User talk:ListenerX/Archive3

Decratting
Per the Saloon Bar (5 for, 4 against), you have been nominated for the removal of Bureaucrat rights. Please hand them in by 6 PM GMT or they will be forcibly removed. 15:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What??? The poll hasn't even been opened for 24 hours! Give the man a chance! 15:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm, I make it 4 support (Neveruse voted twice if you look) and 10 against. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not make the rules, merely uphold them. I counted 5 bullet points on the support side and only four against. As this is the established method of vote counting, I'm afraid he has to go. I'm not happy with it either, but such is the will of the mob. Mr X, you have fifteen minutes to hand in your bureaucracy. 17:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We should wait and see if he decides to impose any more imaginary rules on the voting before he decides what the outcome is. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bullet points are votes? Since when? Totnesmartin (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if they are, the vote stands at 5 against de-cratting and 6 for it. And 1 goat. 17:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. 6 for, 5 against. Listener, your bureaucracy expired three minutes ago. You have not turned in your powers, so they will have to be forcibly removed. 18:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There are five support votes: 2 of them are most likely joke votes (Weaseloid and Theemperor), the other three are from two trolls. I hope you're not being serious PH. -- Nx  / talk 18:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am being perfectly serious! Retract your accusation or I may press charges. And restore that fine upstanding gentleman who has nothing whatsoever to do with me, Moriarty, to his previous position! 18:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One crat sock per person. Them's the rules. -- Nx  / talk 18:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What sort of absurdity is this‽ I demand a public apology! Moriarty is totally separate to myself. 18:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh for gods sake people, grow a sense of humour. EdmundBurke (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to tell whether you're serious or not over the internet. Also the "I was just joking stop being so serious" excuse is lame. -- Nx  / talk 19:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nx is a fucking bitch who doesn't get humor and lives and dies for this wiki. Forgive him if he's a bossy little prick or just a fuckwit. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't get your "humor", that's true. -- Nx  / talk 19:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have the same problem, although it's more frequent with certain editors. -- 19:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can generally go by how absurd something something sounds. PH left many hints for those of you who might understand wit. EdmundBurke (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the prose was a bit over the top, which is why I originally avoided commenting. It seemed a bit like MarcusCicero's style, except PH didn't sign-off with a little dig, as MC often would. Ah, a bit like you did. Thanks for the demonstration. -- 19:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Like MC? I feel... sullied... 19:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hurling random insults at people &ne; wit. -- Nx  / talk 19:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * PH was being funny. He was not being offensive. End of story. If you don't find it funny, don't comment, or get a less stressful hobby (Like playing computer games) EdmundBurke (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to Ph. -- Nx  / talk 20:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought "One crat sock per person. Them's the rules" was the funniest joke above. 22:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely this proposal should have gone through Administrative Abuse? 00:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

'an actual namespace'
Thanks. --  = w =  07:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your WIGO
Do you mind if I tweak it a bit? This is amazing. Corry (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tweak away. 04:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, then, have a look. This is quite a catch.  Corry (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice touch. Corry (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Challenge
Can you name ONE thing a Haitian businessman man can't do that a US businessman can due to the "socialist" restraints of Haiti? 23:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep hold of his business if a competitor has it in for him? 00:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But that is a regulation (forbidding takeovers and murder), not a freedom...freedom is the ability to do stuff. Regulation is the forbidding of certain actions.  Don't phrase something in the positive just to make it seem like a freedom when it really is a regulation.


 * you don't honestly believe the American economy is more free than the Haitian one, do you?  01:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here you go: Setting up a business in Haiti takes 218 days minimum, versus 6 days. Researcher (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cgb07305, you have an odd conception of "freedom;" positive liberty is not the only kind. Besides, how is the persecuted businessman "free to do stuff" when he is likely to be killed for trying? 01:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, here is the info from the "Economic Freedom Index" (which, though run by Heritage, is pretty well accepted as the best measure you can get) Haiti is 147th in the world, as opposed to the US at number 6th in the world. You can look at the further breakdown on the page. Researcher (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought Haiti's problem was corruption, not socialism... 02:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, in any non-developed country, socialism breeds far more opportunities for corruption. You need to have a functioning economy (and all the "software" that goes with it) before you can really implement socialism; otherwise, you get giant messes.  Researcher (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What Researcher said. But even with the software, socialism makes corruption into a much more severe problem by instituting monopoly power on a large scale, which is most often held by corrupt people. 02:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are exceptions to this. Developed, social-democratic countries have managed to avoid the issues of corruption, by fostering a society in which corruption is not accepted.  Norway, Sweden, etc., are all doing just fine.  Researcher (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are not really exceptions; social(ist/-democratic) policies cannot make corruption into more of a problem if there is little corruption to make into a problem. 02:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, the software I meant was a commitment by all levels of society to the rule of law, the acceptance of courts as impartial arbiters, etc. In other words, that exact lack of corruption. (In other words, we are in agreement more than we thought.) Researcher (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. But even if the bureaucrats are honest they might still be stick-in-the-muds for one reason or another. 02:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

