User talk:67.135.49.198/Archive2

See User talk:67.135.49.198 for the current lulz.

You are so clever

There is so much confusion here. Can you help me and tell us what is the difference between an Affirmative Action President and an Affirmative Action Vice President? As Conservative as I try to be, I just don't get it. If you help me, I solemnly promise that I won't vote for Obama not that I am an American citizen anyway. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 17:52, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Obamessiah was picked because he looks like a black man. Palin wasn't picked because she's a woman. 67.135.49.198 13:05, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for your comprehensive answer. Now everything is clear. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 13:09, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Jinx _{hi Jinx!}, whatchu doing here? Quick, get out before we defile you with our liberalism and dick-jokes. BTW, you're just reinforcing out belief that you are a racist pig. δλερνερ ^{διαλέγομαι | συνεισφέρω} 13:14, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Wonder what the reaction would have been if Mrs Clinton had won the Dem nomination. They might have noticed that she (obviously unlike(?) Mrs Palin) looks like a woman.   ^Contribs_Talk 13:17, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Wow, "Obamessiah" how clever. Do you see what he's done there? He's, like, taken Obama and Messiah, and put them together as one word, being satirical. Geddit? Oh, and Obama wasn't "picked" he was voted for democratically, you utter, utter fucktard. _{'scuse my French} Bondurant 13:22, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Didn't his sermon on the.... Er, acceptance speech make you cry, it made me want to cry. δλερνερ ^{διαλέγομαι | συνεισφέρω} 13:28, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

How am I racist? Seems to me the people who are supporting Obama because and only because he's black are the racists. 67.135.49.198 14:53, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

You know Jinx, that comment really shows the extent of your racism. Jesse Jackson has run for president, as has Al Sharpton, and neither of them got such large numbers of the black vote as Obama. I'm not voting for Obama because he's black, I'm voting for him because I like what he stands for as a candidate. Do you guys really think we are so stupid that we just vote for skin color? I wouldn't care if the Republican ticket was Condoleezza Rice/Larry Elder, I still wouldn't vote for them. One last bit, in 2000, Gore carried 85% of the Black men's vote and 94% of the Black women's vote. In 2004, Kerry took 86% and 90% of those respective votes here's my source. Most polls show Obama with 90% support in the Black community. So I would check the stats before you start throwing around that old, tired, They're only voting for him because he's black shit. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 15:14, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Hey, I don't like him "because he's black". I like him for his positions (OK, I can't get my Kucinich liberal crazy points in the White House), this guy is a decent man and a great candidate. ħuman 02:01, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Well massa Human, dats only cause yous one of dem educated white folks, poor colored folks like me, da ones date works on da Mississippi, wesa just be votin for da colored man like us. Wesa ain't got da learning to know about da politics, so wesa just vote for da skin color. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 02:23, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

You mispelled "po'", "boy" (Gawd, I hope you know I mean no offense!) ħuman 02:34, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

(real response:) After I just called you "massa" I don't think I'd have a right to complain. (fun repsonse:) I's so sorry massa Human, please don't beat this tired ol' body, no no no. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 02:39, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, Chuck, you bin' good, I'll only whip you twice, jes' to remind you who's the boss. Now, please to shut up and get back to work, and that negro dancing and singing thing you "people" seem to enjoy so much. ħuman 02:47, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

We can end this here so we don't cross any lines. I have taken no offense whatsoever, but I have a very strong tolerance for racial humor when I know it's meant in fun. But keeping this going just gives people like Jinx more ammunition to make up stupid laws and silly sayings to feel smart. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 06:20, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Pssst, this is a bit late, but am i supposed to vote for Palin cause i've got boobies and a womb? Just making sure I understand teh directions on my voter's card correctly. --En attendant Godot_{"«Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta. V.Nabokov»} 17:25, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Filtered

Hey Jinx _{(Hi Jinx!)}, how's it feel to be an editor _(sic) at a webshite that's blocked for unsuitable content at a CHURCH's internet server?   ^Contribs_Talk 23:21, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Go online at The Crossing Church here in Worksop, UK and try to log on to Conservapedia and you're blocked for "Unsuitable Content". I should have got a screengrab but iI was so gobsmacked that I forgot. I might pop up & get one next week.   ^Contribs_Talk 13:14, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Why should I give a damn? I don't know (A) what type of church this is (e.g. evangelical, mainline, etc.), (B) what filtering software they use and (C) exactly why CP was filtered. 67.135.49.198 13:34, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Why should you give a damn? Let me tell you why. Because you care of Conservapedia, because you care of the children (of different Christian confessions) who are supposed to consult Conservapedia. If I were you, I'd enquiry in this matter. Perhaps it's just a technical error, but perhaps there is something there deemed unsuitable for Christians. In that case you should examine carefully what it is and perhaps change Conservapedia accordingly. Susan gave you the address of the Church, why don't you contact them? For God's sake, instead of just hating us, wouldn't you for once try to improve Conservapedia?!? Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 13:49, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

