User talk:AD/Archive5

yes I did.

I really hate getting a bunch of emails from Wiki Admin. Today I got 30some emails because of people editing my talk page. And I won't turn email notification off because I hate not getting notified when someone leaves me a message. I foolishly had asked people not to edit my talk page, which resulted in people frantically editing my talk page to bug me. It was mildly amusing, and also quite annoying. The latest drama is explained on my talk page, if you're interested in that.--User:Brxbrx/sig 06:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, awesome. I admire your dedication to communication via notification.--^talk 06:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll summarise it for you Tom. Basically I asked him why he was a virgin. He told me. Then he tried to hide the edits around it because he realised how humiliating it is for a 25 year old to be a virgin. Still faffing around with postmodernist thinkers I take it? Still snapping at the heels of the establishment? American academia has done so much to advance the cause of cultural relativism and postmodernist hackery. MarcusCicero (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Insulting postmodernism! You cut me to the quick.

I do think it's a useful field, and too much maligned now that genetic criticism is back in vogue. I will happily defend its existence, even if I agree that it has many flaws (particularly in latter execution). But it's a weak thrust to think I am somehow attached to it - elsewhere you even call me a "postmodernist," as if I'd published in the field!

You're a clever enough dabbler, MC. You have a lot of a little at your command, excepting only jargon (which you have in spades). But you're hardly a mystery, and you're hardly formidable. Remember that.--^talk 12:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

A dabbler! Surely not. Remember what? You seem to think of yourself as the wise old man of Rationalwiki, like you're the intellectual heart of the project. Frankly I know your kind from university, the ultimate dilettante (Which is why I loved the irony of you calling me one) MarcusCicero (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm 28, a bit away from any kind of old man. It's not that I'm at all deep - you're just as shallow as a puddle. I benefit by comparison. Thanks for that, by the way.--^talk 12:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Reform Society doth challenge you to a debate

Come and debate with me in a formal setting some contemporary controversy of public concern. MarcusCicero (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. My only requirements are that it not take place on RW or RWW and that the argument is one on which we mutually agree. At your pleasure.--^talk 12:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The debate will take place on my user-space. I propose we debate the following, The efficiency of 60 watt lightbulbs as compared to 40 watt lightbulbs, and their wider societal impact in South Eastern Belgium from 1956 to 1987. What do you think? MarcusCicero (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, probably smarter to back out. Courage is overrated.--^talk 12:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Jeez. Fine then, you propose a debate topic if you think that you're superior to debating the virtues of 60 watt lightbulbs. MarcusCicero (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh! I just had one; That this house believes that Thomas More deserved to be executed. MarcusCicero (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You want to argue pro on that? Fair enough, although that seems a curious choice. We can debate on a Google Group rather than your talkpage, per my first requirement. You can make it and issue the initial argument at your leisure.--^talk 13:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you will debate on behalf of Thomas Cromwell and Henry VIII. I will defend the cause of religious and political liberty. The debate will be hosted by the Rationalwiki Reform society user-space, and the terms will be decided by the Reform society membership. We must also use only archaic language, any modern terminology (Post 1750) will be discarded and removed. MarcusCicero (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I will agree to debate pro. I'll even agree to the requirement for archaic language, although I insist on only contemporary language, not language from more than a century after the event in question. But the debate will not take place on RW or an associated site, for obvious reasons.--^talk 13:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Why won't we debate on RW? I've changed my mind again. I don't want this debate after all. It was my intention to challenge you and then see you refute it. Your agreeing to it wasn't countenanced. MarcusCicero (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

What an astonishing revelation, Puddles.--^talk 23:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you think you're so smart. I hate the way you wander around with your pretentious airs. Suggest a debate topic that we're both relatively knowledgable about and which wouldn't result in you building gigantic postmodernist fortifications, impervious to both reason and probing argument. The gauntlet is thrown down, sir. MarcusCicero (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

