User talk:64.79.209.238

May I ask why you made this edit? We generally frown on removing stuff from other people's talk pages. --Kels 07:04, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Interesting question Kels. I wonder why they did that?--Bob^{'s your uncle} 07:13, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Because an anonymous user who was leaving lots of hidden remarks in the edit field of "What Is Going On At CP", was obviously making personal attacks on another person, mixing facts and conjecture to arrive at a conclusion. Since it was fairly obvious the "retired" user signed in because of those fairly hateful remarks, only to communicate with the anonymous user, I didn't think his posted remarks were fair, or warranted a pretty biased attack on their "retired" talk page. That seemed beneath a rational wiki, interested in science and debunking silly YEC pseudoscience. My apologies for removing it, if you two think its appropriate for it to stay, revert it. I like feel good about myself, and not allow, whenever/wherever I can, anonymous character assassination based upon conjecture and half truths. You might have other standards. But I would like to say, if you people mean what you say, about being not only being about CP, and developing your own "you", then cataloging silly articles and edits is one thing. Using that forum for purely personal attacks, name calling, all of that, certainly isn't the way to attract new people. It is the same as meeting a new person, who shocks you with nasty gossip about mutual friends. You know they are going to do the same to you, and you keep away from them. Don't let this happen here.....and be known only as the place that makes snarky remarks of a personal nature, about others. No matter what their politics. 64.79.209.238 07:30, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Funny, I was under the impression it was the remarks on the actual page that were the problem, not the hidden ones in the edit field. These were directed at TK after he left a hidden remark directed at RW on SSchult's user page implying that the latter user was not a conservative and that his edits contained deceit, or at least that's how I read it (sadly I can't check as TK deleted the user page, using deceit in the process by saying it was empty). My first set of hidden remarks attempted to demonstrate to TK that the user in question was actually a true conservative and did not practice deceit and to question both why he blocked the user in the first place (it seemed to be because the user dared to correct him) and how he could justify blocking user who made substantial contributions while some of those who were left (such as himself) seemed to be only debating users and making minor edits to articles. My second set of comments that were removed on TK's talk page questioned how he could claim to be victimised when he has a record of being overly aggressive to other editors on CP and challenged him to take a bit of time off being an administrator and to have a break and write a couple of articles. I'm sorry if my comments were hurtful, and I agree that RW should aim to debunk myths rather than making personal attacks against other users but I believe I was merely responding to criticism raised on CP. I suggest, perhaps, that the retired user comes back to RW if he has any issues and discusses them with the other contributors, maybe even let off a bit of steam in the process by debating YEC and then be a nicer person on CP 124.183.147.134 08:05, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

I've tried to understand this but I've probably not allocated sufficient brain cells to the issue. Should I read it as an attempt to use Rational Wiki to resolve personal issues in CP? I don't think that's in our brief. Anyway, might I suggest that both our anonymous users take this weird debate back to CP where it would seem to belong?--Bob^{'s your uncle} 08:29, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Fun stuff

Maybe we should stage a cage match for them. Greco-roman wrestling?--PalMD^{-Oy, mein tukhas!} 09:07, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Yes, truly excellent idea Palm. But how would you do that in a virtual environment? Is it time to put RW into Second Life?--Bob^{'s your uncle} 10:15, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Im not sure how to do it yet, but im pretty sure it will involve killer robots.--PalMD^{-Oy, mein tukhas!} 10:19, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Ah! Now it makes complete sense. (He said backing away quietly and avoiding eye contact.)--Bob^{'s your uncle} 10:32, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Klatu verata niktu!!!!--PalMD^{-Oy, mein tukhas!} 10:50, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Yes, yes. Indeed. Of course. My my - look at the time! I really must be going. :-) :-) --Bob^{'s your uncle} 10:58, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Hello, I must be going,

I cannot stay, I came to say, I must be going.

I'm glad I came, but just the same I must be going.

La La.

I'll stay a week or two,

I'll stay the summer through,

But I am telling you,

I must be going.

Hooray for Captain Spaulding, The African explorer.

He brought his name undying fame

And that is why we say, Hooray, Hooray, Hooray.

I cannot stay, I came to say, I must be going.

I'm glad I came, but just the same I must be going.

La La!

64.79.209.238 13:09, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Aha - we know what you've just been listening to! 13:16, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Accusations and other activity.

hmmm... check the "user contributions" for this person's IP 64.79.209.238, particularly the first edit - it is evident that this user is CP Sysop TK (using an anonymous proxy) - fun times. 85.195.123.29 13:27, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Dunno about that, but (s)he had just been listening to BBC7 radio. - Definitely - the above words were broadcast @ 17:55 BST (now 18:37) Susan^{talk to me} 13:35, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Hi 85.195.123.29. Your comments might carry a tad more weight if you were not, yourself, an anonymous proxy.--Bob^{'s your uncle} 13:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

An agent provocateur is a person who secretly infiltrates a group with the objective of weakening it from within.

As such they will in reality be representatives of another group opposed to the interests of the group being infiltrated. Their objective may be to create unrest, disunity or ill-will within the group while professing to hold the groups ideals to heart.

Alternatively, an agent provocateur may encourage the group to carry out crimes or other nefarious while secretly reporting the activities to his real masters.