User talk:AD/Archive7

goofy entertainment value

Pfffft, goofy. Wtf. Ace^ace 10:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I just read RWW, so I can say that I know you're just pissed that everyone thinks I'm hotter than you and your scruffy half-beard thingey. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go admire myself for a while, looking tenderly into my own eyes and gently oh so gently stroking my cheeks.--^talk 10:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Fanservice

I knew RW slash fiction wasn't far off... ADK^{...I'll freeze your bomb!} 11:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You know nothing of looks. I just masturbated to a photo of myself. Ace^ace 22:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk page saga finally over

Good man for sticking with it for so long.

For demonstrating exemplary goatery in the line of duty, Blue has awarded you a used pre-owned! and slightly stale cookie. Ewwwwwww. Cockroaches ate half of it.

Blue (pester) 00:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Question of timing

Here you say that the runoff vote will last one week (September 19th, 2011 1900 NZST (0300 EST, 0700 UTC) to September 26th, 2011 1900 NZST (0300 EST, 0700 UTC)), but in the original rules you state "If no option accrues at least a 15% lead over its closest competitor, then the vote will be trimmed to the two leading options and a second vote over two subsequent weeks will choose the winner." In the interest of consistency, I think you should repost the runoff rules to last until October 3rd. Blue (pester) 00:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that was just a typo when I copy-pasted the instructions. But sure, two weeks, why not? I'll send out an intercom later when I get home from work.--^talk 03:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Run-off vote

Planning an intercom message? There should be one. I was going to do it, but apparently can only create one in General News, and votes regarding community standards are not general news in my book. LowKey (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I was going to send one out, but I noticed the inconsistency between the runoff rules and original rules that I pointed out above ^^ Blue (pester) 00:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah I didn't see that. True, that needs to be firmed. Then again, does the two weeks start from the close of round 1 or from when a notice is actually sent? LowKey (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I just did two weeks from the start.--^talk 07:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Playing with your sig

I thought it was a mediawiki cache issue, but it turns out it was only my browser. Apologies for messing around with it. -- Nx / talk 06:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I was wondering what witchcraft you were up to. Okeydokey!--^talk 07:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Finally some action!

Thanks. Not that you did it for me, but it's good to see he isn't just getting pats on the back. Seems to me like you made the right decision.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That last vandalism of his was a funny one, so at least some good is coming out of this.--^talk 21:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean the one on my page? Isn't that the same pic he puts up everywhere?--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but it was suddenly funny again in this context. I can't explain it. Anyway don't be a dildo and withdraw your new thingey on the Coop. That's why people pick on you, man.--^talk 21:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I won't withdraw my complaint. You (the moderators) need to somehow ensure that AceMcWicked ceases to vandalize user pages.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

distinguish humour from vandalism, dip-shit. Context man, context. Ace^ace 21:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

EC. Or you could grow a pair, develop a sense of humour, stop taking yourself so seriously, and learn how to use the rollback function. Yeah. That would work. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 21:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah for serious. You're just making things worse. He just got a month in the terrible terrible purgatory of Not Being a Sysop and we're going to hire someone to slap him with week-old trout, so let it be.--^talk 22:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes think you completely misunderstand the culture at this website Brx. Damo^Hi 22:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ahahaha that is the new best quote.--^talk 22:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ace was aware I did not wish him to vandalize my user page. And I'm sick of his tantrums and his primate-reminiscent shit-flinging--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Then find another webshite. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 22:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Errr, when I have ever thrown a tantrum? Ace^ace 22:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

All of your petulant and petty protests remind me of myself when I was four, breaking things and bugging people just because I couldn't get my way. You are the child that tears up his bedroom when his parents tell him to clean it, the child who throws his dinner on the floor when told there won't be desert for the evening, and the child who breaks his siblings' toys because he's jealous of them--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

What have I protested? Where have I ever tried to get my way? Ace^ace

*sigh* Re-read Nx's cooping of you. All the times you went after Maratrean are shining examples. As for that "Acewiki" email you sent me, I should remind you that your rights are well on their way to being stripped, once tmt finishes testing the new rights group.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

when Nx cooped I only pointed at two examples that I felt needed greater explanation. Maratrean I was teasing. No "trying to get my way" or "protesting". And what does my email have to do with my rights getting stripped? Ace^ace 22:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hold up on the rights change for a bit. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? The vote on this lasted, like twenty minutes? B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 22:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

He's changing something technical. Hush.

Ya I'll wait a bit.--^talk 22:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There was no vote. There was a plea bargain agreed to. Damo^Hi 22:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

(ECx3!!!!!!!!)There was no vote, BbMaj7. Blue (pester) 22:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Then what the fuck was I doing voting here? And here? That's two votes that weren't votes. Get it together, people. Have a vote, don't have a vote, but figure it out. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 22:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Jebus - I wouldn't trust these jokers to moderate a doll's tea party. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 22:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Put ace into the sysopsrevoke group for now. This will prevent wheel waring over rights. I am still thinking through other solutions but it will work for now. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Okeydokey. Thanks.--^talk 23:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

What is "sysoprevoke"? Just curious, since it isn't clear. sterile^talk 23:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If it's still what was discussed, it's a special group that revokes sysop rights that can only be changed by a mod.--^talk 23:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

here. So glad I have to do my own research to figure out WTF is going on around here. sterile^talk 23:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You're an enviro-weenie, right?

What do you think of Limits to Growth? I'm trying to put together a page on the Cornucopian vs. Malthusian debate, and I found this paper challenging conventional wisdom on LtG. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's a lot of factors at work here. First of all, there's the question of what we fear in the future: are we worried about running out of space, running out of resources, or accumulation of pollution? All three fears are reasonable and distinct, yet are also answerable. What I'm about to say will bound around to a lot of disparate thoughts, occasionally touch on your real question, and may or may not be useful at all to you.

The simple idea of a lack of space is the weakest. It's dramatic and silly, presented with the idea that the world might end up like Beijing, with millions packed into dense spaces. But it's just not something to worry about - the population bomb in that sense has failed to materialize, because first-world countries have leveled off almost unanimously in their population growth to mere replacement (or lower). For whatever reason, it appears that there is a tendency towards population stabilization after a period of destructive arc. This has the danger of postulating a mandatory linearity to the evolution of civilizations that's not necessarily there, but nonetheless does seem to make sense intuitively - once choice becomes a significant factor in the number of children produced, practical reasons would seem to dictate replacement-level reproduction. So this is the weakest menace to humankind - the notion that North Dakota will end up like New Delhi.

The worry about resources is the one more specifically addressed in the first essay - the whole "run out of coal, use uranium; run out of uranium, we'll find something" perspective is a foolish one. It assumes that a series of mandatory past events necessarily implies a future past event of the same nature, and has the additional problem of just not being very accurate. Consider Iceland: when they cut down all the forests, the residents didn't start building ships out of stone. They just had to stop building ships, and suffered a disastrous drop in population in accordance with the elimination of natural resources and the benefits they had provided. There is no historical law that says that past events must be repeated, except in the most roughly poetic way. It's very possible that, just as the scarcity of rubber trees prompted artificial rubber, humans will replace scarce plastics-producing oil with an analog like ceramics. But it's also possible that humans won't, and since the consumption and scale of resource use is at an unsustainable level, we're taking a dangerous bet.

My own view on this point is that there are good ethical and aesthetic reasons for reduction in resource consumption. Those reasons mandate it, as well as the necessity for hedging our resource bet by giving us the longest possible timeline before we run out of certain resources. If we use oil at half the rate, we have double the time to come up with a replacement. Artificial imposition of scarcity is the best way to achieve the best possible outcomes, then, as it will provide the need within a capitalist society to replace that resource without actually depleting it. Strict limits on mining and drilling!

The third view is the most serious one. Once some things are out, the level of technological competence required to contain them is at such a distance that it may not be practically achieved. Heavy metals are mined out and used for things, then get into the ecosystem in aggressively high levels. They leave the system very slowly, in the sense of both physical body accumulation and the ecosystem as a whole. There's a threshold at which those metals cause catastrophic damage to the ecosystem and thence to humanity. While it's always possible to conceive of some nanite-based removal or something, if enough damage is done then mankind will be decimated to the point at which it cannot effectively counter the problem. It took dense cities of Greeks to produce an accumulation of brainpower sufficient to think up democracy and Archimedes' wheel (or enough genetic rolls of the dice for genius production, depending on your view of history); scattered hamlets couldn't have done it. If there are only a billion people worldwide thanks to one such pollution cataclysm or another, then it's possible that's not sufficient to bring enough brainpower/geniuses to bear on the problem. Permanent harm might be done.

Again, we're wagering here. It's the biggest wager mankind is taking, and it's the worst one. Sometimes local factors override the greater scheme of things - China became the global leader in rare earth mining not because it has the best resources, but just because it was the only country willing to trash itself to a sufficient degree. Now that it's tapering off because of local outrage, the problem is curving back towards acceptable levels of risk. Unfortunately, climate change has few immediate local consequences. Not sure what will happen there.

So yeah. Hope that helped or at least sparked some thoughts.--^talk 04:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

ask me about the environment

Ahaha awesome. If I had a head-dong I would be able to pleasure your girlfriend twice as much.--^talk 05:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Do what you will with my girlfriend just stay away from my wife. Ace^ace 05:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Zing! Checking out FB photos now - well done, man!--^talk 05:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I just want to mention a few (3 or 4) things.

1. "...there are good ethical and aesthetic reasons for reduction in resource consumption." Regardless of AGW (I am skeptical), amen. I would call that good stewardship.
2. Oil is much too useful and versatile to simply burn it for the heat. Oh, the waste!
3. Earth covered building, when done properly, has about the same energy and resource consumption as conventional building but has a much lower lifetime consumption (and you can feed your goats by leaving them on the roof).
4. Decimated - sorry but this is a pet peeve of mine. It means killed off by 10% - from the Roman military practice. LowKey (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I had five years of Latin and belonged to the Junior Classical League, so I know the origin (SPQR bitches!) but modern colloquial use now uses it to mean a draconic reduction of a greater magnitude. Thus the OED: "rhetorically or loosely. To destroy or remove a large proportion of; to subject to severe loss, slaughter, or mortality."--^talk 05:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just resist manglish wherever I see it. LowKey (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was talking about the legacy of LtG specifically, but I guess that helps some. From what I remember from skimming through LtG, there were loads of "if...then" scenarios with tons of hedging such that it would probably be fairly easy to pick out some correct predictions to put together a paper like the one I posted above. Also, we need an "eco-fascist AD" pic as well. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to use paint, so Lord Monckton will call you an eco-Nazi instead. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Breeder reactors can bring in thousands of years of energy. China and India are working on them. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Lazy Bastard

Yeah, thats you. Weenie. Ace^ace 09:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

RW:ATIM

Would you mind weighing in or signing off on the proposed plan for procedure for the voting standards votes? Blue (pester) 03:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hehe just looking at it now! Thanks for the heads-up, though. You're doing yeoman work on this one.--^talk 03:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to not let this whole thing slip by, because we're in a period of calm with no HCM, and even though that's when people generally take less interest in these issues, it's the best time to discuss them and try to make changes. Blue (pester) 03:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Brake

It wouldn't be kosher to use the vandal break on Maratrean for a while, just to, er, slow him down? sterile^talk 03:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ahahha I wish! But no, there's nothing that can be legitimately done to him. Which is kind of a shame, but he's a concern troll who's actually in earnest and who hasn't broken any rules or really even been a dick to anyone (rather instead just being generally annoying, like a cloud of mosquitoes). As long as people indulge him, he will persist.--^talk 03:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

(Er, sorry about that. But it's fun for a bit.) sterile^talk 03:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, believe me, I know the temptation. It's like a fat, pendulous bee's nest hanging at the end of a branch. You know you shouldn't swat at it, but it's just so irresistible to take a whack at such a plump fragile target.--^talk 03:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm the one who wrote the user box about "not feeding the troll" but "does play sometimes." sterile^talk 03:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to quit. He left us alone for a while, which was truly a blessed time.--^talk 03:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It would slow down the pace to HCM, and perhaps cut it off. Maybe just a consideration. sterile^talk 14:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That gives me a fucking great idea for a "master bin switch" that reduces everyone's edits to once every ten minutes. ADK^{...I'll jerk your catamite!} 15:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be both evil and awesome--if you could make it work only on talk pages, there might actually be something to it. Or better: a switch that, when engaged, would force all users to have to make X edits of Y length on Z mainspace pages before they could go back to a talk page argument. (I'm mostly kidding). B♭maj7 (talk) Shut the fuck up, Maratrean 15:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, good luck making something that complex, but I see what you mean and it would be great (although it would mean people spamming the crap out of pages with lorem ipsum to get back into the fight). I'm probably slightly less kidding. ADK^{...I'll confuse your xylene!} 15:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

How about a bot to put DFTT template after certain editors edits? sterile^talk 23:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Votes, again

I have revised my proposal for the procedure for the voting standards votes. Please go here to sign off and/or comment. Thanks. Blue2 (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

engagement

Look it man, don't even engage the fucker anymore. Him and Brx have just been a nasty sore on the genitalia that is RW. Round and round their griefing goes. Same gibberish, different.....same day. Ace^ace 09:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't. I only broke my vow to the extent necessary for the discussion of a potential vote. He's a concern troll in earnest, and I do not speak to him.--^talk 09:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Well done, Clever Trousers. Ace^ace 09:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You know I love you baby, so I ain't gonna make a big deal out of this....

But the smart thing to do would've been to move that conversation to its own debate space and not to archive it out of human sight. Hugs and kisses... B♭maj7 (talk) Shut the fuck up, Maratrean 14:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Really? That didn't seem like the thing to do - that would just have made it continue and keep getting nastier, but even more visible. Sorry if you feel like I cut off your conversation.--^talk 20:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

At least there, people who didn't want to see it could more easily ignore it than they could on TWIGO. anyway, it's in the past. B♭maj7 (talk) Shut the fuck up, Maratrean 20:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll think twice before doing such in the future. Thanks for the wise word.--^talk 20:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Gayageum

25 stringed Gayageum. I only play the 12 stringed.

IS (Infinity of Sound). They're triplets.

Sorea. I believe this was their promotional video. Still lost on the B-boys, but they're cool.^{— Unsigned, by: Dumpling / talk / contribs}

I like the first video, which is pretty amazing. I'm going to try to find her stuff.

