User talk:67.135.49.186

Beware of GODWIN's LAW

HI. Make an account. The insult fag doesn't have as much sting on a non-homophobic site. Unless of course they really are teh ghey. -- 00:45, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * You really should make an account, Jinx. Being associated with RW has little or no effect on your status on CP (see Fox, Bohdan, TK for examples...) Having an account here would look a lot more... dignified than just being another vandal IP address, don't you think? 00:50, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Jinx has dignity? $\approx$$\pi$ 00:52, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Potentially :) 00:54, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes Jinxy baby. You'll find yourself in company with Uncle Ed, TK, Kenservative & many others. 00:55, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * BTW - Talk pages (even USER talk pages) are COMMUNITY PROPERTY - don't delete content please. 01:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Sounds like pinko talk to me. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 01:29, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Indeed. You have to keep an eye on the obsessives :nods: 01:37, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * NOTHING IS COMMUNITY PROPERTY YOU LIBRUHL. I started this page, ITS MAYEHN! -- 01:33, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Wanna trade? NightFlareThis is a talk page. 01:38, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * The fact that you want me to is enough reason for me to not do so. 67.135.49.186 15:26, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * In playschool, maybe. 15:28, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * "The insult fag?" Is that like the tooth fairy?  Or the turd burglar?  67.135.49.186 15:24, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * No, it's when you call someone a "fag". As opposed to calling them a "************* ***********, ******** ******* faggot who only deserves ** ** ******* ***** ** ****." But we wouldn't call someone that here. After all, we're nice people. -- 17:26, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Goodness no.
We wouldn't ban you. But you could do much more effective vandalism when your an editor. Then we'll ban you for 13 seconds. MWAHAHAAH! -- 01:51, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

"Unhealthy obsession?"
As far as I can tell, you spent most of your time on CP telling people -- in pointless detail -- how biased Wikipedia is about Intelligent Design and how heroic your struggles are against the anti-ID cabal. That "glass houses" saying is quite useful -- perhaps you should apply it at some point? 14:05, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Speaking of unhealthy obsessions and glass houses, I am seeing a lot of gay bashing from you. The lady doth protest too much. 14:07, 24 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Oh, I see. "Do as we say, not as we do," is it?  Because no one here has ever made any comments regarding the sexuality of CP editors (particularly when they make their support of Andy known). 67.135.49.186 10:36, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm fairly certain I haven't. Nor have most of us, I expect. 11:16, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

How's reading The Protocols of Zion going for you? Informative?--Chris111 14:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)


 * It's "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," oh ignorant one. You're obviously too stupid even to troll effectively. 67.135.49.186 10:36, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * You are right, its not surprising you know the title better than I. From now on I will bow to your superior knowledge of anti-semitic literature.--Chris111 10:43, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * ahem* Phony anti-Semitic literature. I'm not surprised you didn't know that, either.  Of course, the good buddies of you left-wing types over there in the Israel-hating Ay-rab lands just love it and not only consider it to be "non-fiction," but have based their beliefs and policies on it. 67.135.49.186 15:22, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Brief interruption: he was suggesting you thought it was genuine, not that he did. You may now return to your business. 15:24, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * He was? Gosh, I'm so glad you're a mind-reader, because I'm not.  Thank you for letting me know what he was thinking and helping him to save face. 67.135.49.186 15:36, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * The old "take comments at pure face value to score points" routine doesn't really go with sarcasm. Seems a mite contradictory to me... 15:39, 25 July 2008 (EDT)


 * So it was Jinx sanitizing the Stormfront article on Wikipedia? Disappointing.  I wouldn't have thought it.  --Phentari 15:55, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * How is questioning one claim by one person in one book being treated as absolute, undeniable fact "sanitizing" the article? And the issue didn't even have to do with Stormfront but the Minuteman Project. (I'm not even sure why that silly, irrelevant aside is even in the article.) 67.135.49.186 16:43, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Uh... could one of you give me a diff link so I can work out what you're talking about? 16:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * See here 17:21, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't think that's the right link. Something to the Stormfront article on WP? 17:27, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Try this one. I don't think its as damning as some of the other stupid things our Jinxy has said  --Chris111 17:31, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * "as some of the other stupid things our Jinxy has said" Such as? 67.135.49.186 18:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Sorry Chaos, My Bad! 17:37, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Here, here and here are the "major" changes I made. Could you please explain how any of those are "sanitizing" the article? 67.135.49.186 18:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