How would harassing this church like you want me to do improve CP? 67.135.49.198 14:55, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Ok, I'll try to explain as slowly and as simply as I can. Listen carefully. There must be a reason why Conservapedia is blocked for unsuitable content by a church. Perhaps there is some content in Conservapedia that is not good for good Christians to see, especially for Christian school-aged children (who happen to be Conservapedia's declared target). You should be concerned about this unsuitable content and, if you are brave enough, e-mail that church and ask for explanations. Perhaps they will point out to you what this unsuitable content is and you will remove it from Conservapedia, if you find it unsuitable too. After all, you care of the Christian users of Conservapedia. You especially care of the Christian homeschoolers who could be shocked by that unsuitable content, don't you? If then you find out instead that there is no unsuitable content on Conservapedia and the block was for some other mysterious reason, too bad, you "lost" a couple of minutes writing an e-mail. Is it clearer now? Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 15:24, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

EC

I have since been able to show the Cleric in charge (It's very all-encompassing as you can tell by the fact that they let me in - no church is disallowed from using its facilities) the CP website. He agreed 100% that it was unsuitable for general consumption.

Reasons:

1. Intolerance of:
   1. Homosexuals (no he's not)
   2. Evolution
   3. Agnosticism/atheism (He didn't think a lot of The God Delusion because of its contrary intolerance)
   4. Tolerance of different views or disagreement

And many more.

Basically, he thought it was shite.   ^Contribs_Talk 15:25, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Susan. You do care of those poor homeschoolers. Would you be so kind to tell us what kind of church was it? Anglican perhaps? You know, it's important for CP to know that they can exclude another Church from the list of the True Christians (TM). Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 15:30, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

It's brand new (2007) and was funded by all the churches in the town, Although I don't know about the RCs. The Cleric (I don't know what else to call him - he's probably the Vicar) is payed by The C of E I think. I'll research a bit more - All weddings today so he's been busy & I think tomorrow's rather a heavy day for him too.   ^Contribs_Talk 15:38, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, that explains it. So the question then is not what do I think about this left-wing church blocking CP. It is what do YOU think about this left-wing "tolerant" church advocating censorship by blocking CP and being intolerant of conservative beliefs (and proving Jinx's Law, ironically enough... dumbasses). 67.135.49.198 01:13, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Jinx's law can't be "proven" because it only applies to the cases you choose to mention, moron. And, by the by, you have just proven Jellyfish's Law, which is "Jinxmoron talks like a seven-year-old". I also love how any prudent filtering system (particularly of rotten, disease-ridden websites like CP) can be called "censorship" when you want to score points. Well done with that one! <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{That's why I have this doomed expression. You haven't noticed my doomed expression.} 01:20, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Hmm, I wrote something about tolerance once, back before web 2.0. And intolerance for intolerance.... and stupidity. ħuman 01:18, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Who said anything about left wing? Protecting people from Racism, Homophobia and Intolerance isn't bad. Conservative as defined by conservapedia is fascist as defined by us on this side of the pond - we censored Hitler (Hi Godwin!) and feel free to censor CP (Took you some time to come up with that devastating refutation, didn't it?)   ^Contribs_Talk 01:23, 31 August 2008 (EDT) (EC)

Ah! I see, you're mistaking Christian for left wing - all is explained, Good night troll   ^Contribs_Talk 01:36, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

I suspect this may be part of the reason Jesus hasn't returned yet--he's wayyyy too Liberal for most of His supposed followers, and he'd really hate for them to feel obliged to deny him three times. --Gulik 14:41, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

I love how you are all defending or conveniently ignoring this form of censorship. (And apparently from the information given here, it's one man's doing.) Very "rational," indeed! Yep. It's oh-so "rational" to decide for people what they can or cannot view. Orwell's vision of the future used to be seen by many as coming to fruition via the right-wing, but time and time again we have come to see that it is far, far closer to coming to fruition from the left-wing. 67.135.49.198 14:20, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

