User talk:AgingHippie/Archive4

This is an archive page, last updated 21 January 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>

, (new)(back)

Hi there!

Please stop reimplementing the biased entries to the Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarchism pages, thanks. -- 172.1.69.170

Why? We're a biased website, and the articles reflect our bias. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 05:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Whose bias? Yours? That's convenient. MykalOfDefiance (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You're an asshole

I wiped up after your latest outpouring of crap. Try not to leak so much in the future, you singularly untalented anus.^{— Unsigned, by: 85.210.2.82 / talk / contribs}

I thought they were reasonable edits, myself, actually. If you want to make clear why they were an "outpouring of crap", you could always actually provide arguments/explanations instead of just assertions/insults. Nullahnung (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This one smells like Dirk. DFTT. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 20:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Look, dude

RationalWiki is the ONLY place on the internet that claims there is a scientific consensus on metaphysical concepts. That's because there isn't one. If you actually read the talk page you'll see that I quite clearly out-debated them. I'm just trying to make this place more... rational. If you can tell me why emergence is true I'll drop the whole thing. ^{— Unsigned, by: some guy.... / talk / contribs}

Your out-debating them is a question of opinion, namely yours. To claim victory in a talk page debate when not a single person has conceded a single point to you and then change an article on top of the objections of a plural number of users, with not a single voice of support is not how it works. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 15:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

But this is indisputable fact, does that not matter here? There is absolutely no scientific consensus on emergence, it's just as valid/invald as panpsychism. This is true. Look it up. MykalOfDefiance (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Here, I'll look it up for you. MykalOfDefiance (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

So you say. I have no opinion on or interest in the subject. You have failed to convince your interlocutors, who do have opinions and interests on the subject, and to claim victory and change a page that is meant to reflect a consensus emerging from the discussion on the talk page is not how we roll. Make the argument, get some folks to agree with you, and make the changes in concert with them. anything else is trolling/edit-warring. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 15:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That does make sense... sorry. MykalOfDefiance (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You need manners

Listen, whoever told you that this trolling behavior is appropriate was wrong, you go way out of line and make things far more personal than they need to be. I think that it frankly is unacceptable, and I am getting tired of your tone. Knock this high school attitude off and act like a real adult. Rationalism and skepticism are very healthy, but constantly insinuating someone is a racist and an idiot because you disagree with them on the nuances of history from the Colonial era, a period of extreme racism, is beyond decorum. Grow up and get real.Andrewstewart1 (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Trolling? Where? A lot of your contributions are extremely problematic -- off-mission and carelessly put together -- and that's going to usually draw pretty sharp responses around here. Also, your argument about Ted Cruz, backed up with references to a birther analysis was Not Even Wrong, and anyone making an argument about a natural-born US citizen not being eligible to hold office because of the circumstances of his birth is bound to get some sharp replies. I'm sorry you don't like my attitude. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 18:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Forests Tyler Snotgern MU

Because you welcomed them: please have a look at User talk:Science Apologist. "Forests" references User:Forests, MU is allegedly the troll stalking him.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me in the last few months or so, a whole boatload of People From The Internet who have various Grudges and Arguments with other People From The Internet have come to this Website to discuss the various Grudges And Arguments they have been in on other Websites And Forums. Sometimes these People From The Internet pretend to be Other People From The Internet. I have Absolutely No Interest in any of these People From The Internet or their various Grudges And Arguments. Person makes a post on my website, person gets a welcome template, because it's the polite thing to do. Beyond that, I give Zero Fucks about these People From The Internet or their various Grudges And Arguments. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 18:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a rather... strange attitude for someone displaying a moderator badge.

I personally wait to see if someone is indeed welcome, or deserving of Template:Unwelcome.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I save the "unwelcome" template for people who are truly vile/vandals/absolute trolls. Some guy who wants to discuss some obscure internet flare-up isn't usually in that category. As for my attitude, well, my "job" as moderator is to try to do things to help the website and community run smoothly. It is not to take an active and engaged interest in every single debate and every single person who posts here. There are many things and people here that I am interested in and really, actually care about. There are other things and people here that do not really register on my radar; trolls engaged in cross-platform debates who largely stay confined to each other's talk pages or the talk pages of articles I have limited interest in count among these. If they need moderating, I trust that someone from the community will contact me or another mod. Until then, as with many things that I chose not to engage with in my daily life, very few fucks will be given. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 20:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This Paul Elam fuck

He's a dox posting sociopath and we should ensure that our page is the first thing his prospective employers see on Google. He tries to do the same to young girls. –Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR So you think opposing Nazis is tilting at windmills? 16:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

See what I just wrote on the relevant talk page. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 16:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Who is this guy?