The second one I'm a little more 'eh' on... it seems like the piano is the full spine and skeleton for that song, and I instinctively resent gimmick acts like triplets. They're good at their instruments, but I'd like to see more of their unaccompanied playing.

The third one is just silly, like anything with B-boys or K-rap-style beatboxing.--^talk 08:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeaaaah~ Jung Min-Ah is pretty talented, I really like her style of playing.

IS usually does a lot of Co-work with other artists. They have few songs where it's just their instruments alone.

Like I said, still don't understand the B-boys, but Meh. Their newer songs hopefully should be better. I'm HOPING.--Dumpling (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Debate

Hey, just wanted to let you know I fully intend to continue the debate about burden of taxation & class war. I'm getting into my busy season right now, and don't want to give an off the cuff response. I know you put a lot of time & work into you question & response, I respect that, so I'd like to give a response worthy of the effort. Thanks, it's very good discussion we have going there. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 20:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no worries, I know how it goes sometimes. Thanks for the thoughtful word, though!--^talk 20:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So putting raw sewage into a river, for example, is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as the amount is small enough for the river's ecosystem to handle it.

Riiiight.....also you should point out that if the environment dies we die. Ace^ace 08:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Bro, you seem like a nice guy even if you're palling around with the wrong crowd, so let me give you a little bit of friendly advice. Philip's right and you're wrong. He read it in his bible or CMI told him so. End of line. There is no point in trying to have a discussion with an inflexible zealot like him unless the only thing you wanted to learn was how many times you could go back to the trough without vomiting. 15:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm just interested in getting his side so I can improve my argument to Christians. I am under no illusions about convincing.--^talk 21:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Rating

Quick question: Did you enter a category when you rated Rationalist taboo? -- Nx / talk 06:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No... nothing came to mind immediately to categorize it.--^talk 06:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, just making sure there isn't a bug in the gadget. -- Nx / talk 06:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Which rocks, by the way. Have I mentioned that enough? ADK^{...I'll overthrow your deity of personal preference!} 06:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've already been using it, too - which means it's very easy to use and hard to screw up!--^talk 06:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Order of operations

Please excuse my dear aunt sally. () exponent * / + - Ty^talk 11:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The better solution is the one I should have done immediately: plugged it into Google and let it solve it.--^talk 11:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The "Bayesian" thing comes from assessing odds that the appearance of the "x 0" bit is either a trick question or straight. People more readily associate "x 0" with trick questions, so immediately leap to clicking 0 as the answer without running through the entire calculation - Google or otherwise. Though the alternative explanation (YMMV on what is most appropriate) is that operational order is poorly taught in schools. And there's a phenomena (if you could call it that) where students treat equations in an instructional manner, because of an over-reliance on using calculators. So each operation is done as if you pressed that button on a calculator in that order. This leads to hilarious results when asked to solve for x and there's an equals sign in the middle. ADK^{...I'll stink your fealty!} 11:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Then you learn RPN and everything goes to hell in a handbasket again. Ty^talk 11:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Kill that with f**king fire. ADK^{...I'll overthrow your sea bass!} 11:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are some nice easy formulas for you AD.Ty^talk 11:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Vacation slides

I have mulled wine and 6 months worth of pictures in the Bahamas. Interested? Ty^talk 00:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Mulled wine. Fall. drools......--GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 01:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It's spring here - mostly - and mulled wine is not very good. I'm not a big wine guy in general. Give me a beer, or a G&T.--^talk 01:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, right. you're upsidedown. --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 01:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Topsy Turvy!--Dumpling (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

daunting - 2 comments

1) if it would help, i could write the basic facts of Adam, and you could rewrite them so they sound pretty and make sense. 2) if you are bored, would you look at this essay Essay:Annotating an idiot and give me an idea of what sub category it could go in? I'm kinda assuming it's either economics or politics, but really not sure. --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 01:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

1. I don't want you to have to do the work I'm just feeling too lazy to get to.

2. Economics.--^talk 01:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, eco it is. It's a friday night. we should not be editing a wiki. we should be "getting some", and "rabble rousing", and ..... hum. maybe, at 40, editing *is* rabbel rousing. --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 01:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It's Saturday afternoon. I was out rabble-rousing last night what with the Wales v. Australia game that was on.--^talk 01:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

And that would be polo, I assume? or perhaps jai alai?--GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 01:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Rugby. I wasn't into it before, but since I've been in NZ I've really gotten interested. Way better than American football.--^talk 01:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not into sports, but I always wanted to know about the relationship/differences of 1) rugby, 2) "football", and 3) Aussie football. I kinda assumed aussie rules football was just rugby, but i'm now thinking maybe not?GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 01:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I think (not sure) that they all developed from rugby. I am not a big sports guy, though, I just watch out of a general interest in competition. I started watching World Cup Soccer in Korea for the same reason (soccer is still very boring).--^talk 02:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I am a tennis and soccer fan now, becasue when hubby and I were first married, he was not allowed back into the country (he had to leave for his father's death and funeral, and the us said "fuck you, you get to wait till we process you" -- 2 fucking years). anyhooo, to feel like we were sharing things, we would skype while watching world cup soccer, and tennis, since both of those were national and shown live. life is strange.GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 02:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I used to despise tennis, after tennis camp when I was a kid and my mother's monopolization of the TV during Wimbledon, but I have come around to it after reading Infinite Jest. Soccer, though, is almost as boring as baseball. There simply isn't enough that happens in either game for the amount of time it requires. It's like a short story read out at the pace of a word per minute: it doesn't matter how good a story it is, if it takes too damn long to tell.--^talk 02:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Billy Shakespeare

Thought this might be of interest. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, I'm looking forward to it. Thanks!--^talk 07:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Skeptical Humanities is trashing it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I have literally not seen anyone who knows anything who thought the movie was worth two tin bits.--^talk 21:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, isn't it a fictional account rather than some Loose Change style conspiracy shlockumentary? So why the fuss, really? Do we equally kick off about Shakespeare In Love, which was arguably also historically inaccurate. Or perhaps Apollo 17 (or even the third Transformers film, although less said about the plot of that one the better) or Independence Day or any number of films that have, at their center, a well known conspiracy theory. Okay, fair enough people are idiots and will probably mistake it for real, but is there any need for the people who are protesting over it? ADK^{...I'll jerk your zoot suit!} 22:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's fiction. But it's fiction promoting a contentious theory that supporters claim has been suppressed by corrupt elitists. Imagine a movie about a virtuous homeopathic advocate or a movie about a proponent of the idea that relativity is evil - the movie will lend credence to a extreme minority's conspiracy theory, and that's unfortunate. It's not the end of the world, of course, or some great tragedy. It's just the sort of thing you roll your eyes at and hope your relatives don't all ask you about it.

I didn't know people were actually protesting, although I guess that doesn't surprise me - Shakespeare inspires passion among his readers.--^talk 22:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Good column on the topic by the guy who literally wrote the book on the matter--23:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the eye rolling is one thing. And certainly if people start believing it because of a film and think it's 100% fact there's a problem, but it'd be their problem, not the film's. ADK^{...I'll deteriorate your nexus!} 14:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't Panic

I stuck your vegetarian essay into "odd" essays *just for the moment*. Not cause it's "odd' but cause i don't have anywhere else to put it. Once I see what other essays we have, it will have a good home. :-) --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 15:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

ok.--^talk 21:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Alan Caruba

Came across your great bingo card for Alan Caruba. Didn't realize he was known enough to attract another internet (anti-)fan. Does he still troll your comments? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No, and he has refused to ever approve my comments on his blog in the future. He hates me.--^talk 05:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

How'd you come across that, by the way, if you don't mind me asking? I didn't think anyone read my blog.--^talk 05:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Damn, you actually bothered to comment on his blog? Found it on a Caruba-related Google search. Oh yeah, he's got a million other blogs, by the way. And have you seen the excellent sites created by his "scientific" mentor? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, no, I hadn't seen that. Awesome.--^talk 05:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Falling behind on your internet crackpots? For shame! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You're a postmodern man

I made a new page for rationalization, but I don't quite know how to incorporate this section of the rationalism article. It feels like too much of a jumble of po-mo and non-po-mo sociology (e.g., Weber is not po-mo). Are you up for the job (read: Can I dump this crap on you)? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this not just the same as moral relativism but with bigger words, or is the section BS? As it stands, it's implying that postmodernism postulates that there's absolutely no difference between someone who uses skeptical empiricism to judge the world and someone who just sits and divines that it's all gnomes in little batman outfits that are responsible for everything in the world - it seems to suggest both are perfectly "legitimate" because they're all different "rationalities". Or am I doing the thing where I've confused rationalism and rationality? ^{...I'll seize your tuxedo!} 11:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't even tell -- it reads like an incoherent mash-up of a number of ideas, some of which are not even po-mo. I think I get some of what it's going for, but it's just written too poorly for me to be sure. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's badly written, it's just a case of "does it represent post-modernism?". Or are there MANY postmodernism and non are actually correct! ^{...I'll suck your noun!} 17:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean style-wise, just that it seems to be mixing up a lot of semi-related ideas. Compare to my (admittedly simplified and brief) definition on the rationalization page. The concept itself does not originate in pomo. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about including it. It is half-nonsense, written with an eye to being obscure. I'm going to fix it.--^talk 20:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm tempted to just delete that section, unless you want to knock some sense into it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Not sure when I would get to it; I'm fairly busy at the moment and I am at RW de minimus.--^talk 02:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

make unto thee a graven image

With horns. all graven images have horns. ask moses.

WE ARE GREATLY PLEASED. OUR BLESSINGS SHALL BE UPON THEE AND THINE.--00:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

E-mail.

Maybe handy. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 03:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!--^talk 04:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Books

Paladin of Shadows series by John Ringo. They're bad. Very bad. Gor if it were written in the modern day. Тy^talk 22:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

A Game of Thrones, apparently it's a gateway drug ^bomination 23:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

One presumes you've already burned through the Twilight series. ^gnostic 23:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I've already read and mocked Twilight, and while George R.R. Martin's series isn't great, it's also not near bad enough to make me hate it.--^talk 23:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

How can you read this much? I would really like to know. It's going to take me at least three months to get through G.E.B. ^moral 00:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I read a lot, is all. My reading list.--^talk 00:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Goreans

So were they involved in a cult or "independent practitioners"? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The girl I knew was independent, just talking to other Goreans over the net, like 99% of them.--^talk 07:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure out how much of them are actually serious about the "philosophy." I know some dommes use the "female supremacy" label as an indication of the type of role-play they do but they don't actually subscribe to the bullshit peddled by actual female supremacists. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

in vitro meat

Thought you might find this interesting. I'm a vegetarian now so I find this quite appealing. Sam ^Tally-ho! 21:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, should be interesting. A lot of people have asked about this, so maybe within ten years it will be a real possibility.--^talk 22:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It was on QI a while ago as "the world's most expensive burger". It'll be cool if it works, and even betterif they can get them to eat sewage. ^{d hominem} 22:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Mod business

RationalWiki:All things in moderation#MC's Wiki and Human -- Nx / talk 05:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Uncle Siggy

My sources tell me that Freud is still popular in the English departments. Are they still making students apply pseudoscience to literature? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really pseudoscience. Freud has his uses in discussing literature because he encapsulated some of the ways people think and manifest their inner thoughts, and that's a great of how literature is written. Personally, I find Jung more useful, but Freud has his place, too, I suppose. Let's just say I acknowledge him but do not teach him but for ten minutes.--^talk 04:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Jung? As in the fellow who thought the rise of Nazism was Odin waking up from a nap? ListenerX^TalkerX 04:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

[1]--^talk 05:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

How about Lacan? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 05:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with him, sorry.--^talk 05:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The psychological sciences have spent decades distancing themselves from Freud. I can see the value in his ideas that the unconscious makes up most of the inner workings of the mind (and is actually validated my modern psychology) and that people don't act on "rational" motivations (also validated by modern psychology and responsible for spawning one of history's greatest propagandists, but done before), but I don't see why anyone would still bother using the specifics of said ideas, e.g., "id-ego-superego." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Id, ego, and superego are useful ways to describe something. In large part, actually, Freud's usefulness directly relates to how unscientific he was. He used labels and described arrangements that seemed convenient and sensible to him, and was genius enough to seize upon some pretty brilliant things. His later incestual theories are less useful, but things like the subconscious and tripartite mind are great.--^talk 05:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that most of today's literary analysis says more about the person doing the analyzing than the text being analyzed, particularly in the schools-of-thought where work progresses from an ideological basis. ListenerX^TalkerX 08:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Freudian analysis, like other types of literary analysis, seems to lend itself well to conspiracy theory-style thinking, though. One of the most easily abused is the concept of denial, because if you have a problem, then that's your problem, and if you don't have one, you're obviously just in denial! And that's how we got the shitstorm that was the Satanic Panic and "the memory wars." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If you are so offended

My edits clearly offend you. OK, so where is your proof that neo-Nazis are "far right"? Don't tell me it is "conservative" to be racist because it's not. Neo-Nazis and liberals are the same people (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Racism is "conservative" in that it is part of many traditional American views of society, especially in the South. Nazism, on the other hand, is not conservative, falling further to the right than conservatism on the one-dimensional political spectrum. ListenerX^TalkerX 08:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't really like the dichotomy of conservative and liberal, which tends to obscure far more often than it illuminates. But okay.

The modern neo-Nazi movement is the inheritor of several traditions. In America, this tradition is predominantly based on old Confederate culture, whereas in the rest of the world (and still in America to a lesser extent) the glorification of the Aryan or other "white races" is part of an old tradition of racism mixed up with real Nazism. In both cases, these traditions are correlated by deeply conservative beliefs on other political issues. Neo-Nazis overwhelmingly support capital punishment, for example, and disdain progressive taxation or social safety nets. This is not to say that all conservatives are neo-Nazis, but almost all neo-Nazis are conservative in outlook on many issues.--^talk 08:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it would not be apropos to mention here that the second KKK were big supporters of progressive/populist economic policies, including public education? ListenerX^TalkerX 08:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty thin ice. It's true that some of their policies were vaguely similar to progressive policies, but it's also true that the GOP was touting a health care mandate as a good idea ten years ago and now they're calling it socialism. That doesn't make the GOP liberal then; the national conversation was just different. Same thing with the KKK.

