User talk:Damo/archive2

User_talk:Damo/archive1

Paul Reynolds and his revolting advertisment
That new Telecom XT ad featuring CEO Paul Reynolds fly fishing against a backgroud of heavenly light with exultant music followed by a pithy joke. Made me vomit on my shoes. Acei9 12:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly I don't watch enough TV as I am yet to see this vomit inducing cinematic event. I will keep an eye out for it.  Richard Hammond wasn't back for a second series?  --DamoHi 20:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think last night was the first playing of the ad. They'll be pushing it a lot now I bet. Fucking hideous. Acei9 20:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

RW South Pacific Forum
At the end of November I am down in Dunedin for work. Wanna meet for RW's 1st South Pacific Forum? AceX-102 06:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * CONSPIRACY!!! I knew you guys were plotting behind my back!  I knew it!  Well just you wait—the people on this site will see you for the fascists that you really are!  I will expose the beast for all to see and they will revolt against your oppressive might and—what was I talking about again?  Oh, yes—hope you have a good time on your trip, Ace.  Though meeting someone you've only know online for the first time in real life sounds like a recipe for awkwardness.   06:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't do awkwardness. I am one of those people that get along with everyone - expect for complete fuck wits. AceX-102 06:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would indeed love to meet in Dunedin, however I regret that I am not in Dunedin. Alas I moved up to Tauranga about a year ago.  --DamoHi 03:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no plans to be anywhere near Tauranga in the future. AceX-102 04:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And ne'er the twain shall meet :'(   04:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be so sure, Wellington may very well be in my path in the short to medium term. DamoHi 04:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent, excellent. Whatever it takes to promote my upcoming Ace/Damo slash fic  : )   04:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK then, make sure to contact me if and when you come down. AceX-102 04:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Game
Pretty epic game don't you think? AceX-102 04:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome. I was always optimistic that we had them on the ropes in the final 20 minutes.  I would have preferred to have won a little earlier though.  --DamoHi 05:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully we can carry it on in the World Cup. Probably not though. AceX-102 05:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Something is bound to go wrong. Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if we lose.  I can't bear to think of it.  --DamoHi 05:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Riots, burning cars, tear gas, dogs and cats living together in harmony, total anarchy! AceX-102 05:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Why "dictatorship" is sometimes better than mobocracy
It is better in those instances when something has to be done in most inteligent way possible. That's why often an intelligent dictator was appointed to lead an army in time of war since it was proven experimantally that to win a war is not what a mob does the best, especially if the intelligence is needed to win it. So things like decision whether to delete an essay or not should be left to intelligent dictators rather than a mob. It seems (at least to me) that much less harm may be done in such way.

In our concrete case I wrote an essay about Einstein and his ideas in physics, especially in gravitation. This might have been interesting, at least to historians of science, since this information is not available anyplace else (yes, it is also available in my webpage, but who would run through internet without knowing where to look, and if you look with google you get only "white noise", a lot of contemporary garbage about Einstein and contemporay theories which happen to be all wrong since only Einstein gravitation is real as being tested against the real world. Einstein didn't publish any textbooks on gravitation though, apparently considering it a simple stuff not worth of effort of writing about it. Especially for dummies believing that the universe is expanding against common physics.

My stuff sat on internet for about 25 years and I didn't get a sinlge question about Einstein's gravitation despite the knowledge being available requiring some thinking though. Practically no physicist understands gravitation. It is not needed for anything except general knowledge. It is not taught since if physicsists don't understand it, considering it too complex, nor they have time to think about it. So who is supposed to teach it. That's why we still have a gravitational theories that violate the principle of conservation of energy like the big bang (which is impossible in the real world). It is where the mobocracy sometimes leads to. JimJast (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that we need a dictator of knowledge, and that such a person would see that you are right and everyone else is wrong? Good luck with the world... and have you started a wikia site yet? Totnesmartin (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you asked instead of jumping to conclusion. The answer is "No". I hate any dictatorship, but stupidity takes precedence. If I have only a choice of dying from stupidity or survive through dictatorship (like it happens often during a war, if you are not too young to remember the war) then, as those who established dictatorships for the times of war, to avoid dying from stupidity, I agree (reluctantly) to dictatorship. Then there is a problem of disconnecting the dictator from power after the war. But if we survive the war we have time to think about it. We wouldn't have time is we died from stupidity.
 * As for your other question: I'm too busy for it yet. You might remember that I'm a sculptor not a scientist. So my heart was with RW for a while since I thought "Oh, finally some smart guys around" but then "Oh no. they believe in creation, and the big bang too, even if I quote them Feynman's opinion about it", so I just got disapointed and gota go back to my clay, and neglected PhD. "Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life on this planet". JimJast (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply
I know nothing about physics, Einstein or any of your theories so I will not comment on that part of your argument. However I do dispute your general thesis in regards to dictators making better decisions. I especially dispute the idea that dictatorial governance provides the best way to run a wiki. I will respond to your arguments directly and then add some general comments at the end.