More specifically, the gauntlet was thrown down and then taken up and then thrown down a second time in a flush of hot shame. But alas your cloak of cowardly anonymity prevents me from speculating as to what you might know about, other than Irish history and Internet culture. Do you know anything about literature or world history or religion or the like?--^talk 01:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My specific aree of expertise is Irish history from the late 19th to the mid 20th century, with pockets of insight of the late 18th century (Specifically Edmund Burke and his Irish interests) More broadly, I could probably put up a good showing in some Crusade type debate, or maybe the first 80 years of the Roman Empire. With regards to literature, my interests are eclectic, but I have some knowledge of satirical novels ranging from Huxley, Sinclair and Waugh to more modern masters like Heller and J.G. Farrell. Doth our interests overlap at all? MarcusCicero (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's work with your strong suit, history. Let's argue about whether the Crusades were justified. One of us will posit the question, and the other will choose pro or con. Would you prefer to make the question or choose your stance?--^talk 00:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Not that the crusades were justified persé, but maybe we could argue the religiosity aspect; whether they were motivated by worldly concerns or were indeed an appeal from heaven to reconquer the holy lands. We could explore various chancers like Peter the Hermit along the way. We should restrict it to the first crusade. Allow me to brush up on my Runciman and I'll see what we can do. MarcusCicero (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Haha yeah I'll hold my breath waiting.--^talk 10:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Its a bit early to throw in the towel, Tom. Perhaps you would like to get it underway then? Perhaps we'll take the less nuanced view you propose and argue the proposition as to whether the crusades were 'justified' (What that even means is up for interpretation) The terms are these; It must be hosted on Rationalwiki and must have a suitably grand title, it must be accompanied by extremely formal rules and you are not allowed to poke, tease, mock or ridicule in any way. Swearing and personal abuse is completely forbidden. The winner shall be decided by a vote from the gallery (Every RWian will have a vote) You up for it? MarcusCicero (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said right from the beginning, Puddles, it won't be on RW. Remember? "My only requirements are that it not take place on RW or RWW and that the argument is one on which we mutually agree."

I will agree to the rest of your laughable requirements, since without handling with kid gloves you'd just shy away again into the wild, like an addled young fawn. No insults, swearing, personal abuse, mockery, ridicule, teasing, poking, informality... my my, we certainly aren't feeling very bold today, are we? I would also suggest that we only use mellow colored text in a soothing font, since the harsh black of Times New Roman might damage your delicate sensibilities. I will speak softly and feed you tender young ferns.--^talk 23:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Why can't it be on RW? I don't see the point in debating with you otherwise. And the anti abuse rules are there because you have a pernicious arrogant streak, permeated with self righteousness and an uncanny ability to talk up your own intellectual ability by a few choice phrases and remarks. I believe if your tendancy to wiggle about with condescending platitudes were removed, that you would be an eminently beatable candidate. But if you're too cowardly to face me like a man, on rationalwiki, in full public view, then I of course understand and will accept your forfeit. MarcusCicero (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh... oh... look, over there. No, look where I'm pointing, kids. See, under the drooping willow? It's an Muntiacus crinifrons, one of the smallest breeds of deer. And this one is a little one!

Careful, don't make any big movements. He's a shy breed, and even just using mean words will drive him away in fear. Here, you can - here, take it by the strap - you can use my binoculars to get a look.

For such a timid animal, he does insist on being the center of attention. It's strange. Oh, look, he's got a little bit of fern there!

Jimmy, pass me the rifle.--^talk 00:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I am a busy man Tom. I am doing you a favour by offering you a rare opportunity to debate with me. Are you willing to have this debate on rationalwiki or not? You have not provided any convincing reasons as to why the debate should not occur on this website. And yes, I will not allow this debate to become a vehicle for your arrogant and condescending personal qualities. This debate will be about the issues dammit! The issues. So the rules will be strict and formal. No ridicule. No bad manners. Strictly formal language (For example you must refer to me as 'my honourable friend') and a studied application of proper ettiquette is in order. I was quite the debate for the Trinity College Philosophical Society I'll have you know. Now heel, and show deference to your betters. MarcusCicero (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you actually need it spelled out why it won't be here? I don't want to reward your attention-seeking behavior. You're like a child, face smeared with a grimy mixture of chocolate and dirt, reaching for a bright balloon that just's beyond your grasp. When you throw a tantrum, kicking and squealing about fairness and what you want and making silly demands, it doesn't help matters to just hand you the balloon. That would just encourage you.