(Unindent) Actually, on reflection and re-examination, I agree; while I'm not sure changing "founding myth" to "belief" was necessary, a reasonable person could consider that removal of POV. I retract my comments about "sanitizing the article" and apologize. --Phentari 20:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Oh Jinxy poo
Some nazi is going around pretending to be you. Or is you. -- 17:11, 25 July 2008 (EDT)


 * You guys should check the history behind the site where your Obamessiah semonized in Germany. 67.135.49.186 18:09, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Just FYI - not everyone here is an Obama disciple - there's no mainstream politician (including Kucinich or Nader) who skews left enough for me, at least, and probably one or two others here. Obama is just another neoliberal....PFoster 18:14, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Oh, your serious?  Really?  BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! 67.135.49.186 18:15, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Just because CP operates on a hive mind...... 18:21, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I was in agreement with PFoster here, but now that I've heard Jinx's arguments, I'm switching to neoconservatism. 18:23, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Siegessäule. What about it? -- 18:24, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

For your information
I've moved the user "Jinxmchue" to the vandal group under the reasoning that they're clearly a crude parodist of you. If it happens that it was you after all, just let me know through this IP address. Auf wiedersehen! 17:27, 25 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Bother to check the IP addresses, boob, like you lambasted Andy for supposedly not doing with AdenJ/JJacob? Probably not. As I have already said, that you all want me to make an account is enough reason for me to not to. Look to your own group of irrational dipshits to find out who created that account. I'm sure your superior IP checking capabilities will show who it is. 67.135.49.186 18:13, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * We don't have checkuser, nor do I have any desire to randomly check the IP addresses of RW editors.
 * And a simple "No, that's fine" would have sufficed. 18:15, 25 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Trust me, you do not want to get into a pissing contest about technical know how between RW and CP. Especially until you guys get your site to actually be functional. As others have stated we do not "check ips" here because it is our policy to respect privacy. Hence why they asked you to claim or not claim the account. 18:28, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

I take it
This is Jinxy too User_talk:67.135.49.116.--Chris111 17:40, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Why...
...are we wasting time on this antisemitic bunch of numbers? DFTT 18:22, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * There is an important distinction between a troll and a loud idiot. Anyway, it's fun and educational to discuss things with these people -- you can almost see them thinking. 18:27, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Those people? Who are they?   Bohdan2 18:39, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I know what you're thinking Bohdan, but I'm referring merely to the closed-minded -- not necessarily conservatives or creationists. 18:47, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I can hear them thinking all the way over here. It's frightening the neighbours' cats. -- 18:28, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * No. I see absolutely no thinking of any kind going on with him. -- 18:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I love how you "rational" people throw around such a serious accusation such as "anti-Semitic" based upon a single edit to a single Wikipedia article - an edit that you can't even rationally, intelligently, explicitly defend as being anti-Semitic. You just throw around the old "well, if you can't see it, we're not going to explain it to you (and it proves your anti-Semitic, too)." 67.135.49.186 20:12, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * No, actually people have explained their perception of anti-semitism several times. You just don't read those comments, do you? 20:17, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

an edit that you can't even rationally, intelligently, explicitly defend as being anti-Semitic. I did. see the WIGO page. PFoster 20:21, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Here, I'll quote them for you, since we know you won't bother to follow any sort of link.


 * "From where i sit, it's the word "unconverted." It seems, to me at least, to imply that there's an expectation that "converting" is somehow relevant to Judaism - what should they be converting to and why? Isn't their faith good enough on its own merits that we just refer to them for what they are "Jews," or perhaps more specifically, "Orthodox Jews"? it's reminiscent of Anne Coulter's crack about Jews being "unperfected Christians" or whatever it was she said. PFoster 18:05, 25 July 2008 (EDT)"


 * "Okay then, lets try the socratic method and perhaps we can work it out. Why would someone call someone an "unconverted jew" as opposed to just a jew?--Chris111 18:05, 25 July 2008 (EDT)"