Much of the second Klan's appeal can be credited to its militant advocacy of white supremacy, anti-Catholicism, anti-Semitism, and immigration restriction, but the organization also attracted the support of many middle-class Americans by advocating improved law enforcement, honest government, better public schools, and traditional family life.[2]--^talk 09:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I said progressivism and populism, not liberalism. Big difference. Although their social views were of the conservative/romantic bent, their support of temperance and public schools were not in line with the conservatism of the time. ListenerX^TalkerX 09:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Neo-Nazis are SOCIALIST and are only disdainful of social safety nets because of the association with non-whites. In an all white society they would likely see nothing wrong with that. The fact is most are strong anti-capitalists, and most support the Muslims and hate Israel, just like the leftists. Maybe they overwhelmingly support capital punishment, but they also overwhelmingly support euthanasia, cloning and "eugenics abortions", to advance the "Aryan race". They also support using the Sin of polygamy to increase the white birthrate. Many are also in favor of drug legalization, and many are drug addicts or criminals themselves. They have generally permissive sexual mores. And last but not least, a hugely disproportionate number of them are Pagans (like Odinists for instance) and Atheists, and many neo-Nazi groups are openly ANTI-CHRISTIAN!!! Whereas conservatives are almost all Christian or Jewish, and almost none are pagan or atheist. Proud Conservative Evangelical (talk) 09:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, Nazis and neo-Nazis are HUGE supporters of environmentalism and animal rights. Hitler also banned guns. Proud Conservative Evangelical (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hitler also banned trade unions, too. :D --ZooGuard (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think what we are seeing here is the association fallacy: "liberals and neo-Nazis have some vaguely similar policies; therefore there are no differences between them." ListenerX^TalkerX 09:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

We are seeing also an example of Schlafly logic: Group X are not "conservatives", therefore they are "liberals". False dichotomy and all that...--ZooGuard (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

B→A; C→A; A=A; B≠C --★uːʤɱ constructivist 10:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Nominated

To continue as Moderator. Please accept/decline/comment here. Cheers. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!--^talk 00:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Nominated again

For this--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know :)--^talk 07:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Congrats.

Keep up the good work. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 23:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to working with you AD. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 23:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed verily sirrah--^talk 20:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow

Dude, that was really a very good re-write! Kudoes! :-) --Bertrc (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad it's agreeable to you! I think that the article is definitely improved, and that you were right to remove a lot of the stuff you did.--^talk 23:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW

If a new user were to appear and begin slagging of Ireland non-stop and for no reason, injecting it into every conversation and targeting a specific user we'd pretty quickly get sick of it and the user would be sanctioned in some form. Because it's Rob on me it is taken differently but in my hypothetical situation above we know what the result would be, just sayin'...Ace^Moderator 06:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's probably true. There'd be a discussion and a vote.--^talk 10:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah man, I'll tell you now there'd be no fucking increase of information. Ace^Moderator 10:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I hear ya Ace. There's not much we can do about it though. I mean if we value freedom of expression on this site we need to value it even for people like Rob. --Damo^Hi 10:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure Heidelberg Kid appreciates the irony of 'freedom of expression'. I'll remind everybody of that next time they jump down his throat. You have a right to free speech - with rights come responsiblities. PsyGremlinParla! 10:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well perhaps. I am not familiar with the Heidelberg Kid situation except I know that he seems a bit of an ass. But do you really want to say to Rob that he can't insult NZ? That he can't make ridiculous remarks about us being a third world nation etc etc. I think that in a website like this (though not within general society perhaps) there is truth in Mill's idea that the best way to discover the truth is by airing all the views and the ideas that are valid will rise to the top. It's not like anyone actually believes anything Rob is saying, and as I have said to him on a number of occasions, every post he makes he looks more and more like a jackass. The more he goes on the less credibility he has on other issues where he might have more of a serious point to make. Its his loss not ours. Damo^Hi 11:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob can say whatever the fuck he likes, as long as he's willing to face the responsibility for his right to say whatever the fuck he likes. However, when he disrupts threads, simply to go "Me! Me! Me!" likes he's been doing with the NZ thing, then he's out of line. And if it was a BoN, or a newbie doing it, then that behaviour - jumping in and slagging off an editor - would not be tolerated by the mob. So there's no need for us to tolerate it in another CP man-child. --PsyGremlinSermā! 12:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, let me point out the obvious: Ace is not NZ (unless he's deluded or has a big opinion of himself), and secondly, nowehere did I insult Ace and/or New Zealand. nobs^Moderated 13:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Except whenyou did. It wouldnt be so bad if they werent off topic or werent being hidden as some attempt at "american humor!" --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't give a shit if Rob stays or is blocked. That's why I haven't even commented on the discussion in the Coop - because it does not matter one whit to me. Psy thinks his behavior is outrageous and he deserves to be blocked, fine. Damo thinks all views deserve to be aired and Rob can only make an ass of himself, fine. I don't care. I just didn't want a precedent set where one editor was able to unilaterally decide that someone else was trolling and deserved to be blocked for a day.--^talk 20:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Left behind

I've started reading your reviews and it is hilarious! Ty^Annoy 02:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

hes done reviews of them?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Scroll down to the "My works" section of his userpage. Ty^Annoy 02:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you like them :)--^talk 04:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

They look more practical than the slacktivists go through.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty hardcore dedication to the cause to read through them all like that. ^theist 15:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm hardcore like that. Although really I enjoyed it - they are magnificently terrible books.--^talk 21:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The funniest review was the last one IMHO, I had to screen again. You should review The Eye of Argon. Ty^Annoy 21:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll check it out.--^talk 22:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's more than you listened to parts of the audio book that's most impressive. ^moral 22:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I appear to have messed up some of the clips, though. I'll have to fix those.

I was really anticipating this last book for a long time, so I was in top form when I got to it. But it exceeded even my best hopes. The villains in the book, the Other Light, are probably the most heroic characters you can ever find. Jesus reigns as an omnipotent racist dictator, granting eternal life to his followers and destroying with thunderbolts those who speak ill of him. Satan has been crushed, and it is almost a certainty that he will be crushed again. Every aspect of life is controlled by the enemy and there is no hope. Yet this brave band of young people, who alone in the world are still doomed to death and eternal pain, nonetheless strike out in pursuit of what's right. It's downright stirring.--^talk 22:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems like the series left Jedeo-Christian mythology behind a while back and just started making shit up. ^sshole 01:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong. You were born wrong, and you need Jesus to graciously forgive you for having the audacity to be born. Now smile. SMILE, DAMNIT!

Mind if I just quote this bit everywhere? ^{d hominem} 10:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, knock yourself out. :)--^talk 10:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A jumpstart

I jumpstarted the discussion at Debate:Class_Warfare_-_perfect_response#The_fallacy_of_the_Buffet_Rule. Sorry for the long delay. nobs^Moderated 21:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As a New Zealand resident...

You might enjoy this little opinion about the Crafar Farm fiasco. Ace^Moderator 23:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I wish I knew more about NZ politics, really.--^talk 23:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

G+

You still running it? Тy^{Serious Business Guy} 03:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ya, in the sense that I am doing nothing at all with it and just holding on to the name so no one else gets it. Now that you've reminded me, maybe I'll add a feed of our new articles.--^talk 03:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Тy^{sic semper} 03:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Respond to your question. Long. Suggestion for how to handle this, if you are game.

[3]. AD, for me to write less takes more time, not less, and I'm already pushed, beyond what I'd rationally, for my own self-interest, choose to invest.

This is long. It took me a crazy amount of time to write. I would take me about 3 minutes to read it, if someone else had written it. Skimming, less. However, let me suggest this: unless you really want to, don't read the whole thing. Not yet, anyway. Instead, start at the beginning until you have a comment to make. Then insert the comment right there, short or long, indented, don't wait to read the rest first. And don't go on unless you feel like it. After all, I might be laying a foundation at the beginning for what I write later, and if the communication at the beginning isn't complete, the rest is quite possibly useless. No wonder it would seem like too much!

Just give it the time that you care to spare.

Game?

You have no obligation to read any comment of mine. I have faced this issue from more than one side, for years, I've corresponded with very bright people who "write too much." What to do? Well, I'm just straight with them, as you were in your comment on the Denialgate page. I read what I can, when I can. It takes moments to respond, if that's the case, with "I didn't have time to do more than glance at this. Could you send me a brief summary?"

If that is accompanied with "Such-and-such caught my eye. That's an interesting idea," I am actually helping this person to organize their thoughts in a way that will interface with my thinking. This kind of back-and-forth happens very rapidly in face-to-face conversation.

I may suffer from a belief that others can read as rapidly as I do. I really don't know how rapidly others read. For me, in any case, reading isn't usually a problem. It's writing that takes time. So, for me, if I think there is a problem with someone writing too much, it would be that I think I'm supposed to reply.

There is a secondary problem with understanding, particularly writing that may be attempting to convey new or unfamiliar concepts. But I can usually still skim stuff, enough to ask a cogent question or two.

I may write a lot on-wiki. It's impoverished compared to what can happen face-to-face. They say a picture is worth 1000 words, and what's available in face-to-face communication is vastly greater than a single picture, than thousands of pictures. There are concepts that I've been trying to explain on-wiki for many years, with only a few getting it. Face-to-face, I can explain them to a general audience, at least the basic ideas, in a couple of minutes, I've done it. If I lose eye contact with the audience, and what I call presence, I revert to what is little more than text, with them seeing someone, me, who is practically asleep by comparison, and they don't get it. I used to blame them for being dim. It was me, lost in my own mind.

Does RationalWiki have collapse templates? If not, I might bring some in. I did do some "collapse to history" writing, with only a summary visible. Collapse can be an easy way to layer text according to interest level.

As it is, AD, it might seem unbelievable, but I'm already spending time -- too much time -- editing down what I write. That's not been a complete process, i.e., I haven't boiled it down to polished polemic. Still, what I see on RationalWiki is an environment with not enough discussion, not enough real interaction on issues, with a set of active users who seem quite confident that they have the answers. And it's very visible to me in a few areas, where I happen to have extensive knowledge and experience, that they are almost clueless. That's not popular to express, it would almost never be. The belief that one already knows, however, can be fatal to rational thinking, and it's not about content. I.e., it could be a belief about God, or about atheism. It could be an idea about some pseudoscience, or debunking the same pseudoscience.

On the cold fusion article, text was just inserted giving an argument based on conditions in supernovae, imagining that if cold fusion were real, it would, of course, happen even more at very high energies. It's a totally bogus and irrelevant argument, like saying that if life evolved at low temperatures, why, of course, surely it would have evolved even more rapidly in supernovae, think how much energy would be available! This argument sounded good to someone, a blogger, who has no clue about the real debate, and it was from that blogger that the article text was sourced. There are real debates. That wasn't it.

If I wanted to damage RationalWiki maximally, I'd go and find more stuff like that and put it in. False arguments supporting skeptical positions. Every one of those creates an opportunity for the enemies of reason to attack the site and rational skepticism.

The real problem, in my view, is that there is a large set of wiki users -- it's not just here -- who want to decide complex issues with sound bite discussions that cannot possibly communicate what would be needed for deeper understanding. It works sometimes, and it becomes a habit. But it's precisely how Wikipedia got stuck, and it's murder on experts, who tend to imagine that others will be interested in the topic, after all, isn't this the Talk page on the article on the topic? Professional experts may be more restrained than amateurs, because they aren't being paid, they are doing you a favor if they even look at your wiki and drop a few words. Amateurs, though, are into a topic because they are highly interested in it. They are, almost intrinsically, "cranks." After all, normal people don't usually care that much about the topic.

These are the available people who actually know topics. Fringe amateurs can out-debate a casual skeptic, that phenomenon seems to be well-understood here, it's why skeptics will often avoid real-time debates. (I can engage in real-time debate, but I wouldn't attempt it with text. Face-to-face, with an audience, maybe. Even then, it's a bit like being the fastest gun in the West. One slip....) The solution is not to ban these enthusiastic experts, nor, as is more a possibility here, to just ignore them, but to find ways to constructively engage with them. I've seen it work, over and over. On Wikipedia, my suggestion was to protect anyone who self-declared as an expert, but require them to follow Conflict of Interest rules. In other words, they couldn't do anything controversial without convincing a non-expert. Break the COI rules, they'd be blocked until they promise compliance, and stick to it. Wikipedia, however, had come to consider COI as only a step short of Vandal. And my proposals were read that way, as somehow being anti-expert. The opposite.

I have no expectation of controlling content or process here without convincing others to support proposals. The idea that I'm writing so much to intimidate is, well, a pure invention. It doesn't work, never has worked, couldn't possibly work. But that hasn't stopped this from being asserted, over and over.

I was last topic-banned on Wikipedia, not because of tendentious editing or seriously over-long Talk there, but because I'd filed a delisting request, on the meta wiki, for an abusively blacklisted web page. False statements were made about the history and facts, as was common in that case. The original request was very brief, and longer comment only became necessary because of the false claims. So I had responded, with evidence. That always takes a lot of text, when the issue is at all complex. The request was successful, and, from what had come down before, without that evidence, it would have been denied, they were about to deny it. However, before that satisfactory decision, I was topic banned on Wikipedia because of the length of my comments on the other wiki (generally that would be contrary to policy). Look, AD, those people had been after me for years, they were just looking for excuses, it had become completely obvious, and I bailed from Wikipedia when I realized and demonstrated that due process was completely dead there, it was all social wiki, whom you knew, or who liked what, it was not about content. The policies and guidelines are great, but without reliable and neutral enforcement, useless. Unsafe.

You have some of those people here, and they haven't changed. I'm already being reverted, in some cases, because of who I am, explicitly. Not because of the content.

In any case, thanks again for engaging. I mean that. You will find me cooperative, I guarantee it. I'm not a concern troll, because I want to see RationalWiki successful, I want to see the content here be stronger and clearer in debunking pseudoscience, not weaker. The skeptical movement has been, to some extent, taken over by pseudoskeptics, I've been watching that for years. It happens because a pseudoskeptic is really a kind of believer, and believers become cranks, motivated. --Abd (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I understand your position. Unfortunately, yours seems to be that everyone else on the wiki is wrong, and that we are taking shortcuts by discussing with sound bytes rather than cogent arguments. I think that is mostly incorrect, and while there is some level of groupthink (unavoidable in a close-knit community with shared goals) we also strive to be fair and skeptical of our biases, and to trade in ideas rather than slogans.