It is better in those instances when something has to be done in most inteligent way possible.
 * On this point I agree for the most part. However there are two objections:
 * (a)How can we determine the most intelligent way of doing something except by the application of some procedure. No-one is perfect, we all have biases and prejudices that affect our judgement.


 * (b)If we leave the decision making in the hands of one person, all those who wish to make a contribution to the decision will feel disempowered and irrelevant. The mere ability of someone to make submissions and be heard in a meaningful way is a very important part of being a part of a society.  I think many or most people would be prepared to sacrifice "perfect decision making" (if that could ever be defined) for the ability to participate in the governance of the society.

That's why often an intelligent dictator was appointed to lead an army in time of war since it was proven experimantally that to win a war is not what a mob does the best, especially if the intelligence is needed to win it


 * I agree with you that a clear direction is needed to fight a war but


 * (a) The times when prompt and decisive action are required in order to provide leadership in a time of crisis are relatively few and far between. I can think of no case when this would be required in a wiki situation - we are not in the business of fighting wars.


 * (b) There are countless examples from history that show that a dictator that is not held accountable will make horrendous decisions in a time of war. Without even pausing I can think of two dictators whose unopposed decision making lead their countries to ruin in a time of war, Hitler and Stalin.  Because they were not accountable to anyone, nobody ever questioned their judgement and the result was the ineffective conduct of the war.  I could find countless examples from history of this same phenomenon if you like.  In the case of a wiki, I could point to the case of conservapedia where the owner exercises complete editorial and policy control of the site and permits no dissent.  The result is that many awful decisions are made that could have been prevented if there was input from others.  I believe something similar has happened at Citizendium, although I am not so conversant in that wiki.


 * (c) People who are promoted into dictatorial positions in time of need are notoriously bad at giving back their powers when they are no longer needed. Benevolent temporary dictatorships have a nasty habit of turning into nasty permanent ones.  Caesar, Lenin and Hitler all took power temporarily under a situation of great emergency and were reluctant (to say the least) to return their powers.  It is a sad fact of life that very few people who are granted absolute powers are able to relinquish them when they are no longer required.

--DamoHi 23:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey
Why don't you threaten this user for reverting your edits; seems you're the one in violation of site policy. nobsdon't bother me 05:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rob, you need to keep on topic, not just go wandering off onto some delusion that you have about hanging LBJ. For goodness sake, your arguments about a foreign policy decision By LBJ in Vietnam has literally nothing to do with whether the forcible removal of a sitting president breaches U.S. Code Title 18 § 2385.  Can you not see that.  Now I have defended and unblocked you on every occasion, but this derailing of debates into gratuitous slurs of your percieved political opponents has got to stop.  --DamoHi 05:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Damo does have a point, there, Rob. I have said this before, but you need to recognize that even if you are fully sensible of some link between two events, other people are not, so you cannot rely on the link to convince them of anything. 05:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jpatt's essay which sparked this lengthy discussion essentially says, "we have to destroy the existing constitutional order in order to save it." My points were directly relevent. nobsdon't bother me 06:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not remarking upon the validity of your point, but only on its presentation; it is very difficult for someone to be convinced by an argument if they do not understand it. 06:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK fine, I can now see how your example links into the argument but a)you have to actually make the argument, not just lay out some seemingly random facts and expect people to know what you are talking about and b)there's no need to make gratuitous slurs on your political opponents that detract from the point you are trying to make. Peace?  --DamoHi 06:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No problemo. It's been referred to as the nobsian method; various elements are introduced incrementally before the trump card is played. Oh, and I'd vote for you as bureaucrat but it probably wouldn't help your cause. nobsdon't bother me 06:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Nobsian method? I would give it up if I were you.  Just leads to anguish and confusion.
 * Why would anyone want to be a bureaucrat here? I certainly don't.  DamoHi 07:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to your reply about dictators and to your actions
Evolution took care about them. They all are dead now. This is the way evolution treats dictators. And now look at Germans and Russians: they have enough of dictatorships probably for the rest of their history even if they feel nostalgia for them remembering "good times" of their reign.


