User talk:Hastur/archive1

Try your best. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 03:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

User was banned for this post
I'm sick of red exclamation points and you seem construcvish. Therefore, you are now a sysop ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 22:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * lolwut? you get flags when I post links, is that it? talk about a pain in the ass anti-spam measure.  but thank you, I'm proud to join the other 600 sysops here :)--Brxbrx (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I get red exclamation points everytime you edit. Here is your manualТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 22:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * wow. does that mean I'll get them too?--Brxbrx (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am going to insert an oily red exclamation point into an orifice of yours. Ace of Spades 22:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * *happy place, happy place* --Brxbrx (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

As a self-professed ED editor
Are the people at ED still vandalizing CP? If so, why? --Leotardo (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. no, thcp's too much of a pain to get an account on now. too much effort for too little lulz
 * 2. look at the version history of the "Dora the Explorer" article. That's why.  Hilarious.  At least in my eyes.--Brxbrx (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No big deal
Hey, I voted it up but your edit on WIGO went slightly in the wonrg place...the correct place is AFTER the commented out section where the line begins with Best of bot starts here -->. I picked this link 'casue it shows proper placement so that other people can kinds sorta see where the new WIGOs go. But like the header says it's no big deal, at least you didn't bork the thing like I do. 00:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * thanks for the heads up--Brxbrx (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

capture tags
don't forget to put capture tags around links you post from CP; if you don't want to type, there's a shortcut button beneath the save button that'll paste them in for you. άλφα Talk 09:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hammering wandals
Ta for dealing with that cheery guy. Take a look at Help:How to handle vandalism for advice on dispensing great justice. We use the vandal break, and if that doesn't stop them - consider a ban measured in hours. Three months is a bit harsh, even if the guy is a prize wang. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 09:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Francais?
Vraiment? D'ou? P-Foster (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Restoring deleted images
Images or posts that have been deleted for the reason that they violate our RationalWiki:Privacy policy should not be restored just because you want to "see it for a second" as this totally defeats the purpose of it. Do it again and I will have no choice but to come to your talkpage and tell you this a second time. Or I'll ban you forever depending on what mood I'm in, or if I remember. Which I won't. Because I don't really care that much. However, various editors who like to complain about things (or enforce rules, depending on which way you look at it) might notice, so watch out for them. 19:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyway, sysops can view deleted images without restoring them. 19:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * how?--Brxbrx (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just in case you didn't already find a way to do this, because I didn't until I messed around with it earlier tonight, look at the fossil record towards the bottom of the page when viewing something that was deleleted. " If you merely wish to view the contents of a deleted page without restoring it, do not click the "restore" option, but rather click one of the blue linked diffs below "File history" or "Page history" on this page.". 21:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The next time you block someone with a homophobic slur
I will do something very mean and nasty. And be quite indignant. Thank you. P-Foster (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

9 hour block for feeding the troll.
The trollery has to get to a much more epic level than that to warrant that kind of block. P-Foster (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The BON block
...was totally unjustified, Thanks. P-Foster (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

that block
Marcus = Occasionaluse = Duke. Marcus blocked his own sock to try to get some more HCM.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do go on... Occasionaluse (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

ugh
sockpuppet wankery always confuses me--Brxbrx (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL!

And the hand is overplayed... MarcusCicero (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * being accused of being you brings back such fond memories... Occasionaluse (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * But I am you and you me? This is so confusing. MarcusCicero (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "...and you are we, and we are all together. See how they run, like pigs from a largely defensive weapon of gun." P-Foster (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rest assured, P-Foster, that you will never be mistaken for us. NEVER. 20:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

racism block
I think the cabal will argue that you can block for racism because "it's against the rules". You can't block for stupidity because it isn't. The trick is that you have to completely ignore that racism might be a form of stupidity. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Good luck...
...on your job interview. PACODOGwoof, bitches 18:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks, but it was an interview for a cashier position, and I failed the requisite math test. I think I'm officially too stupid for this wiki--Brxbrx (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can help you with math if you need help. ТyUser_talk:Ty 20:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, most of us here probably are bad at math anyway. ТyUser_talk:Ty 20:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