I'm sure your ettiquette [sic] as a debate [sic] for Trinity was exemplary, but I have no doubt that they also imposed certain requirements on you. When you slouched into the hall, pantsless and with genitals wagging shortly in the air, they probably gently took you aside and told you that you would have to clothe yourself and wipe away the copious spittle on your chin before you would be allowed to debate. In the same way, my only real requirement is that debate take place off of Rationalwiki. You can either accede to that, or you can flail around in your own saliva, ululating as you display your shame. Either way, this entire exchange here has been marvelously fun, so I'm not really losing out.--^talk 03:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

So basically you're admitting that you're too afraid to debate me on rationalwiki? The audience shall decide whether to follow the debate or not, that is entirely up to them. Yet you do not get to decide what they can or can not read or follow. You sir, are not the Saudi morality police. Please grow a respect for liberalism and freedom of speech and stop repressing my inherent right to these eternal 'rights of man'. Now, back to your baseless slur; consider, for a moment sir, that the institution I refer to counts Edmund Burke, Oscar Wilde and Samuel Beckett amongst its members. It is a thoroughly gracious institution, populated by men of sound character, and enemies to the cause of repression and fascism which you so heartily represent. Your ceaseless determination to stamp out all dissent is noted and filed and will be held against you when the revolution comes. MarcusCicero (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This goofiness is a clever tactic for a concern troll. You can be serious when you want to be and manufacture some outrage among the endlessly patient RW community, and when it looks like you're going to be humiliated in some fashion (i.e. tussling with me) then you can slip into the guise of joking pretension. It's a little transparent, but then a concern troll's whole repertoire is transparent to the skeptical.

I gave you my condition for debating you. You seem to have declined. I'm not terribly worried about looking bad in front of others, particularly after conversations like this one where you stagger around like a blind donkey. There's really no combination of words you can put together that would convincingly imply that I was somehow afraid of you... after all, look how badly you've done when we were only just discussing the terms of a debate. You're a drowning child threatening to annihilate the ocean.--^talk 23:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You really do have a very high opinion of yourself. To think that I would be 'humiliated' by debating with a dilettante like you generates only laughter in the wider RW community. I desperately want to have this debate, but for some strange reason you have created a set of terms destined to make it impossible. You will not debate on RW; the only plausible reason is because of fear. Fear that your pretentious airs, your arrogant tendancies and all of your self confidence will dissipate in the face of a true onslaught of intellectual valour. Your terms, sir, are laughable, and a joke. You have a chance to redeem yourself by going through with the debate on RW. I'd even allow you to formulate your own rules at this stage, my only clause is that occurs on RW. Here it will benefit by full sitewide accountability, and we would not be victim to your arrogant obfuscations and atypical elitist American university style relativisms. Now get to the point AD, the reason you will not debate me on RW is because you are too afraid. And I am not a troll. MarcusCicero (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll take you up on your offer to let me form the rules in exchange for having it on RW.

The rules are these: It will take place on a subpage of my talk page, and we will both be "botted" for the duration so no edits appear in Recent Changes. I will present the proposition and you will choose pro or con to it (being permitted to suggest minor amendments to which both of us would need to agree). There will be no attention-grabbing nonsense afterward like a vote or judgment - people can read it and come to their own conclusions if they wish.