SCOTUS thing
I changed it to "make political ads during campaigns" because that's what the decision is. The fact that people are conflating this with "donations" to the campaign itself doesn't make them right. Just thought I'd pop in here to clarify why I re-reverted. 02:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The ruling was about political donations, if only at specific times and for specific purposes — i.e., corporations/unions were not only banned from making their own ads, but from financing any ads. If you mistrust Fox News, here is a more suitable source:  02:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Every place I read about it said it was about undoing the McCain-Feingold paid ads 30 days before primaries/60 days before elections clause. Nothing about campaign contributions.  Your link says the same thing.  03:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

WIGOS
Please do not adjust other peoples WIGO's. Acei9 06:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The WIGOs are in Conservapedia space and free for all to adjust. 06:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats a pretty shitty attitude. Acei9 06:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to follow. 06:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone posts a WIGO, LX decides "I dont like that but instead of voting it down, I'll just change it" which is not only a shitty stance to take its also hilarious coming from the most humourless fuck on this website. So pretty please, with sugar on top, don't fuck with other peoples wigos. Asshole . Acei9 06:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the votes are supposed to reflect the quality of the Conservapedia material being linked to rather than the literary skills of the individual WIGO writer. The votes, certainly, are inadequate to the latter task; many WIGOs are a collaborative effort, after all. 06:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I retract my earlier retraction. Asshole. Note above where someone politely asked you if they may tweak your posted wigo. Oh, and again - asshole. Acei9 06:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with LX on this, although I suspect the crappy wigo writer is as ego-involved with "his" (or "her") wigos as anyone else, if not more so. So I guess I'm also with Ace on this. 07:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WIGO's have always been a persons humourous observation upon how they see CP. Acei9 07:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC2) Asking my permission was entirely unnecessary; indeed, several WIGOs I initiated/updated have been changed without my input. I do not see the problem with this. The WIGO pages are not amalgamated Twitter-feeds, but a community effort. 07:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * People enjoy writing good WIGO's, people like to show their own take and humour upon a WIGO, its an outlet for how they see CP and like others to laugh. That is why we have the voting buttons - its not just for CP content but also the phrasing. It is a community effort in that we all have our own take on it. You start fucking with that then we have inane, stock phrase, WIGOS. Acei9 07:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not have the time just at present, but I shall at some point have to dig up large numbers of diff-links illustrating edits made to "other people's" WIGOs without the Wiki going to HCM 5. Or perhaps I should Make a Point by reverting all edits made to "my" WIGOs. 07:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it rude for someone to overwrite someone elses WIGO because "They don't like it". Go frot yourself LX. Acei9 07:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's fucking wiki, fergoatsake. If I see a crap wigo and it can be rewritten I do so.  What's the fuck up with the wigo ownership crap?  It's just as bad as article ownership, really. What's next, competing wigos on the same topic to see whose penis can get more votes?  07:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen! Please, can't we all just get along? 09:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