 * Hope that helps! --Arcan  ¡ollǝɥ  20:26, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Jinx, what did you mean when you said that "Unconverted orthodox" Jews. Did you mean that you want them to convert to Christianity? Being Jewish is more than a religion, it is part of their culture, it is part of who they are. Jewish people are the last people identified as a Semite. If you want them to surrender what makes them Semitic and become little Europe in the Middle East, that is anti-Semitic because you are calling for the end of the Semitic people. $\approx$$\pi$ 20:24, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * That edit was ChristianMeansFreedom, wasn't it? Not Jinx? 20:28, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * That's the edit that bunchanumbers linked to and challenged us to find something antisemitic about.PFoster 20:31, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * But still not Jinx/numbers. 3.14 said "what did you mean when you said", so I corrected him. 20:35, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Stupid things Jinx has said
I was asked to name some silly things our friend has said, so here are a few:

[laughable, groundless, petty] accusations.
 * 1 At the AFA, talk page on CP you called the anti-semitic allegations

Thus you think all these organisations are lying


 * Anti-Defamation League
 * Institute for First Amendment Studies, Inc
 * American Jewish Congress
 * National Conference of Catholic Bishops
 * Mennonite Church
 * Church of the Lutheran Brethren
 * Archdiocese of Denver


 * They are either Jewish organisations offended by what has been said or various respectable Christian organisations.  It is perfectly obvious that you didn't bother to read the allegations, even they were mostly contained in one essay


 * 2 You said at the examples of Bias in WP (at CP) web page:

"Holy cow! I wouldn't have believed it without seeing it for my own eyes.

Block message on user page

Admin noticeboard history

The guy's edits weren't even that horrible. Certainly not vandalism. They might have taken some time to discuss the edits with the user, but they judged the user name to be offensive. Right."
 * Again you didn't even bother to see all extensive discussion that took place with the user, nor notice that the block was for anti-semitic remarks. In other words you threw mud around without even checking to see if it was mud.  Next time check your sources.


 * 3 You are unable to see that calling someone an "unconverted Jew" is offensive.


 * 4 At the Poe's Law talk page you said that it's not notable "...that self-proclaimed "rational free-thinkers" are too stupid to tell parody from the real thing" and on that page proceeded to tell us that you fundamentalists always knew what was parody and what was not real.


 * LOL Your Honour I call to the stand witnesses Samwell, MexMax, JJacob
 * You also refused to answer any of the questions asked of you, and called us "unsurprisingly irrational and typically hypocritical".

would you like me to go on or is this sufficient?Chris111 18:36, 25 July 2008 (EDT)


 * I'm going to pick this one part out before I go to bed: "and on that page proceeded to tell us that you fundamentalists always knew what was parody and what was not real" And state that if you're going to lie about things I've supposedly said, try not to be so obvious about it. 67.135.49.186 23:59, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * It is not too large of a stretch to think that by "you fundamentalists" he was referring to conservapedians, which is true. NightFlareThis is a talk page. 00:20, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Whatever you want to change the meaning to in order to defend his lie, it's still a lie. I never said that or anything like it on the Poe's Law talk page. 67.135.49.186 13:35, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't really get the argument you're trying to make here, but in the interests of context here is the link to the page where you talk about why poe's law is silly (or that only we are silly enough to fall for it). Here is the link to the whole page and readers can make up their own minds.Chris111 06:36, 26 July 2008 (EDT)


