Information icon.svg Our Community Standards are under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

Essay talk:Ken DeMyer and Magic the Gathering

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Hmm...he seems to be collecting philosopher cards.69.216.110.189 22:44, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Exactly.-αmεσ (!) 23:09, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
I think it's spelt Ken Demyer? CЯacke® 23:55, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
A quick Google search proves my spelling skills blow. Thanks whitey.-αmεσ (!) 23:57, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
This? What the hell is that? Seriously, I get the vision of the mean ol' bitch-lady who doesn't want anybody to have any kind of fun. The links at the bottom are even scarier. I wonder what Ken thinks about Harry Potter? --HVista-epiphany.pngjimachong 00:24, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
And these folks are worried the kids are the ones who won't be able to tell fantasy from reality.  :) --Gulik 00:47, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Deletion?[edit]

Ken asked me to delete this article, as being unfair and nasty, and I think he has a point. Plus, it's not a great essay. I submit the decision to the mobocracy.-αmεσ (soldier) 16:18, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't believe it is unfair nor nasty. If he believes it to be so, ask him to set an example (and remember to remove the inappropriate images too). What is good for the goose is good for the gander. --Shagie 16:23, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

He says that, if I make a show of good faith by nuking this, he might be amenable to doing something similar. Ken?-αmεσ (soldier) 16:25, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Is the information accurate? Oftentimes, what's said about a mean and nasty person ends up, necessarially, mean and nasty. That said, I don't think it's ever too late to save someone from the dark side. Just depends on how much energy you're willing to expend. -Smyth 16:32, 28 September 2007 (EDT)
Smyth, I think what you're trying to say is that "often the cat that yelps loudest is the one that gets hit with the shoe." That's my favorite Kenism, ranking slightly above "sentences should not be facts." Girlfriend & I just adopted a cat, and I can assure you he's getting nowhere near it.-αmεσ (soldier) 16:51, 28 September 2007 (EDT)
An Edpoorian compromise would be to change the name to his Conservative handle.--PalMD-Oy, mein tukhas! 16:46, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Newton, if you're reading this, I'll pull it if you change your name here to "Conservative," and work with us to make the "Homosexuality and religious liberty" "article" a little less insane.-αmεσ (soldier) 16:51, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

I say keep it. If he finds it offensive, he might want to consider disproving it by his works. --SockOfGulik 18:01, 28 September 2007 (EDT)
I have a little goodwill and urge to make friends, but every time I see the homosexuality article it all vanishes.-αmεσ (soldier) 18:03, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Another point to consider. Often Ken seems to be writing with intent to outrage (or at least thats how he presents it "Atheists are upset at the atheism article" or something of that nature). When one writes to inflame, one should not be surprised when material that may be considered "unfair and nasty" material is written in response. Not that I believe that this is unfair or nasty but rather . Nor do I see this as a response to Ken's inflammatory writing and attention seeking. Still, Ken shouldn't expect not to receive negative attention that gets indexed on Google and found when people search for Ken's name and point at him and shake their collective heads and sigh recalling previous encounters with him. I'm all for leaving this until Ken shows that he can remove his on inflammatory writing and continues to demonstrate that he is not trying to get the attention that this essay delivers. --Shagie 18:16, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

What amazes me is his whole "any attention is good attention" attitude, even when it's rubbed in his face that the vast majority of the Google hits and pageviews that make him so excited are solely there to ridicule. A reasonable person would conclude that if you're considered a laughingstock, that makes people less likely to buy the rest of your arguments, or those who support you. So by "sticking it to the athiests" he's actually harming his cause, and that of the entirety of CP. Not that Ken's a reasonable person or anything... --Kels 20:09, 28 September 2007 (EDT)