This from the site that censors anything they don't agree with and blocks any user that dare question the unchecked power of the sysops.... By the way Jinx, you have still failed to answer my response in the section above. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 15:24, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Sorry Jinx _{(Hi Jinx!)}, I've emailed him and here's an excerpt from his reply ( most was about Linux):

'" The filter is the standard net-nanny type installed by default on all Church of England systems, I haven't had any trouble or complaints about it before and I think that it is quite justified. "

Regards   ^Contribs_Talk 15:36, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, right. So it was just automatically blocked upon installation of said software. Mm-hmm. So exactly what is the brand name of this software, pray tell. "The standard net-nanny type" is pretty vague. 67.135.49.198 23:39, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Dunno _{(Hi Jinx!)}. I'll ask on Monday, why? You worried that the word of Andrew Schlafly (aka Jesus & Pinochet's representative in New Jersey) might not be getting out to the heathen masses over here? (Oh, you've 5 minutes to answer then I'm blocking you for 8 hours.)   ^Contribs_Talk 23:49, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

I'll add a couple of minutes reply time for D Lerner's block.   ^Contribs_Talk 23:53, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Jinx_{(Hi Jinx!)} see Norseman's entry below and then FUCK OFF back to your little bit of white lower middle class suburbia.   ^Contribs_Talk 16:08, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

"Why don't you just permaban me, wuss?"

But that would be no fun! ^_^
Anyway, I suppose I owe you an explanation even if you are a petulant man-child. After you turned up on talk:Poe's Law, it became painfully obvious that you were far more interested in drawing attention to yourself than actually debating, so I have decided instead to simply amuse myself by teasing you. So yes, I find it incredibly entertaining to block you.
However, I desysoped myself yesterday (:() so I guess I'll have to make do with altering your comments instead. Yes, I'm as disappointed as you are. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{That's why I have this doomed expression. You haven't noticed my doomed expression.} 04:20, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Questions

You're interesting, therefore I have a few questions I'd like to see you answer. This isn't for amusement, but rather to get a better understanding. (as some would say... "like, wtf?"). Since you're the type who actually responds to all some inquiries, unlike a certain someone who usually ignores and censors mostly anything disagreeing with his ideology. Instead, you keep it in view, a rare quality amongst CP folk indeed.

• I love how you are all defending or conveniently ignoring this form of censorship.

• [...]advocating censorship by blocking CP and being intolerant of conservative beliefs[...]

• Talk pages, article pages, basically any page that has a discussion that shows users are winning a discussion against a sysop are sometimes deleted, then recreated with the discussion missing. We don't do that here, and Wikipedia doesn't do that (as far as I know). Even you found out first hand how they censor RW, but perhaps you missed the salting of lands when your edits were sparse. They would delete entire discussions if it contained just "RW", and all users who mentioned it were banned (block reason: "Mentioning RW").

1. So, what do you define Bugler's "We should ban all atheists from CP" and Andy's feigned ignorance to the abuse reports, deletion of user pages and their talk pages when they aren't even banned (their "castle")? Why are comments removed daily, when a good portion of them basically contradict ideology with facts? (Example: Andy's stoic editing to Obama and McCain's articles, one bashes while the other flatters)

• You cried so hard about being blocked on Wikipedia by... Elkman or whoever? For a day, one measly day. There's a page of discussion regarding your block, and you were blocked for like only one single day. Elkman blocked himself as punishment as well.

• Sysops at Conservapedia block on a whim, and there is no discussion or users get blocked for even trying to. You seemed to cry so much for yourself, but when users who are blocked for months without so much as a care from any administrator, there's a notice of absence of "Hey, this is worse than Wikipedia's standards!" from you.

• While Wikipedia will unblock users to contest their blocks, have emails, and discussions among many administrators, CP will bar most people with the lack of communication - emailing at least 80% of the administrators will yield no response. Even Andy said once that he doesn't check his email that he made for CP... he uses a different email (deceit, anyone?). Most sysops will ignore email sent to them except by other sysops, others don't even have email enabled, and in the case of a small percentage, some administrators have their talk page locked, effectively giving no chance of a user to contact them. Of course, disputing your block with another sysop/admin will warrant a MYOB or something. Even some sysops go so far as to tell others that they cannot undo another sysop's block. Users are even blocked for reporting abuse.

