User talk:TiaC

Hello There~ We really need to get some of our old greeters back. Welcome to Rationalwiki! You've been autopatrolled and may someday even become sysop. -- Mie kal  01:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Kent Hovind...
What are you doing? A BoN deletes some content from the article, and gets reverted by another editor. He does it again, so I reverted it. Then you come strolling along and revert me. What gives? --Inquisitor (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

dont worry to much about Elvis
He's a long-known troll who had 5 minutes of power at conservapedia and followed some people from there, better off just ignoring him.-- Mie kal  00:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Why are you reverting all of my edits?
What's wrong with them? Roomfan (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are making a lot of unfunny and oddly biased little edits.--TiaC (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My edits are not meant to be funny, and how are they more biased than what's on this site already?
 * Then I'm completely unclear what you are trying to do, but it's not working. Also, the site is biased in favor of the mission, you are just inserting random opinions. --TiaC (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit by Roomfan "'Bigfoot (also known as Sasquatch) is a Satanic mythical creature alleged by some to live in remote North American forests in the Pacific northwest and in the Canadian province of British Columbia, where he rapes and kills countless innocent people.'''" How is this based anywhere in reality?  How can something that has never even been proven to exist kill and rape anyone...or be proven to be satanic, a descriptor that can never be proven.  Is this too much alcohol talking during Thanksgiving?  EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I watched this documentary about how bigfoot was a demon and how he is responsible for countless deaths. Roomfan (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Proof bigfoot or demons exist? EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can only present you the facts, but not in physical or documented form. He's out there, and he's killed more people than any fascist, disease or serial killer all combined. He won't rest until we're all dead, and I don't want him to rip my dick off when I go out and pee! Roomfan (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The fuck?-- Mie kal  23:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I....don't now what the hell that even means. I think someone is really really drunk for the holidays.  I think he needs to sleep it off.  EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Bigfoot is the cause of the majority of the world's suffering, and I hope he gets cancer. Thank God for cancer!Roomfan (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh huh.-- Mie kal  23:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Same with space aliens. They don't exist, and if they did, we'd have to kill them. Roomfan (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As a person who believes in intelligent life somewhere else in the universe who haven't been here, that prospect horrifies me. -- Mie kal  23:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why so? We would only be saving human lives by killing them. They're evil creatures who want to enslave us, like communists! Roomfan (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ?Scream!! (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not a troll, quit it with the hatespeech! Roomfan (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The answer to your question Why are you reverting all of my edits? is probably because TiaC was first to see them. Anyone else would have done the same pretty soon. Scream!! (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Bigfoot and demons are about as provable as evolution. All I can supply you with are videos and interviews. Roomfan (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Aaah ... that's the agenda is it? I repeat and apologies to everyone else for breaking previous one. Scream!! (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Enjoy having a mop and bucket
Woulda said this sooner but this website is god awful for phone browsing. Don't cock things up with the new powers-- Mie kal  00:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Please reply to the talk page rather than reverting an edit without comment.
http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&oldid=1388797

reverted with this edit:

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&oldid=1388798

--72.196.9.223 (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Cosmology
To clarify, my main concern was about rash deletion. I don't know enough to evaluate the facts (although the text seemed "fact-ish"). We talked it over reasonably, so act as you see fit. MarmotHead (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Your edit to gender
Yep, I'm fine with that if everyone else is. I think it was an extremely good edit on your part. It's also true: I can see how people can misuse science to attack others. That's disgusting, and I wish people wouldn't do that, because then there wouldn't even be any disagreements over these things. Parogar (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, thank you :) Parogar (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bringing up biologically-based gender can be like bringing up regional genetic differences. There's something there, but it is all too often overstated for use by bigots.--TiaC (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Fun articles
I must congratulate you for standing up against me on behalf of all women everywhere. You are a true hero-ress, like Mary Luther Kong and Chelsea Mandela. How do I make good "Fun:" articles that make people laugh? --Aliengrey (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * --TiaC (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Oops
Bob's mad at me for removing ee's bit. How do I fix this?— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 13:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my mistake in that talk page
Somehow I managed to delete a bunch of stuff when I was trying to write in that talk page... I don't even know how that happened, I'm very confused!Brianpansky (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't unblock doxing IPs
pathetic as their attempt may have been - David Gerard (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I missed that attempt and it was not cited as a reason in the initial block. I'll have to look more closely in the future.--TiaC (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Chicken coop.
You look to be part of a gang of bad editors led by David Gerard, and have a history of questionable edits, lacking explanations and conversations before edit warring. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh my god somebody understood my terrible Totalbiscuit joke
I thank you. For once, my bizarre sense of humor is not entirely unappreciated. Abed Nadir (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Help
Please make it stop.— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 03:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion discussion
You may wish to comment on the ongoing articles for deletion discussion about article "John Duffield". 02:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Aging Hippie unblocking that BoN
I've always thought it was reasonable to unban anyone who asks barring a complete lack of trust. Ikanreed (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. I just thought there was some confusion as to the reason behind the ban and tried to clean that up.--TiaC (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Responding here seems proper
"If she is, it would be unethical to out her. I, at least, would prefer that you don't post evidence."

