User:NeutronTaste

Random talks with TK. Explanation of backstory + more emails to come!

He:

I wanted to call your attention to our Conservapedia Commandments and associated Guidelines.

You have been in violation of them several times. I have tried to communicate with you via your talk page, and have never received a response. Accordingly, since you have long ago proved yourself to not be interested in actually assisting CP in its conservative and Christian encyclopedia project, but rather there to contest our POV, refute it, insert bad parody or over-the-top supposedly conservative comments, that is unacceptable. We have an absolute right of free association. We are not compelled by law or morality to entertain viewpoints contrary to our own, nor do we wish to provide a platform to those who disagree without some substantive contributions in content to those areas not subject to idealogical dispute. Your only interest, it is clear, is constant talk, talk, talk.

Accordingly I have removed you as a user.

Godspeed to you.

--TK

Myself:

Parody? Such as this: "Well, that's gratitude for you! Barack has personally saved the auto industry, guaranteeing all the new car warranties, saved the banks and investment firms, personally assuming the hundreds of thousands of bad mortgages and giving houses to those who can no longer afford to make the payments on them! And after all that, Barack is going to give each of us health insurance and save the environment from global warming. Still that isn't enough for you! What more must he do to prove he cares? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:27, 25 June 2009 (EDT)"

I don't understand that accusation at all, since parody seems to be A-OK in your book.

I suppose I could have taken the easy route and logged 100 bad, stubby edits (AKA: "Good edits, on par with admins!") to keep my talk/edit ratio peachy-keen, but if the idea is that users are constantly editing just to keep from getting banned, then WHAT IS THE POINT? No wonder CP seems to be lorded over by 4 or 5 of you guys! Everyone else gave up when they realized they couldn't have a decent discussion about the future direction of an articles' development without staccato, lazy edits in between to keep the bullies appeased?

Another thing - shouldn't you value having your beliefs challenged, hammered-out, examined, etc? Are you only a Conservative as long as it's easy, as long as you're not being questioned? That is cowardly and weak beyond words.

By the way, I would like you to clarify the phrase "over-the-top". What is this "top" that you speak of? I'll grant you that there's a certain point where something is no longer a conservative viewpoint. But you have got to be kidding me if you think ANYTHING I said is beyond the Conservapedian pale. You guys look down and see "the top". The amount of hate-talk that goes on there proves that any "Christians" on CP are just pimple-assed angry dudes who happen to go to Church. Quote Jesus for me, go ahead, do it. While you're at it, send me the time-stamped edits you made to my talk page. I do not recall getting them, and doubt the supposed attempts to contact me were ever made.

See you guys later!

He:

This isn’t your little kiddie vandal wiki, you have no right to demand, stomp your little feet and have a trantrum. I posted to your talk page twice, and made other edit comments one would have thought someone who didn’t have their head....well, never mind. Godspeed to you! --TK Myself: I hope that little fortune-cookie declamations are a much easier copy-paste job than it would have been to simply paste the supposed "talk page posts" (with time-stamps!), otherwise you are lazier than I thought.

I have to hand it to you though: Bad grammar ("This isn’t your little kiddie vandal wiki, you have no right to demand..."), avoidance of actual counterpoints, simplistic "I say so!" argument (now featuring a follow-up of "I said so!"), and attempts to seem both humorous/reserved.

If I take that E-mail like a pill, will I get my RDA of Conservapedia?