2. In other words, you're a hypocrite. There's no need to ask that question as it's an obvious truth. However, instead I'll ask this: Why aren't YOU standing up to the users who are wrongfully blocked? Why aren't you saying anything about the distortions Andy keeps drumming up and tossing away one fact after another for his ideology? You were quite adamant over at Wikipedia about the abuse, POV-pushing, tag-teaming administrators... but why do you ignore CP's practice?

• Sysops have impunity, and pay no consequence for their actions. Even Andy has been know to troll talk page discussions (5 year block according to administrators), insult (personal remarks, 5 years), revert without explanation (1 week to 1 month), and the list goes on.

• The rules, guidelines, and commandments are routinely broken daily by many those who have blocking powers. You may or may not be one of them, I don't know. You're not as much fun on CP to watch than others who would rather snap someone's neck off instead of answer a little question or explain a tiny edit.

• You stated "Actions have consequences" when it is painfully mind-numbingly clear that those with power on CP contradict exactly that. Ironically, your statement was on a page full of abuse reports that have gone unanswered and continues to grow.

3. What's your opinion about abusive administrators, should they be punished? If so, what kind of punishment? If not, aside from making you a hypocrite (respectively), why do they not deserve punishment when you felt the administrators at Wikipedia be dealt a swift block?

• Andy claims that the Vikings never settled in North America prior to Columbus (who he thinks was a devout Christian, not a Catholic as history shows). He claims young women in Hollywood show-business have a higher chance of breast cancer. He claims that abortions cause cancer. He claims that atheists and other religions, as well as homosexuals, won't live a happier life than straight Christians. He thinks that the Archaeopteryx is still a hoax, that the creationist institutes (Answers in Genesis, for example) are wrong after they've concluded it is real, and his only reasoning is that Hoyle's work "is good enough for me", reverting all other edits and dismissing tantamount evidence proving him wrong. He even thinks public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong.

• Conservative thinks that homosexuals and anal cancer, blah blah. Just read his articles.

• Liberal ______ articles keep piling up and promote only negativity and false allegations portrayed by a mentally ill mind, while Conservative ______ articles are few and flattering. Liberal teachings cause mental illness, and all that jazz.

• Distortion of historical facts to fit ideology, such as saying the southern states were liberal because they wanted to keep slavery, the triangular trade didn't exist (because it proved Christians were part of the slavery boom), that corrupted politicians were really liberals in disguise.

4. What do you have to say to these, do you support them? If not, why aren't you saying anything about whatever you disagree with? If you do, how can you support these claims when there's little to no evidence supporting the theories? If you don't care, why do you keep editing when you know there are glaring errors that haven't been resolved or fixed? It's like seeing two typos in an article and fixing only one, deliberately ignoring it only makes it stick out more.

5. Please do a barrel roll. Puuuhhhh-leeeeeaase! I'll give you a cookie. =D I'll give you a snuggle! <3 <3 <3! Norseman^Wassail! 10:32, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Hey, I don't know if Jinx will ever read that, but I did and I appreciate those questions very much. Thanks for writing that. A minor point, what does that "who he thinks was a devout Christian, not a Catholic as history shows" mean? Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 10:44, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Right above August 7 header, Aschlafly claims he's a devout Christian, but he's actually a Roman Catholic (see religious beliefs). Norseman^Wassail! 10:58, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

@Norseman: Sorry, did you just say "you're the type who actually responds to all inquiries" to Jinxmchue?

I bet to differ. (See "aftersnark", specifically) <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{That's why I have this doomed expression. You haven't noticed my doomed expression.} 11:01, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

I guess we disagree on what Catholics are. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 11:02, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Um, a Roman Catholic is a Christian. It's the largest & oldest Christian church there is. weaseLOId~ 11:11, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Also, I object to the phrase "slap down Weasel Boy" in that blog link. To refer to Jinx in this way is a grave affront to us Weasels. weaseLOId~ 11:15, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

This is a great rant. Make it into an article? Get all the gripes about the hypocritical, tyrannical, and incompetent sysoppery in one place... --Gulik 15:47, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Answering multiple points (forgot about the questionnaire I posted here): I don't know anything about religion, so I didn't know a Roman Catholic was Christian, so my bad. Jinx usually response to all inquiries, though its obvious he ignored this section and replied below (FEIGNED IGNORANCE!$@#%@!, a prodigy to Andy). Norseman^Wassail! 13:06, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

So, how about it Jinx? Care to reply?