The page on me is certainly not being dealt with on the talk page! PaulRJ (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sad Trombone. Never heard of you, not interested in you, please stop whining in article space. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 04:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Then please arrange for the matters to be dealt with responsibly and fairly then that's all I want or I have only just started. I realise you are protected by amendments to the US Constitution but I am protected by the Malicious Communications Act in the UK. So I have just initiated requests to have your site blocked in the UK. 85.17.222.10 (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

YAWN. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 00:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I for one, extend my gratitude to PowderSmokeAndLeather for remaining as civil as he has been, and for taking his time on a weekend night to deal with the patterings of pillockry PaulRJ has visited upon this wiki. If you have found a legal venue willing to entertain your shenanigans at this hour, colour me impressed. Unique pinion (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I am no lawyer, but I have read the Malicious Communications Act of 1988 and think that, while you are more than welcome to file a complaint, the fight for you, Paul, will be a steep uphill climb. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

A editor of yours doxxing people

An editor of yours under the nickname fastzander is using the name "Marjan Siklic" as my real name. There are a few issues with this

1. I never used that name in any of my writings
2. The only source for this name is Encylopedia Dramatica, aka this picture https://encyclopediadramatica.es/File:MarjanSiklicFB.JPG

He used the following name here

• http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Webshites
• http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_kooks#Economic_doomers

I think this is highly against your rules, as it is not only doxxing an innocent person whose name I used but I never used this real name in any of my online writings.^{— Unsigned, by: Thatincelblogger / talk / contribs}

I've removed the name from the first linked article. I do not see it at the second listed link. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 15:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Klop789 Book Recommendations

I see you reverted some a previous edit of Klop789 on the Talk:Corporation page and that you questioned his making book recommendations all over the shop. His latest revision to the same page makes a book recommendation, haven't bothered to look it up. Is this person for real or just some kind of marketing droid?--Barryjon (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The guy's just a troll who read Marxism for Dummies and thinks he is the vanguard of the next great workers' revolution. He just likes to spew whatever the commie-flavour-of-the-month talking point is between handfulls of Cheetos and adjusting his fedora. Pay him no mind. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 20:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

E-mail

Hello. I have responded to your e-mail to me and taken actions as you requested. Have a nice day. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Cunt

I´m a fucking moderator you cunt, you will show me respect. Just because this website has become a boring groupthink haven where everyone thinks the same and are afraid to speak their mind doesn´t mean everyone agrees with you. Someday soon the people will realise their own power and will use it to forge a better world. Tyrants and their sycophants will be powerless to stop them. Marcus Cicero SPQR 15:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 15:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

We are all MarcusCicero. We are all MarcusCicero. We are all MarcusCicero. 02:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No you actually are a cunt. ^{— Unsigned, by: 91.194.221.231 / talk / contribs}

SMoT

[1][2][3] I am surprised that you are anyone is surprised.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed -- everything he says on this topic boils down to the simple, undeniable fact that men want to fuck anything that's not bolted down and that trying to change this is to subvert the natural order. That it's taken thousands of characters and people still haven't figured this out is quite amusing, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's a simple case of boiling down. More like many different eccentric viewpoints that all synergize with each other. Nullahnung (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

We have a resident troll already, so I guess it was only a matter of time before we picked up our very own magnetic crank, too. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

He disguises it with flowery rhetoric, but what it boils down to is that he believes in (and is probably a slave to) fictional "rape instinct". --Castaigne (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Madman

I saw that page. I also saw his talk page. I assume he's another IE? –Inquisitor Sasha (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You can rest assured, Ehrenstein. I'm just a really active,snarky and strongly opinionated person from FSTDT and forums of the aforementioned site--The Madman (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

This will be my only post on PSAL's talk page (or likely anywhere) on the subject: Based on contribs, Madman's interest in Rome Viharo, CWC and whatever this is leads me to conclude he's the kind of unpleasant person for whom doxing would be a concern. Get a new hobby mate. Justbrowsing (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Considering all that lovely, polite and well-researched commentary, I would like to note two things.

• I spend some of my time watching the recent changes for anything that seems to heat up in talk or the Saloon, wanting to make my opinion known to others and then staying in it if the OP seems like a ass. Considering the nature of this site, that makes it very likely for me to enter arguments.

INCOMING TEXT WALL

• Not all people who follow Chris are like those babbling juvenile idiots at ED. True, that's where it started and that does seem to be the first impression for most. But most just like to watch the show and comment on Chris's antics. In fact, I have noticed a general pattern of anything beyond just watching and commenting frowned upon(Enough to be banned for it.) where I frequent. It's something I agree with as well. Chris isn't worthy of what ED says he is. He isn't impaired or a horrible person. The required pysch eval his dean imposed proved that. I honestly point to a combination of his autism, lack of street smarts and his parents. Sturgeon's Law applies a lot in this situation.--The Madman (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Um, don't care, never heard of any of these people, none of this makes any sense do me. Shut it down, as I will be vaping this nonsense very soon. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 03:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Quote mining

