Forum:Get over it...

< Index | General discussion

Copied from the Saloon Bar 14:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Some random screed...

The only question I got is while he's engaging in cyber-vandalism at work [1] does Medicare get billed for it? nobs^{don't bother me} 15:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I am a little confused. Are you an idiot or do you just act like one as part of some larger political plan? - π 16:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's just a theory. Now we may know why there's long waiting lines for healthcare in Great Britain, the physicians are probably in the backroom planting NAMBLA googlebombs or somethin. nobs^{don't bother me} 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait, the Great Lakes are part of Great Britain now? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, is this science we're discussing? which of the Hobbit characters is he? nobs^{don't bother me} 18:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

What waiting lines are those? The NHS now has the shortest waiting times in its history. Bondurant (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Even emergency trauma waiting has been reduced to only 12 weeks. How progressive! nobs^{don't bother me} 18:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC

Well that comes as one hell of shock, given that emergency waiting times are targeted at 4 hours max. Let me guess, what you are calling emergency trauma is in fact the Trauma and Orthopaedics Department. Not the same thing nob, not even close, and really sad that you are trying to claim they are.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

4 hours, that's not bad. How much of that time do you spend on the phone to some non-medically trained lawyer at your insurance company, arguing whether your emergency treatment is covered by your insurance? If you live in the UK, then the answer to that is: 0 hours. Bondurant (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The report based on government statistics may not even include deceased persons who died waiting for treatment, which of course would skew the final result. [2] nobs^{don't bother me} 00:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

How in the name of Goat would you include people who died before receiving treatment into stats about waiting times, beyond mentioning how many did die, and what from? How on earth would you count somebody who dies of coronary failure, or somebody who dies in an RTA, whilst they are on the waiting list for cataract treatment? Maybe before hitting the 'Save Page' button you should take a bloody good look at what you write and then come to the inevitable conclusion that you're, once again, talking bollocks.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty simple. If you count waiting times from when someone asks for treatment until they get it, when they die they're taken off the list and not counted in the final result as getting treatment. nobs^{don't bother me} 00:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Aren't the US figures for health care skewed by only counting those who are able to afford insurance, ignoring those 45 million who are uninsured? Bondurant (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Dead link, sorry Rob. You realise you were unblocked on condition that you didn't continue your silly WP tirades here? The dog returns to sniff its vomit. 15:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob, have you considered the possibility that PalMD is a deep cover Soviet spy, trying to wreck the healthcare system from within? I think it's likely myself. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 17:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...Whitecoat Underground does have the same initials as Weather Underground.... nobs^{don't bother me} 18:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently wp became too dull to satisfy Rob's masturbatory needs. -- -PalMD ^--Broccoli 23:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey PalMD, don't you think it would be a good idea to set the record on that straight? (and it could be done by bowing out quietly and having names removed). WP:BLP says, we must get it right. After all, who's the real victim here? nobs^{don't bother me} 23:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Your sanity? - π 23:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC) We are, for having to listen to your drivel. (Rob's, that is.) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Damn, I wish I hadn't edit conflicted you; yours was so much better. - π 23:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I had a good chuckle at yours as well. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a precedent for hope and redemption for somebody who hoaxed a mainstream journalist and Wikipedia. Jimbo said, "He is a young man,... I hope the world will let him go in peace to build an honorable life and reputation.”[3] nobs^{don't bother me} 00:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, what was the point of mentioning that, exactly? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I changed my mind. I don't care. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you miss being in the Vandal Bin? I could take care of that, if you ask nicely. --Kels (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Rob, let's make this clear: SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THIS! We are all tired of hearing you go on about this. If you have a problem with Wikipedia, talk to the people there that care, nobody here does. - π 00:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody there does either and they've made that clear. Even TK's given up. This may explain the pushing here - David Gerard (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Nah, it's actually the first time I've had a chance to talk with the doc directly in years. We had a good discussion about that screed of his back in the day -- until he ducked out when I poked holes his argument. Ask Sid or whoever, I been trying to delete that hate-filled screed of his posted at RW for years. But the mobocracy doesn't have a process for deletion, AFAIK. And I never abused my sysop powers to do it unilaterally.

And TK, I think he doesn't wish to confuse his issues with RW editors with what I've brought to light. nobs^{don't bother me} 00:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Dare I ask, what hate filled screed? - π 00:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

One would assume, based on past (and present) experience, that "ducked out when I poked holes his argument" == "walked away in disgust after entirely too much rambling BS". --Kels (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That is pretty much a given, but still. - π 01:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean "blocked", perhaps? ^theist 01:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know what "hate-filled screed" as well. If it's actually that good, maybe I'll publish it more widely.-- -PalMD ^--Broccoli 01:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This hate filled screed. [4] Get rid of that piece of crap and the self promotion at WP and I'd be happy to deep six the RW 1.0 stuff and never speak of any of this again. Thank you. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