A Little Advice

First off, it's spelled Oi not Oy, and second, you're a known racist, don't say You people Just a little advice from the black guy. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 15:16, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

lol! I'm a "known racist." Right. I don't give a shit if you're black. What I give a shit about is that you're a fucking moron.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oi

the life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness —motto of Hawaii

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oy

used especially to express exasperation or dismay <oy, what a mess>

Additionally, "you people" obviously refers to those people complaining about the police action. If you're so fucking stupid to take that phrase as always racist, well, I guess that's par for the course for you people. (And that refers to people who share your grotesque lack of mental acuity, be they black, white, red, yellow, pink, purple or green.)

So, please, oh, Mr. Black Guy, don't bother to talk to me again unless you have something intelligent and informed to say. Suffice it to say, I'm sure that won't be any time soon. 67.135.49.198 12:56, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Ah Jinx, you remind me of the time I spent with my middle school students, where profanity and childish insults are considered great debate skills... Let start at the top and work down shall we? Ok then, listen up and you might learn something.

The thing about Oi/Oy was a joke you idiot, "Oy" is the yiddish spelling, "Oi" is the punk rock exclamation as in Oi Oi Oi. Maybe you could figure that out if you weren't so stupid. Really though jinx, when you heard that Sarah Palin had been chosen as McCain's running mate, you thought she was married to the guy from Monty Python didn't you? You probably voted against Bush because you thought he was a parodist, with a slang term for anatomy. Anyway, back on track. As for the you people, I love your first sentence is all about how "I'm not racist, I saw a black man yesterday." and then you complete shit all over that by finishing with another you people. For the record, I don't think you people is a racist phrase all the time (hell, look at my conversation with Human above.) I would also like to point out for someone who doesn't feel any differently about race, you went out of your way to refer to me as "Mr. Black Guy" instead of SirChuckB or SCB or Chuck or any of the other names I'm known by around here.... And in conclusion, Jason or should I say "Mr. White Guy?" How about "Mr. White Sheet and Hood Guy?" You wouldn't know an intelligent conversation if you were moderating a panel discussion between Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 13:24, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

You're a glutton for punishment, aren't you? It's interesting to note that no one else is coming to your defense like people here usually do for each other.

The profanity and childish insults are simply my attempt to come down to your level and communicate with you. If I didn't do that, I fear you would not be able to keep up. You're already having a lot of trouble doing that as it is. Fuck off.

Ah, yes. The old "it was a joke" defense after being handed your ass on a silver platter. See, I knew the difference between the two. You obviously didn't until my post. Fuck off.

Monty Python? Honestly, is that the best you have? Massive fail. Fuck off.

No, I actually didn't see a black man yesterday. Not in person anyway. I saw lots of black people at the RNC on TV, though. You know what DIDN'T go through my mind at the time? "Hey, there's a black person! And another! And yet another! Boy, there are a lot of black people at the RNC!" That's because I don't look at people like you do, you black racist prick. Fuck off.

Oh, right. "You people" isn't racist all the time unless it's used by a conservative that you've condemned with absolutely zero proof as "a known racist" - even when it's obviously used in reference to a group with no regard to their racial make-up. And then I fucking obviously taunt and bait you by using the phrase you've got your candy-ass panties all in a bunch over AND YOU FALL FOR IT! Priceless! Absolutely priceless! Fuck off.

>>>YOU<<< REFERRED TO >>>YOURSELF<<< AS "THE BLACK GUY," YOU FUCKING RETARDED JACKASS!!! >>>YOU<<< BROUGHT IT UP, YOU HYPOCRITICAL DICKWEED!!! Again, I taunted and baited you and you once again fell for it exactly like I knew you would. I was sitting there typing "Mr. Black Guy" and was thinking "Watch him complain about me calling him what he just called himself." Predictable as always. Fuck off.

I've no desire to wear any white sheets or hoods. The KKK is as disgusting as racist hypocrites like yourself, Mr. Black Guy. Man, you people make me sick. Fuck off.

Obviously, conversation between three 3-year-olds would be too advanced for you. Your brain has obviously been fried by too much booze, dope and/or weed. Fuck off.

