User talk:FedTruther/Archive1

Blocked
I knew this would happen, Truth would be censored by statist oppressors.

I have done nothing wrong and provided adequate reasoning for all of my edits.
 * Or it was because you were edit warring? Just maybe? I mean, yeah, I know it sounds far out, but at least it doesn't assume a shady conspiracy of statist truth suppressors, ya know? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Unblocked
Let things work themselves out on the talk page. work to make your case. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Tagging reversions as "minor" when they deal with anything other than grammar, formatting, or equally trivial matters, will not keep this status quo long. PacWalker 02:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC) I did a stupid. 01:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Censored on RationalWiki
My edits, with a lot of supporting logic, don't reflect the biased views of those on this site and so they have been censored.

Quote from SysOp- Miekal: "we arent objective or unbiased..."

--FedTruther (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Refusal to publish a turd is not censorship: it's an option book publishers, websites, recording labels, etc. exercise routinely. Whoa. People choose what they will publish. Ironically, that is actually the First Amendment at work. Try harder. PacWalker 05:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Turd you say? You need to take a logic 101 class.--FedTruther (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Making presumptions on my educational credentials: VERY bad road to go down. Try again? PacWalker 05:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't need to try to do anything. I have already defeated your arguments and this site continues to censor my edits.
 * A seven day page block for excessive vandalism because I removed one word (a hasty generalization)? Really? Are you guys really that ignorant to believe with not a single shred of doubt that the Fed is there to help you? I am gone now, I don't know what to say of this anymore. Goodbye.--FedTruther (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bye. PacWalker 05:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi FedTruther, may I make a "friend suggestion" for you? Try hooking up with LogicMaster777 (talk). You seem to have much in common, regarding your aversions to statists and statism and notions that Rationalwiki is censoring your opinions. Maybe you could form a club or something? ScepticWombat (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Miekal - Chicken coop case
This case has been copied from the "Chicken coop" page due to censorship. I hope this won't be deleted.


 * Hi, I have been placed in the vandal bin without actually vandalizing anything by a Sysop, Miekal. I have already made it clear that I do not intend to vandalize.
 * This impedes me from articulating my viewpoints, which this Sysop does not agree with, and I would like to be removed from it. Thanks.--FedTruther (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please respond to my case with your objections instead of trying to censor it from this page. --FedTruther (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Miekal has censored my case yet again and protected the page. Do I not have the right to speak against his allegations in open court? He has so far been overly aggressive, rude, and unpleasant. --FedTruther (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You were edit warring, as Miekal pointed out, and that's exactly the kind of behaviour that the vandal bin feature is for (on RW you get vandal binned rather than the block you risk at WP). Play nicely with the other children and you get pulled out of the vandal bin. Please note that vandal binning means you're not impended in any way as to what or where you can write, only how quickly you can can do it. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It was not edit warring, see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Federal_Reserve#WatcherInTheDark
 * I was vandal binned for some sort of "premeditated edit warring" which is nonsense.--FedTruther (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is not an illustration of edit warring, I don't know what is - and please note that several editors reverted your edits. Put a brake on the persecution complex and consider contributing something useful. Starting coop cases over being vandal binned for edit warring is neither. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding reason for me being placed in the vandal bin. Miekal placed me in the bin because I said that I will make edits to the page (if those who oppose my edits don't have sufficient reasoning).
 * Also look at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Log/vandal
 * I have already said that I am not planning to start an edit war and that I want to debate my viewpoints on the talk page before making edits. It would be very inconvenient waiting 30 minutes between each post on the talk page to discuss my views. I wouldn't object to being placed in the vandal bin if I was actually edit warring.--FedTruther (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You already have edit warred and the statement made by you which Miekal refers to in the vandal bin clearly expresses a willingness to start edit warring again. Your reality-detached claims of not having edit warred and not intending to edit war don't change that situation. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said that I didn't edit war, I'm saying that the reason for being binned was not because of that edit war. I DON'T have a willingness to start edit warring again. I agree maybe the statement that Miekal referred expressed such a willingness. It was worded incorrectly but I specified the conditions of the edits clearly in the text that I wrote below that statement.--FedTruther (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See, I still don't believe you. You'll decide nobody can prove you wrong, edit the stuff back in, get mad when it's reverted and fight about it. -- Mie kal  02:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this a "Please unbin me, and I'll try to do better" mea culpa? Because it's really undercut by attacking the person who binned you for good reason.(But if it is, say so, and I'll unbin you) ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes Ikanreed. Please unbin me, and feel free to bin me again if I actually start another edit war rather than due to false assertions that I will cause one. Thanks--FedTruther (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

