User talk:*Asterisk*

FYI

The Forum is one of the rarely frequented parts of RW. And replying to months-old discussions is pointless. I suggest reading through the links in the standard welcoming message:

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, *Asterisk*! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

--ZooGuard (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't forget to sign your posts on discussion pages

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) 20:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

So...

Are you a Muslim or a Jew?--MonarchofascistС нами Бог! 06:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Neither to my knowledge. I'm just a former intactivist who struggled with a yeast infection for many, many years. I tried everything else in an effort to cure that stupid infection I never needed to live with at any point in my life, then finally bit the bullet and had the foreskin cut off.

Guess what? The problem went away, and sex feels just as enjoyable as before. The only thing I wish is that the procedure was performed when I was an infant since being put under general anesthesia alone was riskier than having it done in infancy.

It's one thing if you think my edits need improvement, but there's no reason for people to keep reverting the article to it's original state. There's quite simply zero good evidence and a lot of evidence standing again every single platform the intactivists take. Including weather or not the kid should have the right to decide since the effects are best when done at the earliest possible age; the claims of sensitivity problems don't have any basis other than psychological; the possible side effects are so minimal compared to the benefits; but the side effects that do exist are worse the older you have it done with the benefits going down.

This isn't to say it should be a compulsory procedure like vaccines. I don't believe that should be the case anywhere aside from maybe sub-Saharan Africa. But it makes absolutely no sense for a serious skeptic site to support or even take a neutral stance towards the intactivists viewpoints any more than it'd be right to support vaccine skepticism, anti-Stratfordianism, or pro-Mugabe slants. *Asterisk* (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Repeating basic instructions.

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 also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Thanks. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 02:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

When was the last time I did this?*Asterisk* (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

[1] Here]. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 14:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

USS Liberty

I've moved the article to User:*Asterisk*/USS Liberty incident so it can be worked into mainspace-worthy shape. As it now stands, there is too much irrelevant yelling at straw men in it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, several editors are attending to the mainspace page you re-created. Deleted the userspace page. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm putting it back, and furthermore, I'm undoing your edits to the Israel and 9-11 conspiracy articles. You've sourced nothing, left a lot of bullshit sticking on the page, and are the only one defending this conspiracy theory bullshit. *Asterisk* (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

First circumcision and now USS Liberty. You just love coming over here and telling us all how wrong we are. However, both are far more controversial than you would like to make out. Cloud Yeller (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes. That's why I became a skeptic. I like to find people who are wrong about shit, and use evidence and reason to show them shit that's actually right. The party with the better evidence wins. It's a lovely system if you aren't a retarded, dogmatic, dingleberry who can't accept being wrong about anything even when someone has better evidence of being right than you. *Asterisk* (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"retarded, dogmatic, dingleberry" smells a lot like argumentum ad cellarium, and is certainly ad hominem. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest losing the attitude.

"The party with the better evidence wins." That looks a lot like black/white thinking. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

So does everything else this guy has posted. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

"Retarded."

Seriously? What the hell is wrong with you? You're lucky the social justice contingent seem to have taken a couple of days off, 'cause they might have crawled through your internet connection to berate you for that kind of nonsense right there in your mom's basement. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 14:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest that you have been living under a rock as to what regards common language of today's youth? You can say it's ableist and wrong to say, you can say it's a tasteless insult even leaving aside the ableism, that's all understandable. But when you express incredulity with phrases like "seriously? what the hell is wrong with you?", it suggests that you haven't been catching up with things that are wrong with language in modern society in general. Nullahnung (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The word was common among young people when I was one. At least where I live, for many years now, there have been awareness-raising campaigns in the schools and in the media to discourage the use of the word as a slur or general descriptor, and those campaigns, at least in the circles I travel, seem to have been largely successful. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 15:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

(EC)Then I get the impression these campaigns aren't implemented as much as one would want them to be, as I have never heard of them, which is unfortunate. Nullahnung (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, none of us catch the same stream of information as anyone else, even though there may be bits of common ground here and there. I remember a series of TV public service spots a few years ago, with Wanda Sykes delivering brilliantly targeted takedowns of clueless bozos she caught using the word "gay" to describe things they found aesthetically unappealing. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kein Idee: Count me with the ones who don't think calling someone retarded is totally gay, but did you catch what prompted Fr. Vivian's comment? RW doesn't need the distraction of defending ableist language in an article unrelated to social justice or political correctness. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Oohhh... that is an exceptionally bad place for the word, yes. Nullahnung (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with weather my points are right or not. It's not my fault you suck so bad at actually disproving things you have to resort to this kind tactic to keep my posts from running through. *Asterisk* (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You're implying that we were trying to use this to keep your posts from running through, which I don't believe to be true. You're also implying that everyone except you is on the same side and working together, which is obviously not true. We are well aware that this has nothing to do with whether your points are right or not, obviously, why should we exclude discussions about things other than the validity of your points? We shouldn't. Please don't jump to conclusions like that. Nullahnung (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I never implied anything close to that, and you should exclude discussions other than wheather my points are right or not because this site's taken to defending certain ridiculous conspiracy theories unsourced just because they tick off a few buttons certain people here don't like. It's ridiculous, not to mention downright embarrassing, for a site that's supposed to be an antidote to Conservapedia.