First and only warning.
Stop with the stupid blocks or lose the privilege. Your choice. -- PsyGremlin  14:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * God dammit. I was about to pull a "Hey what's this button do" but you're giving him another chance? Fuck man. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What can I say, I'm just a big softie. -- PsyGremlin  14:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I get the feeling I was only given block rights so I could be hazed. Stupid blocks?  Have I been hallucinating when looking at the block log?  If so, tell me.  It's important that I report it to my therapist.  Seriously, what is your problem?--Brxbrx (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you'd blocked a non-sysop. Non-sysops can't unblock themselves, so they are only to be blocked for legit reasons (e.g. unfunny vandalism, threats). You're free to block any and all sysops at will. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I blocked him for a DAY. Big deal.--Brxbrx (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the point we're trying to get across. We don't block non-sysops for bullshit because we want them to stick around and become sysops so we can block them. Block a guy on his first day and he might not come back. What's your fucking problem with this lesson? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * if a block is warranted, do we want him coming back? And again: one day.  Sorry I blocked your sock--Brxbrx (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC)Users who can't unblock themselves should only be unilaterally blocked for vandalism, spamming or clear and obvious trolling. Short blocks for stuff like edit warring should only be handed out after discourse on the relevant talk page has failed and with the agreement of some other sysops. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 20:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * very well--Brxbrx (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * YES. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

God I'm sick of noobs
This guy doesn't get the heritage, and doesn't understand what is wrong with a 24 hour block. Can someone remove his sysop privileges before the founding Gods of Rationalwiki unleash their fury upon us? MarcusCicero (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For Fuc's sake Marcus. Lay off with the multiple socks why don't you?
 * Ewwwww MC is back? Gross man - he reminds me of Nutty's multiple unctuous sores and anal leakages. Ace of Spades 11:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yay, Marcus! Keep them on their toes. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

First and Only?
I think it's time he lose the privilege until becoming a bit more familiar with RW. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't do that, part 8
Here is the order you do things in --


 * 1) Think about your justification for blocking someone.
 * 2) Block them.

Step one is quite important, so remember not to skip it. If I were still a Bureaucrat, you wouldn't even be getting this warning. Grow the fuck up. Mei III (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * well, I suppose that the grown up thing to do would be to ignore this post, but I haven't been feeling particularly "grown up" lately, so here goes

Now, let's also consider something. I blocked him for (zomg!) 2 DAYS! Why is everybody flipping out? Have I really been so grievous in my actions?--Brxbrx (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Occasionaluse was trolling and using multiple accounts to do so.
 * 2) I took the opportunity his promotion presented to block him so that he could shut up and stew in his own stupidity.
 * 1.MarcusCicero is not Occasionaluse. MC being his sock is just a joke from before your time.
 * 1.1. You suck at guessing socks.
 * 2. Ohoho! I know. We don't do that. He's an established member of this community, even if you don't get along with him. You don't block him during the time he can't unblock himself, because that makes you a dick. Don't block people you don't like to make them shut up.
 * 3. I don't care how long it was for. The rules don't say '...unless it's just for two days, in which case do whatever you feel like'. Mei III (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"Why is everybody flipping out? Have I really been so grievous in my actions?"

- brxbrx


 * Because you broke the rules and you're being a jerk. Pretty straightforward actually. I'm going out now, but I hope to witness more epic sulking later. Ciao! ^___^ Mei III (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm being a jerk? Have we forgotten occasionaluse in all of this?--Brxbrx (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Tu quoque, two wrongs don't make a right, etc., etc. One of the nice things of this wiki is that logical fallacies can be easily pointed out. :)--ZooGuard (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * my point is, I'm only being perceived as a jerk for blocking a jerk. Why isn't Mei berating occasionaluse on his talkpage anyways?--Brxbrx (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A two day block is a big deal around these parts. I'm not sure how we can make you understand that. Blocking open proxies is an even bigger deal. Being a jerk isn't nearly as big of a deal. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Let us just establish something. You are an annoying noob and had better learn his place rather quikcly. We've dispatched proto fascists from here before. The more annoying members of this site are wikipedians, inundated with policies and block wank fetishes. This is your final warning. MarcusCicero (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am going to enforce that final warning above, Mr. Brxbrx. If you wish to retain your blocking powers, please follow the community "rules." That is the best way to help the site. 22:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh heh. "Part 8". Because you keep disregarding rules. You rebel. 22:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Me and my sister when I was a cheerleader


