissy over said questions when they were never a big deal to begin with. Seriously, man, calm down. It's alright to just walk away. 20:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain exactly what Ace did to you to piss you off so much? Because it looks a lot like paranoid schizophrenia.  21:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

This is turning into a dog pile. Y'all don't need to be here. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * VeeMeow? 21:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Except that being here is my job. 21:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well not really - hasn't turned into mod issue yet. Just some idiot who doesn't like talking about his taste in music. Perhaps he likes WHAM! or Gary Glitter and doesn't want to admit it. Acei9 21:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Corcery, Ace is the one who keeps accusing me of all sorts of immature bullshit, the only thing I accuse him of is misrepresenting (lying about) my responses to his immature bullshit. I would prefer it if he and his cronies would wipe their fecal matter on the walls of their own talk pages rather than mine. Your first clue that I'm the one being attacked should be that I have written nothing on the talk pages of Ace and any of the losers vandalizing my talk page. Things that make you go HMMMM if you have a brain... FairDinkum (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And by the way, I like Wham Rap and Rock and Roll Parts 1 & 2. I have no trouble admitting anything. You are obviously projecting because you have Right Said Fred on repeat because you're too sexy to not be an a-hole. FairDinkum (talk) 09:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * OSD, if you ever run for mod you've got my #1 vote. FairDinkum (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * the only thing I accuse him of is misrepresenting (lying about) my responses to his immature bullshit Which is a lie itself - you accused me of doxxing you multiple times. How ironic. Acei9 20:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Just open a coop case
I'm busy with real life so I'm late after three days of this nonsense, but if FairDinkum decides to pick more fights, RationalWiki:Chicken coop is here. 19:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Blah blah passive aggressive threat blah blah.FairDinkum (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And all this time I thought Plutocow was a mod due to all the threats that I now know were completely toothless. So Lefty, why are you here again? Having reading trouble again like you were on your talk page? Remember? When you did the exact equivalent of scrunching your eyes shut and sticking your fingers in your ears so you wouldn't have to see or hear information you requested? Oh wait, I might be discriminating against your Adult Baby lifestyle! OOOOPS. I know who I'll be telling everyone to not vote for in the next election... FairDinkum (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW I was just looking at the coop link you posted, it's very interesting. It says, "Please try to resolve conflicts directly through discussion on other editor's talk pages before reporting them. It's better to just talk to someone rather than try to drag their name through the mud." Somehow that seems to conflict with your threat. What exactly have you done to try to resolve this conflict through discussion? The page also says you'll have to provide evidence. That should be interesting, and presuming I get to provide counter evidence, like your statement that you refused to even read my side of the Nope Rocket beef, I predict that it will be loads of fun. That really smacks of trying to resolve a conflict with discussion, doesn't it? (sarcasm). Bring it on, I'm ready for my coop case. I mean, that wasn't just an idle threat designed to drag my name through the mud was it?! FairDinkum (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Seriously, how old are you? That comment is from the 25th.. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Seriously, my age is in my profile, so that was either a stupid question or a stupid insult. Yes I know when the comment was posted, I can read. I've been preoccupied with more pressing matters for the past two weeks, I'm so sorry that I don't live on RW. But I'm not sorry that I want to call the threat Lefty made. Thanks for joining in, you've really been helpful. FairDinkum (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh how nice, I see that you are whining over at ATIM and have blocked me from being able to defend myself there. Class act, Lefty. Really impressive.
 * If you checked the logs, you would know that it was Plutocow who banned you, not LGM. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Fairdinkum's Ye Olde List of Losers Winners!
Hey kids, do you want to finally fit in at school? Do you poop out at parties? Well then maybe you'd like to join Fairdinkum's Ye Olde List of Losers Winners! It's easy, there are several ways to get on it:


 * Post a short uncreative insult on Fairdinkum's talk page. This is one of the most popular ways of getting on the list!


 * Threaten Fairdinkum with RW-based punishment on Fairdinkum's talk page. Doesn't matter if you're a moderator or someone who just likes to pretend to be one!


 * Make false accusations that Fairdinkum has done something so egregious that the accusation attracts other random users who read it to post insults and threats. Don't worry that the accusations are false, and that it would be extremely easy for you to verify that they're false. And don't let it bother you that false allegations are actually lies when the person who made them has had ample time to issue corrections, but hasn't done so. None of that matters! You've staked out your spot on the list!