If you don't like my posts, use better arguments and better evidence against me to prove against my points. Otherwise, don't bother. *Asterisk* (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what the rest of this site is doing, but I would never dismiss your posts just because you ticked off a few of my buttons, I would primarily look at your points. That doesn't mean that I will exclude discussion other than your points, though, I believe it is good to complain about every little thing that can be complained about, to bring about little improvements. Nullahnung (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 20:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Bear this in mind. You've come to a wiki which fundamentally agrees with your views and, in a very short space of time, managed to piss off a significant number of long standing contributors. Of course, this is because they are all stupid and cannot see how right you are. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

That's why I'm here. I could easily spend the entire time I write here just making articles about easy targets like Roland Emmerich or placentophagy. I want to do more than that. For all the good qualities of this site, it's still loaded with a lot of stupid shit that has no basis in fact, and those are the parts I really care about. *Asterisk* (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Protip-

Of you're gonna completely re-write an article… that's really not a fucking minor edit, is it? Additionally, you can't just fucking go around changing entire fucking pages that you disagree with, unless the community agrees. That's not the way we roll here. Pardon my aggression, just in a bit of a shitty mood. Nothing personal. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{Raining blood, from a lacerated sky} 10:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Dude, its fine to vent about this. In fact, any sane man would.

As a guy who has taken a great middleground in debates about this topic in the past, his edits are shamefully one-sided and needed to be presented in a less biased way. MUCH less biased.

I mean, I get that he has problems with the foreskin. I HAD phimosis AND frenulum breve for the longest time until I fixed them myself with YEARS of stretching the skin. I know how intactivists can be quite foolish when actually confronted in a debate setting, AND I know the pain of having a foreskin that really doesn't agree with your life. However, becoming 100% pro-circ was never in my mind. I still have my foreskin, and I have come out more knowledgeable than many so-called intactivists and so-called pro-circumcision writers on the 'net.

Asterisk, I respect your opinion highly since I do actually agree with you on many points! I'd just like to see those points presented in a much better way. You had something going with the rewrite, but blew it with your writing style that just, quite frankly, shouts "EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG!" to intactivists and even "middle-grounders" like me. This seems to be the way many pro-circ websites write, Circlist included.

This is a debate that really has no "correct", 100% factual answer to it. Rewriting an article that reads like there is a definitive answer is a sign that this "rational wiki" is becoming very irrational. Simply due to the behavior of many of its users.

Signed, Anonymous.

Here is my IP, pls pizzabomb me im hungry :) ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.16.11.158 / talk / contribs}

#JusticeForMyself

This site is problematic. I figured I should do something about it, but for some reason my edits keep getting undone:

• http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Nigger&oldid=1591621

Even my minor edits don't seem welcome:

• http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Davis_Aurini&oldid=1591597
• http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Clinton&oldid=1591604
• http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Howard_Dean&oldid=1591608
• http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Anita_Sarkeesian&oldid=1591611
• http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_culture&oldid=1591613

Now I can't even make an appeal to my case. Who is WatcherIntheDark to say that Juanita Broadderick made the whole thing up? I know it's only rape when a Call of Duty fan does it, but I'm just testing to see the strength of their rationality.^{— Unsigned, by: *Asterisk* / talk / contribs}

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I rate this autistic. Seriously (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I rate this waffles. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 11:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I rate this rated. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar?~) 11:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

What have you got against waffles?! - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 11:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Stroopwaffles ..... the finest food source on earth. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

But do they go with bacon? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 11:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It is doubtful that even Americans could manage bacon with chewy caramel waffles.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure they can. All they need is more flavoring. Dump enough on it and it all becomes an intangible mess! - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 11:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

"Stroopwaffels met spek" are a thing I've heard of, but "spek" can mean both "bacon" and "marshmallow". I've never been able to figure out which spek. Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Rationalwiki, we must come together and build the ultimate waffle. This is a call to arms. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 11:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Dynastia

I hate to disappoint, but WatcherIntheDark seems to think my talents are unwelcome. Not only do I have a three day ban on editing, I can only post on my talk page once every half-hour after saying a special prayer to SAP Lumira.

Personally, I can't fathom why. Maybe the story about Bill Clinton hit him too close to home. Maybe he also raped and beat a girl in 1978 and is touchy about it.

I know I have absolutely no evidence that WatcherIntheDark is part of the rape culture, but then again, I have absolutely no evidence that he isn't part of the rape culture. This leaves me quite disturbed.^{— Unsigned, by: *Asterisk* / talk / contribs}

I'm sorry, but your recent edits (the ones that I've seen anyway) are not very good, to put it mildly. This is continuing from a pattern of last year, where you made some edits that are, errr, even more doubtful... Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, in case some people are wondering, the title of this section seems to refer to this. Need attention much? Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I've elected to remain here to help deal with unfunny vandalism and bad faith editing while otherwise leaving things like the GG article alone now that I had my two cents, so let me give you a little advice: What you are doing is foolishly inviting outside drama, possibly inviting more grief on RW as more trolls (or "weens" as the KF put it) will descend because they smell blood in the water in response to you stirring up more drama. Please do the mature thing and cease giving them reasons to want to stir more shit by coming here to antagonize you or anyone else. Arcane (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Nah, that was actually a coincidence.

And this isn't even a way to save face. I already told you guys I tried editing this site, even as recently as page 2 of the RW thread. I came back because, while I do find things like this amusing, RW vandalisms are usually deleted too fast for them to even be noticed. By doing it now, people'll actually get to see my contributions.

Is everything I've posted on here flattering towards myself? No, but be honest: has your opinion of me changed at all from finding this account?

This thirty minute timer fucking blows.^{— Unsigned, by: *Asterisk* / talk / contribs}

I'm fine waiting out my ban, by the way.

I've made it this long. I can take the rest of the period.

Besides, now that I'm in a region of the world with sensible cannabis laws, I have plenty of ways to entertain myself while waiting for the clock to run out.^{— Unsigned, by: *Asterisk* / talk / contribs}