When you agree, I'll arrange for us to be botted.--^talk 09:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree to having it on a subpage of your talk page. I will not consent to being 'botted' for the duration, it smacks too much of fascist censorship. For those who follow recent changes, they are perfectly free to ignore the happenings. But there should be a gallery, like in the House of Commons. There members of Rationalwiki can voice judgement and so on. And yes, I agree, there should be no votes. Do you agree to these amended terms? MarcusCicero (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No. And this discussion is boring now. Take it or leave it.--^talk 11:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

OK Tom, I'll agree to your terms. I take it we're allowed a talk page where others can discuss the debate as it occurs? MarcusCicero (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So Tom. Any updates? MarcusCicero (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Still waiting to hear about how we can be botted. You can do some of that leg-work if you'd like; it would probably even be faster, since this debate seems way more important to you than me and so I'm not pushing too hard on it.--^talk 00:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Face it, you're terrified of facing me in open combat. MarcusCicero (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, looking back over this conversation has made me shiver at what you must be like when you unleash your rhetorical force. At each turn, you humiliate me. Alas, alas.

Seriously, we can begin at any time either off-site or when we're botted. I would just bot us both now, but the new scheme means I am not longer a crat with that power. So cool your jets or get to work and find out who can do it.--^talk 03:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop erecting diversions. We can have the debate at any time without this 'bot' distraction. We can create a glorious debate title; The MarcusCicero dialogues; wherein he condescends to gently guide AD through the art of oratory and wherein he demolishes his opponent with customery vigour and gusto. MarcusCicero (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's always fun watching Tom slap Marcus around, especially when MC gets all hot and bothered about it. Can we restrict his editing rights to just his and Tom's talkpage? That way we get the lulz but not the trolling... --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Glorious Meta-Site

Could you upload a picture of you to the glorious Meta Site, the one you have here? It would be much appreciated. Тy^Talk. 13:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh, sure.--^talk 23:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No edit rights, sorry. But you can do it just as easily as me, can't you?--^talk 23:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright is the real issue, IIRC. Тy^Talk. 00:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright amended appropriately.--^talk 00:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will see about securing you edit rights should you decide to participate in the future. Тy^Talk. 00:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you a man?

Are you a man? Are you a coward? Do you fear the onslaught of my mighty oratory? Do your feet tremble at the thought of my magnificent arguments? At my almighty prose? At my significant presence? At my very command, you would be silent, and all would laugh, as you would drown under your ridicule.

A man perhaps, but a small one, and one deserving only of contempt. MarcusCicero (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that any lingering questions about AD's gender have been answered, and there is very little doubt that he is, in fact, an adult human male. P-Foster (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Silence thee, or thou shallst face mine wrath. MarcusCicero (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess if you're really in such a hurry we can go ahead now, off-site. Otherwise you just have to wait a bit until RW has mods again. Those are essentially your choices.

Well wait, you do have other choices:

• Shriek again here in a faux-mocking way, attempting to disguise your disquiet with another crude screen of jocularity.
• Quit.
• Quit and return after I sneer so hard at you your computer screen rocks slightly in place and your dog miscarries.--^talk 21:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What the fuck? This shit is still going on? Ace ^{of Spades} 21:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ace is a swine. AD, I have borne great patience with you, enduring your mockery and your insults with magnificent magnaminity. Are you really a simple idiot? A fool? A cretin? An imbecile? A twat? Are you any of these things? MarcusCicero (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I am none of those things. What a silly question! This debate is going to be easy.--^talk 07:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me surmise

I issue a brave intellectual challenge. You try to back down by creating ridiculous obstructions. I accomodate your attempts to obfuscate. You then attempt to siderail the discussion. When will it end Tom? For Christ's sake, I'm on my knee's here. MarcusCicero (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it will end when you agree to have the debate off-site or we manage to fulfill the agreed terms of being botted. The latter of which is temporarily difficult since no one has that power until after elections, but if you're so eager we can go debate off-site immediately.--^talk 21:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Your Kafkaesque absurdities are obvious and offensive. You suggest a list of prohibitions knowing full well that these would set the debate back by months. Then you suggest we have the debate 'off site', where you will be free to talk ad infinitum about some of your pet philosophical obsessions, and will no doubt attempt to mischaracterise my arguments and perhaps even censor those you dislike. You are very transparant Tom; We all see right past this charade. MarcusCicero (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You are being boring. You have two options if you want to debate, or you can back out a second time in another cringing spasm of cowardice. Up to you, "K."--^talk 02:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