w
PROVE IT --  = w =  06:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You might try following the cites I put in the footnote... 06:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * NEVER --  = w =  06:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Making uninformed and wildly incorrect claims is another.
Making uninformed and wildly incorrect claims about silly and stupid beliefs is pretty common around here. Nut up. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The claim being disputed is not about any Odinist beliefs, but about the Norse myths. 05:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Who gives a fuck. It's fun and funny. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Amazing, how funny ignorant fools think they are. Once upon a time I thought I was being funny about the Bible; then I started reading it instead of quote-mining it.
 * Saying the Norse myths have no moral teachings to them is like saying that The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy contains no character named Zaphod Beeblebrox. There is nothing at all supernatural about this; it is simply incorrect. 05:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So tell us what those Norse myths have to say, somewhere? 07:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Read them yourself. The Havamal contains a bunch of sayings attributed to Odin; the Sigrdrifumal recounts the advice of a widely-traveled valkyrie to an heroic figure. These two poems alone were the basis for the Nine Noble Virtues and the Twelve Traits — ethical codes promoted by various Odinist/Asatru organizations. 07:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So write an RW article that defies the thingies we are built upon. PS, your "religion" is as lame as any I have heard of.  07:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) Wise is he not who is never silent, mouthing meaningless words. (2) The merits of Odinism are irrelevant to the correctness of this claim about the Norse myths. 07:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Your idiotic arguments for Asatru
I suppose you believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Russel's teapot, the sandwich in Tom's computer, that the universe was created last Thursday, that there is an invisible, intangible dragon in my garage, that the sky is really orange and we're all hallucinating and that we're all living in a computer simulation, then? 17:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If I'm reading his position right, he believes that they are rational, not necessarily scientific. He seems to only use reason against things, not for them. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) Only that the existence of such things as the Invisible Pink Unicorn cannot be ruled out a priori; they are unfalsifiable, are they not?
 * Neveruse is roughly correct; I only go so far as to say that observation tells us absolutely nothing about the Invisible Pink Unicorns, etc., so they cannot be ruled out on the basis of any observation. 17:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What we're interested in is how you rule these things (specifically Odinism) in. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Once everything has been set at level (Norse pantheon and no Norse pantheon equally plausible), that is simply a matter of personal preference. 17:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So Odinism is not something that you reasoned yourself into? Merely something which you personally prefer that you have not reasoned yourself out of? And you give equal plausibility to all unfalsifiable propositions regardless of the claims they make? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I did not "reason" myself into it, any more than anyone else "reasons" himself into his religious views. The only difference is that I do not delude myself that I did. 17:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We seem to have vastly different concepts of rationality if you think you aren't deluded by believing subscription to Odinism is rational. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What is your concept of it? 17:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That things are rational for reasons for them, not simply personal preference and the lack of acknowledged reasons against them. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember, I am not saying that Odinism is any more rational than most of its alternatives, including atheism (at least not concerning the metaphysical claims; this statement was made on other grounds).
 * Your concept of rationality does not jive with how science works (observations either falsify or do not falsify), and being irrational (not rational) generally entails acting contrary to reason, rather than being completely paralyzed in a situation where there are no reasons to take any particular course of action. 18:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your concept of rationality does not jive with how science works (observations falsify or do not falsify), and being rational (not irrational) generally entails having reason, rather than being being completely paralyzed in a situation where there are no reasons to take any particular course of action. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Echolalia much? 18:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that you assign all unfalsifiable propositions equal plausibility, it seems especially irrational that you would choose one given the probability of it being wrong is essentially 1 among the innumerable accepted possibilities. Have you accepted any other propositions with no evidence whatsoever (empirical or otherwise)? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly; "there is no God," when I was an atheist. And if all unfalsifiable propositions have equal plausibility, the probability involved is not $$\lim_{x\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{x}$$, but 1/2. 18:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there any other than "There is no god" and "Odinism is true"? Your math is wrong. I'm talking about mutually exclusive explanations, which you will admit are innumerable. Odinism being the true religion is one. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC, reply to LX) That depends entirely on the nature of the proposition. It may be either true or false, but that in no way means that it has a 50/50 chance of being true/false.  If an indefinite number of religions claim to be the "one true faith", they can't all have a 50% probability of being right.   18:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I said if "all unfalsifiable propositions have equal plausibility." I never actually managed to claim they did. And Neveruse is correct about mutual exclusivity being a factor; most religions are not mutually exclusive, and again, I never claimed they were.
 * Different logical statements can carry the same probability of being true. For example, in formal logic, there are many Boolean functions that, although not equivalent, have a 50/50 probability of coming up 1. Among the binary functions, these are (on variables A and B) $$A$$, $$B$$, $$\neg A$$, $$\neg B$$ $$A \oplus B$$, $$A \equiv B$$. 18:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do all unfalsifiable propositions have equal plausibility? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but the boundaries of plausibility can be a little fuzzy. For example, the hypothesis that an invisible pink unicorn could at some point suddenly become visible and poke a hole in the wall, thus breaching the laws of physics, is not falsifiable, but science tells us that it is highly unlikely. On the other hand, barring any questions on its origins, etc., it is equally plausible that there is a permanently invisible and intangible pink unicorn wandering around, as it is that there is no such unicorn. 18:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there innumerable, mutually exlcusive, unfalsifiable propositions which you believe are equally likely? Is the truth of Odinism (in combinaiton with any other propositions) included? Why not? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) Again, no. (2) N/A. (3) Mu. 19:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you believe the truth of Odinism would exclude any other unfalsifiable propositions from being true? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Only "The Norse pantheon does not exist," and other statements from which that is a logical conclusion. 19:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So "The Norse pantheon does exists" contradicts no other propositions. Your idea of rationality seems as incomprehensible as it is impotent. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you need to read up a little on the law of contraposition... 19:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I think you need to clearly define your propositions, which you are obviously avoiding because they are so ill defined. By all means, enlighten me as to how the existence of your pantheon does not contradict similar propositions about the existence of gods. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Norse pantheon exists" is a well-formed proposition for the purposes of that argument.
 * Most pantheons are not mutually exclusive: all the Gods could all exist at once. Even with the Abrahamic religions there are henotheistic interpretations, so that any further questions are value judgments and not metaphysical judgments.
 * On the other hand, the proposition that "no Gods exist" logically entails the proposition that "the Norse pantheon does not exist," so it falls under the category of the "statements from which that is a logical conclusion" I mentioned above. 20:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So you ignore the tenets of all other propositions to hang on. If a Christian proposition would state the mutual exclusivity of the Abrahamic god and the Norse pantheon, you could not then claim that they are compatible merely to serve your predetermined conclusions. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are, of course, also the strictly monotheistic interpretations of Christianity, which fall in the same bucket as strong atheism in that regard. 20:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are, of course, countless unfalsifiable propositions which exclude Odinism. I wonder how you determine their plausibility... &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What was it really?
Can you be honest with us about what led you to subscribe to Odinism? A girl you liked was doing it? Your friends were into it? Perhaps a brother that you looked up to? You just thought it was totally kewl/badass? Please, tell us what influenced your personal preference. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I have always wondered myself...Acei9 20:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Far more boring and academic than any of that, unfortunately. I was half an Odinist anyway on account of my ethno-religious background (the word "culture" does not have a meaningless etymology); at the time I realized this, the realization being prompted by a modest study into the syncretic influences on Christianity, I had merely to take on the myths, which I had also been reading to some degree. 05:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you on drugs? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but if the post confused you that much, I doubt I can explain it further. 16:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

