User talk:142․124․55․236/Archive2

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 8 November 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

Why the fuck U+2024?[edit]

Your username looks like an IP address, but instead of full stop / period U+002E, you've got ONE DOT LEADER U+2024 aka Armenian semicolon (mijaket)? It's like you're using Unicode to fuck with my mind, man. Resurrection by erection (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so that's what those characters are. I just copied them from another fake-IP account. ;) (talk) 00:11, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Was it me? I haven't checked what any others use. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Looking at my IP's talkpage, looks like it was this one. (talk) 18:27, 28 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

You're featured on Twitter btw[edit]

here ... Related: [1], [2], [3] Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Lol. (talk) 12:14, 28 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
The irony that Kitsunelaine and Ryulong, based on their obvious personal fandoms, are so vehemently opposed to the idea of non-children liking a show for's pretty gotdamn strong.KrytenKoro (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I called it irony in the Bar and it was suggested that hypocrisy was a more apt description. Either will do :) --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC).
I find it amusing you boil the issue down to "non-children liking a show for children", like my issue isn't with the crazily over the top, super-agressive sexualization (that ruins it for the kids who look the show up online) and overdefensiveness of the fanbase. But no. I'm the one with the agenda here, clearly. "Actual Strawman" is my legal name, obviously.
Seriously, though. You can like a show without being a total creep and pervert and damaging it for the intended audience. Just don't do the biggest things people complain at bronies about. Don't draw sexy artwork. Don't rush to the defense of people being super creepy in your fandom. Enjoy your show in peace. Don't pretend like the fanbase doesn't have a problem with all this shit and don't try to whitewash all of the things your fanbase has taken part in just because you're a part of the fanbase. Don't be tribalistic about it. It's not hard. No matter how many times you say I'm not that kind of brony, if it's always in defense of the fandom at large, it makes you look precisely like that kind of brony.
I won't have a problem with you if you are decent Brony. Seriously. Nobody really hates bronies because they like My Little Pony, and those that do are assholes. This doesn't mean there aren't any legitimate gripes with the fandom as a whole.
This is my final word on the matter. Ryulong and I took issue with the page because it was an attempt at whitewashing and endlessly praising the Brony fandom when they don't deserve either of those things. If you want the brony fandom to not have all these associations, you don't do that by relentlessly denying it. You fight against it, and make an effort to change those preconceptions by being a better brony than the guy they're talking about. There are so many dicks in the atheist community, but I don't deny that they're dicks or defend them. I work to be a better example of the atheist community. And I also think this site tries to do that as well, which is why I personally am disappointed in the state of the article, both currently and formerly.Kitsunelaine (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't claim to have expert knowledge about the intricacies of the brony fandom, but I do wonder whether society being more protective of girls than boys doesn't play a role in how much flak bronies get. I mean, have you seen some of the crazy Pokémon and Sonic the Hedgehog porn that's out there? Yet no one ever talks about that. (talk) 04:22, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
People talk about it all the time and are creeped out about it. But the main difference here, is that bronies are so much more aggressive and defensive about it, and the show is also aimed at a younger audience than Pokemon and Sonic is. Plus there's something to be spoken for the sheer volume of clop out there and how easy it is for girls to stumble on. I know some bronies have tried to wash Google from all that stuff, but the people who speak out against it and make a fight to stop it are such a small minority that they haven't been effective at all, which is a shame.Kitsunelaine (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I have no doubt that there are examples of notable defensiveness, but I can assure you that the same defensiveness can be observed in many other fandoms. Pokémon, again, comes to mind (even if Misty does look older than 10, she still looks underage). A comparative study (or an attempt at such) might be useful here. Right now it just seems we're going off our differing personal experiences with the fandom and what perspectives regarding the fandom we're familiar with. (talk) 04:39, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
No. Bronies are a special case. Do you see at LEAST three documentaries about the Pokemon fanbase that are propagandist attempts at white-washing and praising the fanbase? Bronies are a special kind of overdefensive and agressive. This is why you see more people talk about them than about Pokemon or Sonic. When you look at bronydom, you see a 100 kilometer wide brawl (at least, at it's peak, it's sliding off the edge of relevance now), but when you look at pokedom or sonicdom you see an empty field with crickets. Comparatively speaking. There are also no huge cons for either of those things. Again, there are three key things that seperate Bronydom from other fanbases. There are others, but I want to keep this concise and on point. 1. the intended target audience of the show (and how the way the fandom generally acts ruins it for them). 2. Volume. 3. Intensity. These three things combined make the problems that exist in other fanbases as well so much worse. Kitsunelaine (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
"propagandist attempts at white-washing" Do you have any evidence to suggest such ulterior motives were actually at play here? And actually, yes, I wouldn't be surprised to find more than two positive Pokémon documentaries out there. (talk) 05:06, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Not specifically pokemon documentaries. Pokemon documentaries about the fans and about how amazing and great and special they are. And I mean, uh... Have you even watched the brony docs? Because I have. If you don't believe me, I suggest you do. If you can stomach it, I mean. Kitsunelaine (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Goddamn it, Twitter[edit]