 * But I have more important thing to debate: why you support creationism by blocking disputes about it, while you claime being an "atheist from NZ". Atheists in NZ support creationism? Since everything there is upside-down? Interesting attitude.


 * ''"Beam me up Scotty,
 * there is no intelligent life on this planet"''. JimJast (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if you are monumentally stupid, or just a troll. I don't care at all what you have to say about physics or creationism or the big bang.  In fact I would rather you didn't inflict the wiki with your ideas. However this place is rather forgiving and we allow you to post more or less whatever you like.  This does not mean that you can start up a "debate" about RW and then use it to rehash your theories over again.  If you want to discuss them, keep to the relevant talk pages.  DamoHi 10:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In any case I blocked you for half an hour because you removed a whole talk page, something for which you have been warned against before. You must agree that we have been very understanding of you, but don't push it.  DamoHi 10:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Damo, it is somehow unclear whether you are (1) a supporter of creationism who won't allow to discuss it, or we can go on with the discussion of relativity (which you call for some reason "my theory" not knowing even that it is Einstein's and therefore also mine since I'm also a physicist) that we already started before I called Scotty to beam me up? If you rather (2) don't support creationsm then (3) can we continue the dispute from the point where I asked Virginia to answer a few control questions about the real world. Or you insist on some other option (4)? JimJast (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I forgive you but I don't know how to answer your questions. I think it would be only in a very peculiar sense of the word that I could be called a creationist.  I don't know whether what you are saying is Einstein's opinion or not, but I do know that it has yet to be accepted by mainstream science as being relevant.  DamoHi 13:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Dennet
I got the impression that this entire site was less of a "scholarly" enterprise than Wikipedia (if you can call Wikipedia "scholarly), but had a joking nature to it - it's meant to be obvious the remarks about Dennet are satire, since, he is seemingly intelligent in most matters, and then he goes off and espouses an indefensible, batshit crazy off-the-wall brand of re-branded strong (Skinnerian) behaviourism of the sort which has been solidly refuted (at least amongst those who don't believe that being punched in the face can "heal you with the holy ghost") for the past fifteen thousand years. And he rejects the existence of qualia, which is very unorthodox (i.e. heretical in philosophy of mind) but is still semi-defensible, so I didn't include it. Maybe there's not enough context (you have to be familiar with Dennett's work to get it, but, I take it that you are at least somewhat familiar with his work, unless it's just the atheist side of it - he's been working on and is much more well-known for [outside of the media/public eye] philosophy of mind for a lot longer than academic atheism) but his "heterophenomenology" is as self-refuting as that old communist's saying, "Property is robbery". Thus my saying, "His entire status as a philosopher is debatable after he espoused...", much like if I - say, well-qualified in a specific field of inquiry (in my case, medicinal chemistry), would start espousing Christian Science, one could say, "his mastery of chemistry is called in to doubt by his new-found appreciation for Christian Science", &c.  (unsigned by some BoN) 
 * Ok, I was perhaps a little vigilant.  We have been inundated lately with people just here to cause trouble.  I must admit, nearly everything you have said is double dutch to me, so I will trust that you know what you are talking about.  Maybe you could put some of that snarkily in a reference so that it makes a bit more sense.  You are right about the less scholarly of the site, its just that your point as it stands will be lost on nearly everyone. DamoHi 04:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Damo, who the hell is "Dennet" and what is he doing on this page? What relevance is there to the discussion of "Einstein's universe"? JimJast (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dennett is a philosopher. Nothing.  DamoHi 07:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Daniel Dennett, I believe. JJ, you need to be funnier, by about 3/4 of a hectaLume.  09:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure I'd want you to write my book, seeing as you can't even spell Dennett . :).  Ps how does one do one of those smiley faces?  I can't see any buttons for them.  DamoHi 09:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Smileys - look right at the bottom of the insert box & click on "Smileys" - I think you've got to enable it in your preferences somewhere.[[File:Dictator.gif]] --Scream!! (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * [[File:Beer.gif]]DamoHi 09:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Damo, I picked up "Dennet" from the title of your section. How am I supposed to know that he is Daniel C. Dennett? Who doesn't know how to spell in this case? Stupid polak (and a troll) or an educated in philosophy NooZeeLander? It is also Q to Human :) though I have more Q's to her in another message. JimJast (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * JJ this section has nothing to do with you. DamoHi 23:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the screwup :).
 * What about the previous section where I thought you were talking to me and you didn't respond to my last questions (actually 4)? Are you the same Damo, who blocked me, aren't you? That's the reason and I have to appologize again for the screwup. I hope you forgive me. JimJast (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheers from the West Island
Hi Damo,