We can debate right now, on the site, if you weren't so obstinate. The cards are on your table. And why the fuck are you calling me 'k'? MarcusCicero (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I just assumed that since you were using the term "Kafkaesque" that you must be familiar with the work of Kafka. Silly me. No wonder it wasn't quite appropriate - you were just trying to sound smart.

Your choices remain. Boring.--^talk 20:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, silly you. I have of course read all of the relevant works of Kafka. Unlike you, I understand context and if you understood the context of the literary allusion you would understand the utter vacuousness and stupidity of your comment. You make a good dillettante, I must admit. Now watch as you correct my spelling. An utterly galling beast you are. Truly despicable. MarcusCicero (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If you really want to get into it, hahha....

Well, see I thought that you were calling the situation Kafkaesque to satirize what you consider my intention to continually invent new rules and operate on a basis of ideas that are absurd and unknown, similar to Kafka's "relevant work" The Trial or The Castle, or perhaps even with a suggestion of malevolent alienation like In the Penal Colony (all excellent books that you should read). To make light of the woeful persecution you were imagining, mocking your terrible situation as you challenge someone to an Internet debate and are surprised to be continually losing before it even starts, I called you "K." and even set it off in quotes so as to make the reference to the name of the main characters of both The Castle and The Trial explicit.

I thought it was a little obvious and crude, myself. I guess not obvious and crude enough for you, though!--^talk 22:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Earthquake

Shit dude, I felt that last one all the way up here. Ace ^{of Spades} 02:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My wife has been noticing them all the time, especially today. I haven't noticed any of them, though. Luckily it doesn't seem to have hit Chch too much more.--^talk 10:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Debate

Just started watching the republican debate and Romney is the only one I see as presidential amoung the group....but I'll get back to ya..Ace ^{of Spades} 08:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the moderator is a pussy. Ace ^{of Spades} 08:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have a masochistic streak

Well, given that you read and reviewed the whole "Left Behind" series. With this in mind, I offer for your... er... pleasure Terry Hurlbut's magnum opus. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hahah magnificent! I grabbed the chapters off the server to preserve them - this is going to be fun.--^talk 22:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Final Message

This is my closing statement over this controversy. Some day this week I will create a debate, here on rationalwiki, and will challenge you to respond. No more stalling tactics, no more lies, just honest debate. MarcusCicero (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess I should have known better than to believe you might abide by the agreed terms. Your word is not very good.--^talk 04:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Tom, I have been exceptionally patient with you. I mean I have literally bent over backwards and rimmed my own asshole in order to comply with your demented demands. Some day this week there will be a debate. You can partake in it if you wish. MarcusCicero (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I support Marcus Cicero - champion of both the spoken and written word. Titus Atticus (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Even though he's an untrustworthy coward who (by his own account) enjoys licking his own anus? How odd.--^talk 01:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If you do agree to debate him (which you probably shouldn't), definitely begin with this: "I should be troubled and angered by your abuse, Marcus Tullius, if I were sure that your impudence was the result of intention rather than of a disordered mind. But since I perceive in you neither moderation nor any modesty, I shall answer you; so that if you have derived any pleasure from reviling, you may lose it by listening to censure." Thunderkatz^Ho! 02:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on your election to moderator

You were one of the seven elected moderators, the results can be found at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Results. I will be changing your user rights shortly to reflect your new position. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :) --^talk 00:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Debate

The debate has been established, and I look forward to your opening statement. MarcusCicero (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Cheers buddy

Thanks for you moderating moderation. I think you can understand my frustration though. I would just hate to see us back where we started. Ace^{of Spades} 08:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like that will happen. Most everyone knows his deal, and are voting accordingly.--^talk 08:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)