Note: The list will not be published, because there is no need! FairDinkum (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, now we're at the coop. You better enjoy it
A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment. Plutocow (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Defending myself got me there in the first place. Do you really think I'm stupid enough to think that my involvement in your pathetic lynching would have made a difference? You know it's just a pompous ritual for your circle jerk Star Chamber fantasies. Hope you had a really satisfying spooge when the result of the vote transpired. It must be a real stroke to the fragile and bloated ego to know you've affected someone so much better in every aspect of being human than you'll ever be. FairDinkum (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As one of the 16 people who voted to block you, I find that comment excessively offensive. I consider that post to be an abuse of the talk page privilege you had while blocked, which is why I've taken it away from you. Spud (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Coop case
You should involve yourself in your coop case, dude. Acei9 04:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Too late, I lost the case! I look after my 82 year old mother who has dementia so I am away from RW for days or weeks at a time. But when the ban gets lifted I will be watching those pathetic cop-wannabes and scouring their fossil records to involve myself in every one of their abusive actions, past, present and future. I will be the self-appointed unofficial RW defense lawyer. Notice that the coop case was only opened when I had the nerve to go after Plutocow on LuigiFan's page for abusing LuigiFan. I called their coop bluff on purpose, I wanted to see if they would be able to prevail, and now I know, which only means that I will have a lot of work to do in rehabilitating RW. They made a huge mistake by motivating me with this coop BS. I like RW enough to do what I can to rescue it from over-zealous miscreants. They probably think I'll go running to Conservapedia with my sob story. It makes me wonder if they really are supportive of RW's mission or are just here to feel superior to right-wing idiots, as if that is some major accomplishment that's greater than shooting fish in a barrel.


 * I'm sorry I didn't have time to defend you, Ace, from Lefty's abuse, but when I get back, I will. BTW, Bongolian's claim that it's ok that Lefty blocked you because you know how to unblock yourself is pure bullshit, it's like saying it's ok to run a red light or drive on the sidewalk if pedestrians manage to jump out of the way of your careening vehicle and not get hurt. It's called an Outcome Bias fallacy. Besides ignoring the bad behavior itself, it also ignores the fact that the actual damages remain when you get unfairly blocked, even if you can easily unblock yourself: it is humiliating, and besmirches your reputation which can be used to justify future unjust disciplinary actions against you. What if you wanted to run for mod in the next election? You've got that block on your record, which other candidates could publicize to imply that you are not worthy of being elected. FairDinkum (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are going to return and do the exact same bullshit that got you blocked in the first place, you are going to get cooped again. Based on the above words, should you continue on this path, I would aim for permaban, you are essentially saying you will harass other editors out of spite for a block. Which means you have learned nothing, and are of no value to this community whatsoever. You have three weeks to think about it. BobJohnson (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I wish FairDinkum the best in his efforts to improve RationalWiki. Continuous improvement is how excellence is achieved. Don't get discouraged FairDinkum. If you are tenacious enough, you might be successful in making positive changes at RationalWiki. EclecticNerd (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * "But when the ban gets lifted I will be watching those pathetic cop-wannabes and scouring their fossil records to involve myself in every one of their abusive actions, past, present and future. I will be the self-appointed unofficial RW defense lawyer."
 * This is just a promise to be in the chicken coop again. You want to die on this hill? That hill you're on is made up of user accounts like yours. Wise up and swallow your pride. 19:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * FairDinkum made a perfectly legitimate point about the use of the Outcome Bias Fallacy which was used to excuse away the blocking of Ace McWicked. And his point was totally ignored. FairDinkum's Manual of Argumentation is going to be a breath of fresh air and so is his advocacy of people unfairly wronged. EclecticNerd (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * …What did he do to abuse me again? I wasn't paying attention. All I'm seeing here is a very, very high horse. He's gonna get hurt when it finally bucks him off. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * manuals/booklets/pamphlets - these things seem to take an awfully long time to appear, if they ever appear. i know a case of one taking years and years...AMassiveGay (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and EclecticNerd, being ken, knows all about this kind of shit. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, that was Ken? …In hindsight, I should have seen that coming, given that his "advice" seemed to be aiming to destroy RationalWiki. --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)