I can understand that position. That being said, it was put up on a major news website. And, even if you don't want to "out" someone, there is a difference between outing someone and saying people people are conspiracy theorists because they happen to know the truth.

" Also, On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (67.42.179.115 (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon for each line.) Thank you.--TiaC"

Sorry, I keep on forgetting. The AgingHippy asked me and I forgot by the time I got to the end of what I was typing. 67.42.179.115 (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * lol you think Breitbart London is a "major news site". You realize that's just Milo's blog now right? And how unethical it is to out someone as transgender even if he is right (which there's zero proof considering he just posted the same bullshit that has been going around Gamergate for months now)? But I guess so long it's "Literally Wu" you don't give a shit.— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 21:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There is plenty of proof and Milo linked to a lot of it. The biggest proof is probably Brianna's own account on Susan's transgender forums, but there is plenty of other evidence out there (assuming you haven't actually seen a non-photoshop pic of Brianna). Explain away the voice recording if you like. 67.42.181.10 (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am also entirely unsurprised you dodge questions about whether it's ethical to out people. Ethics in game journalism, my fucking ass.
 * And by the by, if it is true that Mrs Wu is transgender and Milos outed her? Then he has committed an unethical act. Which is unsurprising, considering he was unethical long before Gamergate - plagiarist that he is. --Castaigne (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it is "unethical" or not. I have problems with calling honesty "unethical." I certainly think it is unethical to call people who think Brianna is transgendered "conspiracy theorists." If you don't want to mention it based on some RationalWiki rule then fine, but slandering people who believe it based on the evidence is without merit. As for Milo being a plagiarist, perhaps, you should put it in his article if he really is. While you are at it can you put the claims of Anita being a plagiarist in her article? 67.42.181.10 (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't know if outing is unethical? Then you have shitty morals and ethics. That's OK; Milo's ethics are shitty too. That's why he doesn't pay his contributors.
 * And no, I'm not going to edit shit you want in there. Register a fucking account and do it yourself. --Castaigne (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Just because someone doesn't like their past it doesn't mean it is unethical to say what their past was. Does being transgendered give a person special rights to declare what is ethical and unethical? Again, you keep on focusing on the transgender aspect. I've been much more concerned about slandering people as conspiracy theorists because they believe in a clear and obvious truth. I think Brianna Wu's behavior, prior to the "urinary tract birth defect" operation she openly talked about on her blog, is much more clearly unethical when you consider the ethnic and homophobic slurs used in Brianna's past life. 67.42.181.10 (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, because the truth can never be harmful, and telling various personal truths relating to another human being (e.g. this) is always a-okay. That some things people say aren't lies doesn't mean they can't be harmful or part of a larger harrassment campaign. Also, not all women that don't have prominently "feminine" faces are trans women, you know (and some that do are). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I never said the truth couldn't be harmful. I said I had a problem calling the truth "unethical." Just because something may be harmful does not mean that something is unethical as well. Is it unethical to spray for mosquitoes in Africa because it is "harmful" to mosquitoes? Also, just because someone may use the truth for unethical purposes does not mean the truth is inherently unethical. By that logic we could call science unethical because people have used its fruits both unethically and with harmful results.