See you later!
Hate to see you go, even if only for awhile. My own situation is getting more up in the air, and I may cut back from here as well. Good luck with your work! Researcher (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I will miss ListenerX and hope he comes back soon. I meant to say that ages ago but I am wildly absent minded. --  = w =  18:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good luck, Listener. I hope your break is short, and you return with more to say. While I haven't always agreed with you, I've admired you for taking stands on this wiki that are often unpopular. I'll see you when you return.  19:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Goonie. While I think you are annoying and humourless and you think, I assume, that I am a arrogant pratt you still provide balance round here. Don't go to far. Acei9 19:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back!!!
Good to see you around again! 17:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also glad to see you back. Researcher (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome home. --  = w =  17:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I will probably only be back for a short time. The research project in which I am employed is now drawing to a conclusion, which means my work is less sitting around waiting for something to happen and more writing. 17:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you around anyway, even if you're just shooting out some text before dashing off again. -- 18:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We need your counterweight to all the woolly liberal thinking that goes on around here. Jack Hughes (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

oh right
I suddenly get it. That is definitely snark-worthy. -- 20:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

anon userpages
Moved to Forum:Anonymous userpages

(whistles)
That was one heck of an article you just put up. Here is a pat on the back. 21:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wrote most of it a while ago, but I just got around to finishing it now. 22:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