A smart feller like you
...would have learned by now that he and his contributions do not seem to be very welcome here. It's a big internet. Suggest you find somewhere more encouraging of your interests. You are only wasting your time here. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

From RW:CS
"Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They must not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically. Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page, with the following exceptions: [...] Occasionally discussions may be moved from one talk page to a more appropriate location, by copying and deleting it from the original page and pasting it at the new page. It is important to provide a link to the new location, which can be done using the "movedfrom" and "movedto" templates."
 * Obviously vile comments made for the purposes of trolling, and of a user on his/her own talk-page, as described above. The obviously vile trolling comments may either be deleted or enclosed in a collapsible box using the "trolltop" and "trollbottom" templates.
 * Posts from users who have been blocked from the site, but are circumventing the block by using an alternate IP address or sockpuppet account. Deletion of such posts is mandatory, as this is considered necessary for the proper enforcement of blocks.

TL;DR: Please put Miekal's post back. Thanks. PacWalker 02:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So the community standards can be openly violated by Sysops? He has deleted all of my comments from his talk page.--FedTruther (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, he's putting you in the "trolling" category FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think he's trolling as well --FedTruther (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * By declaring that he expects you will act as previously, as compared to calling vandalism other than vandalism? PacWalker 02:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If what I wrote on his talk page can classify me as "trolling", yes.--FedTruther (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I hate to say that blatantly misrepresenting your activities IS trolling, but it is. PacWalker 02:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't misrepresenting my activities so your statement does not apply to me.--FedTruther (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your less-than-factual, poorly-sourced, and frankly poorly written changes meant to destroy the point of the article WERE vandalism. PacWalker 02:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Both of you shush and go talk about FT's proposed edits. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 02:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They weren't less-than-factual, poorly-sourced or poorly written. But the removal of that wasn't what I complained about on his talk page so your argument is yet again irrelevant.--FedTruther (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Implicit in your statement was the claim that your edits were not vandalism, so quite relevant. PacWalker 02:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * More nonsense. What statement are you referring to? I was complaining about the page being blocked over removing one word from the page which clearly wasn't vandalism.--FedTruther (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You complained about it having been protected (blocked is what you were for about ten minutes recently; pages are protected, not blocked) for vandalism; you alleged that there had not been vandalism. PacWalker 02:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, he blocked the page after I removed the word "falsely" from it which is not vandalism.--FedTruther (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is when you remove it to insert your bullshit POV into the article. Fed Trutherism is false, people who attribute intentional malice are falsely doing so. Removing it as part of a bid to make the article reflect fed trutherism is thus vandalism-- Mie kal  03:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Omfg just move on. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is well-established factual information about the true interests of the Fed. Fed Trutherism is not a "bullshit POV." I can't reason with denialists.--FedTruther (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we can't reason with you, apparently. PacWalker 03:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Because of your denialist perspective.--FedTruther (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we do crazy things like demanding REAL evidence for bizarre claims. PacWalker 03:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction: You do crazy things like rejecting REAL evidence for factual claims--FedTruther (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Binned again
We took you out because you said you wouldn't edit war. What did you do again? That's right, edit war! You don't gather consensus for a change by saying something and then insulting a random user; enjoy 30 minute breaks every edit. Try to make the most of them. -- Mie kal  04:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No one objected to my proposal including the person that altered my sentence so I had thought it was okay to make the edit--FedTruther (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's believable. PacWalker 04:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If people revert your edits, they 'object to your proposal'. If you revert their reversions of your edits, that's an edit war.CorruptUser (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No one objected to my proposal including the person that altered my sentence so I had thought it was okay to make the edit- You mean like those people that kept undoing that wording? Including the one in the edit right before you while telling you to go to the talk page? That's called disagreeing. -- Mie kal  04:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They undid the wording before I posted on the talk page. After I posted on the talk page and waited awhile I did an edit and that guy told me to go to the talk page. No one objected to it so I continued with the edit and specified it in the summary.--FedTruther (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The main thrust of your "discussion" on the talk page was "PacWalker is a perennial truth fudger." While it can be tempting and/or satisfying to say such things (I get it; I do it too) they don't really do much to support your preferred wording. PacWalker 05:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the main thrust of my discussion on the talk page was "This sentence sort of fudges the truth (typical PacWalker edit) by making it seem like it's already "fully" audited by an independent party when it is in fact not. That is why I have attempted to change it a little bit."--FedTruther (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And all the many tumbleweeds agreeing with that analysis persuaded you to go get shoved back into the bin undo Watcher (? or whoever) after many warnings about not doing exactly that? PacWalker 06:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No one expressed disagreement.--FedTruther (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think it magically went away or something? Several editors had previously disagreed, if you forgot, and there is no evidence of anyone being suddenly swayed by your !logic. With those two facts in mind, would you presume that (a) nobody disagrees with you or (b) that people still disagree with you? PacWalker 06:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Ron Paul & Quackery
Hi FedTruther,