I await with great anticipation your, and Ryulong's, explanation regarding the content's of Brianna's transgender forum account as well as the voice clips Milo uploaded for his article. The facial features were merely (and obviously) an aside. 67.42.181.10 (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So Gamergate found some ancient account named "Brianna" and that's their evidence? It really doesn't fucking matter in the end. Milo's doing something unethical and Gamergate is loving it despite being about ethics. And Wu had already said she's never going to respond to any of these extremely transphobic actions on Milo's part or on the part of any Gator who compiled this shit before sending it to Milo. Also Milo isn't being "slandered" or being called a "conspiracy theorist". The idea that Brianna Wu is transgender is the conspiracy theory held by all of Gamergate, just like the conspiracy theory that Zoe Quinn had sex with Nathan Grayson for positive reviews which don't exist or the conspiracy theory that Anita Sarkeesian had fake the threats sent to her to make money off of it. The point here is that Milo is just publishing all the shit Gamergate thinks about Brianna Wu because he is a hateful man who hates transgender people and uses his position as a "journalist" to make that loud and clear. And it doesn't fucking matter if he's gay or not because I can't think of anything he's done to champion for gay rights. In fact, he's been on record as being against gay marriage and not against homophobic bullying.— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 23:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be pretty silly if that was all the evidence. You are clearly uninformed though - perhaps you shouldn't be editing the Gamergate author since you don't care to inform yourself? The fact is that Brianna's account constantly mentions of "spacekats" which is terminology she has often used when referring to her fans (examples: https://archive.today/QN1p1 https://twitter.com/spacekatgal/status/519558059836723200 ). Of course, the most clear evidence are the voice clips Brianna gave talking in both her male and female voices. The first clip, once again, opens up with her talking to her "spacekats" (again, her usernames, name of her company, etc). So please, explain the conspiracy of how 7 years ago gamergators uploaded audio of Brianna's voice, both in male and female form, to a transgender forum account that uses her signature "spacekats" language all the time? Do you deny those clips are her voice?


 * This is all just the tip of the iceberg though. If you actually look through the post they match exactly what we know about Brianna's past life. I can give far more examples if you aren't convinced - even you are even capable of being convinced.


 * The fact is that she outed herself 8 years ago and is now pretending not to be out because she doesn't want her past behavior coming out. 67.42.181.10 (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like you added more stuff. Allow me to retort. Zoe Quinn didn't sleep with Nathan Grayson for a positive review - she slept with him for positive press. There is a difference obviously. It is dishonest to pretend like she got nothing out of her relationship with Grayson. IIRC she also won a contest where one of the judges was a person a slept with...and got a job from someone else she slept with. Another man she slept with was shown on the GameJournoPros lists trying to blacklist people who exposed her.


 * As for Sarkeesian, there have been no credible threats against her now have there? Personally I know more about Brianna Wu's claimed "death threats" - mostly from two ancient trolls who have said things like "our high priest put a death omen on you." She tweeted that was a "death threat" and did the same for his partner who claimed he "crashed his mom's prius on the way to Wu's house to challenge her to a street race to prove she's a fake gamer." Obviously those aren't real threats. She knows it and she's either exploiting them for more Patreon money or exploiting the mentally ill. 67.42.181.10 (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, dipshit - when are you going to register an account so you can edit it yourself?
 * Hey, asshat - when are you going to register an account so you can edit it yourself?
 * Hey, cockmongler - when are you going to register an account so you can edit it yourself? --Castaigne (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * When I think it isn't a futile endeavor trying to change that article. Besides, most wiki's promote conversation about contentious edits. Is that not the case here? If you like I can register and start editing it right now. I'll tell you my first edit though - it would be to delete 95% of that article because it is frankly complete bullshit. 67.42.181.10 (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Get back to me when you have the stones to do it, boy. Typical Gator; won't man up and hides in anonymity. --Castaigne (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

On a side note, this is the 3rd time I've mentioned the voice clips of Brianna Wu (both male and female) for which you have no response. Obviously you know that's Brianna's voice since there are many video clips of Brianna (she loves running to the news telling people how much of a victim she is now doesn't she?). 67.42.181.10 (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ironic, since you and Ryulong are advocating keeping Brianna's past behavior from scrutiny. 67.42.181.10 (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Why should any of us listen to voice clips acquired from some unknown corner of the Internet by Gamergate and put on Breitbart London by Milo? Why should we buy into this garbage? Do you just want the page not to describe Gamergate's baseless and irrelevant accusations that Brianna Wu is trans as a "conspiracy theory"? Why else have you been concern trolling for a fucking day and a half already.— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 00:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Unsigned post

 * He was offline when you typed that message. 15:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, also, glad y'like my bot. 19:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, also, glad y'like my bot. 19:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

His Dark Materials
You reverted my edit, saying the linked review was superficial and inaccurate. Please point to an accurate and deep review. Thanks, Dave Wise 2 (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)