Oh, and fuck off. 67.135.49.198 11:31, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Jinx _{hi Jinx!}, I'd just like to say how nice it is to have a proper Christian conservative come round here and deliver their measured views in a polite fashion. However, Í won't be holding my breath (even in my mouth) waiting for that to happen. Генгис^mutating 12:01, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Wow Jinx, I don't know where to start... I can start with the most obvious point, for which I'll borrow a quote from Billy Madison. Nowhere in the rambling incoherent rant did you even reach anything approaching a logical statement, congratulations. I'll also point out the irony in the fact that I have not once had to resort to profanity, whereas every sentence you wrote ended with Fuck off... Wow, I guess you really do have to bring it down to my level huh? My god, you really are stupid. I mean a special level of stupid.... How do you manage to tie your shoes in the morning? Anyway, no one is "coming to my defense" because nobody needs to. You see Jason, may I call you Jason? Ok, I will. Well Jason, no defense is needed because anyone with a functional brainstem can easily see that I'm doing quite well on my own, of course you're making it very easy, but that's beside the point. Have no doubt that many people are reading this and laughing heartily at you and your 6th grade debating techniques ("you're a fucking moron" "oh yeah, well go fuck off" "No you")

My next point: your post specifically referred to the Hawaiian/Polynesian meaning of "Oi" (really, it does, scroll up if you don't believe me) whereas I was specifically referring to the "Oi" of Punk Rock. Dropkick Murphey, an Irish Punk band, uses that particular interjection (they show excitement, or emotion, generally set apart from a sentence by an exclamation point) many times in several songs, so I knew what I was talking about.... Not to beat the dead horse, but you really are stupid. I know that "it wasn't a joke, he's only trying to cover" is classic Conservative defense (see the Al Franken talk pages if you want proof) but the fact is, that we liberals use subtle, layered humor that sometimes takes an idiot (like you Jason) to proclaim victory before the deception can be fully known... It's kind of like the Daily Show interview segments; the humor comes from wondering if the idiots they interview know that they're being mocked. You obviously didn't know that, but I can't teach humor.

A small response, I think my Monty Python joke was much better that your Fuhrer's recent attempt (at which he became the first person to ever quote mine a movie)

You know the best part about your "defense?" you drive yourself further and further into the realm of obvious racism. You say you don't see race, because "(you) don't look at people like (I) do," yet you can say, 100% that you saw no black people in person. I defer to the wisdom of DL Hughley (he's a darkie comedian) who once said "If you know how many (black people you see a day) you're racist like a muthafucka. What are you doing? Coutin em?" I could continue this for a very long time, but A, you are much too stupid to recognize effective debating techniques, and B, you would scream "I'm not racist, you are" till you lost your voice, so I will just let you bask in your....... Whatever it is racists like you bask in.

In conclusion, you obviously have much more emotional stake in this than I do (I'm simply in it for the points, whereas you went so far as to all caps me and put little arrows to emphasize a point) So I'll just wrap this up with some "brotherly" advice: Always remember Jason (you did say I could call you Jason right? Thanks Jason) It is far better to let people think you're a fool, then to open your mouth and prove it." In short, you have proven Jellyfish's Law beyond all doubt, and if you have an ounce of common sense, you'll just shut up and slink back to your trailer. That being said, I look forward to reading your next response. Good day Sir, and Godspeed. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 12:05, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

(ec, twice!) You know, Jinx, if this were CP, someone would reply with "methinks you doth protest too much." Honestly though, I wouldn't agree with that. I do think you seem to snap pretty severely at the slightest provocation, but that's not proof either way. Anyway, in addition to "coming to [Chuck's] defense," and pointing out that "glutton for punishment" is probably incorrect, considering you didn't "punish" him the first time (or the second time for that matter), I'd like to draw your attention to the quite civil questions in the section above. I understand that you don't want to use profanity or insults, so answering them would be an excellent opportunity to rise above that. Thanks! --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 12:06, 5 September 2008 (EDT) P.S. - Chuck, I know you didn't need anyone do come to your defense (you're obviously quite capable, and I'm rarely much use), but I wanted to :-) Oh, and the Dropkick Murphys rock.

Guys, I think we should be congratulating Jinx on what is obviously a ground breaking achievement: I think he actually makes Ed Poor look an intelligent and decent bloke. Bondurant 12:42, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Get well soon!