I thought I'd just explain my reversion of your Paul & quackery edit: The article doesn't say that Paul supports scrapping regulation because it will allow quackery and alternative woo peddlers a free rein; it says that this will be the actual effect (whether intended or unintended) of the proposal and that this is a rather strange outcome, given that Paul has the qualifications to know why such a result would be quite bad (i.e. quacks will have field day selling useless "remedies" and patients will not get cured and/or die). Now, my personal view is that Paul doesn't give a hoot about these adverse consequences as his überlibertarian zealotry either blinds him to the practically certain outcome because of his faith in "the market will fix it"; or that Paul simply views this as a price worth paying to avoid the evils of regulation. While a combination of these two explanations is by no means impossible, they both illustrate libertarianism beginning to shade into Social Darwinism. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Clintonbots
Hi, why was I blocked and why was my revision undone? The information that I inserted on the Hillary Clinton page was factual and relevant to the topic title.--FedTruther (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm in the process of writing a reason for the revert on Talk:Hillary Clinton, though I didn't make that particular edit myself (and have you actually read the entire article? It raises some serious questions about the provenance and timing of the criticism, i.e. it's not as clear-cut as your interpretation made it out). I've also changed the block to a half-hour one, but take it as a raised eyebrow over your proclivity for edit-warring. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it was an advert? CorruptUser (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ^What he said; a book yet to published is not any real good as a source, so your blatantly promotional description of it, release date and all, was just that. PacWalker 12:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't intended to be an advert; I removed the books name and release date but it was still deleted. PacWalker, I didn't use that book as a source and I have cited credible researchers that have had access to the book before its release and confirmed many of the accusations. At the moment it has gone mainstream (which is one reason why it is very much relevant to the Hillary Clinton page), and so far Clintonbots have mostly been saying that it's a "coordinated Republican attack strategy" or something of that sort instead of addressing the actual accusations against the Foundation. I don't care if this isn't added to the page now because there will soon be a point in which this cannot be ignored.
 * See http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/26/11-explosive-clinton-cash-facts-mainstream-media-confirm-are-accurate --FedTruther (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a valid source. Please do something else. CorruptUser (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * inb4 knew Truth would be censored by statist oppressors PacWalker 17:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't prove anything by ignoring the facts. --FedTruther (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You've exhausted our patience. We've more or less given up bothering to understand anything you say or explain why they are wrong, because our time is too valuable to spend trying to determine if the person who has spewed idiotic rant after rant has anything of value to add THIS time.  We continue to extend you the benefit of the doubt, but at this point said benefit amounts to a few seconds of a quick check to see if it's probably yet more nonsense.  You may have noticed something similar in Real Life, with people refusing to listen or associate with you, difficulty in forming and keeping friendships or other relationships.  It's not because "they are just sheeple who don't want to see the truth", it's because YOU are obtuse, stubborn, arrogant, and have not offered anything of value in exchange for other people to overlook your personal flaws.  If what you have been doing hasn't been working for you, it would be for the best for you to swallow your overinflated ego and seek help from a therapist.  Perhaps you might have had something to offer this time, but in all likelihood given your history, probably not.  It's not our fault we aren't taking your argument seriously, it's YOURS. CorruptUser (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are spouting more nonsense. I have disproven the people on this site again and again, and when you have nowhere else to turn you instead revert to ad hominems, begging the question and similar forms of reasoning as above.
 * Nobody has proven me wrong. Now, CorruptUser, I'm going to request a second time for you to let me know what you're referring to.--FedTruther (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You have disproven the people. You have proved the nonexistence of people on RW. This is what we're dealing with? PacWalker 21:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

