User talk:ShorinBJ

Don't forget - you're here forever. Acei9 02:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, welcome to the dollhouse! 08:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sysoppery
We are sorry, but you've been demoted to the rank of sysop. Here's your orders. 00:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Spelling
While we welcome corrections to egregious spelling mistakes it is extremely rude to enforce US spellings on an article which has been originated by a non-US editor. Please see our manual of style. 11:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Repeat of above post. --Scream!! (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We normally reply on the page where the original comment was made. --Scream!! (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page posts properly
Please make sure that your signature contains a link to your userpage and a timestamp: On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. --ZooGuard (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"Watch the personal Attacks"
What Personal Attacks. I've barely even edited in the last half month, and none of them are personal attacks -- Mie kal  17:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that I should be deported? It's got your name on it.--ShorinBJ (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * that's a personal attack? IT was what you said: just because you have citizenship doesnt mean we can't deport you. I was asking if you cared if we applied the same principle to you. Also I'm a sysop.-- Mie kal  03:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that was actually a serious question? If it was, I will no longer lower myself to deal with you.--ShorinBJ (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'm also a sysop. It's nothing special.--ShorinBJ (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to seriously believe being a legal citizen shouldn't cover you from deportation, why can't we hypothetical the notion this includes you? And that was more to your complaining someone undid the block. -- Mie  kal  04:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And now I'm done. It's not my job to correct misassumptions generated either by poor reading skills or intellectual dishonesty.--ShorinBJ (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Open Mind
Apologies, but I didn't really think that your latest addition to the "Open Mind" article really helped the topic. You basically said that one may subjectively chose a point where you no longer consider new evidence. That is, in fact, close minded. It's one thing to - for whatever reason - consider your own time too valuable to listen to what might be the 1000th crank story you've heard so far presented as "evidence". But that is a choice to not further consider information, no matter how crummy that information is. That's fine, but it can't be construed into being an open mind. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I see what you're saying, but I'm thinking of the tactic where you throw 1000 pounds of bullshit at someone, and then when they won't take one more, accuse them of being closed-minded. They may in fact have closed their mind to more bullshit, but is it fair to call them that? The fact is, people do exactly what I just described, to make it seem like they're the enlightened, open-minded types and the other party has closed minds AND JUST WON'T LISTEN TO THE EVIDENCE. --ShorinBJ (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see - an interesting phenomenon indeed. Thankfully, an article on this already exists! It's called PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times). ^^ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ain't it a Gish Gallop?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 13:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That, or a call for one single proof, or just asking questions, or something else. The point is, the addition to the Open Mind article ought to stay redacted. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)