You just left a nice hello on my page. Is this how people send messages to each other on rationalWiki? I'm new here.

Yes, I think I'll stay around. In fact, I just registered a domain name www.incaseofevangelism.com, to set up a narrowpedia with refs & links for anyone being subjected to religious propaganda. Site's under construction, won't go live for a while. I imagine I'll be linking across to rw now & again.

Cheers

Peter Capnvague (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to your very important e-mail.
Oh, yes I have. P-Foster (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My response to your response of my very important email could be the most important thing you will read this year! --DamoHi 04:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You are dull and ineffectual
Please continue swatting the air. It makes you weaker. Not being able to edit for nine hours is going to be rough, though. Can't you be lenient? 134.147.198.10 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Moreover I was finished talking so your block serves no purpose. Nor am I an "admitted troll". Can you acknowledge that, or are you irretrievably mired in falsehood? 134.147.198.10 (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

My antipodean friend
Don't bother with Nx, he goes out of his way to annoy, a total cunt. Not to mention Hungarian. Ace of Spades 09:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well his going out of the way has REALLY overtopped himself this time: CHECKUSER!!! --Scream!! (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I will heed your advice. We shall see.  --DamoHi 09:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

So
does this mean I get to call you an "attention starved brat" who wants "people to notice him"? Seems your actions were just "trolling from a guy with nothing better to do than throw the whole place into HCM for his own amusement." Funny that. -- PsyGremlin  10:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought you were retired. --DamoHi 10:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I couldn't resist coming back to point out your double-standard. -- PsyGremlin  10:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It might surprise you, but I really don't care what you think of me. See ya.  --DamoHi 10:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not in the slightest. Just a shame you think so little of RW too. -- PsyGremlin  10:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Fun:Cappadocians
You still planning to expand this? If not I'll nuke it. -- 21:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good point. I had a quick look at whether there really was much biblical significance (ie whether the author of Revelation was one) and it turns out there is not much evidence of it.  Given this, there is not really any point in keeping it so nuke away. --DamoHi 21:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it is relevant to patristics — the Cappadocian Fathers. Not sure this site is interested in exploring Christianity in that much depth though... 21:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess it's relevant to Church history in that regard, but not to the extent I had thought. As I understand it they were essentially theologians who made some contributions, but nothing earth shattering, or needing to be in RW.  --DamoHi 21:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * From an Eastern Orthodox perspective, St. Basil is important — one of the liturgies used by the EO church today is named after him — although its current form is probably not all his work, there is no doubt a significant chunk of it is due to him. Also, the Cappadocian school made major contributions to the historical development of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. But, I don't think this place wants to go into that much detail... 22:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) Done, if anyone wants to make a serious article on the subject they are welcome to, but it wouldn't be in the Fun space so that article would have needed moving. It's not like an undelete is hard to do. -- 21:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Winston Peters
Damn this is funny.... Aceof Spades 08:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not his finest moment. Unfortunately no-one who watches this show would have voted for him anyway.  He is not as sharp and as smooth as he used to be.  --DamoHi 08:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah but he is still the statesman, the career politician. Aceof Spadessilverbrain.png 22:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Dick yourself