There are reasons why most people converse in a short paragraph or two, venturing into longer discussions only when necessary. First of all, such interactions are primarily conversations, not debates. Effective communication in this venue does not demand an unreasonable investment of time or mental energy from a reader - instead, it aims to convey the essential ideas and necessary support, and then engage on items of conflict. Ironically, to explain this requires a long post of my own, but you should note that this is specifically to address your own numerous points. On the talk page that prompted this discussion, my comment was brief and to the point.

Since you are being so frank with me, I will be frank with you, using a paragraph from your post here as an example. I am not cherry-picking; I tried to pick a section illustrative of my point:

These are the available people who actually know topics. Fringe amateurs can out-debate a casual skeptic, that phenomenon seems to be well-understood here, it's why skeptics will often avoid real-time debates. (I can engage in real-time debate, but I wouldn't attempt it with text. Face-to-face, with an audience, maybe. Even then, it's a bit like being the fastest gun in the West. One slip....) The solution is not to ban these enthusiastic experts, nor, as is more a possibility here, to just ignore them, but to find ways to constructively engage with them. I've seen it work, over and over. On Wikipedia, my suggestion was to protect anyone who self-declared as an expert, but require them to follow Conflict of Interest rules. In other words, they couldn't do anything controversial without convincing a non-expert. Break the COI rules, they'd be blocked until they promise compliance, and stick to it. Wikipedia, however, had come to consider COI as only a step short of Vandal. And my proposals were read that way, as somehow being anti-expert. The opposite.

There's nothing wrong with this paragraph. Your grammar and spelling are fine and you express your ideas well enough. However, you also appear to be tacking on anything that seems relevant. And since you seem bright, that amounts to a great deal. But if you trim away all of the secondary points:

These are the available people who actually know topics. Fringe amateurs can out-debate a casual skeptic, that phenomenon seems to be well-understood here, it's why skeptics will often avoid real-time debates. (I can engage in real-time debate, but I wouldn't attempt it with text. Face-to-face, with an audience, maybe. Even then, it's a bit like being the fastest gun in the West. One slip....) The solution is not to ban these enthusiastic experts, nor, as is more a possibility here, to just ignore them, but to find ways to constructively engage with them. I've seen it work, over and over. On Wikipedia, my suggestion was to protect anyone who self-declared as an expert, but require them to follow Conflict of Interest rules. In other words, they couldn't do anything controversial without convincing a non-expert. Break the COI rules, they'd be blocked until they promise compliance, and stick to it. Wikipedia, however, had come to consider COI as only a step short of Vandal. And my proposals were read that way, as somehow being anti-expert. The opposite.

The result, I think, communicates most everything you needed to express - and omits including everything that occurred to you:

These are the available people who actually know topics. Fringe amateurs can out-debate a casual skeptic. The solution is not to ban these enthusiastic experts but to find ways to constructively engage with them. On Wikipedia, my suggestion was to protect anyone who self-declared as an expert, but require them to follow Conflict of Interest rules. In other words, they couldn't do anything controversial without convincing a non-expert. [But] my proposals were read as somehow being anti-expert.

This includes your larger point about the problem in this paragraph, with its suggested solution, and backs it up with your relevant anecdote. If someone asked about your CoI rule controversy, then it would make sense to explain about the background and give more detail.

In other words, please stop writing every parenthetical and subsidiary point that occurs to you. You are like the smart guy at the party who is very earnest and very well-researched but who talks until your eyes glaze over. Concision is seriously a virtue, because your garrulousness is an impediment to effective communication.

Other points:

I did not think you were trying to intimidate, only that you were unwittingly being intimidating. I assume you are here in good faith, and while you seem to hold a few strong counter-establishment views, there's nothing wrong with that.

We do have collapse templates, yes. I do not think they would help very much in this instance.--^talk 02:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'm taking it to heart. Please help me out if I fail at this. --Abd (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and so long

Reviewing this, I note that you were not "game." You are the best RW has to offer, as far as anything I've seen, nobody else I've noticed is in your class. I don't think RW is ever going to come close to realizing the stated goals, the elements aren't present. I won't be watching for response, but if you ever care to communicate, I'll keep email up, I've shut down my watchlist notifications. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Alan Caruba cont'd

Guess where your old friend showed up? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Haha! Yeah, I read that; he put it on his own blog. He has gotten increasingly more shrill about environmentalists over the past few months, and it's probably not going to get any better. I claim a personal victory in that respect: a couple of days ago he posted an email chain letter - after I hammered on him about it, he had to delete it.--^talk 01:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

More shrill? Is that even possible? I thought environmentalists were already worse than Hitler. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

He just keeps turning up his outrage level. It's a weird confluence of his former job selling pesticides ("If we just sprayed everything with DDT there'd be no bedbugs!"), his job working for the Heritage Foundation ("Grrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaclimategate!"), his age ("Fuck 'em, I'll be dead anyway.") and his general nature.--^talk 02:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Biological determinism

Planning on working any more on your snarticle? I've been toying around with doing a dramatic expansion, but I get the feeling I'll turn it into a recycled term project. Plus my views are decidedly biased, i.e. pretty strongly anti-hereditarian. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Haha I'd forgotten about it! I'll give it another crack - any suggestions?--^talk 05:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Much of what I have first-hand familiarity with would fit under scientific racism or eugenics. On the not-so-evil front, Dean Hamer's popular work really grates on me for its general genetic determinism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I rewrote some of your material if'n ya don't mind. I might throw in some other common fallacies at some point like broad sense vs. narrow sense heritability (a distinction commonly overlooked and thus abused by hereditarians and the popular media). I'm going to have to try to avoid sounding like a biology textbook somehow, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not possessive of articles, especially since I know you have your head on straight - rewrite it all if you can improve it! I'd be interested to read this heritability fallacy, too.--^talk 05:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's one of my favorite papers on that. I don't know how much sense that makes if you're not familiar with the jargon, though, but I love the "heritability" of wearing sunglasses bit. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I have only some smidgen of autodidactic scientific knowledge, but I think I get most of this. It's interesting - definitely add some of it to the article.--^talk 05:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to rifle through some old papers and texts to make a decent job of it. Basically, though, these models of heredity were designed for agricultural purposes and so quite obviously fail from my perspective when applied to human behavior. It makes about as much sense as doing a Marxist analysis of cellular respiration. You'd be laughed out of the room if you suggested such a thing, but these hereditarian models are considered "Hard Science"^TM because biology is considered more "real" than those squishy, fuzzy social sciences and humanities. But I'm not a cultural determinist or "blank slater" (more a term of abuse today than any real intellectual position) either. This is why I advocate a systems biology approach when it comes to behavioral sciences, and emergentist thinking in general. The traditional biological approaches to behavior have generated useful knowledge, but a mountain of failure that more than counterbalances that success. And you don't need some fuzzy-headed philosopher to tell you that, just good old Maynard Smith (as I added to the article): "Attempts to import biological theories into sociology, from social Darwinism of the 19th century to the race theories of the 20th, have a justifiably bad reputation." And now you've got me started rambling.... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Korean Education, somewhat inspires a school in Harlem?

Hm. The principal was an English teacher in Korea. Reminded me of you! It was an interesting documentary.--Dumpling (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hahha I love Korean news... always with the montages with classical music!

Good for this school, though. This is great work they're doing, and unusually outward-looking for an American school. I love the worksheet they showed and the very neat lettering - like a Korean kindergartener!--^talk 04:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Another postmodern man

I added some more stuff to postmodernism to try expand beyond literary theory and Sokal. Care to smooth any of it out a bit? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look! :) --^talk 01:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks much better now! It could still use some tightening up, but I'm not quite sure what parts should be pared down yet. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It just needs a whole new rewrite, incorporating everything there now. I'll do it someday, unless someone else gets to it first (i.e. hint hint you go do it go do it go do it)--^talk 05:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? I don't think it needs a wholesale rewrite, just a bit of fine-tuning. Of course, I'm coming at po-mo from a social science/philosophy of science angle and you're coming from the literary angle, so our opinions are probably pretty divergent on the issue. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, not a full rewrite, I think - poor choice of words. It's just accumulated a lot of caveats and separate sections and so on, and needs consolidation into a coherent presentation.--^talk 07:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I getcha. If you say which parts you want to fix up, I can attempt a bit of revision. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The "relationship to science" bit looks fine. But I wanted to sort out the other two sections. The original long section I wrote is now under "utility," even though it comprises some criticism as well, so it needs to be untangled to suit the new organization.--^talk 07:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

IT.IS.DONE.

You can check it on RWW now. --Dumpling (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha wonderful! Thank you!--^talk 20:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Conservative literary criticism

Since you love talking about literature, I thought I'd share a couple posts of my favorite blogger, wherein he critiques conservatives' hilarious attempts at saying something meaningful about literature: here and here. The comments section of the first post is also enjoyable to read. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ahaha! Very interesting!--^talk 07:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Please intervene

Several users have ganged up to constantly block me. It has gotten to the point where it is incredibly frustrating. Right now, my IP is blocked because of ArchieGoodwin and I'm having to rely on Tor. I can't unblock it because P-Foster removed my rights. Even before my block rights were removed, unblocking myself was futile since as soon as I did so, I would be blocked again. I'm sick of it. Don't ask me to roll with the punches. This has gone too far. Please intervene.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm on vacation at the moment, and only online a few minutes a day. I will be able to help you in a couple of days; I hope that someone else, though, investigates this in the meantime.--^talk 08:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you get Archie off my back? I don't want to bother you more than I have, but you're the only active moderator right now (or if Ace is still here, the only active moderator that'll do his job)--"Shut up, Brx." 01:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm checking in pretty much daily, bricks. Last I checked I was also a mod, lol. ħuman 02:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I can absolutely assure you that any conceivable action I might take will just make things worse for you. Seriously.

Archie is blocking you because it's fun watching you react, and it's fun to exercise power against someone without having to suffer consequences because they're so widely disliked. If you indulge in your customary reaction, you'll start appealing to people, making impassioned pleas for attention, and starting formal proceedings. This is a reaction the people bothering you will enjoy, and further, it will allow a feeling of righteousness on their part because you'd be "causing trouble." They'll do it more. And then it will become a funny thing for everyone, and more people will do it. Meanwhile another screaming match will begin.

There is a better course. And since repeating the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, is not a wise decision, I would suggest you try something new. It's harder to glorify in your own mind, so it may not appeal, but it will be more effective: stop fucking whining. Just let it go. You'll have to unblock yourself eight or nine times, maybe many more. It will happen today, and maybe the next time you get on Foster's nerves, and so on. But resist the temptation to be what Godot rightly called a "drama queen" and let it go. In two or three weeks, after you ignore it and don't raise a shrieking fucking hissy fit over the matter, then it will slow down and stop. It will be boring, and it will be obviously bullying.

The only way to win this game is not to play. Just ignore it and socialize, or even do something useful.--^talk 01:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

What has my reaction been so far? Unblocking myself? I count six times. Most of them I didn't leave a comment. I hope you know that you're supporting a toxic culture (no, not the "new" one)--"Shut up, Brx." 01:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

1) lol @ Niu Kulture 2) I'm blocking you because you're a horrible person and maybe one day it will sink into your think skull to fucking leave. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Some day, i'll have the balls to ask you how old you are, AD. I've seen what I *think* is a pic of you, and you look 12, but you act all 40 and wise and "been there, done that". ahhh, the connundrum that is my dear AD. :-) Godot On a perdu le contrôle 01:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You can find out all about me from my G+ profile and my blog :) But I'm 29, to answer your question.--^talk 01:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I am 31 with the liver of a god and the attitude of a 12 year old. And that makes me damned happy. Ace^Moderator 01:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I wish I had the liver thing! I just cannot do liquor, it's shameful. Aside from face-contorting Jaegermeister in college and the occasional G&T, I have discovered that liquor just ain't my thing, and I admire those who drink it. A Scottish friend of mine keeps buying me different whiskies (latest one: something called "Lu Fruege" or something similarly Scottish and unpronounceable) and it just tastes like burning.--^talk 01:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Laphroiag, and if you can't drink it we all think less of you. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 01:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Bring it to me in Wellington. Ace^Moderator 01:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(ECX3) Hate wine, esp. Rose. Like ale, rum, and brandy. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

AD - that makes sense, then. Ace - not good. ! I'm 43 and just got told that a 25 year old guy thought I was "in his age range". wheeee..... !!!! Godot On a perdu le contrôle 01:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)your page is too popular, damn edit cons!

Will do! Six or seven months and I'll get my degree and have a couple of things published, and then my wife and I are going to hit up the north island and take a look around. I'll swing on by and bring you a bottle of something, and you can drink the whole thing yourself. I will have a delicious beer instead.--^talk 01:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll provide the ale. Tried Tuatara Pilsner yet? Delicious. Ace^Moderator 01:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Mmmmmmm

fuck yeah

Ace^Moderator 00:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What?--^talk 00:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the good stuff

Ace^Moderator 00:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good.--^talk 01:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You can probably get that made out of soy and grain--24.251.69.25 (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Most fake meats aren't very good. My favorite veggieburgers, for example, are those that concentrate on being delicious, not those that try to resemble beef. My wife swears by "Smartdog" brand veggie hot dogs, though.--^talk 01:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Trader Joe's Meatless Meatballs, for example, taste exactly like real meatballs. At least, I think they do. I haven't had meatballs in a very long time.--24.251.69.25 (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't tried those. When I get back to the US in a couple of years, I'll give them a try.--^talk 01:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not very nice. I'd always thought highly of you. Ah, well.