Im the one on the left and Im in a Charlotte Warriors Pop Warner uniform. The one on the right is my sister Kristen and shes in a Charlotte Tarpon uniform from Charlotte High School. Happy? Ex-Troll CheerleaderGive me a G, give me an O, give me an A, give me a T, give me an S.GOATS! &hearts; 01:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * sure--Brxbrx (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

testing
---brxbrx 01:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC) shit. this was a miserable failure. I can't remember the markup I used for my sig on ED
 * Take a look at my old sig on here RationalWiki talk:Fundraiser. ТyUser_talk:Ty 01:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * it works! ty, TY--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 11:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Foucault
If you like Foucault, you should check out Nikolas Rose. He's like Foucault for the 21st century. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * well, like is a strong word. I am fascinated by many of his ideas, but am quite turned off by his endorsement of pedophilia, for example.  I'll check this guy out, thanks--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 06:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

'post some nudes, post some nudes'
Jackass. What would you do if someone from outside the site actually thought you spoke on our behalf? Mei III (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This was my thought. Nothing about me being a prude..  (trust me, I'm not)  oh, and she claims to be under age...    01:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Where, exactly, is 18 underage? 15:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry.--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 01:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I see a promotion in your future!
Prolly not, but please try to refrain from shooting-from-the-hip. 04:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * I don't see how my statement was so vulgar in comparison, to, say, something Ace McWicked would post. In fact, scroll to the top of my talkpage.  See for yourself.--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 04:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh it wasn't the vulgarity (as such) that I was referring to, rather the rapidity if the edit would seem to suggest that maybe you didn't think the whole post through and maybe you'll comment it out, you know, once you've had time to think it through. 04:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * thinking is for pussies. real men act without though for consequence or content. noob.--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 04:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay MC you win this one. 04:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * I was joking. and I'm not mc--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 09:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ohmigodit'smccallthefloridadepartmentoffbdusogifdbgresgfsjaiopgrbsdfkehsdbgijadshfboaaaagriculture. 09:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

RW:CS, part umpty
"An editor's user page, and other pages in their user space, is their personal space and they are free to do with it what they want." Please respect our rules or feel free to GTFO. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * fuck you. you're only here to troll. don't talk to me about the rules.--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 14:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition, either issue fun blocks, turn off IP blocking, or expect to be promoted abnd you can fuck off back to one of your ED forks. -- PsyGremlin  14:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Pathetic
I remember RW before the likes of you were around (An odious little creep) Just fuck off back to Wikipedia or whatever nerd hole you crawled out of. Your pathetic litte userpage essay is a disgrace. MarcusCicero (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * so you ARE here to contribute, and not to troll. good to know.--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 16:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of red link
Brxbrx,

In the course of my recent efforts to rid RationalWiki of red links, I created a redirect page for "Note even wrong" in order to forward it to "Not even wrong." This redirect page was necessitated by an entry appearing in the archived "RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK?/Archive12." That entry, appearing as "Overruled" in the text, was red-linked to the page "Note even wrong," an obvious typo. My redirect page then removed the red link and properly linked the entry as intended by its author.

Subsequently, you deleted my redirect page. See here for details. Your deletion of my redirect page had the effect of restoring the red link in the ASK archive page.

My question to you is:

How would you suggest I address the red link in the uneditable ASK archive page without the use of a redirect?