Rob has been a sysop since May and is perfectly capable of unblocking himself. Learn to read the fucking logs before getting all accusatory, fool. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 23:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Grow up. Let Rob write what he wants on TWIGOCP.  We allow you the same privilege.  He has invested a lot of time, effort and mana into CP so its not surprising he is venting for longer than you think is necessary.  DamoHi 23:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Cheers
They have outlived their usefulness. Thanks buddy. Aceace 04:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, for what its worth I thought your new bride looks lovely. --DamoHi 04:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * She is thanks. Aceace 04:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, for a South African I'm glad. Can we beat the Frogs tomorrow night?  I will be in Opotiki refereeing some crazy marae v marae rugby tournament.  Lots of beers and mussels I'm sure.  We should give them a good spanking but then we should have done the same 4 and 12 years ago too. --DamoHi 04:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll be having a party at my house tomorrow, there be some rugby on the TV no doubt. Aceace 04:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Games
Two big games tonight. Heading into the city...well I already live in the city so "heading outside" to watch them. My wife is a rabid South African and my brothers fiancee is a rabid Australian so things may get interesting. Aceace 20:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. I was down in your fair city last weekend for the Tonga v France and NZ v Canada games.  Thought about dropping you a line but in the end didn't have time any spare time.  That stadium is fantastic and the bars in the CBD are amazing.  Gonna be a great game tonight, too close to call for me, especially since I read that the weather is good down there.  Boks might just be a little too strong in the forwards.  --DamoHi 20:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Aussie brother in law
Nope, I have a south african brother in law. Aceace 00:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh right, my mistake. An Australian sister-in-law to be.  Still makes you idealogically suspect.  An enemy of the nation.  --DamoHi 01:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Who told you that? Aceace 01:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You did. It doesn't necessarily mean you are a bad person.  What are your plans for the game?  I am going to it with my Dad.  --DamoHi 01:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure yet....hmmm...Aceace 01:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Kudos
Just like to say "Kudos" for that edit to Christopher Hitchens. Clarity triumphs over glibness! 09:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it is simply not true to say that Hitchens changed his positions on foreign affairs overnight with 9/11. In fact if you read his memoir, it is apparent that his thinking in this regard evolved from about the time of the First Gult War, through to his support of action in Serbia.  He became more and more uncomfortable with the positions of his former comrades on the left who he began to view as lacking in the moral fibre to act for causes he thought they believed in.  In other words he felt that his comrades were hypocrits.  He broke with Chomsky, for instance, well before 9/11.
 * One does not have to agree with everything that Hitchens says to nonetheless admire him. In the case of intervention in Iraq, I have over the years come closer to the Hitch position, although I never quite got there.  At least he made me see the other side of the argument, and he always put it so eloquently.
 * As an aside, this is one thing that always impressed me about Hitch, he was prepared to change his mind and to openly admit to the world that his former positions were wrong.

--DamoHi 09:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never used this template before, but:    09:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly.
When the pics of the dead people in tracksuits and Nikes hit the web, I don't want to say "Hey! I knew that guy!" PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 03:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