 * And by "make up their own minds," you actually mean "agree with me," which people here will predictably do even though you can't point out where I said anything even close to what you claimed I did (which you would've done had it actually existed). 67.135.49.186 13:29, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * even though you can't point out where I said anything even close to what you claimed I did I did --see above. This is like the fourth time I've asked you for a response re: "converted Jews" - you keep ducking the question...PFoster 13:39, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I will give Jinx this, he did not say those exact words. However, Jinx did heavily imply that it was only us "rationals" who could be fooled.  Assuming the opposite is true, that Jinx's "nonrationals" couldn't be fooled is hardly a stretch.  --Arcan   ¡ollǝɥ  13:43, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * (Edit conflict -- what the heck happened to the indents??) You hit the nail on the head there, Arcan. Jinx's thread on talk:Poe's Law (title in particular) quite clearly implies that fundementalists are never fooled by parody. However, you've forgotten that his favourite debating strategy is to cling stubbornly to the most rigid and dogmatic definitions of anything. 13:52, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * See what I meant by you people being predictable? 67.135.49.186 14:05, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * No. NightFlareThis is a talk page. 16:26, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I think, to be fair, he is arguing that he never said that all fundamentalist Christians can tell parody from reality apart. Chris111 is only partially right, Jinxy only said that he could always tell them apart.    Whoopdy doo.  You are a master debater Jinx.--Damo2353 13:49, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Original, uncensored, "rational" version of the preceding comment: I think, to be fair, the twat is arguing that he never said that all fundamentalist Christians can tell parody from reality apart. Chris111 is only partially right, Jinxy only said that he could always tell them apart. Whoopdy doo. You are a master debater Jinx.--Damo2353 13:49, 26 July 2008 (EDT) 67.135.49.186 13:59, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I never said anything like that, either. I said I could tell the examples provided apart. 67.135.49.186 13:59, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * OK I apologise JinxMchue for calling you a twat. I saw immediately after I did it that the insult was unnecessary and unwarranted.  Therefore I retracted it.  Whether or not you choose to accept my apology, you may leave the original comment in if you wish.  I am sorry and will not resort to insults again.--Damo2353 14:02, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * It's hilarious how I have to make you people act rationally instead of you automatically acting rationally. 67.135.49.186 14:04, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * You know, rational doesn't mean respectful. NightFlareThis is a talk page. 16:26, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * No, I never implied anything. I stated I wasn't fooled by the examples and expressed surprise that you supposedly rational people were.  Any implication you are extrapolating from my words is nothing more than the typical dishonesty I've come to expect from the self-proclaimed "rational" people. You can't find true fault in my arguments, so you make up fault from whole cloth. 67.135.49.186 14:04, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Your entire thread on that page is rooted in the suggestion that Poe's Law was unnecessary because only non-fundementalists fall for parody. Your assertion that you could spot the parody was only an example of this. Your revised version of the events is laughable and paperthin. 14:07, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Even if we go with your supposed interpretation, the fact is, you are wrong. You were fooled by JJacob just like all the others.  Looks like you can't detect all parodies, I suppose.  --Arcan   ¡ollǝɥ  14:11, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I had no knowledge of JJacob's edits until I saw him mass-banning people and "all the others" (2 or 3 is "all the others?) appear to be before my time as a siteadmin. And again, I never said I or anyone else could detect all parodies.  Please stop falsely attributing arguments to me. 67.135.49.186 14:28, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * You misunderstand. The reference to "all the others" actually meant all the other people at CP, like ASchlafly etc, not all the other parodists who snuck by.  Supposing you didn't notice the edits, JJacob did prove that there are parodists on CP which haven't been detected, which is something you argued against.  Moreover, should you really be proud that you weren't aware of the parodist in the first place?  --Arcan   ¡ollǝɥ  14:44, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I see no more issue regarding "converted Jews" than I do with a "converted atheist" like myself. 67.135.49.186 14:07, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * "Converted atheist"? You're an atheist now?  --Arcan   ¡ollǝɥ  14:11, 26 July 2008 (EDT) EDIT: Oh, you meant "unconverted."  Nevermind.  Additionally, keep in mind, no one here has called you that.  --Arcan   ¡ollǝɥ  14:18, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Silly Arcan :) He means he was once an atheist and was then converted. 14:22, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Basic English isn't your strong point, is it? Would being an "unconverted atheist" mean I was no longer an atheist? 67.135.49.186 14:28, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, a simple misunderstanding reveals my complete misunderstanding of basic English. On a non-sarcastic and actually genuine note, I concede that I misunderstood you.  --Arcan   ¡ollǝɥ  14:38, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Can you really not see that mentioning a pervious conversion is slightly different to mentioning ones that have yet to happen? "Unconverted Jews" defines their religion in the context of another -- not exactly anti-Semitic, but plainly insulting. 14:13, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * So we're moving the goalposts from "anti-Semitic" to "plainly insulting." Cute.  I guess you're now going to have to point out where Wikipedia states that people shouldn't make edits that some group or other might find "plainly insulting."  I mean, if you're going to base your reasoning on what someone might find "plainly insulting," then Wikipedia has no business having this article (according to your reasoning). 67.135.49.186 14:28, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I never said you or CMF were anti-Semitic, you moron; we are not a hivemind. Grow up. 14:30, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * "we are not a hivemind" Could've fooled me.  Oop!  Must be Poe's Law! 67.135.49.186 15:06, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Furthermore, that is an article about something insulting, not an insult itself. Although I can certainly see how the distinction would fox you, Jinx. 14:32, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * that is an article about something insulting, not an insult itself Apparently you missed the clusterfuck a few months back when insulted Muslims tried to get the article/pictures forever banned from Wikipedia. With hardcore Muslims, insult the prophet = insult the religion = insult the practitioners. I'm surprised there hasn't been a jihad declared against Wikipedia for being a tool of the infidels. 67.135.49.186 17:33, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I've lost track of what you're trying to say, Jinx. Fundementalists are unreasonable? Do tell. 17:35, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Unconverted Jew
Look at the structure of the phrase. The word "unconverted" is totally redundant. If they weren't unconverted they'd no longer be Jews. Therefore the word is placed there for some effect. The effect most Jewish people would percieve is either shock or offense. Only a very naive person would not know this. Therefore I think it is reasonable to assume that the person making the statement is trying to cause offence.
 * Even were a person to be so naive as to not know the likely effect of hearing the word, lets look at what is suggested by the phrase.  It implies that there is something that makes them less than someone who is "converted", such as yourself.  This is particularly true lately since the phrase immediately brings to mind Ann Coulter's phrase "unperfected Jew".  Now Jinx, you have the freedom to go around implying that some people who haven't converted to your religion are somehow lacking, but the people on the end of the implication also have a right to be offended.
 * This is particularly true when we are talking about a religion or a culture that has been persecuted over and over again by many different regimes. It is therefore, particularly bad form to make such an implication here.  For these reasons I think it is anti-semitic to refer to someone as an "unconverted Jew".Chris111 14:37, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't think it is anti-Semitic, so which one of us is right? Why, it must be you, of course, because you are the rational one and I'm just some dumb, irrational, anti-Semitic, Christian fundie. 67.135.49.186 17:12, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Jinx - would you be offended if I said you were simply an "unconverted Muslim"?  DogP  17:14, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Cue unconvincing answer in ten... nine... eight... 17:20, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Just out of curiosity
Why did you feel the need to make this edit to Wikipedia?--Chris111 14:54, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Read the book in high school. That was a very important part of the book - repeated several times.  Apparently despite that, it's not notable enough for Wikipedia.  Go figure. 67.135.49.186 15:08, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Bash the fundy
I dunno if BoN is a fundy or not, but all this harkens back to HoG's vitriol with the (rest of) the community. While I'm not (yet) offering mine services as devil's advocate, I would propose that the community either choose a champion to debate BoN or refrain from throwing ones own 2¢ in to the ring, (to mangle three or more perfectly good metaphors). It bothers me to see this sort of gang-bang to totally trounce a perceived "enemy"; it supports those who contend that this site is nothing more than a mirror of the insanity that drives CP and gives one pause that dissent is not tolerated here. CЯacke ® 15:09, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm not sure if I agree that's quite what's happening here, but I do agree that we are piling on a bit. To avoid any appearance of impropriety, and for what it's worth, I'll refrain from throwing in my $0.02 again.  I was probably running out of change anyway ;-)  --Arcan   ¡ollǝɥ  15:15, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * We could always ban him for a 90/10 violation and too much talk, talk, talk, like they do at his preferred website.PFoster 15:17, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Oh, so there's actually something about CP that you like, eh? 67.135.49.186 17:25, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Actually you are right. I am new here and perhaps I got a little angry over something not worth getting angry about.  I too shall refrain from making more comments.  I have said more than enough.  I somehow doubt we need to "elect a champion" either, as we have thrown enough dirt as it is.  Time for him to throw some if he likes.  I might add though that he seems to have admitted that he is JinxMcHue from Conservapedia and Wikipedia so there is little doubt that he is a fundamentalist christian.--Chris111 15:25, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Just a few more comments and I'll stop, I swear! NightFlareThis is a talk page. 16:24, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