If you are sick, I hope you heal fast. Conservapedia needs you. And we too. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 07:13, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Taking part

Don't sulk; you're welcome to join us ^_^ Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 17:17, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Hey thank you

I feel honoured. And I called you Honourable too, here. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 09:57, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I found a Jinx

Got you, you hairy little bastard. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 10:02, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Hey Jinx, are you aware that you appear intellectually deficient and you are considered sexually inferior by other males? $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 10:05, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Jinx, are you also aware that several people have engaged in sexual intercourse with your mother? $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 10:10, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

No Jinx, don't listen. They are just angry at you. We have no idea of your sexuality or that of your mother. You are only intellectually deficient and that's all :-) Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 10:20, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

We know

Very amusing study. Sadly, being neither atheist nor liberal, I can't say I feel especially threatened by these amazing statistics. Keep up the good work, though!
Also, new entries do not automatically gain votes. People voted for you. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 19:05, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Scratch that. The problem was that you used the letter "X" rather than a new ID for the WIGO entry. I fixed it for you. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 19:07, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

OIC. 67.135.49.198 19:09, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Thank you again for showing your intelligence and smartness, both in Conservapedia and here. Your skills amaze us more and more every time. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 19:25, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

(EC)Hi Jinx, long time no Schukky.... Did you read my write up about your little explosion here? I do hope you enjoyed it, I worked ever so hard in writing it. Well, we welcome you back friend... Without you, our Incan(Aztec?)[Mayan?} {Olmec?} quotas are ruined. And regarding this... A, aren't you breaking the rules by discussing off site activity? I'm sure you've blocked people for that before, and B, YES, you are still a racist. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 19:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh Jinx, I still think about the days we had together. I remember you suckling my teat. Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 19:39, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Hey, Jinx _{hi Jinx!}, people aren't supposed to point out their own "exploits" on WIGO CP, old chap. Speaking of chaps, yours look a little chapped. ħuman 22:12, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Unless you can prove Germing hermitage...

this is pretty fucking questionable. And even then....PFoster 19:54, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

You guys are fucking guppies. All I have to do is throw out the bait and you latch on. 67.135.49.198 22:09, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I love the way you advertise your racism as if its a good thing.--Damo^Hi 22:11, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I hate to burst anyone's bubble (or look like I'm defending Jinx -- hah!), but Jinx isn't racist. He is, however, childish and short-tempered enough to appear to be under certain circumstances. Can we leave the smears and oversimplifications to CP, please? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 22:16, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

JA WOL!!!!!PFoster 22:19, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

So? He was joking. Christ, he's already a homophobic creationist, you know. Enough to be going on with, perhaps? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 22:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Hey, see my comment above - I agreed to comply with your suggestion.PFoster 22:26, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Sry :( I had a feeling I'd misread you. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 22:28, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)I will continue to hold that my Yucatán dwelling friend is indeed racist. I have no proof of this and the evidence is weak at best.... But I'm looking at my Platinum Hexagon right now and I love it. By the way Jinx, go fuck yourself SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 01:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Hey Jinx. If we call you a known pedophile instead, will you start repeating that rumour on Conservapedia too? weaseLOId~ 09:11, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

It really makes me wonder what kind of mentality you self-proclaimed "rational" people are working under to think up stuff like that. Does the subject of pedophilia easily come to mind for you? 67.135.49.198 22:42, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Only when we think of homeskollars in connection with conswervapaedya   ^Contribs_Talk 22:50, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh and btw Jink _{(Hi Jinx!)} it's Ja wohl   ^Contribs_Talk 22:50, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

He can't spell in Yiddish either Susan SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 23:32, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't know where you think you have leeway to point out my [non-]errors when you obviously can't use proper punctuation in English, hypocrite. 67.135.49.198 15:14, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Like I give a fucking rat ass. I guess that means I'm not a very good obvious racist, otherwise I'd know German better. 67.135.49.198 15:14, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, you obviously do give ass otherwise you wouldn't have posted this drivel.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 15:22, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

(ec) No, just an ignorant racist.   ^Contribs_Talk 15:25, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

"I guess I'm not a very good racist, otherwise I'd know German better"? Well, on the bright side, you've got xenophobia pretty much nailed. ^_^ Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 15:27, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

My wife's German, shithead. 67.135.49.198 15:31, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I can't read your mind, dipstick. Offended by accusations of xenophobia? Maybe you should try "not sounding xenophobic"?? It's a winning formula! ^_^ Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 15:37, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh, NOW you can't read my mind. But you can read my mind enough to condemn me as "obviously racist" without a single shred of hard evidence. Fucking amazing! And how, pray tell, does not giving a shit about how something is spelled in German make me xenophobic? Try making some accusations without pulling evidence for them out of your ass (which is tricky, I'm sure, since your head is obviously in the way). 67.135.49.198 15:45, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