choosee
Apparently I'm blind. Thanks. -- 04:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandal binning
That last BoN vandal binning didn't seem like a spambot to me. 16:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The BoN made nonsensical insertions into mainspace (e.g., the article on Benedict XVI). Un-bin the BoN if you think the binning was too hasty. 16:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The BoN in question is Jackiespeel. I don't think she is a spambot. -- 21:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously the BoN is not a literal spambot, but is spamming the Wiki in a manner suggesting lack of human intelligence. 21:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha! I agree. Human intelligence is sorely lacking in most, if not all, humans. -- 21:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I slightly rewrote one of your contribs to the Liberal Abstraction article. -- 21:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ("Female supremacy"?) - It made sense at the time. Trust me to find the one time Andy actually isn't using 'feminism' to mean that. My mistake. -- 22:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

revision
I don't mean to pester you, but I don't really understand this edit. What philosophy is based on empirical input? -- 22:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Communism isn't the same thing as Socialism. -- 22:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) I meant "theory;" I was constrasting Marx's largely a priori judgments with the more empirical approach taken by most economists today.
 * True, but Marxist economic theory is about the only one that is specifically socialist. 22:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

One day...
...I will understand how to use the internets. I even had trouble writing this. In the meantime, cheers!Webbtje (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't you have better things to do?
You know, for a self proclaimed ultra-capitalist, you sure do spend lots of time making petty edits on Wikis so you can insult Christians and Pinkos. Are you a terrible worker or did you just lose your job for being a pedantic, probably autistic creep with a chip the size of Nebraska on your shoulder?UncleHo (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to be detecting a whiff of psychological projection there. 18:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is "I know you are, but what am I?" really the best you can come up with? I still find it funny that a man who is such a staunch Capitalist spends hours that could be used for work editing a Wiki to bash Liberals. Get back to work, kiddoUncleHo (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

SO, who here drinks as much caffeine as I do? 19:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Really, Listener, do you even have a job? I'm at home all day now because I hurt my back, and it seems you're here more than me. I don't see why I, as a socialist, would owe an "ultra capitalist" who is so lazy anything but a bullet to the head.UncleHo (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless you are a sockpuppet of LX having fun, consider yourself "warned". Stop being such a nasty idiot.  04:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Acei9 04:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I added my comment to Ho's talk page out of a misplaced sense of fairness. 04:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * UncleHo is, as far as I know, not my sockpuppet.
 * By rights I ought not to respond to this, but, UncleHo, you have it backwards. The idea that a person is worthless unless they "work" to "society's" particular pleasure is the granddaddy of all socialist ideas ("You will eat by and by, when you've learned how to cook and to fry," etc.). The capitalist ideas are more that one is free to make a living in any legally permissible way, and that if one is receiving money from the State one should give back value for value, if possible. 06:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahhh yes, editing a wiki all day is an invaluable service to society. Value for value, indeed. The state owes YOU a debt, sir, for sitting around compulsively bashing leftists and Christians on the internet. Without men such as you, we would truly be lost.UncleHo (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will repeat that I do not buy into the idea of people owing a "service to society." 17:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"The capitalist ideas are more that one is free to make a living in any legally permissible way...I do not buy into the idea of people owing a "service to society." I'm wondering about how to reconcile some tensions that come out of holding these two ideas at the same time. If one is free to make money in legally permissible ways, that implies that something--something we'll call "society" has set up the law (a necessary condition for "legally permissible") and the mechanisms with which to encode it, modify it to suit changing times, and to enforce it. By accepting the notion that there should be legal limits on what one can do in order to make money, are you then in turn expecting to get something -- the legal limits that both restrict and protect your money-making abilities -- for nothing? Or is the assumption that you are willing to/expected to/morally obliged to owe something --tribute/taxes/some sort of "service" -- in return? Is it simply a question of negotiating where those lines fall? Also, do you accept the idea that some people, by dint of "what they are" in terms of their race, sex, etc, have historically been less free than others to make money within the legally-defined limitations? Or do you assume that the proportional lack of women/people of colour on the list of the world's richest people is some sort of weird coincidence not worth worrying about? If you do acknowledge the historical and current disparities in terms of who gets to be rich, does that bother you enough to be willing to give up some of you money-making capabilities in order to rectify that situation? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To my mind, the abstract idea of "society" has nothing to do with the question. The State has instituted the law, and it is to the State that we owe tax-money. Perhaps "legally permissible" was a bad choice of words there, but I meant to contrast capitalism with the idea that certain ways of making a living are improper no matter what the law says.
 * My characterizations above are "necessary but insufficient" conditions for capitalism; some "legally defined limits" can explicitly outlaw free trade for some or all people.
 * I recognize that historically, groups such as blacks and women have been handicapped in that regard by being shut out of much trade, being denied the vote and the right to own property, being owned as property, etc., etc. I maintain than when such handicaps were removed from the law, the law's part in the question ended completely.
 * I also do not see anything wrong with certain segments of the population having a different average skin color or different gender makeup than the population in general — absent any intentional campaign to keep it that way.
 * I do not believe that I would have to give up any of my "money-making capabilities" in order to end the unjust denial of such capabilities to others.
 * I will remember your arguments, Listener, should you ever call socialists lazy or something of the sort. What sort of cake job do you have, anyway, in which you can edit Wikis all day and still apparently make enough money to live on. I should get into that industry, I mean, sure, I am well compensated for my work, but I actually have to do something valuable to get that money. It's really sounding like you're more socialist than you'd like to admit, Mr. XUncleHo (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I love you
Thanks for adding the Universalists and "born again" links. The satire is impressive. -- 20:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Where
is that policy about invisile usernames? --78.13.137.133 (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ListenerX is a bit of a dictator of the proletariat and he is wont to make up new rules from time to time enforce unwritten rules. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) The username interferes with sysop duties by requiring a sysop to start up Character Map to type it in. (I never said it was a policy.) 19:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would you want to type it in? --78.13.137.133 (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd yield to the judgment of Nx on this. If he says there's actually a real MW problem (not just a problem of potentially inconveniencing ListenerX), then it is verboten. Otherwise, yeah, he's a communist. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that Nx also has a problem with the invisible username, if you look at U+2060's talk-page (which you can actually access now). 19:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * MW problem = MediaWiki problem, as in something potentially dangerous. Please reread the talk page. Nx's problem is a matter of convenience. Your powers are not to be abused simply to cater to your convenience. It was an abuse. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no official policy on this, although there is a precedent of sorts. 19:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's out of context and you know it. 19:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Context: That was a sock of Fall down. Nevertheless we were not generally in the habit of renaming Fall down's socks. 19:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the context PH refers to is that the user was renamed out of malice, not technical issues (or even convenience). &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We will have to ask П to be sure, but I do not recall that the renaming caused any controversy. 19:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It didn't cause a controversy because it was a suspected sock of Fall Down, not some innocent new editor with a sense of technical humor. Are you saying that this renaming shouldn't cause controversy because you believe the invisible man to be a sock of Fall Down? If not, I don't see how the situation is analogous in the least. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fall down's socks were not in general renamed. Several obscene ones were, as well as "Shithead," both for reasons independent of their vandal status. 20:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