How about no and you just fuck off? - π 02:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually to a certain extent I agree. If you swap homeschool and public school, and change Christian Right to progressive, it does sound a bit like Farah or Beck. - π 02:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob, I'm terribly sorry. I'll immediately remove that little essay so that I can avoid the humiliation of you having a nearly unreadable copy of purported conversations between various internet personae about issues so obscure as to be meaningless to anyone other than yourself. That is, when I get around to it. Maybe. -- -PalMD ^--Broccoli 02:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"I believe that Conservapedia and related movements are a threat to American democracy," and this from "founder" of Rationalwiki, according to no less than three Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. [5][6][7] nobs^{don't bother me} 02:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Knobs, we host many essays here. We don't delete them. And to quote Stephanie Miller "You are an idiot". ħuman 02:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

jesus, logged on and read this section. Robs gibberish is discombobulating. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth, I too believe that the ideology represented by CP is a fundamental threat to democracy and self rule. The Schlaflys of the world represent a strong authoritarian right wing fanaticism mixed with a cultish religious streak, that lead to book and witch burning in the past. tmtoulouse 02:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. A world under Schlafly rule would be suffocating, blinded and archaic. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I may not agree with your hate speech, but I suppose you got a right to spew it. The problem remains, WP isn't the platform to espouse Rationalwiki founders hyperbolic (to use PalMD's word) original research about their imaginary enemies. Particularly since it was Rationalwiki founders who hoaxed the reliable sources used in Wikipedia. To gain credibility, you guys know what needs to be done. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"Nobs" (inappropriate name), you might as well deny that 2+2=4. I wasted time with your unsubstantial additions and you still don't seem to grasp how liberals try to claim exclusive control of knowledge and its recognition, and how you should be objecting to that, so I'm confident you're a complete denialist. And you persist in denying the obvious truth that the Bush doctrine prevents moral decay. Nobody seriously doubts that people who are taught and then believe relativity are less likely to read the Bible again, or as frequently. And if you think a university is going to allow vandalism to continue from its system, or that any ISP would, then I think you're living in a dream world. --aschlafly 14:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

What needs to be done? Continue to watch you flounder about and accomplish nothing? tmtoulouse 03:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Just respect WP's BLP & privacy policies by removing real life names from the article (hell, keep PalMD's screed here if it's such a precious founding document to you). Then everybody can move forward pursuing their life's dreams and past misunderstandings and errors can be forgotten and forgiven. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

My life's dreams are not so small that I can't pursue them by not respecting WP's BLP & privacy policies (which I might add for a third time now has fuck all to do with us). I can purse my life's dreams with your constant trolling as well, so please carry on. - π 03:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have to study hit yourself with rocks to be this stupid, or does it come naturally? None of this will be accepted at WP, you already know that. Why bother, when all it does is solidify the perception of you as a troll? --Kels (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Gaining credibility in Rob's eyes doesn't seem to be one of my big priorities. --Kels (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Somebody's been making shit edits to the assquote template. Nobs, if you continue to bring up your WP fantasies here you will be once more muzzled. ħuman 03:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Meh, to an extent he has been goaded into it in this thread. But it is a lot more interesting when he is spinning conspiracy theories and blasting us for hate speech. Once the the letters BLP appear I am officially bored with the thread. tmtoulouse 03:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, we brought it up first. But he should not take the bait. And as you say, when BLP and is other weirdness comes up, my eyes get covered with glue. PS, nice work getting the wiki back up in two hours, dood. ħuman 07:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobs, when are you going to tell Terry Koeckritz to remove his hand from your arse? EddyP (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

He seems to enjoy it, somebody tell Ken! --Kels (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ What on earth is going on here? Is Rob somehow trying to leap from an old Essay by PalMD to getting Terry Koeckritz's name taken off wikipedia? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much the size of it, yeah. Anything he can do to discredit the original Stephanie Simon article (that the folks at CP thought was fantastic when it came out) and thus get TK's real name, Terry Koeckritz, removed, is fair game. No matter how stupid. --Kels (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't tell you how horrible it is to have no credibility with Nobs - David Gerard (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of Nob's lack of good faith. His apparent goal is removing real names and any reference to RW from the WP:CP article because PalMD allegedly lied to Stephanie Simon about something I can see from looking at the record is actually true. Aside from the fact that his rants are unintelligible because it's unclear which names he actually wants removed and under what criteria (I'm assuming, perhaps without any basis, that Rob doesn't want Andy Schlafly, Lenski, PZ Meyers, and Alberto Gonzales' names removed from the article), Brian MacDonald (he's the only one mentioned other than Peter Lipson) giving his real name to Stephanie Simon has nothing to do with PalMD's alleged lie. Nothing. And Rob's so far failed to come up with any reason, let alone a good one, for removing Brian MacDonald or Peter Lipson's names. Why can't you articulate a coherent logical connection between PalMD's alleged lie and removing his or Brian MacDonald's name and any reference to RW from the WP:CP article? Why isn't the RW section adequate as it is? Nutty Roux (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, why is this discussion still going on here rather than at Wikipedia? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is so weary of it that even TK's given up. So we're continuing here strictly for our own amusement. (Wikipedia talk pages aren't forums, this page quite expressly is) - David Gerard (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't especially mind if he continues on this page, it's when he starts spamming it all over the site and harassing individual editors that I get a bit annoyed with. And if he does do that, he'll find his ass blocked again for a couple of months. --Kels (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how any of you managed to get inside his head to understand wtf he has been talking about. His bizarre and disconnected rants and demands were more opaque to me. I take it he has a problem with the LATimes story. Me too. Who fucking cares?-- -PalMD ^--Broccoli 20:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This is about Terry Koeckritz, right? He's the guy who's trying to destroy Conservapedia from within because he's a megalomaniac, right? And the owner of the blog doesn't see that, and nor do the other handful of senior users, right? And he's done this before, right? Just checking. Oh, BTW, nice essay PMD - spot on. I too think that the Teabaggers and other deliberate ignormauses are a threat to general society. Head-in-the-dirtism is not a good recipe for advancement of anything. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 15:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I especially enjoyed RobS focus on "vandalism" when there were half a bijillion "fake outs" going on just to fuck with the general paranoia at cp. -- -PalMD ^--Broccoli 00:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)