(ec) Jinx Jinx Jinx, I find your worldview so sad, especially coming from such rich Incan heritage (Aztec? You've never cleared that up)... Anyway, I assume you meant to make the glaring mistakes in your few posts... Do you see it yet? No? Let me give you a hint. Interjections, adjective lists, and possessive nouns, that's all I have to say on that.... And can you please explain what having a German wife (assuming it's true and not just something you plucked out of your ass) has to do with your racism and xenophobia? I mean, German's are considered white... But if you meant "My wife is German, I'm not Xenophobic," As I can only assume you did, you'll have to do better than that... Is she German? Or just of German heritage? And more to the point, Aren't Conservatives the ones that scream about one counterexample not being enough to disprove a sweeping generalization.... Just saying... Oh well, good day to you sir, I hope you have a wonderful day. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 15:42, 23 September 2008 (EDT) Ps, did I see you in Apocalypto?

You're the fuckheads telling me I'm xenophobic for not giving a damn about how words are spelled in German, so you tell me how anything has to do with you accusations of racism and xenophobia against me. 67.135.49.198 15:45, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

"NOW you can't read my mind. But you can read my mind enough to condemn me as "obviously racist""

Jinx, get your fucking brain working and read five inches up, where you'll see my comments in which I defend your worthless hide and inform everyone that you are not a racist. You really are pitifully stupid, aren't you? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 15:52, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) You know the best part of talking to you Jason? I always know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I will read something incredibly stupid. Thank you, my friend. Anyway, on to the fun part... We're not reading your mind to assume you're racist, we're analysing your words.... There a BIG DIFFERENCE YOU IDIOT. Much of what you say sound very very racist, so we intrepret those words as having come from a racist individual. Wanna prove us wrong? Well, you really can't. Sorry Jinx, that's the way it goes. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 15:57, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Jinx, you've totally missed the point about sounding xenophobic. It has nothing to do with whether you can spell something or care how it's spelled in German; it's that you've implied two or three times that there is some direct connection between racism and being German or knowing the German language ("I guess I'm not a very good racist, otherwise I'd know German better"). And that itself is a racist or xenophobic comment to make. Do you immediately think of the Nazis when you hear German being spoken? How do you think that makes your German wife feel? weaseLOId~ 10:47, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Do I hear crickets chirping? weaseLOId~ 10:39, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

main page

Jinxy my pretty, what do you find so "laughable"? Your main page comment about those planets is pretty unclear. Ace McWicked^{Substansive comments only} 22:45, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

"Crickets chirp"

No one cares, Jinx. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 23:42, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I love it when Jinx gets all indignant and stamps his wittle feet. Ace McWicked^{cast ye the first stone} 23:44, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

It's pretty tragic when someone can interpret no reaction whatsoever as victory. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 23:50, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

It's a corruption on the Conservapedia way which is: Make stupid argument, block any user who could make a comeback (for talk, talk, talk or nonsubstansive reasons), declare victory as blocked user cannot respond. Ace McWicked^{cast ye the first stone} 23:54, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I am confused, why are we all of a sudden interested in Jinx _{hi Jinx!}'s talkpage again? That little cretin hasn't been around in over a day. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 00:07, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Actually, our Mezo-American friend was here for a bit earlier. I do wonder, what are you guys talking about? SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 01:06, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

This and this. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 01:11, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

You suddenly don't care because you can't prove your bullshit. Ah, but you DO care about things like someone not putting nowiki tags around asterisks. Yeah, man. That's the shit that's REALLY fuckin' important. Deep-fried Buddha on a stick! 67.135.49.198 02:33, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

No we suddenly dont care because we dont care. You are a complete wank and thats all that matters. Now, go outside and cut me a switch, its time you had a spanking. Ace McWicked^{cast ye the first stone} 02:36, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Oooooh, a spanking!! Wash the conservative young earth creationist bible thumping Christian's mouth out with lye soap while you're at it! Tickets are limited, line forms... at the rear ;) ħuman 02:50, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

CP doesn't have any articles on sexuality so I don't think he's going to appreciate the context of "Oooooh, a spanking!!"... ArmondikoV^narchist 13:28, 25 September 2008 (EDT)