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

zieber (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we should indulge a typo on a talkpage archive. There are far more important redlinks.  If you feel so strongly about it, go ahead.--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 19:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your prompt reply. I believe I will tend to other red links for now and readdress this one at a later date. zieber (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Multicolor overlaps
That is so 1997. Z-Rex (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * aaaargggghhhhh! 2 edits for that?  you are torturing meeeeeeeeee!--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 23:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandal block
We have been targeted lately by a spammer adding obscene pictures from Wikimedia Commons to articles. It is likely that "Dopplema" is the latest incarnation thereof. 04:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well. But please, edit my talk page with care.  Next time something like this happens, simply reblock the person and leave me a message for the block description.  Thank you.--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 04:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I unblocked him. Hardly block worthy. That picture isn't even explicit- now if it was an anus or vagina, I would endorse such a block. Rationalize (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit my talk page sparingly.--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 15:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You do realise that you have next to no say on who says what on your talk page, yes? 15:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't want an email notification after every edit then modify your preferences. 15:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would prefer it if I got an e-mail each day someone edits my talkpage. As it is, I can only get an e-mail each time, or no emails at all.  I politely ask people to not make edits to  my talkpage; it isn't a rule, it's a request.--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 16:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You get an orange message box at the top of the page when someone posts on your talk page, what more do you really need? 16:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * E-mail. And you're torturing me on purpose aren't you?  Well, I am making it pretty easy, I suppose...--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 16:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Streisand effect, natch. Z-Rex (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't edit this page at all if you weren't such an annoying little fuck.
C ® ackeЯ
 * I love you too.--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 16:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh hey there!  -- 16:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ROAR!!!!! Z-Rex (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Vote!
C ® ackeЯ
 * ROAR! Z-Rex (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we voting on whether or not I am an "annoying little fuck"?--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 19:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think you're an "annoying little fuck", but I'm deeply suspicious of your sense of humour if you think ED worth saving. Besides, it would be wrong to vote on your status as an "annoying little fuck" without first determining how tall you are. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we just doing this so that my email inbox has a full page of mail just from Wiki Admin? An interesting scheme.--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 20:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Posting pointless messages just to bother you with emails would be juvenile. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * lol--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 23:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Jamming the rewind button
BECAUSE IT DIDN'T ACTUALLY FIX ANYTHING. Things changed, but nothing got any closer to being fixed... in fact, it only broke things worse. -- 22:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We are on our way to electing new crats and making some clear rules.  Nutty Roux and MarcusCicero migt be throwing bitch-fits, but that doesn't mean we aren't moving towards a good place.  We need responsible crats, and we need an anti-trolling policy.--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 22:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And we were on our way towards that before ADK and Nx nuked all the user rights. -- 22:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I think we were just pointlessly debating.  I say, what's done is done.  Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go waste my youth and act very irresponsibly by not filling in job applications and not finishing up on my requirements for Assistant Nursing School while eating my dwindling food supply and watching American Dad.  Yes.  American Dad.  Any doubts as to my intellectual bankruptcy are now officially dispelled.  I don't deserve to edit here...--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 22:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shit at least put on Family Guy or something... -- 22:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Crat nomination
Just a heads up, you need to bold your name and sign here if you accept. -- Nx  / talk 08:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Jacobins
I'm in. --ǓḤṂ³ 20:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rock on! Let's hope we get somewhere.--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 20:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not how elections work