As a kiwi
You might find this interesting...my opinion on the Crafar Farms fiasco. AceModerator 23:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree basically with your sentiments. Comments:
 * (a) I think you are a bit harsh on "the left". The comments you have attributed to the left are not representative of everyone of the left; the issue of allowing overseas ownership is not as simple as you seem to address it here.
 * (b) You seem to imply that the government never has any cause to block the sale of land to foreigners and that it is just a matter of private decisions. Whilst that sentiment is generally true, lets not overstate it.  Even John Key acknowledged (in a Radio Live interview that obv I don't have the transcript to) that the government would consider blocking sales in the future if the sales got out of hand.
 * (c) If you are getting sick of watching this every night on the news, I suggest you change the channel. It has more to do with a new opposition leader trying to get some name recognition, and a returning leader trying to be relevant than any great policy debate.  As you rightly point out, when the people making the fuss were in power they did nothing different, despite the rhetoric whilst in opposition.
 * (d) There probably is a bit of a racist element to this, as bad as it is, that is just a fact of life. NZers are concerned about the spread of Chinese influence.  Whether this fear is baseless or not I wouldn't like to say. --DamoHi 23:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * More focused on the far, hysterical, left here. And it isn't so much about "just changing the channel" it is the level of discourse which is the focus. AceModerator 00:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you re:Micheal Fay, what a try-on that was! I'm not sure anyone bought it though.
 * This was a story a couple of weeks ago. I can't remember hearing anything about it for at least a week.  Who are these hysterical leftists of whom you speak? and why should you or I or anyone else care what the fringe are saying?  The fringe say fringe things.  DamoHi 01:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it isn't the fringe. I bet you go ask people what they think and there response will be the govt shouldn't be selling our land to the Chinese. It is a hugely covered misunderstanding that even the media gets wrong. AceModerator 01:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have conversations with hysterical people all the time at my work. Some people are totally misinformed about everything - and this includes people on the right just as much as those on the left.  If people are too stupid to realise what the facts are and what the issues are, then I don't really care what they say.  Just like I won't hold you, as a National voter, to some of the stuff that gets said by fringe groups like the Sensible Sentencing Trust, or Family First, or some of the lunatics who ring up Micheal Laws or Leighton Smith, you shouldn't hold "the left" to what gets said by John Minto and the Unite Union.


 * Although I agree in large part with your essay, I think you are far too dismissive of the position that maybe we shouldn't be selling our most valuable and strategic assets to overseas consortiums. Its not a position I personally would agree with, but it nonetheless is a respectable principal worthy of consideration.  Anyway, I hope I am not being to nitpicky, considering I basically agree with what you wrote.   DamoHi 01:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am only a national voter for the time being and I switch back and forth depending on the times. And I know the right can be as misinformed but the left, in NZ, is far more vocal and massive. In NZ being a leftie is "cool". You must recognize this surely. Centre right or moderate views, particularly in youth, are far less prevalent and misinformation on the left is generally greater in NZ than on the right (in complete opposite of the US). That's what I find anyway. Crafar Farms is not a SEO nor strategic asset. Its a private piece of land. AceModerator 01:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually of my uni friends I am about the only one who is on the left. I do have one friend who wants to be the next John Minto, but he's taken up with all this occupy movement nonsense.  I know what you mean though re: being cool.  This probably has something to do with our mythic history of Suffragettes and Micheal Savage's welfare reforms, which are akin to our Mayflower story if you know what I mean.
 * A private piece of land can be a strategic asset to a nation, particularly if its lots of private pieces of land.   --DamoHi 06:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Complaint. to your talk page.
You wanna help polish that turd into something resembling an article? It is sorely lacking in coherency.Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 19:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Working on it as we speak. Now that I am off for the rest of the year I thought I might try to do something productive spend some time at RW.  DamoHi 19:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

RevDel on the CZ WIGO talkpage
For why you did the suppression? We've all long known that Martin edits from that IP range. I'm thinking your RevDel should be undone. -- MtD Prematurely Indeterminate   07:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There has always been a pretty firm "guideline" here that we don't out IP addresses. I know that the sort of info posted is pretty easy to obtain, but if someone wants to edit anonymously they should be able to do so without people pointing out where they are from.  If there is a good reason here to overturn that principle then OK, but otherwise lets not out IP's.  --DamoHi 08:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

preferred e-mail
Can you please send me: ttoulouse@gmail.com your preferred e-mail address for contact about the board election?