I just made a new Twitter account to use for RW business, and these pieces-of-shipt Twitter recommended me the account of Davis Aurini!! What the motherfuck is that shit???--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you made an account to harass and misgender me and attack for the sake of a personal grudge. You are a shining example of what's wrong with twitter. Congratulations. Though I suppose the fact that you've had to resort to being such a goddamn child means you have no argument. Kitsunelaine (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
If you go to Twitter to whine about not being allowed to turn the MLP-article into a hit-piece, don't wonder about people telling you to fuck off.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
You were the only one whining in this situation, Arisboch. I didn't seek you out on social media to harass you. You are your own worst argument right now, so please kindly fuck off if you have any respect for yourself at all. If you want to set a good example for Bronies, don't be a dick. Kitsunelaine (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
If you call being called out for your anti-MLP-jihad harassment, then bugger off from the net.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
"Anti-MLP-Jihad" ... Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha oh wait you're serious
-takes a deep breath-

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha oh man hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha oh wow
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha do you even see yourself right now Kitsunelaine (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Shit, this is so fucking juvenile.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't exactly think someone using the words "Anti-MLP Jihad" with absolute sincerity has the right to call literally anything else juvenile. Kitsunelaine (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Unless it's true :3 --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
You think someone is pulling a jihad.
Against a cartoon.
I think you need to take a long and hard look at your life choices. Kitsunelaine (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you do... At the very lest against the part of the fans, who're not female and above middle school age.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
This is something you're going to look back on in 10 years, wondering why you said something so silly. Peace out. Kitsunelaine (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
escape to the future...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
fallacy fallacy see, i can do it too Kitsunelaine (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Me, too :3 --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey man, if me expressing hope that you're going to eventually mature out of your tiny little edgelord shoes into a more respectable person is a fallacy, then I'm guilty as charged. Also, you can't say "I can do it too" to something you were already doing. Also you weren't even using the word Jihad right, considering you're the "believer"(aka fan) of MLP in this case. You want a word that's for non-believers against believers. Otherwise you look kinda hypocritical. Kitsunelaine (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey now, that's appropriative of atheists! ;) (talk) 21:14, 31 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Oh shit. Forgive me, RW userbase! --Wait, can an atheist appropriate themselves? Kitsunelaine (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why not. I've seen black youngsters appropriate the black struggle for equality for the sake of shaming a girl for wearing metallic make-up (which is apparently 'blackface' >.>). (talk) 21:32, 31 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Wait. I have the perfect words for Arisboch to describe me with. These are me-approved. He can say I'm on a brony-themed "War on Christmas". Kitsunelaine (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
No, you're doin a war on Winter Solstice, Chanukkah, Kwanzah, Eid al-Adha and Newtonmas :D ;D --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, those are not me-approved, and it is henceforth illegal for you to use them. Kitsunelaine (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Then it's right up your alley, right Arisboch? ;) (talk) 20:06, 31 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Whereas sending a juvenile, self-congratulatory tweet about how you had upset so many people at RW is terribly adult, appropriate behaviour. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't make an effort to come into his space and attack him personally, so there's no comparison to be made here. Kitsunelaine (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't call Arisboch a shining example of anything, personally. Kind of odd that you banned the Twitter account criticizing Arisboch's misgendering, though. >.> (talk) 03:05, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
What's wrong with blocking a harasser? Also, you forgot to sign. Kitsunelaine (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, whoops. Also, harrasser? (talk) 03:05, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Yes. Those tweets are harassment. Going out of your way to make an account somewhere specifically to target someone for no reason and purposefully misgender them as an attack is harassment. If you want to argue with me, do it on RationalWiki. Kitsunelaine (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
purposefully misgender- Kitsunelaine You'd have to prove the "purposeful", since I don't remember you talking about your gender here.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Wait, are we talking about Arisboch or me? I've had that Twitter for ages, don't assume so much. (talk) 03:13, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
I was just in the middle of editing the page to clarify that I meant Arisboch. That being said, I don't personally want to argue with him about this, given the behaviour he's displayed. Quite frankly, the most surprising thing about this conversation is that those tweets being harassment was ever in question. Kitsunelaine (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Was it ever in question? (talk) 03:16, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
EDIT: I re-read, and I slightly misread one thing you said. Your tweet criticizing his misgendering was caught up in an autoblocker due to a low follower count. In fairness-- so did Ariscboch. Sorry about the confusion. I only caught wind of this after it happened because your posts on my talk page caused me to search my twitter mentions in incognito to see if I'd attracted any angry people. However-- his misgendering wasn't the only thing wrong with what he was doing, so the condemnation feels a little flat, though it's appreciated. Kitsunelaine (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
If I went around the Internet pointing out all the problematic stuff Arisboch engages in, I'd have my work cut out for me. ;) (talk) 03:30, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Hahahaha, fair enough. Kitsunelaine (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it sensed your dislike of Sarkeesian. ;) (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Then it would've sensed my dislike for Aurini, which is over 9000 times bigger than for Sarkeesian...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Not all Algorithms are perfect... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Yet another reason (were one needed) not to have a Twitter account. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Twitter can be fantastic if used properly. Myself, it is my personally crafted news feed. I follow lawyers, journalists, academics and various others who are activists or otherwise knowledgeable people -- from around the globe -- on the issues of importance to me. It keeps me current and well-informed.---Mona- (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