I wouldn't take me seriously. I am just in a rare mood and feeling off today. No harm intended. Ace^Moderator 02:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Okeydokey! None taken :) Hope everything's chill with you; gotta be warmer up there, at least.--^talk 02:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, actually really pleasant today and Easter was awesome. How's the weather down there? Ace^Moderator 02:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It's been cold and gray the past few days, although this afternoon is looking nice. Easter weekend was amazing - not a cloud in the sky and beautiful (although that may be because I was up in Kaikoura).--^talk 02:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I note you have been to the Catilins? Did you go anywhere near a small town called Alexandria? Ace^Moderator 02:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Not as I recall. Didn't spend much time in the Caitlins - it was mostly passing through to Fiordland. Spent the night in Tuatepere, is all.--^talk 02:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You should spend some time in central Otago. There is a beautiful small town called Saint Bathans which has the nicest pub owners (OK I know them but still...) and is just a wonderful example of early century gold rush New Zealand. My Dad bought a section of land not to far from there and built his own little hut made entirely from this scavenged from the local recycling centre. Old doors, corrugated iron etc etc. I'll find some photos..... Ace^Moderator 02:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds nice! Maybe it'd be a good weekend trip next semester.--^talk 02:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Acehut.jpg

One of two hand built huts

Ace^Moderator 02:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ninja

Sysops don't actually have control over that. Could I please ask you to reinstate me? Also, would it be okay now if I restored my emergency-contingency-absolutely-necessary-for-my-continued-survival accounts? Thank you.--"Shut up, Brx." 00:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You have every right to create some socks. If you are smart, then you will go a little slow and just do some editing this week, rather than attracting attention to yourself and starting another kerfuffle.--^talk 01:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, I had to make 300 mainspace edits in one day to get Ninja. Just sayin' Тy^Yes? 01:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It's because I'm cuter--"Shut up, Brx." 01:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it a mark of distinction or something? I didn't know it was a big deal. I'll ninja anyone who needs it and is a serious editor, as far as I'm concerned. If you object, I'm sure Brx won't insist on it.--^talk 01:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me put it like this. Everything a Ninja does is cloaked by default from RC. Edits, blocks, user rights modification, page deletions, page moving, everything. If I was feeling evil, I could... get the picture? Тy^Yes? 01:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Gee, thanks a lot, Ty.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Reap what you sow. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 01:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

He has a good point, and tensions have been high. And what's more, he raised his concerns politely and without fucking anything up or being dramatic. You should indeed be thanking Ty.--^talk 01:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ninja

Since it seems to be a fancy thing people can do, can i have ninja as well? UI'd mostly use it on userspace articles of mine if your wondering. --il'Dictator Mikal 01:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Since Ty has justly pointed out that it's really for people who make a lot of small edits, are you sure you need it? I mean, looking back through your edits, it seems you mostly chat and edit your monobook.js file. There's nothing wrong with that, but what do you need to be able to bot yourself for - a dozen mainspace edits a day or whatnot? Just curious.--^talk 01:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

so i dont bother people if i feel like editing my userspace stuff mostly. 90% of it they wont care about and is just more my use anyways. and if i cant get em, eh, ok, no real lose. --il'Dictator Mikal 01:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will be bothered by a dozen edits to your userspace or whatnot. I've never seen you fill Recent Changes. If it gets to be a problem and people get on your ass about it, though, then of course.--^talk 01:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

-Shrug- ok. --il'Dictator Mikal 01:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Ninja mode is supposed to be used when you are doing repetitive, remedial work like changing categories on 200 pages, cause you think "author" is better than "authors", or when you've created a new page that has 100 potential pages linking to it, adn all you will be doing is adding brackets to the word "the" 300 times. There really is no reason for it for any day to day editing. --Godot Tout s'acheve par commencer un autre voyage 01:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense.--^talk 01:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the main problems with ninja is people forgetting to de-bot themselves afterwards. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 01:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey.

In an attempt to move on past some of my less-than-productive behavior, I would like to hit the "reset" button as it were, by changing my name back to the original "TheoryOfPractice". Could you oblige? Hugs and kisses, P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 01:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It has been done. Ace^Moderator 02:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 02:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Gibberish

I emailed you some gibbering patter and veiled death threats. Ace^Moderator 20:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Stuff

Good book review about an interesting book, from the guy I linked earlier. I'll have to see if my library has a copy. Also, if you happen to know of any good books on the Israeli-Palestine conflict, I'd appreciate the recommendations. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This book does sound interesting - it's going on my list of things to read. Thanks for the tip!

As to Israel-Palestine, I'm told that Hitchens' essay collection Arguably contains a pertinent essay or two that are interesting. I don't cotton much to Hitchens' views on the matter, but he's always worth reading (even if it's nonsense like "Why Women Aren't Funny"). I haven't read the book yet myself, just some of the collected material, but it might be worth checking out.

Unfortunately, I've never read anything else that deals with that conflict in any worthwhile way. It's radioactive, and all the things I've read that touch on it have been shallow or short-sighted or otherwise deeply flawed. If you do find anything, let me know - I'll want to read it too.--^talk 01:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for recommendation! And I'll let you know if I come across anything good. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read a lot on Palestine Israel, either--but this and this are awesome, and the best examples of 'graphic journalism" in the world, full stop. This is a nice attempt to write a "balanced" account, alternating chapters from two different authors each with their own takes. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 03:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you. Those do look good.

I should specify that I'm doing a research paper on Israeli-Palestine land claims, and my professor probably won't accept me citing the graphic journalism books as a source (not that I won't read them anyways). I think I can still use The Palestine-Israeli Conflict—part of my paper will address why they both want the land in the first place, and that book sounds like it gives voice to that. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Read this for a less "balanced" account. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's one from the Israeli side. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘So many things to read now! I have a list of "books read," but now I'm seriously starting to need a list of "books to read."--^talk 08:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

everyone is awesome and RW is good

Indeed. Ace^Moderator 07:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Meretricious

Meretricious?--"Shut up, Brx." 00:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes.--^talk 05:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Cooping Nutty seemed attractive until you realized there was no value to it?--"Shut up, Brx." 05:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no value to protecting you because you contribute very little, and there's no value in desysoping Nutty, since he often usefully uses his sysop powers. This cooping is necessary, but very annoying and we'd all be better off without it.--^talk 05:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I contribute very little? Fuck that. I contribute plenty. I've written several article for this site, and improved many others. And I certainly contribute more than Nutty Roux. And stop acting like it's such a damn chore to read an email I send you.--"Shut up, Brx." 05:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations I just ended any risk of having to do that chore ever again.--^talk 05:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Great. Now go grade those papers, and find somebody else to pat on the head.--"Shut up, Brx." 05:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If I were you, I wouldn't be so smug about successfully repelling one of a very short list of people willing to help you.--^talk 05:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Screw you. I've been stomaching your condescension for months now. I'm finally saturated. This site roils in HCM while you sit in a corner humming. You are a part of the problem until you join the solution. Hell, did you read what Human told you at the coop? This is the culture you are enabling. --"Shut up, Brx." 05:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You are a part of the problem Could have sworn that you were the problem Brx. Ace^Moderator 05:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah? And for what? You think everything would be hunky-dory without me? You think I'm the cause of all the HCM since I arrived? Look at the past. This site was volatile before me, and I had nothing to do with the worst HCMs since my arrival.--"Shut up, Brx." 05:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Look at what you buddy Ace just said to someone that likely isn't even eighteen yet! [4] Having fun?--"Shut up, Brx." 06:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've been 18 for about two months now. Blue (is useful) 06:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought you were older than that. Did you start college early? ListenerX^TalkerX 06:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I start college this fall. I'm sure I've implied I was older, if only to avoid people's prejudices. Blue (pester) 06:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You did imply that you were eligible to be a trustee. The reason I was confused was I could have sworn you discussed your college work at some point or another. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what I'm supposed to be shocked by - him calling her a cunt? That's rather less vicious here in NZ than it is elsewhere. And Blue is a big girl and can handle herself.--^talk 06:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I did indeed think you were older Blue. But what I don't understand is how my comment is somehow not age appropriate. I called you a cunt sure but I didn't solicit sex. AD - it is still vicious here...people just throw it around with less care. Ace^Moderator 06:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It's way less serious here than in the US, it seems - in the States it is a fighting word, and considered one of the worst things you can say to someone (which is kind of sad), surpassed only by the n-word in its offensiveness. Here, it's just not considered quite that bad, even if it is pretty nasty.

You cunting cunt cunt.--^talk 06:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally I prefer "scum flaps" or "ham wallet" over "cunt". Ace^Moderator 06:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Your sweet nothings are music to my ears.--^talk 06:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait until we meet in Wellington sometime and I shove my oily penis your ear. That's what I call "music". Ace^Moderator 06:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Damn Satan supporter

You foolish man, supporting satan and Whatever his name is and the other people who knew they'd lose! --il'Dictator Mikal 07:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Saloon bar

I am glad you agree. Those polls look like shit. Ace^Moderator 10:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's change them.--^talk 10:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yah well I did it but won't be long until some rule crazy penis fucks it back up again, takes me to the coop, nothing happens but pointless arguing, an RWW article is written, I lose some rights for 5 minutes and we start at the beginning again.....Brx will be involved somehow also no doubt. Ace^Moderator

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes. The result of this vote was: Ace is a douchenozzle
Is Ace a douchenozzle? Yes --talk 11:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Rude Words

I dunno, "DOUCHETITS", "QUEEF" and "WANKSPLAT" all made me giggle. --MtD^{Prematurely Indeterminate} 05:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, they're not legal in Scrabble. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't heard "queef" in a long time... ^sshole 19:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Mod nom

I've nominated you for moderator; please go here to accept or decline. Blue (pester) 04:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you.--^talk 07:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

goAteeD (campaigning is hard work!)

sterile^{no new information} 05:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

As you live in NZ

You might find this interesting. Ace^Moderator 22:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Although I'm already a subscriber on RSS to your blog - I read all.

Yeah, I've been following the whole debate. It's ridiculous. Someone should tell National what happened to the Arizona State House.--^talk 23:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh well, their arguments that Labour did it so why can't we ring hollow in that Labour completely fucked the economy when they did it. Ace^Moderator 23:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Your heroes

File:Acemodlove.jpg

Vote Ace..your new hero

The Two Terrys

I read one of those Sword of Truth books a while back -- didn't realize Goodkind was a Randroid. Though it makes sense in retrospect. But is he worse than Terry "Cheap LOTR knockoff" Brooks? It's a pretty tough call. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna butt in here a second and say that I read little fantasy (excepting LotR, one of my all time favorites, and working my way through Song of Ice and Fire) but I decided to try out the old Sword of Shannara years back and was amazed at what a LotR knockoff it was. It wasn't until I saw Eragon that I witnessed a mroe blatant rip off of a fantasy/sci-fi classic. DickTurpis (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to confess here that I've never read anything by Brooks, which in fantasy circles seems a sin. Although the reason I never have has just again been proven true: it's never recommended by anyone I'd normally listen to about anything else.

Question for you two: is it bad enough to be worth reading, or just in that boring middle zone between terrible and ok?--^talk 12:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been so long since I read it I couldn't say, exactly. If you want to read shit fantasy, might as well read The Eye of Argon instead. It's shorter...and free! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Still, it's no My Immortal. ^bomination 00:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You read the whole of Left Behind... and yet you're asking that question? ^postate 00:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Left Behind was spectacularly bad. The last book, particularly, was an amazing testament to terribleness - it was so bad it actually looped back and became good again. Few books are that wonderfully terrible, though.--^talk 01:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The 50 Shades and Eye of Argon drinking games? ^narchist 12:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I enjoyed the Sword of Truth books initially. They get progressively more Randian as the series goes on, getting to the point where they become nigh-unreadable. The first one is the best, but after book five or so the metaphor begins to wear painfully thin. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 16:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong

I'm very tempted to show people what "annoying" and "attention-seeking" really mean. I could be everywhere on this wiki, popping in to every thread with dick jokes, retaliating against any insult with long blocks, spamming posters on everybody's talk page, and more. But I don't. Because it's not my aim to annoy people, or seek attention, and doing so just to prove a point would only serve to annoy people and worsen my reputation. I usually stick to topics that interest me, and I don't react well when people pick on each other. My activities on this wiki are fairly reserved. And yet, I send some emails to you, asking for assistance or advice, and I become the bane of contentment, somehow ruining your day more and more with each message. Which might make sense if I were emailing you everyday, or every week. Or even addressing you more than once a month. What is annoying, and are you sure it's brx?--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh

Brx: you are annoying. You annoy me. You annoy everyone. You are the platonic ideal of annoying, crafted out of pure unadulterated Annoytanium purchased from Farmer Terry's Discount House of Annoying You have a way with words. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 02:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I gave him every chance. I seriously bent over backward to try to help him. It's very sad to me that even when he makes sense, now, it's tainted with smugness. He's like one of those discs that once were aluminum cans, sitting in the road and getting creased by tires and covered in dinge: almost always useless, and even when it might come in handy, virtually anything else would work better.--^talk 07:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You know, I think I should have paid more attention in English class. Peter ^HFB2 07:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

...

Stop mocking people for trying to productively discuss the problem. Sorry buddy, I like you and all, but what the fuck is wrong with me expressing how feel about the supposed problem? Because I don't agree with the majority opinion my position is therefore invalid? I should not comment, with the same ferocity, about the issue as others? Are only those who agree something should be done allowed to venture a opinion? If I feel this is another layer of gibberish atop a pile of gibberish I should just shit the fuck up and masturbate in the corner?
Well, fuck man, I am turning this back on you - Stop mocking people for trying to disentangle the problem and view it from the point of view that there is no real problem.. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 04:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel your delicate opinion, which is like unto a precious dove and fragile beyond human reckoning, is in danger. But you'd already broadly declared that the entire thing was silly in your opinion because the moderator position is worthless. That was well-established. You felt the need to emphasize it by declaring again just how silly you think everyone is for worrying about it. And when Dick quite reasonably and politely pointed out he thought there was an actual problem to discuss, you sneer back with "Seriously man, get some fucking perspective here. I feel embarrassed having even waded into this conversation."

That, of course, isn't just your opinion, which is as rare as diamonds and delicate as the fleeting moments of childhood. It's your contempt for everyone who is pausing to politely and calmly work out what's going on. You deposited it in a sticky mass of self-pleasure, making clear that you're above the discussion and the foolish peons who dare to talk about it as if it might matter are just embarrassing to you.

I answered your contempt with my own, because I was surprised and disappointed that you felt that your previous two sneering and gloppy deposits hadn't been sufficient. Goddamn, yes, we get it, you're very detached and don't Take the Internet Seriously and it's very awesome and cool of you. You're putting on your shades and making a snappy quip. You're riding a Model-T down the hill, ollying it up on a rail, and then slamming out a rad guitar solo.

It's facile.

You can see people who are actually just offering their opinion, not their withering contempt for the Lesser Beings. Rpeh did it by just making a joke about how it was all silly. Weasaloid did it with a direct but insightful comment about red tape. Bad Faith did it by not being quite so chin-thrustingly superior with his own "this doesn't matter" post.