FT, you are missing the point entirely, and this is exactly what I'm talking about. We do what we do on this site because we care about this site and other people who may use it. But we don't care about you. CorruptUser (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point that I am missing and the above is not relevant to what you were talking about.--FedTruther (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm talking about; you don't see, either because you refuse to see or you are simply incapable of it. Because to you, everything is always about you and what you want.  Before you were born, people were living their lives.  After you die, there will still be people living their lives.  But you don't understand that, because you never grew out of the infantile phase where if you close your eyes everyone else ceases to exist.  Society is made up of people, and the reason this society has rejected you is because you reject others' existence as human beings.  Let me spell it out for you; I.T. I.S. Y.O.U.R. F.A.U.L.T.  When you learn to accept that other people exist beyond being fleshbots with noisy-holes, maybe I'll respond to you and take things you say seriously.  Until then, I'm done trying to help you.  Continue being alone. CorruptUser (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's worth bothering with FedTruther, considering this response I received when I pointed out that his vaunted (not yet published) book is written by someone who fits the bill "GOP operative" to a tee: "I don't see anything wrong with Schwiezer's CV or biliography" (sic).
 * Yup, a guy who works for Breitbart "News", is a former Hoover Institute member and current head of his own conservative think tank, who has written both gushing Saint Ronnie prayer books and loopy conspiracy theories about SDI promoters being assassinated is of course a bastion of credibility...
 * Not to mention that FT curiously forgot to cite the part of the NYT review which highlighted the extremely partisan style and naked campaigning strategies in the way the book has been introduced which add further reasons to approach it with more than the usual bit of scepticism.
 * Instead, FT has taken the "I'm right by default"-approach by insisting that the rest of the world needs to "disprove" claims for which he has provided little, if any, evidence beyond citing what so far sounds more like a book length negative campaign add by one of the usual wingnut suspects than the work of "a credible researcher" as claimed by FT.
 * Please, FT, do yourself a favour at take a basic course in source criticism or something similar. Otherwise you'll just end up looking extremely credulous and/or wilfully ignorant (again). ScepticWombat (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ooh, we have a page on willful ignorance! Good to know... PacWalker's lazy ass, 01:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ^That one, unlike this one, is a disguised PacWalker. PacWalker 01:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * CorruptUser, I don't see it because what you said is quite simply false and inaccurate. You are now continuing to misrepresent my position and divert from your original point. I see that you are again ignoring my request to provide evidence of where you think I am "wrong." When asked for evidence, you are unable to provide any. Opposition to my claims on the Federal Reserve talk page for the most part are empty-handed arguments and fail to prove anything.
 * ScepticWombat, when I asked if you could disprove the claims I was referring to the claims that were made in the book and confirmed by mainstream media (In one of my responses I posted a link to my earlier revision which had these sources cited), not the source material of that particular NYT article. That's fine if you don't think he is credible, many his claims were confirmed by credible researchers.--FedTruther (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You cited... the NY Times book review, a pair of Breitbarticles, and a Bloomberg article that disowns those claims in the damn headline. PacWalker 02:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the Breitbart articles cites information from NY Times, New Yorker, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Reuters, CBS News, ABC News, and Politico. The other one cites Washington Post.--FedTruther (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And given the blatant misuse of those sources, those barticles are useless. Now bugger off, but with the understanding that you WILL be reverted, and most likely blocked, if you do anything stupid to any article (two cows excepted, naturally). The end of my patient explanation has come. PacWalker 03:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Run-away denialism. Not unexpected.
 * Having researched the articles, it is clear to me that the sources are not misused.--FedTruther (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, given FT responses, I guess it's time to add Dunning-Kruger to the credulity and wilful ignorance options already mentioned. Seriously, this is so inept that we're beginning to edge towards Poe/deep cover liberal territory. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * inb4 ad hominem daNileism PacWalker 07:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Lol? Do you think personally attacking me somehow makes the allegations false?--FedTruther (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Please dont revert reverted edits
Please dont revert reverted edits, if you do it again you will be binned blocked, if you think it is an issue bring it up on the talk page. Bubba41102Taste the shortness 20:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Already binned since april. -- Mie kal  20:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Made a minor modification. Bubba41102Taste the shortness 20:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)