"people in power need to be elected for their reasonableness and emotional stability, not their popularity or time spent here." It's the idea of how they're supposed to work, but it's impossible to stop them from devolving into a popularity contest. Mostly because people relate "reasonableness" and "emotional state" with people that they like, and the opposite to people that they do not like. Look at Obama, he's perfectly reasonable, and quite emotionally stable. But yet there are people on the right and libertarian sides who would rant about how he's not... or some other reason. -- 22:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * that's why I support crats for life. This is still a relatively small group, and we won't have our judgement impaired my mass mentality.  Putting someone like Ty in charge would be a super idea.  Someone like human would be a super stupid idea.  he did, after all, decrat blue over butthurt that she wouldn't let him crat someone without prior discussion.--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 22:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But what happens when your shining example of all that is great in the world suddenly becomes a mudslinging idiot, like all humans are prone to do. None of us are perfect, and none of us will eternally remain reasonable or emotionally stable. When I was elected to the Board, I imagine that Psygremlin put a vote in towards me... from all his comments, it would seem he now would regret such a choice if it be true he made it. Human would have been elected "crat for life" well before you ever arrived, and at a time when no one questioned his reasonableness or emotional stability. Only now, through the polarizing method of "short attention spans" are both Human and I presented as crazy weirdos who are out of line. Of course, we could engage in mud slinging campaigns against people that we don't like, but then we're too apt to take a position that no one here deserves to be cut out just because people dislike that person... I think Mara is rotten to the core, and would block him in a heartbeat if I were dictator for life... but it's a good thing that my personal opinions don't get trotted out like they mean something objectively. -- 22:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * there would, of course, be rules for the crats to abide by. Unless all of them go nuts at once, it's safe to say that any crat gone renegade would swiftly be removed from power.--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 22:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're assuming so much, which is why "elected for life" positions rarely work well at all. What incentive do the other crats have to knock someone out of their ranks? Perhaps the person is lightly flakey, but anyone else likely to make it in at this point would be really flakey. They also now know this person better than you, as they likely spend more time talk to them, and they comment, "whenever we're hanging out, they seem totally reasonable and trustworthy... this action was an anomaly blown out of proportion by a lynch mob." -- 22:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're being a cynic. Also, remember that RW is not the US federal government.  Think of these 7 crats solutiob the Jacobins support as the Supreme Court and the police rolled into one, but without the serious business--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 23:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But without the SRS BSNSS, then what reason do they have to kick a person off the board for being a dick. This whole webpage was founded by dicks for dicks to be dicks to people in the anti-science world, more specifically at CP and the right wing in general. Our mainspace article used to suggest that a sysop from CP was a pederast, and our Ann Coulter article tacitly suggested that she has gone through a sex change operation. And requiring "emotional stability" would likely exclude every single person who has LANCB... No one is perfect and at some point, someone is going to do something that makes you question their sanity. Here, it happens a lot, because we're allowed to throw maturity out the window and act like idiot kids in a shoving match... it's the entire baseline for the humor on this site. -- 23:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We can be rationalwiki and still be polite to each other.--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 23:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Polite isn't how science is done There's already a webpage for people to have polite discussions on matters this is where the science side whips out its dick, smacks anti-science in the face and jizzes out a huge pearl necklace. That has always been the purpose of this webpage... to be a no-holds-back commentary about the stupidity of anti-science and authoritarianism. -- 23:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We can be polite to each other. SPOV preserved, naturally.  The trolling I complain about (and perhaps partake in...) has nothing to do with science--Foucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpg-brxbrx 23:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But here's the big point... there is a hypocrisy in demanding and enforcing us to not troll each other... what special pleading is there to justify such a selective enforcement of civility? Because it's "us"? and they're "them"? It seems kind of vague, and inappropriate. What of people like Maratrean who spew crank ideas all over our webpage? Should we exclude him for being a crank? Where then do we draw the line? If people like MC are allowed to roam free, then we have a controlled infection of trolls... blocking them or vandal braking them isn't going to solve anything, he socks up and uses proxies all to hell. Like I said, all your ideas are naive, and vaguely authoritarian in nature. -- 23:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not believe users such as JimJast and Maratrean to be a problem. There's plenty of room for odd essays.  JimJast and maratrean do not attack people.  What I want is for users to treat each other civilly.  That is not a hard concept to grasp.  Also, MarcusCicero is not the only troll here.  Note that any rules I support are not against trolls. but against trolling.  True, ridding ourselves of MC would be no small feat.  But de-privileging and blocking users who attack each other maliciously would not break the wiki.  Ideally, it would discourage such behavior from sincere users.  As an example, I would cite Nutty Roux's attacks on Ty.  They very clearly did not contribute to the mission of this wiki, and should have been semantically punished (as in a punishemnt that is more than just the social rebike of a few editors) for his actions, that he and others may think twice about doing something like that.  We can get along.  We can be civil.  --Foucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpg-brxbrx 23:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, this is special pleading. What makes intrawiki civility better than extrawiki civility? Why are we so much better than them? -- 23:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Because we're speaking directly to each other. Imagine speaking to a friend about politics, and calling members of a certain party rude names.  Would you say the same to someone of that party?  Politeness dictates that we not directly antagonize each other.  Furthermore, we are not in the practice of spewing bile.  You are confusing SPOV with FUCKING PSEUODOSCIENTISTS CAN SUCK MY GREAT GRANDFATHER'S PUTREFIED COCK LET THEM ALL BURN IN HELL .--Foucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpg-brxbrx 23:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Theamazingatheist on why Maturity is retarded -- 00:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