I like you too. But sometimes you disappoint me. I actually do apologize if I hurt your feelings or if I seem overly harsh in my free-wheeling and occasionally ridiculous hyperbole. But I wouldn't be doing you or anyone else a favor by just ignoring it.--^talk 07:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you lost me at which is like unto a precious dove and fragile beyond human reckoning. You pompous git. Fuck you, I put forth my opinion in the manner in which I put forth all my opinions. I didn't feel the need to consult Websters. I am sure your way with words which I do feel beguiled by makes you feel like a Renaissance man of the highest order.....but, like me, you come across as a prick. The manner in which I expressed my view in no way invalidates it. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 08:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Assertion A: You stopped reading my reply because of my tone, which was pompous and showy.

Assertion B: The manner in which someone expresses their replies shouldn't invalidate them.

These are two interesting things to say in the same post.--^talk 08:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me supplement that: yes, I'm sure I came off like a prick. I lost my temper, and here again I didn't just disagree with you, I tried to humiliate you a little bit. That was a mistake, and I apologize. Please consider that the way you felt was the way you made a lot of other people feel: when I dumped on your opinion and mocked you for it, you resented it. It's not pleasant for anyone else, either.--^talk 08:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A mistake? Hell no. Ace needs to be taken down a few notches. -- Nx / talk 08:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're interested in actually changing someone's behavior, it seldom works to try to "win" over them. It was a mistake to unleash on him. He's smart and not malignant, so to explain the other perspective would have been wiser.--^talk 08:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If I ever find myself to be taken down a few notches by a stranger on the internet then I'll have both barrels waiting for me. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 12:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Barrels of alcohol? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Lost reply

Your reply got lost somewhere: Thread:User_talk:Blue/Thank_you/reply_(36) -- Nx / talk 08:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I was basically just saying that since Blue realizes it wasn't the best thing to do, then I guess it's settled. And eventually someone will give her back tech rights, because she does a lot of cool work.

I hate LQT.--^talk

I tried wading my way through that mess, was typing a reply, suddenly found I was editing the header and gave up. The gist of my point was that I am concerned about mixing techs and moderators, I don't think one person should have both. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Knowing the score

I seem to always get a yellow card right after being elected, but luckily I haven't yet faced a red. Thanks for being reasonable, as ever. Blue (pester) 08:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries!--^talk 08:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

AD, you're one of the few genuinely and consistently reasonable people here. I hope you never forget that. ^narchist 13:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

What ADK said. You are an asset to this place. The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 13:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I just happened to be around. Anyone else would have reached the same conclusion.--^talk 22:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

She's a liability with all her powergrabbing ego-drriven nonsense and her awful judgment is what she is. Stick together though. 13:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

On balance, I think Blue does ten times as much good around here as she might ever do things wrong. It seems mostly like she's just hasty, and leaps to fix a problem rather than trying to solve it. But that's relatively minor, in the scheme of things. We're all flawed, after all, and the amount of crap that the community is willing to endure from us is proportional to how much we contribute. Blue is hasty, but she does a lot of tech work and hidden labor. I am bloviating and annoying, but I write some good stuff in articles sometimes. You hold on to grudges like they were your grandfather's watch, but your clarion insight and legal expertise is invaluable. Ace is erratic, but amiable and fun.

Ain't no saints here.--^talk 22:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Builder Extraodinare

A few years ago I was walking down a busy inner city street in my nations capital. It was a lunch-time, mid week and people were rushing around hustling and bustling as people are want to do at lunch time in the business district. It was pouring with rain and blowing a mighty Wellington gale. I noticed a car on the sidewalk, as I elbowed my way through the heaving throng, which had its drivers side door open which I thought unusual. As I took this in a man came running, through the pouring rain, across 4 lanes of traffic from the other-side of the road. As he ran toward me he slipped in a puddle, fell forward into a roll, went all the way over and dove head first into the open car door which then closed behind him. The engine started and off he went at top speed, rewarded with green lights all the way. On the side of his car it read "Bill Simpson - Builder Extraordinaire"....no one else saw this but me....and there isn't a day I don't think about it. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 11:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I spelled out this message on my floor in Scrabble tiles, using several Scrabble sets. It took me a long time, particularly since I had to carve some tiles for punctuation. When I was done, I took a copy of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and dropped it on the center of the message. Tiles flew from the thunderous impact. When a few scattered ones rolled to a stop, they spelled out B R X I S F U C K E D.

In all things, there is a message. Praise Allah.--^talk 12:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Your story is much more prophetic than mine, though mine is funnier. Please come and visit me soon. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 12:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It's on the itinerary!--^talk 22:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Talossa

I know you have an inexplicable fondness for micronations like Talossa, but what about aspiring breakaway nations with terrible flags? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

My fondness for Talossa is not inexplicable - I am a prominent citizen.

The Cascadian flag is indeed ridiculous, and breaks almost every vexillological rule.--^talk 08:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but does Talossa have universal health care? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

There are vexillogical rules? ^pathetic 17:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and most flags break them. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Gambia is the highest rated, apparently. And the UK comes above the US, SUCK IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ^postate 18:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"Possibly worst traditional tricolour"? Sacriledge!--MonarchofascistС нами Бог! 18:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Talossa does not have UHC, but you can find out all you want about the country at our brand-new wiki!--^talk 00:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Help with an experiment

I'm curious as to whether sysoprevoke actually even works. It appears to me Nutty's was undone by a non-mod. Can we test this? Can you sysoprevoke my other account User:Kendoll to see what effect it has, and whether a simple sysop like me can undo it? I'll log in as him and give permission, so you know this is above board. Undo it in an hour or so. If someone accuses you of abuse both of us will defend you. Thanks. DickTurpis (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes! I support this! Onward science! Kendoll (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hold off for now. I'm not oing to be online for a bit. DickTurpis (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It was undone by a tech because no mods were around and the punishment expired. Тy^talk 15:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sysoprevoke does not prevent you from making the sysoprevoked user a sysop again. It works by revoking the rights of the user it is applied to, so even if they are a sysop, they don't have the rights, which allow them to do stuff. -- Nx / talk 16:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

So someone who is simultaneously sysop and sysoprevoke is functionally no different from a rightsless n00b? Interesting, and a bit confusing. I'd still like to take it for a test run on Kendoll, if possible. Ty, are you the tech in question? Didn't realize you were one or that techs could do that, but then again I don't know anything about the position. I just found the list and haven't even heard of one or two people on it. DickTurpis (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A sysop in sysoprevoke loses Block, lock, make-other-sysop, and deletion privileges but is still marked as patrolled so no red !s. Yeah, I was made a tech because I have a rudimentary knowledge of Abuse filter and MediaWiki, and am pretty much here more often than everybody else. Тy^talk 17:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Done.--^talk 20:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like sysoprevoked users do have the power to promote/demote, however. Are they not supposed to? I guess I better have Ken demote me. DickTurpis (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There was a patch that prevented them from promoting/demoting, but apparently it got lost in an upgrade. As for not revoking access to the vandal bin, that's an oversight. -- Nx / talk

My impression is that sysoprevoke revokes fewer powers than you might think. Try playing with the vandal bin. Also, I only demoted Nutty so somebody with the powers would remember that they were supposed to do it properly now that a week was up. Peter ^{"a sarcastic remark between every mouthful"} 21:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Try blocking, locking, etc.--^talk 21:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocking and deleting were both not options. Didn't try locking, though. DickTurpis (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

ListGroupRights says that all that you shouldn't be able to do is delete, protect, and block - and also change rights but as you said you seem to be able to do that. Peter ^{This is not my first temporal anomaly} 00:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems like the best thing sysoprevoke has going is that most people don't actually know what it does. Blue (pester) 00:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

If that's the 'best' then I don't think it's a very good tool. Peter ^{This is not my first temporal anomaly} 00:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I meant it sounds scarier than it actually is. Blue (pester) 00:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I know. But that's not a good thing. Peter ^{This is not my first temporal anomaly} 00:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Username vandals

Yup. Тy^talk 15:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear...

...we are on the same page re: the edit filter. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 23:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we just don't need the damn thing. I'm sure there are situations where it'd be good to have, but mods should be using hammer and screwdriver, and shouldn't be tempted by the 200k psi jackhammer in the back of the truck.--^talk 23:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 00:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me

Your top, Ace McWicked, is edit warring over a policy you instituted; specifically, RationalWiki:Robrail. RobSmith started a mostly offtopic discussion on whether or not someone can be born gay, and this infuriated a number of other users, who went on to cause a storm of arguments that had the potential to go on indefinitely.
Now, you may be unwilling to upset your little buddy, but perhaps you could consider asking him to back off? He is insisting upon this rather ridiculously, and he has blocked me repeatedly and even gone so far as to temporarily remove my sysop rights.User:Brxbrx/sig 23:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You see, AD,

Now THAT is smug. You haven't begun to see annoying. Now don't worry, I have no plans on demonstrating that, ever. Maybe if you're extra condescending, I'll give you a free show. Regardless, rein in your boyfriend, unless you're worried he'll rupture your rectum--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh my god....Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 23:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Every time I think you cannot sink any lower. Fuck you. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Faceplam (the first time I think I have ever uttered the word facepalm - I avoid meme talk). The conversation is old, Rob hasn't commented for 5 hours (maybe more), it is a small part of the page, Robrailing is not policy, I blocked him for seconds long periods, he refused to discuss and just reverted and reverted without comment, I took his right and blocked him for five minutes but then almost immediately returned the rights and said I shouldn't have done that before opening it up for comment on his talkpage and explaining why I didn't think he should be doing what he did. So, what is the issue? Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 23:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Frankly Brx is lucky he wasn't blocked for longer. I've had virtually nothing to do with him, and have ignored all his supposed crimes, but now I can see what all the fuss is about. What a prick. --Damo^Hi 23:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't understand the context of all this. I am reacting to the behavior of several other users towards me, and Ace is only trying to fuck with me/leave Rob out in the open where he can rip on him--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah right. You continue to make reversions with no edit comments at all, despite the fact that you are clearly in the wrong. And its all Ace's fault!! You are delusional. --Damo^Hi 00:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Clearly?--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes clearly. If you can't see that wheel warring with no edit comments a small section of Talk CP which is hours old and that you didn't participate in is wrong then you have serious behavioural issues. Damo^Hi 00:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

hours old. Oh my. Good thing it wasn't chicken, then. Could have caused an outbreak of salmonella. Anyways, what I was doing was pretty clear. Ace was just being an asshole. Actually, it would be easier to list the times when Ace isn't being an asshole. By the way, I've been impersonating Ace for the last hour or so. That's why you find me so annoying.--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh my god...Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 00:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Robrail is not policy. I'm just one person, I have no power to generate policy. I think it's a good idea because Rob spends at least 75% of his edits on saying stupid things that are perpendicular to the actual topic, and sticks with it to try to insist that we talk about what he wants to talk about. It's really annoying. So I set up a thing where we can get his attention-seeking out where it belongs. But it's not policy.

One moment while I scan through RC.--^talk 00:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

So unless I mistake things, Brx wanted to robrail some idiocy, and Ace didn't want it sent there. So then there was an edit war over it.

Brx, you can't ghettoize something like that unless everyone agrees. There is disagreement, so leave it alone.--^talk 00:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Bio-determinism again

I've made some more additions to that article. Care to look it over? I want to make sure it's not too laden with jargon, because I've gotten hit with ^{[please explain]} tags on some pages. In some ways, I find it harder to write about things I have some background in because I end up letting lots of jargon slip through and loading it up with a zillion hair-splitting caveats and footnotes. LOL. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look too jargonated to me! I'll rummage through this week, though.--^talk 21:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Rob

To try to resolve this shit over Rob, I've opened a vote on the Chicken Coop and I wanted to make sure you were aware. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 10¹³ points 09:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up.--^talk 10:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The link above may explain why some stuff was on the talk page when it didn't need to be. ^sshole 18:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Seriously

We've had incidents with MC, Maratrean, brx, Rob and goodness knows who else. And every time the excuse is 'we don't have a rule' - don't you think it's time that changed? Psygremlin (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't have a hard-and-fast rule against douchebaggery, but I think your issues about that are best directed at people other than AD who are as pretty much anti-douchebaggery as you can get without being abrasively self-righteous about it. ^sshole 19:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A rule against douchebaggery will never pass, because Ace knows if it was applied fairly he'd be booted from the site. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Aye, there's the rub. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 20:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Booooooooooks!

A favorite blogger of mine has interesting post on "difficult books" that I thought you'd like. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I read the Millions post on this same subject; I agree with the criticisms here. Thanks for the link!--^talk 23:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

What, no Principia Mathematica? No Twilight? Weaksauce. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's assumed that it's not simple difficulty, which is an easy thing to take out of bounds (like by trying the Braille section). Principia is not really a "book" in the sense I'd mean - which is, I suppose, a text read for pleasure. I think, anyway.

Twilight is the most painful book to read!

For myself, I think that the first list just demonstrated a lack of depth from the writer - those aren't particularly representative of books that are worthwhile yet difficult. It looks likely that they just happen to be difficult books that the writer had read.

Any top ten list like this should just be Finnegan's Wake, ten times.--^talk 13:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Books redux

You said a while back that you were open to recommendations for books on the Israel-Palestine conflict, so here I am. I've finished reading The Accidental Empire, by Gershom Gorenberg, and The Bible Unearthed, by Israel Finkelstein. (Both are available for the Kindle as well as more traditional dead tree formats.)

I liked Accidental Empire. Really liked it. It was my first exposure to a history book outside of a textbook, and I was struck by just how good the writing is. Gorenberg also makes historical figures seem like flawed, living human beings, rather than carved chess pieces in a game we already know the outcome to. But it also made me uncomfortable. Even after years of being an atheist and hearing by brother's rants about Israel, the impression of Israel as the Holy Land was not completely killed until I was partway through this book. The Israeli settlements were born in a legal and moral gray area, a product of zealots, old men reliving past glories, misplaced priorities, political games, and calculated brutality. I actually had to take a break from reading it every few pages, I couldn't bear the destruction of so much of the Israel mythos I'd been raised with. I think that's what makes it a good book.

I enjoyed Bible Unearthed, though not without qualification. After the exhaustively sourced and carefully-thought-out Accidental Empire, it's a bit much for me to swallow Finkelstein's assertions that such-and-such Biblical story is a metaphor for the relationship between two specific ancient nations. There are moments where he comes across a touch breathless (though it's the breathlessness of an academic who's spent years building a body of evidence for his hypothesis, not twelve-year-old-who-just-met-their-favorite-band breathless — it's an amusing contrast to an interview I found of him where he sounds like a grumpy old man). The book's prose feels bland compared to Accidental Empire, and Finkelstein's recaps of sections from the Bible are the most skimmable paragraphs I've come across in a long time, but at its core, the book is a fascinating exploration of the archeological basis for an ancient Jewish kingdom. I appreciated how, in the process of discussing the development of Judea and Israel through history, Finkelstein utterly demolishes the historical argument for Israel's modern borders (an argument that unfortunately sees much more use than it deserves). But mostly, I enjoyed the book for how it echoes the more modern history in Accidental Empire — in both ancient and modern Israel, zealots with messianic delusions twisted history and politics to expand the borders of a nation, only to be stalled by war and foreign pressures.