A request[edit]

Paravant's disappeared. Could you restore my mop as that seemed to be his intention before he kept extending the block length?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"I am restoring this only on the condition that no overzealous archiving will follow after this. Please play by the rules, Ryu." (talk) 05:38, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
What is "overzealous archiving"? The threads were over.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Lessons do not come easy for you, do they? Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
That didn't answer my question.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Possibly. Does that mean they should be archived immediately? At the very least, it looks indicative of ulterior motives. As I said, play by the rules, don't repeat the actions which got you banned. (talk) 05:42, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
There's no need for them to be there presently. And what got me banned was petty fighting with one person who seems to be asleep.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
If that is what you take away from all this, don't be surprised to see your mop disappear again. There was an implied "Or else" at the end of that summary. (talk) 05:47, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
You mean like Carpetsmoker just did?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Though I did expect to eventually be beaten to the punch, that was a bit quick. (talk) 05:51, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Taking away someone's sysop for no reason is not a way to have an argument. I'm sure you all have the mental capacity to handle this like adults. Kitsunelaine (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not "for no reason". Both on this page and AgingHippie's page (and after the block, my page) Ryu shows he has learned exactly nothing and doesn't even understand why he was blocked... Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
You've been relentlessly targeting him for the fucking smallest things since this whole debacle started. You are not in a position of reliable authority, so shut the fuck up. Kitsunelaine (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that my "relentlessly targeting" is nonsense, I find it rather strange that someone with no meaningful edits comes barging in here to protect her friend by telling me to "shut the fuck up". Make 20 meaningful edits, and then you have the authority to tell me to "shut the fuck up". Your sense of entitlement here is astonishing. I'm all for stading by friends, by the way, but a real friend would tell Ryulong that his behaviour is part of the problem and would help him understand that. Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
It's telling that the only thing you have to say in response to that is attack my edit history and suggest I'm being a friend wrong. The sense of level-headedness this site had about, say, the Gamergate issue, is what made me want to contribute here. But this is showing me just how much against the grind it's going. I've been wanting to write up edits for a while, but honestly if this is how you treat people I might reconsider. Kitsunelaine (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
You didn't give me many arguments to respond to. The problems with Ryulong's behaviour are well-known to pretty much everyone, with the only disagreement being exactly how disturbing it is, and what we should do about it (if anything). It's been a constant pattern for months (actually years, if you count Wikipedia) and not just the MLP drama. The "I'm going to do edits in the future" is a nice save brw. Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
You could always elaborate on how what you've been doing hasn't been targeting a user because you dislike him and not because of his actual content. I could use some convincing, bro. Plus, well... To me, it's evident that you're all, as a group, trying to shout him down through the power of your combined voices and not the strength of your actual arguments. Kitsunelaine (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Mops can be temporarily removed and given back at varying rates here at RW. What Ryu seems to be doing now is making everyone very very reluctant to give him back his mop after what was only supposed to be a temporary demoppal. (talk) 06:00, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
He's been the target of an extended campaign against him because he said things bronies disagree with. They accused him of being on a jihad for adding mild criticsm, for fucks sake. Can you blame him for being a little jumpy? Cut the guy some slack, dude. You're all fucking dogpiling him and not giving him the chance to fucking breathe. Kitsunelaine (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Cutting him slack implies he has given us a reason to think he deserves it. "Giving him a chance to breath" implies he intends to do anything with it besides throw himself further into pissing everybody off some more. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 06:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
You guys are pissed off at everything he does, no matter what it is. And I'm sick of watching it from the sidelines and you guys falling all over yourselves to dogpile him, even over fucking grammatical corrections. Kitsunelaine (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Do think that there may be a reason for us disliking him besides "we wanna hate" --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 06:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you not think you're going so far over the top with this that it's not reflecting well on either of you? The worst fucking thing the dude said was "KINKSHAME HROSEFUCKERS", and a person with half a brain could tell that was said in fucking jest. Kitsunelaine (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
No, the worst thing he did is decide he owns the Gamergate article, his attempt to turn our MLP article into a hit piece on the MLP fandom just turned more people who were otherwise okish with him against him. Ryu is bringing all of the hate he gets on himself. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 06:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
So you admit you hate him over Gamergate and not My little Pony. Kitsunelaine (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I just did when I gave him his mop back, an explicit warning of what not to do included. What followed was nothing but excessive defensiveness and whitewashing.Does that sound familiar? ;) (talk) 06:12, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
All the dude did was ask what was wrong with archiving a conversation that was over and done with. Hardly whitewashing. Defensive, yes. Kitsunelaine (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd say the part about "the only thing I did wrong was get into a petty fight with a moderator" was pretty whitewashy. (talk) 06:19, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
I believe he was referring to this specific instance and not the debacle as a whole. I may be wrong, however (I ain't a mind reader.) Kitsunelaine (talk) 06:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, "handle this like adults"? Ah, the blissful ignorance of the RW newbie. :) (talk) 06:00, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
At least I'm trying. :') Kitsunelaine (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Could you delete my archive pages? I won't be needing them anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
A few people being dickweeds isn't enough to warrant leaving, Ryulong, imo. Kitsunelaine (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
What YOU need is not relevant to the community's clearly-expressed guideline that archive pages are not to be deleted. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The plan was to not use archives at all anymore and just leave my user talk page as is, which is why I was in the process of restoring every single thread to it. But that was a petty passive aggressive move on my part and I'll admit to that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Admitting you have a problem is the first step, from what I understand. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Historic Eretz Israel[edit]