topic #2

 * As a second topic for discussion, you stated that letting human be part of the "new government" would be a really stupid idea. Why? What actual rational argument do you have to present there? -- 23:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * His prior actions have shown he cannot be trusted to responsibly wield the powers of the bureaucrat.--Foucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpg-brxbrx 23:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What a wonderfully vague answer... so you just dislike the guy then? -- 23:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See his chicken cooping.--Foucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpg-brxbrx 23:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Which never found him accountable... so, now it's simply necessary that a person be cooped and that's good enough reason to kick them out of ever being a moderator? Shall we then include in the list Psygremlin? Yourself? your pre-approved Tyrannis? The Chairman of the Board of Trustees Goonie? Nx? Or all of those people excluded from "cannot be trusted" because they're not fresh in the memory? -- 23:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ideally, there would be rules in place which Human would have violated. He would then be tried, and likely removed from his position.  Perhaps he could be judged repentant, and he could remain eligible for future elections, or preserve his postion altogether.  Keep in mind that my ideas about how this site should be run are not retroactive.  This would all be for future disputes, and again, ideally, we would have a protocol to follow in case of violations.--Foucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpg-brxbrx 23:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, so even though you think electing Human to be a crat for life would be monumentally stupid, you would still allow him to run, because no such "decency" rules are or were in effect when he committed any of his "atrocities". So, why even bring the matter up? -- 23:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * An example--Foucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpg-brxbrx 00:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, this too
Could you include a link to your talk page somewhere in your sig? That way people can one-click head over to your talk page to post discussions that are bound to run off-topic where they stand. -- 22:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * no, because I want to force people to read my user page as much as possible. Devious, isn't it?  Jk.  I'll think of something.--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 22:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * my new sig:--Foucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpg-brxbrx 23:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

eggplant
1. cut in rings, and salt (i believe for a few hours actually- to make sure all the water is out, and then remove all the salt)

2. dry very well, dip in an egg bath and then dip in some bread crumbs. Repeat if you want.

3. heat up some olive oil and make sure it's super hot.

4. Shallow fry until brown. S + P

Enjoy! Rationalize (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * User noted that his only source of cooking was a rice cooker/steamer. -- 23:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * .... you don't have a pan and a stove?!? how do you live! Rationalize (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a stove, but I don't pay for gas. An electric rice cooker is how I procure my warm meals.  I've attempted to grill bread using a space heater, but to no avail.--Foucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpg-brxbrx 23:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Potato, cauliflower, eggplant curry or masala would work in a rice cooker. You can't really steam or pressure cook it unless it's meant to end up soupy. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

SO Sorry!
Sorry, I made a mistake when I tried to edit your talk page, I didn't mean to blank it. You should be a bit more tolerant of new users. I see that I was blocked and (since I tried to edit this before and found I couldn't) in something called a "vandal bin". Thank you very much, I make one mistake AND suddenly I'm a blockable vandal. Have fun with your stupid wiki. Good-bye. BD You really should pick one or the another as a "punishment" but not both. Cripes. BD
 * We don't believe you.--Foucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpg-brxbrx 23:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As you wish. How long does this "vandal bin" thing last? C ® ackeЯ 00:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * sockpuppet wankery confuses me--Foucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpg-brxbrx 00:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

archiving
How would I go about archiving this? Is there a way to preserve revisions and keep active topics?---brxbrx 23:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * srsly, is there an easy way to archive?--Foucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpg-brxbrx 00:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly? not that I know of... I did my archiving manually. -- 00:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * did you keep revisions, and have relevant topics remain on your page?--Foucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpg-brxbrx 00:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally, I've never had a lot of conversations on my page before this the most recent of HCMs. And so I just moved stuff over. There weren't any revision information kept (but the revision information is all kept in the main talk page anyways.) and uh... I just didn't worry about active conversations, because like I said, I didn't have any. -- 00:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)