I highly recommend The Accidental Empire, even if you're not especially interested in Israeli history. It's a discomforting exploration of the messy politics, strategic apathy, and acceptable brutality that defines so much of human affairs. I mediumly recommend The Bible Unearthed, as an interesting history of ancient Israel and the development of the Bible. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry for dumping this on your talk page, but I had no one else to share this with. I really need a blog... Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If we're doing book recommendations, I'd say: Zionist: Michael Oren's Six Days of War Anti-Zionist: Norman Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the post, Stabby! I'll keep an eye out - right now my reading list is a mile long, but there's always room for something to slip in! I have gotten a little bit into some history of Israel, although mostly centered just around the 1967 war - mostly because that's the center of conflict. Weirdly, my interest in history usually ends just before WW2, perhaps as a function of my skepticism of anyone's ability to be even-handed with a more recent topic (unfair bias on my part, I admit).

Your comments are interesting and well-put. You should definitely get a blog if they're the kind of thing you frequently turn out. Just make sure you do it for yourself, otherwise it'll be hard to keep up. I get maybe 500 readers on a good week, so don't anticipate big numbers.--^talk 11:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow

A mod...moderated! Good werk! C®ackeЯ

How do you get that he "moderated". he looked at the page and redeleted it. we all have opinions, his no better than mine. yours no worse than mine. GodotRIP original "muahahahah". 1...2....3...4...muahahahahah 21:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Godot is correct, as is usually the case.--^talk 21:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Jebus Godot, I was referring to his demoting Tisane to autopatrolled and unblocking him. But thanks for jumping the gun. C®ackeЯ 00:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Moneyball

Let's just say that Lewis used a bit of poetic license in places. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Awww.... damn it. Way to burst my bubble.--^talk 23:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

RW G+ page

So yeah, about that... Тy^JFBAA 02:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that many (All?) users on G+ use their actual names, I can't say I'm surprised no one goes to the RW page. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Nah, there's a pocket community there. The thing is that the page itself is as dead as a post. Тy^JFBAA 02:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Facebook page is fairly active, so that's not the problem. Peter ^{Rapidly running out of marmite} 02:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Gah, the FB page is practically too active to keep up with recently. ^gnostic 09:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding you as a manager. They finally added that functionality.--^talk 09:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I've got a decentish idea on what to post (new articles that have lasted a day or two and gold/silver articles). Тy^JFBAA 16:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Election hangout

Yes? No? Maybe? Cheesecake? Тy^{Bother me} 21:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Very possibly. The hour when results start coming in, EST, is in the afternoon for me here. So the timing works.--^talk 22:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Alrighty then. Тy^{Bother me} 22:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Do not think we will be doing this, now that it's apparent that the election will probably not be called on election day. Too many absentee ballots in swing states.--^talk 21:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

alright then. Evil fascist^{oh noez} 21:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

i'll put up a starbucks gift card (had to think of something internet possible) that it will be called on tuesday, and rather early all things considered. GodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 21:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Oooh.... damn, hmmm.... not sure I am willing to put up money, since I have low confidence in this prediction.

How about this? I'll wager you a $20 donation to the RWF that the election is not called on election day, but instead crosses over to at least the next day, by at least one of the following news organizations: NBC, CNN, FOX, ABC, or CBS. That way, no matter who loses, the RWF wins.--^talk 21:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You're on. And i must hold this position, if only cause of my sanity! i don't think i can survive another Bush v. Gore year.--GodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 21:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Course, that does not include the 8 million lawsuits (especially in Sandy hit areas) that we all know are going to be set by the loser. Colorado already has several legal teams in place to protect itself. not Rep or Dem, just "we did not lie and cheat, you idiots'. ;-) GodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 21:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think lawsuits over legitimacy would hold up the networks from calling it, don't worry.--^talk 22:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I'm going to be making a donation.--^talk 03:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Fake computer stuff and politics

I know they're not the same thing, but I remember that fake program you made for Mitt Romney, and thought of you when I saw this. (Also, as a teacher, if you ever wanted to express your frustrations as an adventure text game...) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hahah thanks man! Reminds me of the little bit of Zork I once played.--^talk 10:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"You cannot edit a quote to make it say something different"

Really? Please point out the difference:

"published during ... [Shakespeare's] lifetime and attributed to 'William Shakespeare', yet nobody thinks that they belong in the [Shakespearean] canon..."

"published during ... Shakespeare of Stratford's lifetime and attributed to 'William Shakespeare', yet nobody thinks that they belong in the [Shakespearean] canon..."

There is no appreciable difference, and the use of a bracketed synthesis to shorten an unnecessarily lengthy sentence is a standard practice. I taught college English for a time, I’ve made my living by writing for the past 15 years, and I’ve been published in peer-reviewed literature journals, so I think I have some small expertise in this. I’m not going to revert because it’s too trivial a matter (my only purpose was to shorten the sentence, not "make it say something different"), but next time pause a moment before you accuse someone of trying to distort the meaning of a quotation. Cheers. My master (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The original quote said "Shakespeare of Stratford, specifying "the Stratford man," as he is called in anti-Stratfordian circles. Your edit changed it to "[Shakespeare]", and I don't think that it is a suitably exact replacement. Nor is there any real reason to make the change - it does not improve the grammar or composition of the sentence, nor make it much more concise. All it does is change slightly the sense of her statement, which purposefully refers to "Shakespeare of Stratford." And finally, for some reason you remove a comma from her statement. Is there some sort of reason you felt the need to make these changes to a direct quote? Did the comma make it too long?

My edit summary was not meant to be disparaging, nor does it accuse you of distorting meaning, but rather more blandly states that you "cannot edit a quote to make it say something different." If you felt this was a personal attack, I apologize for any curtness.--^talk 02:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Crimes against art

Hey, remember that Mr. Bean movie you hate so much? Well, it happened in real life. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Do try and keep up Stabby, that was over a month ago. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It takes an extra month for non-political news to trickle out to me. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I heard about this funny new trend where you send people to a Rick Astley video, unexpectedly. It is cutting edge.--^talk 08:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Astleybombing? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Having been reminded of Mr. Bean, there will be no sleep for me tonight.--^talk 09:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sockmaster

Apparently, reverting the same mess means that I am now your sockpuppet. It's impressive that you/us have managed to live simultaneously in Chicago and NZ, especially since you/we have managed to be successfully married in both jurisdictions. I'm going to assume that this means that you/we will take over the job hunt from me/us. Good luck. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 14:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocking

Strictly speaking, PC's block of 1 day was the second term in the Fib sequence. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, yo' mama.--^talk 02:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I hope you're happy

Ace McWicked has removed your moderator rights. This must be how he spends his Saturdays.--"Shut up, Brx." 13:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hm. Just got back from a weekend away.--^talk 04:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of cleaning up to do. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 04:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Short version: I ran amok, abused mod rights and de-modded everyone after a protracted edit war. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Well, if you're stepping down, it's already mostly sorted, I'd imagine. Although apparently Abd was also being a twat?

Too many logs!--^talk 04:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hm. Just got back from a weekend away. Next time you go away come to Wellington. We can run amok together. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That's the plan for January! Went to Riverton this weekend, but in December my wife and I are going to sell all our shit, fly to Wellington, rent a car, and see the north island.--^talk 04:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Riverton is an awful, horrible place filled with gypsies....or maybe that was somewhere else with a similar name...? Anyway, I am around in January so hit me up by email/facebook before hand. I can show you around the city and we can hit a few pubs. Yeah, I mentioned Abd on the ATIM page so no need to discuss it here. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan.--^talk 04:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to come through Hamilton (and there really is no reason why you would see this shithole) drop me a line and I'll buy you a beer. --Damo^Hi 08:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, this particular post to your talk page was an impromptu criticism of your leniency towards Ace McWicked, inspired by the events I was witnessing at the time. It wasn't a cry for help because by that point, I had figured you were away. The cry for help took the form of several emails, early on, to prominent, reasonable users I felt might have been capable of ending that goddamn edit war on my talk page while at the same time letting me conceal frot.jpg--"Shut up, Brx." 06:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

And if I had taken a minute to think it through, I wouldn't have made the post in the first place. --"Shut up, Brx." 06:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Live and learn. -- Nx / talk 08:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

74k or am I reading that wrong?

You are one highrolling English teacher--"Shut up, Brx." 01:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a decimal pt, not a comma. Even in this country a teacher will probably, in their lifetime, earn at least a little more than US$235. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 03:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ that is some shitty pay. I am already above a teachers top pay and I am only 32. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... I actually don't have a teaching job here now that the semester is over, so I work with developmentally disabled kids instead, for even less pay. Hot tip: do not go into education expecting big bucks.--^talk 07:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Right. In some places, a decimal point fulfills a comma's function, and vice versa. In France, for example, 75.56 would be rendered 75,56. That was the source of my confusion.--"Shut up, Brx." 04:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." — Matthew 6:2. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't fault AD for putting his donation count up on the page. As I see it, he just put it there to encourage others, and perhaps to silence any doubts as to his commitment. Or he's a vain fucker. I prefer the latter former [ corrected text ]. Less cynical.--"Shut up, Brx." 05:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The former. The former is less cynical. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 05:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Brx is right, incidentally. I do want to demonstrate my commitment and encourage others to do so.--^talk 07:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, bye.

JzG, Hipocrite, and David Gerard. I just needed to make sure that telling a user to "go back to raping your kids," and encouraging users to violate standards, and keeping the confusion of how to respond to talk page deletion, was acceptable here. Thanks for making it clear, it saves me a great deal of trouble, I'm glad I went to ATIM rather than the Coop. As to your time, AD, you are fully compensated by gaining JzG and maybe Hipocrite as users. Bye. --Abd (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Think like a rationalist, now that you're a LW reader. We don't enforce a slavish obedience to the rules the same way jaywalking is seldom prosecuted: frequently, it's better for everyone to just roll our eyes and move on, rather than bog down in every dispute. This is particularly true for someone who so obviously enjoys these affairs like yourself - be it from a love of argument or (more likely) pride in idealism.

It is unfortunate that you feel that you have been ill-used, but considering how badly you irritate so very many people, I count it as a mark of pride that you are storming away in a huff of your own volition, little-harassed and free to speak.--^talk 06:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've been thinking "like a rationalist" for well over fifty years, AD. I write experimentally, and review the results. I got the information I needed. I'm not "storming away in a huff," that's your own confirmation bias talking. I concluded that RatWiki is a stirred cesspool, and that site management likes it that way. I have far better things to do than read this wiki, much less help with it. See also response to Blue.
• Freedom to speak is useless if there is no listening, and hostile response to the speaking. I've always been free to speak, and RatWiki site policy and my status here have not increased that freedom. Other than tests, I move my "speaking" to places where it's more useful. This was only a test. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that you are a shockingly poor communicator, unable to stop yourself from a logorrhea of endlessly sloshing proportions. It takes you ten bucks of text to express a nickle's worth of content. You must be aware of this fact by now. But despite this, people on article talk pages engaged in long exchanges with you, and both Blue and myself went to lengths to understand and reply. I don't regret that effort, because even a poor communicator might have useful ideas or criticism, but every time I went through such contortions to understand, I discovered nothing but an arcane delight in procedural fairness rather than an interest in outcome.

Eventually, yes, people stopped listening. I don't blame them, any more than I'd blame them for dismissing the arguments of someone who insisted on commenting in Esperanto.

You certainly did a lot of testing here, but it was of our patience and tolerance. But whoever is in the right, I certainly agree that you are not a good fit for RW. You will, of course, continue to be welcome. Have a nice day.--^talk 22:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what name I'm trolling LessWrong as. Be careful, I'm coming for you there now, Abd. BOOOGABOOGABOOGA! Hipocrite (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be difficult. The karma system keeps trolls near-invisible, and they happily ban people who are at all disruptive. It is a strength of their infrastructure (although it is matched by commensurate weaknesses).--^talk 22:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, AD. The biggest difference with LW is that they have no intolerance of length, per se, some of my most popular contributions have been quite long, and it's easy to tell how I'm doing. I'm planning on engaging with a recent Yudkowsky post, where he raises some important issues, but ... I have to study first. Study lots. LW participation is challenging. There are obvious issues with the community, but also a great deal that is of value. A troll like Hipocrite could do minor damage, using socks, and I don't know what countermeasures they have in place. I do see the strengths of RatWiki, but ... I also see that what RatWiki is producing is unstable and unreliable. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Challenging indeed.--^talk 01:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll keep up with you, AD, unless you prefer not. I've written far more (kchar/day) on LW than anywhere else. I've been downvoted on certain topics, most notably discussion of rationalist Islam (and I reached a nadir of about -40 karma, I'm now up to zero net. I've seen a lot of dithering in the numbers, so I think there are people liking and disliking, in some cases.). I see little or no correlation between length of post and downvoting. Some of my most popular posts have been quite long. The two most normally controversial topics (were so on Wikipedia and here), I've been upvoted on mentions, so far, i.e., cold fusion and low-carb diet. Perhaps RW should have an article about cascades, a very damaging social phenomenon that particularly hooks pseudoskeptics, but I'm not likely to waste time on it. The LW voting system encourages me to quickly adapt to the community. It could also be improved, and I was upvoted on suggestions (among other things, I suggested reporting separate up and down, not just net. (+0 -1) is very different in significance from (+50, -51). The LW community is a mixed bag, but I've not encountered anyone vicious there, so far. --Abd (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Their system is based on Reddit, so the capability already exists to display controversialness. They have chosen not to turn it on, probably because that's not useful information for their purposes. Downvoting is intended to occur when someone makes a bad argument or breaks other social norms, and this is actively encouraged.--^talk 21:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I was curious to see if you actually had been discriminated against on RW. But it seems as though this was not the case, since you are still in negative on LW. I would urge you to now take this opportunity to try to change your behavior.

For comparison: myself. I joined and began posting almost at the same time.