You made fun of my using the bible as a historical source... Well, guess what: It is (with a big huge grain of salt) a historical source. Just like Tacitus' Germania is a historical source (almost the only one we got) on the area and time he describes. However, we always have to take the bias of the authors into account and compare the archaeological record to the descriptions in the book. For instance, while there can be no doubt that the Bible (Kings etc.) is accurate insofar as some Jewish / proto-Jewish kingdom existed in the area at the given time, it is vastly inaccurate in the number of soldiers it could muster, in the wealth of its kings or in its regional power (all these figures are vastly exaggerated in the bible). So If we know the biases we are dealing with and have the opportunity to dig up the truth (Muslims don't like that happening on e.g. the Temple Mount) it still is the least imperfect source we have, because it is the only surviving source written from an Israeli/Jewish perspective in the corresponding time (or four, five hundred years later, the jury is still very much out) and is more thaen incidental scribblings on clay shards. Just like Tacitus and his Germania is a shitty source (but the only contemporary we got) on the social lives of the people he describes, because he always compares them (favorably) to the Romans... And what we can be sure of is that the Jewish sate(s) that existed ca. 700BC had territory on the Eastern Bank of the Jordan - as - incidentally - described in one of the worst historical sources yet still the only written source we have for the era. Or are you gonna deny the Maccabees existed because they are mentioned in that horribly written (trust me I tried to read it cover to cover once) book? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Wait, wait, you're actually serious about this? Excuse me, I have to go roll over the floor while laughing hysterically for a while. (talk) 00:59, 1 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Wait what are you doubting right now? That this ever was a thing? Or that historians have to read books they don't like and take sources whose bias stinks fifty miles against the wind? Well, welcome to the NFL... But it seems more and more, we've come to expect less and less from each other. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The 'Kingdom of Israel' and the 'Kingdom of Judah' from the Bible probably correspond to historical political entities, but that's about as far as I'd trust the Bible on being anywhere near historically accurate. It's not so much a historical source as it is a pseudohistorical one. (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
So basically the Bible is historically correct if there is good corroborating evidence from other sources? Why do we need to bother with the Bible if we have other evidence? Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Useful, if nothing else, for the israeli/jewish opinion on themsleves and the wider world. Ancient history, in particular ANE ancient history, is horribly one sided in primary sources for almost part of it. But we've longed moved on from using the bible as a sole historical source as avenger wants us to say we are.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
There's one-sided and then there's repeatedly proven wrong even on a number of plausible-sounding issues. Guess which description applies to the Bible? (talk) 05:10, 1 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Guess which applies to a great many things in the ANE :P Writing and records, when stately, are propaganda to advance the goals of the state in the ancient near east, accurate truth is just a happy bonus that sometimes comes along with it. But my point still stands that if nothing else, the bible provides us with a different viewpoint on what was going on in the area, wrong and invented as it was to give more power to a bunch of hill tribes, which is something we rarely get in history at all, let alone in the ANE. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, sure, it's a useful source of mythology/propaganda for these groups, but not-at-all reliable when it comes to gleaning factual history from it. (And yeah, there's plenty other sources that applies to as well.) (talk) 05:33, 1 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