My Buddha in Nirvana, you people are frickin' nitwits. 67.135.49.186 16:55, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * It's called "civility". One day I may explain it to you. 16:59, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Little late to be hiding behind the civility guise, don't you think? 67.135.49.186 17:13, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Fight! fight!
He's gone to a punch up with foxy. 18:13, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Jinx's "prove it!!" thing is getting old. 18:15, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Prove it!! NightFlareThis is a talk page. 18:16, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * If you need to have it pointed out to you, you truly are etcetera, NightFlare :P 18:18, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Only because none of you can actually do it with any of your claims. 67.135.49.186 18:41, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Prove it. 18:42, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Fever pitch. -- 18:26, 26 July 2008 (EDT)


 * The really sad thing is that he really believes that he's being reasonable. What sort of upbringing did he have? And what is his current "environment"? 18:40, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, because Fox is the picture of reasonableness. (Actually, he's just trying too hard.) 67.135.49.186 18:44, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Susan, If you check his blog and stuff it shows he's got a wife and kids. Or he's lying. He's on LJ, Ask Yahoo, and a whole bunch of others. All crazy and apparently the same thing. -- 18:49, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, I've seen that stuff - doesn't explain him though, does it? 18:53, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * "Or he's lying." Try applying Occam's Razor. 67.135.49.186 18:53, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Not entirely. But a little. Also, Jinx, when you try to make sly edits, just do it. We have recent changes too...-- 18:56, 26 July 2008 (EDT)


 * (ec) Doing a google on the name makes me think that he is one of those who has no life away from the internet. 18:58, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * He may just be Hal Turner? -- 18:59, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Eff me! The guy's a one man crusade! He's all over spreading the message. (and it seems to be much the same as CP's) 19:31, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Holy...Crap
He said it...ON ANDY'S PAGE!!! -- 18:36, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

This gave me a chuckle.... -- 19:09, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy has to do something now...
After this, he won't be able to avoid it much longer. One way, he is anti-semitic. The other, he is liberal. What to choose....-- 19:05, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Jinx is finished for this post alone . There is simply no justification Jinx could use to convince Andy that it's not foul pornography.  Andy can't have someone who makes these posts in CP.--Damo2353 19:14, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * The Ashfly usually lets things sort themselves out w/o having to decide between two equal ly challenged opponents. CЯacke ® 19:19, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Hey, I'm leaving
It's been fun running circles around you guys, but it would've been more fun if some of you - even at least one - actually had presented a challenge by being rational. Enjoy obsessing over my edits on CP. 67.135.49.186 19:13, 26 July 2008 (EDT)


 * K, have fun Jason. -- 19:14, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I can't help thinking your opinion of your time here might have been a little different if you'd listened to anyone's voice but your own.
 * Enjoy obsessing over your edits at CP. 19:33, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Good riddance to bad rubbish Spica the Hiver  If you tolerate this, then your children will be next... 19:54, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Not very polite, Spica, but true. 19:59, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Y'know, it's funny: there seems to be a direct correlation between people who can't argue their way out of a wet paper sack and people who feel the need to declare themselves the winner of an argument. --Phentari 16:49, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy handles things like a true American leader
Pushes it off on someone else. -- 19:57, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Ah, the "I defer to the other sysops" defence. Haven't seen that one in a while. -- 20:03, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Fox may have just chosen the winner.
He said Andy is trying to avoid it. And that Andy didn't see Schindler's List. I sense pain in Fox's future. 20:05, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Walking dead
Leaving and never coming back
 * I see what you mean.--Bobbing up 11:48, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

I thought
We were supposed to be the obsessed one. -- 02:52, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

''Personally, I've half a mind to go over to WP and ask someone to do an IP check on ChristianityMeansFreedom just to prove a point. Jinxmchue 16:55, 27 July 2008 (EDT)'' Well, part right! 03:58, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Just wondering.
Is there any way in the world you can come anything close to proving it? -- 11:09, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Hah
Only four days of saying goodbye, you return to vandalize. Obsessive much, Jason Jinxie? I love your hypocrisy. <3 Norseman Wassail!  12:28, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Filtered
Hey Jinx, how's it feel to be an editor (sic) at a webshite that's blocked for unsuitable content at a CHURCH's internet server? 23:21, 29 August 2008 (EDT)