LX, were you planning to tell to U+2060 that you'd renamed him/her anytime soon? User doesn't appear to be a vandal, so a polite explanation on his/her talk page might be a small kindness. 19:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will post the notice. 19:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In case that wasn't clear, I'm "U+2060". I rather liked my username, and so far I have seen no good reason for changing it:
 * technical: it's a string like any other, so from a technical point of view, there is nothing special about it.
 * convenience: in RC, fossil record, etc., there is always a working and visible link to my talk page.
 * signature: the issue was addressed long ago by the addition of the (visible) "talk" link to my signature.
 * typeability: no reason was given why you need to type the username; moreover, your own "precedent" given above was carried out by User:Π, whose username can't be typed on an English keyboard either.
 * confusion: would only arise if there was more than one "invisible" username; but since I was the first, that would simply be a case of others impersonating me, just like any other look-alike username.
 * Are there any valid reasons left, or can I have my username back now? --78.13.137.133 (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are quite correct, there are no technical issues that I know of, so you can have your username back (assuming I did the rename correctly). For the record I was going to rename you when I asked you to change your signature and you didn't do it, but in the end I decided to change the default signature instead. -- Nx  / talk 20:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * um...uh...that doesn't mean this is over!!! &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you the same user as Mr. Invisible Man? -- Nx  / talk 20:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll never be able to prove that. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go with no, since they were able to present good arguments for their case, while you only screamed "OMG COMMUNIST!!!" -- Nx  / talk 20:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * rotfl @ 4. "" ftw. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "No reason was given why you need to type my username." Sysops need to type vandals' names into the form for the vandal bin on occasion. 20:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Go to contribs. vandal bin link is in subheader. -- Nx  / talk 20:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * lol...are you inferring that those are examples of vandalism? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not inferring it; I am stating it. 20:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) trying to show Susan what that stupid game was, 2) snark. Get a fucking grip, man... &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I call them "altering another user's talk-page post" and "injecting complete blather into mainspace." Apparently those who reverted the edits agree. 20:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a new editor unaccustomed to your regulations. On the first one, you need to assume good faith and stop being such a cocksucker. It was an obvious attempt to help, the furthest possible thing from vandalism. The second one isn't blather, you just don't get the joke. It wasn't that funny, but assuming good faith, it was a well-intentioned attempt to snark up a lame article. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) I do assume good faith. Even good-faith, unintentional vandals need to be cleaned up after. (2) It is not general Wiki practice to edit other people's talk-page posts. (3) I do get the plant joke; that does not make it any less of a piece of blather. 21:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, even good-faith, unintentional vandals need to be cleaned up after... they don't need to be put in the bin, which was your contention. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I renamed U+2060 shortly after the edit to the plant article was reverted to prepare in case the vandalism was escalated, as vandalism often is following the first revert. 21:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Failed snark is not vandalism in any sense of the word. You can make an extremely pedantic argument that the altering of Susan's comment was vandalism in some stretch. You've failed as an administrator. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