I'm curious why you're arguing a point I never made here. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't be. Just look at the top of this thread. (talk) 05:41, 1 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
But your responses were to me and my pointing out a reason we still look at the bible at all (besides as an occasional excuse to go digging in the middle east , people love digging up them old bible times places), not Avengers ramble about how we still use the biblbe as a trustable historical source. | I'm sure i'll have even more reasons and responses to Avenger after my reli class on ancient israel next semester. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I know, I just don't want Avenger to get any wrong ideas when he checks up on this thread and the first sentence of the last post isn't dismissive enough of his views. ;) (talk) 06:01, 1 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
I trust the bible just about as far as I can throw the stone tablet version of it... That being said, it is a source that can tell us where to dig if nothing else... And it is an interesting source as the circle of authors that wrote the bible has written little else... But if you want to get a lifelong job, become an expert in cuneiform - there are more untranslated cuneiform tablets sitting around in museums thaen German words for beer... The point I was trying to make is: Despite its ridiculous exaggerations and clear religious / political agenda, the bible is still an interesting historical source. Doesn't mean it's accurate... Sometimes lies (de bello gallico for one) are more informative thaen factual accounts... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Please re-mop me[edit]

Two usually uninvolved sysops object to de-moppping AVenger, and will not abide by our consensus. One de-mopped me. ---Mona- (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

What consensus? The vote -- the last and only time a clear community consensus on the matter was reached -- was in favour of keeping AOTB as a sysop. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Calling that vote a "clear community consensus" kinda makes a mockery of that concept. But Mona, you can't cite community consensus if you're not referring to a public discussion/vote on the matter. That also makes a mockery of that concept. (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


You've been nommed. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 04:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

OMG! OMG! OMG! (talk) 04:53, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Stupidest idea ever... What comes next? Nominating Ryu? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep up. Ryu is nominated.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, if Avenger doesn't like the idea that means I've been doing something right. :) (talk) 15:58, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
You do know I am a Zionist, not a Jew, don't you? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not an antisemite, silly. (talk) 16:03, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
(EC) Admittedly, Ryu was nominated by a troll account. We should probably remove the nomination and ban the account, to be honest, unless someone else steps up to make it again. And Avenger, all's I know is that you're often a bit of a fuckknuckle - like with that comment, which doesn't have relevance to the foregoing. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
What's a fuckknuckle? Something you'd use in fisting? Also, Fat Aardvark (of "bantz" fame) nominated themself and accepted... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)