Essay talk:Total Bastard

Delete

Apart from being a cheap shot against Ol' Rush there, I can't see what this is getting at or why. ^pathetic 21:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

+1. Move to Shite: space if the author loves it that much, alternately kill it - David Gerard (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an off mission rant article, agree with delete. --Onion ^Hi! :) 21:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we give it another day or so before deleting? I'll post on Subsound's talk page to see if he/she is interested in moving the content in to an essay or something along those lines. I agree with deletion for the same reasons as Onion. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 23:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I would have made an argument for it being mildly on-mission, though needing work. Oh well, no big deal. ħuman 02:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved to essay

Yeah, more of a personal opinion as it is very funny to watch those who sell things to those it would hurt the most.

~~Subsound~~

That's funny, I read it earlier today and thought it seemed ok, if needing a bit of work and a better title. When I saw you moving it I thought we had one of those concern trolls who moves our articles to essay: because they contain opinion or commentary. Hilarious. I still wouldn't mind seeing a mainspace version at some point. ħuman 02:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a look around to see if the expression "total bastard" was commonly used, but couldn't find anything solid. Doesn't really belong in mainspace unless the phrase is a bit more commonly used in this context. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 10:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, I don't think it matters if you can't find the phrase used elsewhere, I don't think RW should be scared of coining new terms, well, so long as it doesn't go down the CP route of "Liberal ......" or too hatchety. ^pathetic 11:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A perfectly cromulent suggestion. "Total bastard" could be stretched to fun, but I outside of that it's a little too generic. Something like IDiot works. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 11:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually IDiot might be something we want to address. I mean, it'd be a dictionary definition at best, describing that it's a neologism, but still, something that RW should cover and possibly discuss whether it's a appropriate to use that sort of term. ^pathetic 11:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The title reminds me only of The Young Ones. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I kind of thought up what would be an appropriate term for people like this...since there doesn't seem to be one now. It all just came out of a visit to the relatives where there were three retirees that were thumping Rush's book at everyone else. All three have social security to pay their bills, and all three wouldn't be there without Medicare paying for surgery (2 heart, one brain). I asked them how they would even pay their bills without it, let alone live (maintenance medication), and they sat down stopped pretty quick.

I thought to myself, only a total bastard would sell something to people it would hurt...and it seemed there were a number of other people doing the same thing in different ways as well. I thought in mainspace people could add their own examples of others selling things to those it would hurt. Plus it was pretty accepted where I have used it in my own comments. ~~Subsound~~