w
Stalker. -- 07:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ello there. This isn't stalking - I'm just stealing your hair clippings and discarded clothes for scientific purposes. -- ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 17:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

WoooHooo
Now we can go back to our default setting of mutual acrimony towards each other! AceX-102 03:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to see you around again, ListenerX. 04:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

welcome back
now GTFO. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Logic and Creation
Nice one! - David Gerard (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a really brilliant side-by-side. Well done LX! 12:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Logic was my minor in graduate school. Sarfati's article reminded me of an undergraduate in one of my logic classes, who was, he said, aiming to get a "D" and then be done with math forever. The difference being, of course, that this fellow acknowledged his incompetence. 05:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Oi!
That's enough edit warring from you two. Sort it out on the talk page first. In the meantime, step away from the computer, have a walk around the block, smell some flowers, stroke a cat. But calm the fuck down ok? -- PsyGremlin  09:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Listener is being 100% calm, he's dealing with a little fuckwit and doing it rather well. MarcusCicero (talk) 09:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I must agree with MarcusCicero. --Earthland (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, I apologise. However, the article isn't the place to be settling disputes. -- PsyGremlin  09:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Atheists say....
Thank you! 05:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey...
Do you wanna help change that transcript from allcaps to normal typing? Then maybe throw itals into the div tags? 05:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, although it will be a little more complicated than just pitching the text into Emacs for a query-replace-regexp. 05:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it will be a pain in the ass. Do you know if there are any CAPS to nocaps converters out there?  At least then all we'd need to retype would be names and starts of sentences.  If we try we should temporarily break the big first section into a few smaller bits.  05:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Downcasing is no problem in Emacs; I was referring to the need to capitalize the names and starting words. 06:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you do the downcasing quote by quote so we don't have to recap everything? If so, ping me when any given section is done (I'll go make temp. subsections now) and I'll do the recapping, and itals if I can.  06:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, you made that look easy. 06:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just found the "capitalize-word" function in Emacs; all I have to do is zip through and press Alt+L for a lower-case word and Alt+C for a capitalized one. 06:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sweet! Are you gonna do the second half now? I won't interfere to avoid ECs!  06:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am working on it now. 06:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We haven't bothered to make a star yet, but pretend you got one from the RationalWiki:Pat on the back society. Nice work, and thank you! 07:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
...for setting up the "Christian nation" article. I've been pretty busy over the last few days, but I'll try to collect the most common fundie misconceptions over the weekend. Röstigraben (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick Question
Hey, I read the criteria for article-rating. How exactly is an article upgraded? Does someone just go, "Yey, this is good!" and do it, or is there a process (can't find one). I'd really like to work on pseudomathematics over the next few weeks to get it up to rating-standard. 04:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was on a long Wiki-break when that rating system was set up, and know very little about it myself. From what I have gathered, it was the pet project of one editor and there is no real formal procedure attached to it. You should just bring it up on the talk-page when you think the article is ready. 04:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's informal, for bronze and silver, anyway. Gold is srs bsns, since it means cover story.  Bring it up on the talk page, and wait for affirmation.  06:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

whoops
Thanks for reverting my reversion on talk:WIGO:ASK. Damn touch screens 04:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)