Not speading it around the wiki
I'm going to shut the fuck up on that subject now. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector  22:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please. --DamoHi 22:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Heh
First time I've been blocked, both WP and RW. I was blocked in CP five times though. But don't mess up my sandbox, I don't like it. --Seonookim (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a joke buddy. No harm meant.  --DamoHi 06:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Reverts
Thank you my friend.  ħ uman  04:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What on earth is going on here? If some punk doesn't want to read those articles then that punk doesn't have to.  History and tradition are important.  DamoHi 04:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I can see these pages were all voted on ages ago, but are now being restored. Why? Peter mqzp 04:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They are important parts of our history and any proposal to delete them should have a quorum. 7 votes does not make a quorum.
 * What's a "quorum" in this context? And don't we have articles on that kind of argument? Peter mqzp 04:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Plenty of people who would have voted no (ie Human and myself) didn't vote. If you want to go around some crap some BoN threw up you don't need many votes, on the other hand if you want to delete things that are important to our history you want more than a close decision made up of a few votes.  --DamoHi 04:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know about human, but you did vote on some of them. Peter mqzp 05:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was very busy that month, clearly I missed a few. If the consensus is to delete then that would be a shame, but if you look at those two there simply isn't enough votes to enforce a decision.  I say we have another vote and keep it open for a couple of months.  DamoHi 05:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It already was open. For months. Ty JFBAA 05:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well then lets reopen it.DamoHi 05:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? Also, attempting to retroactively change the rules smacks of dishonesty to me. Ty JFBAA 05:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fuck you Chris. This isn't retroactively changing anything. There was an obviously tiny number of people participating in those discussion. Like much else you aspies have tried to press through it was on a page that nobody would have noticed if they didn't refresh Recent Changes 1 a minute like you do. The discussion apparently isn't over. Take a nap. 67.175.209.251 (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 25+ is tiny? Ty JFBAA 05:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's not exactly the honest response, buddy. There was a vast number of pages on that list getting added over time. And the fact that it, like so many other discussions of things that get rammed through occurred on a page only people who obsessively refresh recent changes would even notices is hardly evidence of consensus. Basically, cool your heals. If you want to be productive make a template that lets people know this shit ain't done. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 05:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it was all created at once. The voting lasted for months, you yourself participated. In fact you kicked the whole thing off, . Then when people tried to salvage pages by putting them in their user space, you deleted them . And this happened.  Ty JFBAA 05:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok I'm assuming bad faith now. [I'm not on a campaign to scrub CP material from the wiki. Some of it is critically important to the mission. I'm interested in seeing us rid of the stuff that makes us look like a bunch of spasmodic 13 year olds. 00:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)] Ghostface Editah (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't kick a fucking thing off. I voted my conscience on some of the deletions. which are still fine with me. But I missed a lot of it. Ghostface Editah (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You were the instigator. You let the genie out. Deal with it. Ty JFBAA 06:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't have the balls to say that to my face. It's bullshit. Ghostface Editah (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh and seriously just got to bed if you think conflating my objection to some sockpuppet asshole restoring certain pages amounts to my tacit support for THIS. Ghostface Editah (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Smacks of dishonesty of my fucking god if this wasn't the heart of your culture war I'd sit back chuckling, but you know there were people here who put a lot into this namespace who cared a lot about it never could have possibly seen the obscure forum you all set up here to decide its fate. 05:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I have a legit beef against crummy CP pages. I didn't instigate this. Wow. Are you really that desperate? Am I the one who said delete it all? You know I don't think so and my voting record on what I caught reflects that. Man up. I just lost respect for you. Ghostface Editah (talk) 06:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And most of what was good was saved. And no, only Phantoom Hoover said delete it all. If you bother to look, you'll notice I voted to keep some. Ty JFBAA 06:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The idea that you had to be obsessively refreshing recent changes to see this is laughable&mdash;indeed, you had to be doing that to see anything but the page, at least until Trent acted to entirely remove it from RC for that very reason. Meanwhile a sitewide intercom was put up and there were plenty of other ways to learn about it if you managed to miss that. Some people, like human, may not have voted themselves, but he certainly knew about it as would almost everyone else. The clusterfuck was so enduring that it picked up again after the goatse attack and was still going a month later. The vote never actually closed, but people did lose interest eventually. Damo's votes today are therefore perfectly valid, but don't change any results. The issue of who started it is as irrelevant as the "but redlinks" reason used to restore the pages in the first place.

