RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2900Goal: $6000

Thread history

From User talk:Nebuchadnezzar
Viewing a history listing
Jump to: navigation, search
Time User Activity Comment
01:27, 30 July 2013 Leoesb1032 (talk | contribs) New thread created  
18:58, 31 July 2013 Nebuchadnezzar (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to 9/11 conspiracy theories)
20:30, 31 July 2013 WaitingforGodot (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to 9/11 conspiracy theories)
22:59, 31 July 2013 Leoesb1032 (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to 9/11 conspiracy theories)
01:43, 1 August 2013 Nebuchadnezzar (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to 9/11 conspiracy theories)
01:54, 1 August 2013 Leoesb1032 (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to 9/11 conspiracy theories)
02:28, 1 August 2013 Nebuchadnezzar (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to 9/11 conspiracy theories)
02:51, 1 August 2013 Tielec01 (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to 9/11 conspiracy theories)
04:51, 1 August 2013 WaitingforGodot (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to 9/11 conspiracy theories)
12:45, 1 August 2013 Leoesb1032 (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to 9/11 conspiracy theories)
16:21, 1 August 2013 WaitingforGodot (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to 9/11 conspiracy theories)
17:08, 1 August 2013 Leoesb1032 (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to 9/11 conspiracy theories)
17:17, 1 August 2013 AgingHippie (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to 9/11 conspiracy theories)
17:18, 1 August 2013 WaitingforGodot (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to 9/11 conspiracy theories)
18:42, 1 August 2013 Nebuchadnezzar (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to 9/11 conspiracy theories)
19:53, 1 August 2013 Leoesb1032 (talk | contribs) New reply created (since deleted) (Reply to 9/11 conspiracy theories)
19:53, 1 August 2013 Leoesb1032 (talk | contribs) New reply created (since deleted) (Reply to 9/11 conspiracy theories)
19:53, 1 August 2013 Leoesb1032 (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to 9/11 conspiracy theories)
19:56, 1 August 2013 AgingHippie (talk | contribs) Deleted (content was: "First of all, what is trolling? People get offended when you say stuff like the government did 9/11and stuff because this was such an horrific day in Americ..." (and the only contributor was "Leoesb1032"))
19:56, 1 August 2013 AgingHippie (talk | contribs) Deleted (content was: "First of all, what is trolling? People get offended when you say stuff like the government did 9/11and stuff because this was such an horrific day in Americ..." (and the only contributor was "Leoesb1032"))
20:04, 1 August 2013 ZooGuard (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to 9/11 conspiracy theories)

I noticed that you reverted my edits on 9/11 conspiracy theories. I am going to change it back. I know this site should have some funny content, but this is too far. It is just plain right insulting and disrespectful to the people who had a loved one die on that horrific day. It's okay to say some well know conspiracies, but this was too far and immorally wrong. Please leave back a message soon. Leoesb1032 (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Leoesb1032 (talk)01:27, 30 July 2013

Another user reverted again. Consensus seems to be that this bit of snark is acceptable.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)18:58, 31 July 2013

Here's the thing, Leosb, *someone* *somewhere* will always be offended by something done. especially humor. I'm offended by rape jokes. Nebby is offended by jokes about babalonyan kings who make shitty ass gardens. The question is, why are you offended. Is the joke putting down someone? Is the joke making fun of situation that was harmful? or is it just a joke about something "sacred", like 9/11. we tend to dis the sacred here, cause sacred clowns should always be challenged. If it's truly offensive to someone because it is harmful, because it makes fun of them, or because it belittles THEM (not the sacred cow, but themselves) then please explain our offense, and I will make sure i fight with you. but just saying it's disrespectful or insulting isn't harm.

Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability20:30, 31 July 2013

Here is My Thing Godot, yeah someone, somewhere is always offened by something, but in the case of 9/11, I would expect 10 to 15,000 people are offended by this. Get my drift? It's me that is offended, it is me trying to respect the 10s of thousands of people that are. Leave a reply please.

Leoesb1032 (talk)22:59, 31 July 2013

Yes, the article is poking fun at truthers, not 9/11 victims. You seem to be failing to grasp this concept.

And, BTW, aren't all gardens shitty?

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)01:43, 1 August 2013

Are you kidding me, no conspiracy theorist every assumed goats and wikiiest's did 9/11. This isn't a theory, this is snark too far. If I lost a relative in 9/11 and went on RationalWiki and saw some snark guy wrote goats did it, I would be furious and demand it takdn down.

Leoesb1032 (talk)01:54, 1 August 2013