Seriously: doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, is the definition of insanity.--^talk 11:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Importing

Try giving it a whirl. Evil fascist^{oh noez} 23:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I would be very opposed to any user articles being ported over. User history is in the contrib logs and it isn't necessary to bring over user profiles. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Truth be told, I think the main problem with RWW is that it's a separate entity. The user-database is not a good idea, but a section on RW for RW history is smart. And if here, it will be accountable, mature, and responsible - or at least moreso than now.--^talk 00:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

And there shouldn't be any negative awards, for anyone. That just lowers the tone and opens it up for grudge bearers. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about the awards thing much, one way or the other.

Not even sure where to start with the articles, yeesh.--^talk 00:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I've done a few where I've removed links and templates, User:Blue/RWW. Blue (is useful) 01:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Awesome! Do you mind if I add to that?--^talk 01:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Anything else you need? Evil fascist^{oh noez} 21:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I looked through, and it seems pretty set. I don't know RWW as well as others, of course.--^talk 22:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You and Blue got most of the important stuff. Evil fascist^{oh noez} 22:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Listicles

You hate lists? How do you manage when grocery shopping? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Lists in articles! They're often lazy and lousy. Not always, but often. I like lists in general. Umberto Eco wrote a wonderful book about lists that you should check out, if you like them too.--^talk 19:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

But... but... I wrote a list in an article. ;__; Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure your lists are very nice. Not all lists are bad.--^talk 23:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Internet libertarians

Someone actually wrote a whole book on them. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha whaaat?! Going on my list!--^talk 01:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the ideology promoted by the likes of LW was (and still is, really) highly concentrated in Silicon Valley and a small group of cutting-edge tech schools (one of its primary expositors being Marvin Minsky of MIT). Read "The Californian Ideology" for the tl;dr version. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Censorship

Please look at how all my contributions are undone. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Sweet_Fucking_Holy_Jesus_Christ The fact is the greatest opponents of homosexuality are religion (sin) and psychiatry (mental illness). See http://www.amazon.ca/Deviance-Medicalization-From-Badness-Sickness/dp/0877229996 Can you explain why Theory has undone my comments here? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Sweet_Fucking_Holy_Jesus_Christ Is my view not 'valid'? Not 'worthy' of any discussion? Thanks Dirk Steele (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I can. Because you're a boring troll. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 01:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Haha!

Yeah, remember that it's a hard road to acceptance. Your previous actions convinced a lot of people that you're a single-issue crank, so if you want to be effective here, Dirk, you'll have to be patient and overturn the appearance you've spent the past weeks building up. Keep at it!--^talk 01:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Psychiatry is no longer an "opponent" of homosexuality. I believe it finally stopped considering it a mental illness decades ago. Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I know it is a hard road to 'acceptance'. Any student of human behaviour understands the bullying, the ostracism and the scapegoating necessary to create a 'community' by maltreatment of a minority viewpoint. (Think Jews in National Socialism. Think Newspeak in 1984).It can be explained fully by evolutionary psychology. Yes, I am a single issue crank. Why not? I know a lot about a little and not everything about everything. Surely you would prefer experts in their field? Think of me as the Rationalwiki therapist. Trying to drag along all of you to keep to the scientific method despite the confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance that currently prevails. What appearance have I built up? Only a disagreement to the cultural groupthink that is required to mold a 'community'. My arguments are scientific. You have become a religious society ('denialism' is the new heresy) and I will use all of my my intellect to stop this happening. Otherwise you are no different from creationists. Think about this please. Now tell me exactly and specifically why my comments were deleted by TheoryofP. Thanks. Dirk Steele (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Let TheoryofP tell you himself, exactly and specifically. It's not your "minority viewpoint." I barely skim your posts and give them little thought at all -- I sometimes can't remember if your the psychiatry crank or the cold fusion crank, or the anti-vaccine guy. whatever, it doesn't matter. It's not your viewpoint at all. It's the sheer lack of manners you display, and the pigheaded and obnoxious way you dominate our public forums without contributing to the basic upkeep of the place -- when't the last time you edited an article for typos, or fixed some links, or added a category? You're abusing this community and giving nothing of value in return. Worst of all, you're boring. You're not funny. You're a drag to be around. Nobody likes that in a party guest, especially when you hijack the conversation. That's why I erased your post. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 02:31, 16 December 2012 (UT

You barely skim my posts and give them little thought - why undo them then?

You do not know if I am anti-psychiatry or a cold fusion crank or anti-vaccine? Why undo my comments then? Lack of manners? Look at the plank of wood in your eye. I have edited many times (especially spelling and grammar for User:) I have attempted to contribute to many pages but every change I have made has been undone. Like you have done to every attempt I have made to even discuss. You erase my post because you have the power over me to do it. And you love this power. And I think you abuse it. You prefer censorship over debate especially when you do not have the knowledge to express a valid opinion. Dirk Steele (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuality was liberated from psychiatry because of a political campaign. This 'condition' was voted out. My question is how it was accepted in the first place. Imagine measles or cancer undergoing this process - being voted out!. Science or fraud? It will not and cannot happen in true medical science. Drapetomania and Hysteria also disappeared due to political and societal pressure. Blacks and immigrants became 'schizophrenic' in the 1960s. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/side-effects/201005/how-schizophrenia-became-black-disease-interview-jonathan-metzl The fact is that psychiatry deals with the moral issues of cultural groupthink and has nothing to do with medical disease. You have been fed a myth as potent as any religious belief. Of course modern myths are difficult to untangle because of our 'socialisation' as children in the same way that our religion and political viewpoint is due to genetics. I do not believe this pseudoscience. How come for a few hundred years people persecuted witches? Have our brains evolved so much that we are all rational now? No. Astrology - the idea that we have a personality that can be categorised, (I am creative and stubborn - diagnose me with Taureanism), and mind reading are pseudosciences. As is psychiatry. I cannot believe that rational people cannot see this obvious fact. Dirk Steele (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If I'm interested in power, it's not to use it on some marginal website. Get this: YOU ARE BORING. If you want to advance a particular point of view, find an engaging way to do it, and consider learning how to adapt to the norms of the communities you attempt to engage with. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 02:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you advising me that I should adapt to the 'norms' of creationism, homeopathetic or even anti-vaccine communities. I don't think I will but I do appreciate your advice and thanks for all the fish. Dirk Steele (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No. I am advising you to adapt to the norms of good manners and being a cool person to hang around with. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 04:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Broken arm

You have a broken arm? What happened? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

He broke his arm. Sophie^Wilder 10:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I know that. What I want to know is how many people he took out before going down. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 10:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Cycle accident. I went flying over handlebars, landed flush on elbows and face. Face ok, one arm is not. Right arm, dominant hand. No typing yet. Very annoying. Causing poor grammar with many fragments. Cannot abide.--^talk 12:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand your pain. I type with one arm whenever holding an adorable kitty that I don't want to put down. Though I imagine that's not an option for you right now :-) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 12:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sterile for mod

Sterile.

Campaign

No campaigning this year? I feel so lonely. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 05:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

My thesis is due in a month, and my arm necessitates I conserve my limited typing time. But I will oblige!--^talk 06:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You are now a Mod

While you have been going round informing others, nobody has had the decency to inform you that you are also still a moderator. Congrats. Генгис^mutating 09:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain AD is a mod for life. Commiserations. --Damo^Hi 10:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It's the only way I can sate my lust for power.--^talk 11:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Name

Could my name possibly be changed from kreJ to Krej, please?--Krej^talk 23:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Done.--^talk 23:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!--Krej^talk 01:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Godwin's Law logic

Your comment espouse identical views to your own is used to create the fallacy often present in Godwin's Law arguments. I assume that was not your intent. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 00:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Commas and prepositions are also used in Godwin's Law arguments. I was pointing out that your ideas were identical to those of another group.--^talk 00:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that. Good point. I wasn't suggesting that you were name calling, though it seem like maybe that was it. Anyway, those people are idiots. I don't understand the whole anti male circumcision thing anyway. I believe it's even reversible by adding a dreamcatcher to the end of the canon or something. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 00:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

swapped wives with Ace yet?

Gonna happen sooner or later ^{— Unsigned, by: MarkusKikero / talk / contribs 2013-02-16T10:54:19‎}

Nah, not my thing.--^talk 11:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Another impromptu book review dump

Economist Dean Baker has a couple of free ebooks out, The Conservative Nanny State and The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive. I'm about halfway through Conservative Nanny State right now.

I've always thought Baker's writing style felt hurriedly to-the-point since I started following his blog, but I previously assumed that was because he's too busy with non-bloggy work to write better. Then I started his books, and it turns out he just writes like that. His writing feels weird compared to, say, Debt: the First 5000 Years. Debt spends whole chapters carefully building its case, while Baker barrels through his points like a freshman on a deadline.

In The Conservative Nanny State, Baker covers how ostensible free-market proponents work to privilege certain economic transactions and entities above others (mostly large businesses). This is probably nothing new to you or someone like Nebuchadnezzar, and I was already aware of the purposeful unfairness of the current system, but I at still appreciated the additional examples he provided.

Baker is also extremely critical of free trade practices, pointing out how they explicitly disadvantage less-educated workers, while extending protections for more educated workers like doctors, lawyers, accountants, and professors, and force extensions of intellectual property on other countries.

Unfortunately, Baker's method is to make several assertions (assertions I agree with, admittedly), cite some examples and maybe drop a tiny footnote somewhere, but never really discuss his sources or explore any processes. While I sometimes find more in-depth explorations of a subject like Debt exhausting, that doesn't mean I like no extended coverage of material. He can also be repetitive, and I grew tired of hearing him list "doctors, lawyers, and economists" over and over again as examples of jobs protected from free trade (though I suspect he keeps listing economists because he doesn't like members of his own profession very much).

His books' contents are definitely food for thought if you haven't previously been exposed to more critical economics approaches — it's just not very filling food (as opposed to, again, Debt: the First 5000 Years). But they're free, they're short (a couple hundred pages together — and they read even faster because of Baker's style) and they're intelligently critical of the economic status quo, so I do recommend them.

Even if his books are just okay, I still highly recommend Baker's blog, Beat the Press, which critiques economics reporting in the US media. It's something I check every day. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I started reading this blog! I'm a fan now.--^talk 10:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Im having problems with the article creation process

Hello!

I was trying to add a debate page on the topic of misandry, but I was unexpectedly halted by continuous captchas. I correctly answered them over 5 times and it still didn't post. Any reason for this? The Commander (talk)

Men have to go through 10 captchas. Women only have to do three. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 18:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes the captcha can get a little touchy. If you continue to have this problem, please contact Rationalwiki:Technical support.--^talk 10:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

WAPF

Hi. You don't know me, but I've read your essays, and I think you might be interested in having a look at the Weston A. Price Foundation, and maybe seeing if there's anything you want to add to the article. Basically, it's a pro-meat, anti-veggie organization. The otherwise reasonable readers over at Ars Technica seem to be fans of it. (One commentator refered to it positively as "an organization that openly promotes animal foods as healthy").--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 12:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll check it out, thank you.--^talk 22:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Huh, seems to be broken. I'll check again in a few days - or maybe they're out of business!--^talk 23:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The site's up for me.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 02:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Moderated

Would you mind running again? Please? Peter ^mqzp 20:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for the notice.--^talk 01:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I challenge you to a debate

The topic is - 'Surrealism, Irish Writers and Rationalwiki'. Are you interested? MarcusCicero (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No.--^talk 03:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

How about, 'Why AD is wrong, a postmodernist perspective'. MarcusCicero (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, a serious debate. Karl Popper argued that the open society cannot tolerate intolerance. I will argue that it can, and it must. You will argue that it cannot. MarcusCicero (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not interested in debating you. Please contribute to the wiki constructively.--^talk 16:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Coward. MarcusCicero (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

There'd only be a few reasons why I'd debate you: amusement, productive discussion, or sociability. But your whole gimmick is years-old and boring now, you can't seriously discuss things without veering off into the gimmick, and you're mildly annoying. Clearly, I'm not afraid - of what? your famous rhetorical prowess? But I just don't see a point to your existence anymore.--^talk 15:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You're a coward like your father before you. MarcusCicero (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Lolz

Lolz. Just lolz. Want to have that debate now? My suggestion - why the revolution must and will succeed. MarcusCicero (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There'd only be a few reasons why I'd debate you: amusement, productive discussion, or sociability. But your whole gimmick is years-old and boring now, you can't seriously discuss things without veering off into the gimmick, and you're mildly annoying. Clearly, I'm not afraid - of what? your famous rhetorical prowess? But I just don't see a point to your existence anymore.--^talk 15:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Come on AD, don't be a coward your whole life? MarcusCicero (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The gauntlet is laid down

Revolutionary forces are now mobilising. We've released our manifesto. The days of the regime are numbered. Marcus Cicero SPQR 19:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You'd think that it would be clear by now that I think you are really, really boring (and not very bright), and what's worse - no longer entertaining.--^talk 19:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm just glad that something is getting laid around here. The bus came by/and I got on. 22:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Argumentum ad virginium? Osaka Sun (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Haha AD, diversion is not your strongest suit, haha! Marcus Cicero SPQR 18:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Okey doke

Will avoid edit warring with those people in the future. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate it. I know it's stupid, since sometimes they spam crap like that at us, but it works out better to just ignore it or mock them - or to ban them if it crosses the line enough into being clear rattlemouthed nonsense without actual meaning.--^talk 03:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I demand you end this campaign of hate

AD,

I haven't been here for a couple of days and I've allowed certain calumnies about my character to go unchallenged for some times. But when I read the vicious slanders in the saloon bar I knew I would need to take decisive action. AD, sir, I am an elected official of Rationalwiki, a moderator who has been given a radical mandate for a programme of revolutionary change. The main points of this programme were clearly expressed in my campaign for elected office. AD, sir, I DEMAND you cease your campaign of hate, and withdraw your comments. I am your elected offical, your colleague, and your constant denigrations of my character will NO LONGER be tolerated. I will pursue official channels on this matter if necessary. Marcus Cicero SPQR 16:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

"I am an elected official of Rationalwiki, a moderator [...] I am your elected offical, your colleague, and your constant denigrations of my character will NO LONGER be tolerated." That doesn't read like the words of a mobocrat, but more like the ravings of a megalomaniac Moderati. It seems Pete Townshend was right after all. You are no Cicero, you're a Bonaparte. Why did I think this rabble rouser would be any different? *sniff* - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Boring. Bad monkey, no peanut.--^talk 13:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)