Somebody suggested that we have (another) vote. On what, and why? Peter mqzp 06:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This place runs on consensus more than it does on the result of votes. Many of those pages were deleted on the basis of many considered votes that ensured that even those who disagree would accept the decision. 5 votes to delete such important articles don't generate a consensus.  I, for one, do not accept that decision.  This being Rationalwiki, there is not much you can do about it except wheel war, compromise or attempt to reach a consensus.  For mine, I think the current compromise is a good solution, let Ace host the page. DamoHi 07:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's going to object to that compromise, least of all me. Peter mqzp 08:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ace thinks that is a good idea. Ace will also refer to himself in the third person unless you decide to refer to yourself in the second person which you wonder why no one has done so since Bright Lights, Big City was written. You mull over this and finish the beers. Acei9 08:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Your edits
I will say you made the article better, but I'd rather you didn't made snide remarks in the edit summary. L'homme de la Perspective Discusez? 05:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the term is self-deprecating rather than snide and I'm afraid I always make such remarks when editing. It certainly wasn't directed towards you or anyone else if that was what you were worried about.  What else should we put in that article do you think?  Do they have any chance of getting any seats?  --DamoHi 06:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * SORRY! I completely misread that... I don't think they do. I'll work on it more today. L'homme de la Perspective Discusez? 22:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Concerning revision
Please be aware that this revision was highly questionable. There is nothing in the OP of that discussion that is rape related. Therefore, we can gather that such posts are off topic. If you do not want perpetual discussions about rape, than I suggest that you refrain constantly bringing it up. –Inquisitor Sasha 03:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you blathering on about? --DamoHi 03:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Racism
I see you are biased against racists. Any interest in contributing to Bigotry Wiki? –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 20:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest, probably not. I think more good can be done at a (slightly) more mainstream wiki like this one than at sectional specific wikis like bigotry wiki, or feminist wiki etc.  Good luck with your project if you think it worth pursuing, but I suggest you make use of the facilities here instead.  --DamoHi 21:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree. I have a small group there, so that should help growth, but this wiki would also be a good place since it's already well established.  This isn't specifically for that topic, so some stuff might fall off mission.  I plan to use both, since a lot of what I write there can go here.  I could include external links to topics covered in more detail there, provided that it's relevant to the article here.  –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 02:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Unblock
Thanks for that. I am genuinely interested in the truth of these matters. Mikemikev (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW My IP has vandal status. Can you change that? Mikemikev (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Leoesb1032
Alright, don't dock my time back for this, I have been making constructive edits! I've been adding snark which is what a lot of this website revolves around and making discussions on controversial articles talk pages. What exactly are you suggesting is constructive? Leoesb1032 (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC) P.S.- It's okay to call North Korea "People's Democratic Republic of Bullshit" but not add one small joke about Cheney!?
 * To be honest mate I think you are going to find it hard going getting accepted here. Judging from your userpage it appears there isn't a conspiracy theory you don't believe in.  Whilst believing in a wide array of conspiracy theories is not grounds for removal from the site, if you want respect you will need to make well-sourced and appropriate edits and contributions to talk pages.  From what I have seen, most of your edits lately revolve around whinging about content, moving established pages, adding nonsensical "notes" to important articles, adding juvenile snark (sic) to articles and complaining about not being a sysop yet.  Not promising.  --DamoHi 01:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you consider mentoring me? Leoesb1032 (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am a bad choice because I hardly ever post here anymore. Besides, you don't need a mentor; just make sure everything you post is well-verified and appropriate for this site.  If you are posting about some theory that most people think is bunk then be doubly sure that you have strong evidence to support your postings.  DamoHi 01:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I really appreciate your advice and I'll follow it as best I can. Leoesb1032 (talk)

Mansplaining and what not
Just wanted to say this where it woudln't get lost. I wasn't saying YOU were "edu-splaining", i was saying that if you go up to someone in an argument, where they really care about what they are talking about, and say "yeah, but that's just semantics", it comes off as a shut down of the conversation, and a put down. "I have more education than you, and say things like 'semantics', and "metatheory" and other words to get off the point. I'm really sorrry that the way I wrote that, came off as I thought YOU were saying to me, "it's semantics".  that was not my intent.Godot  The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability  16:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I wasn't trying to imply that the topic was not interesting or relevant, just that it is often very easy for people to get caught up in arguments about labels when the main point of contention is that people use those labels differently.  I know that I do it all the time.  --DamoHi 20:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)