User talk:92.27.173.236
|
Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, 92.27.173.236.
This observation is due to the nature of your initial edits. Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble. We realize it is possible that you do not understand the nature of the site or our objectives. Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards to clarify things for you. If you're still interested in contributing, please see what our articles are intended to be. |
As well as general racism, could you please put new talk page comments at the bottom of a section even if you're replying to an older comment? (To make it clear who you're insulting you could put @[Username of person you're accusing of being a slanderer/moron/SJW] at the start of your comment). Christopher (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oh no not racism. Are you here to "fight racism" or be accurate? Lol I just clicked on your 'insulting" link and it links to ad hominem. Hint, "here's why you're wrong, moron" isn't ad hom. Rational wiki strikes again. 92.27.173.236 (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- I looked through some of your edits, yet to find an example of you actually showing why something is wrong. Care to provide and example? Christopher (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Huh? He was wrong because it was Japanese not Chinese, for example. Why are you lying? 92.27.173.236 (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- There was an edit conflict but the thing I said above clarifies that I meant with regards to the racialism thing not the Japanese/Chinese thing. Christopher (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- The Japanese/Chinese thing doesn't prove anything about whatever you were trying to say about race. Christopher (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2017
- Obviously. You said there were no examples of me showing something was wrong. Which was petulant exaggerated bullshit. I'm still trying to clarify exactly what's confusing the retarded SJWs here regarding Darwinian/phylogenetic genealogical classification. Perhaps you can explain by answering the question I posed. 92.27.173.236 (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could clarify what the question was? Christopher (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Obviously. You said there were no examples of me showing something was wrong. Which was petulant exaggerated bullshit. I'm still trying to clarify exactly what's confusing the retarded SJWs here regarding Darwinian/phylogenetic genealogical classification. Perhaps you can explain by answering the question I posed. 92.27.173.236 (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Huh? He was wrong because it was Japanese not Chinese, for example. Why are you lying? 92.27.173.236 (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- I looked through some of your edits, yet to find an example of you actually showing why something is wrong. Care to provide and example? Christopher (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oh no not racism. Are you here to "fight racism" or be accurate? Lol I just clicked on your 'insulting" link and it links to ad hominem. Hint, "here's why you're wrong, moron" isn't ad hom. Rational wiki strikes again. 92.27.173.236 (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
|
This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet, or who does not use it.
We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify them. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. |