I am restoring the section on why Rice's comment ultimately still makes no sense no matter how you look at it. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

And I will revert it, as your analysis is irrelevant to the topic Moore's quote-mining and ambling and poorly-written, to boot. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 01:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You are a pro-anarcho-capitalist then? I thought this was a site where dissing on conservative nonsense, lies and misinformation was welcomed... For example, Moore's quote is actually vindicated as the rest of her statement clearly suggests that Iraq, in fact, was responsible for 9/11. "It's all connected you see" and "Iraq is a major center for violence" and "insert conservative nonsense here"... Bloomingdedalus (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"You are a pro-anarcho-capitalist then?" No. Why would you think that? Never, mind, I don't care what you think. " I thought this was a site where dissing on conservative nonsense, lies and misinformation was welcomed..." It's a site where good writing and relevant points are welcomed. Your contribution was lacking in both. That section was on Moore's quote-mining, not an analysis of Rice's speech. Your passage might belong in an article on the Iraq War, or Rice, or something. Not there. If Moore was actually "vindicated," accusing him of quote-mining and then showing him as not quote-mining would be counterproductive, wouldn't it? As it reads now, with the timing and the full context, Moore's quote-mining is apparent. UPDATE: Also, we don't just diss on "conservative nonsense." Conservatives don't hold the monopoly on nonsense. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 02:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

So like, you run this place now? ħuman 04:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 04:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

As opposed to Human...--"Shut up, Brx." 07:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Jesus fuck another attack on someone who actually creates value from Brxbrx, a waste of flesh who does not. Loser. 07:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Your presence is requested on the command deck

Hey PSL, nice to see you're back on the wiki! Your critique at Talk:Right-to-work law got me thinking about the future of RW, and I started a discussion at Forum:Expanding RW's mission. I'd appreciate your input. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 06:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. sorry for the delay, thanks for the opportunity. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 14:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about the delay. Please don't refer to me with masculine pronouns though. I appreciate the courtesy. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 22:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies. We need to work on a gender-neutral way to refer to people whose gender identity is unknown to the writer. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 22:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

–Inquisitor Sasha (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

IE, Please don't engage in friendly comments on my talk page if this is what you think of me. I need an element of consistency in my day-to-day dealings with people. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 13:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Stand back

What's your name mean? I think of this whenever I see it:

Justbrowsing (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a wp:Mondegreen of a Grateful Dead lyric (from "Mississippi Half-Step Uptown Toodeloo") that actually goes "A pile of smoke and leather" (apparently a description of a car wreck), that I discovered I'd been hearing wrong for about 30 years. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 20:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, never been a fan of them myself. P.S.: See my comment at Talk:Conservative Party (U.K.). Thanks. Justbrowsing (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, I haven't heard that Stevie Nicks tune in probably 20 years. I'd forgotten how good it is. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 03:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was some kind of obscure reference to musketry -- Powder (gunpowder), Smoke (from the muzzle of the gun), and Leather (leather bags used to carry shot). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I always thought it was some kind of obscure reference to a decadent 1940s Berlin cabaret singer - Powder (face powder), Smoke (cigarette smoke) and Leather (leather corset). Leuders (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

My sense of it was closer to Nebuchadnezzar's, only I took the leather to be harness, saddles, that kind of thing. Sort of a George Armstrong Custer vibe. Funny, I would have thought strong tobacco, beaver pelts, and pemmican to be more apropos in this case. Go figure. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ahem.

Your signature appears to be broken. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

See the relevant section over at tech support. Thanks for looking out for me. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 04:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Cat:AfD

The extra things on the links to page are just pages that link to the template for reasons other than needing to be deleted. Peter ^mqzp 03:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Term Shi’a in Quran & Hadith

Hi PowerSmokeAndLeather, it is strange to note that you have deleted the section Term Shi’a in Quran & Hadith. If a matter is unknown to your goodself then it does not make room that it is clumsy. I intended to make the page as an article by expanding it, you may see there a tag of STUB already existed since long. Please undo your deletion, so that I could expand the page further. I would appreciate your criticism and guidance. Thanks Nannadeem (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, my Brother. I removed the section not because of the content, but because of the form: with all dur=e respect, the prose was difficult to follow. I will take some time later today to look at it again and see if I am not unable to put my humble editing skills to work to make it a little clearer. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 12:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

With my personal regards, thank you for prompt reply. I would appreciate your efforts for improvement of contents. I am desirous of expanding pages which are marked as STUB. Should I continue to expand the page, in question, or wait for your further advice? Thanks again your well wisher.Nannadeem (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Chill out, daddy-o

If you like Monk, you'll love Prez. RelaxingHotBath (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Do us a favour, guv

I'm not asking for sysop but can you remove the captures? Thanks. Placeholder (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

done. I think. If not, keep editing, it'll go away after X edits. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 16:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Placeholder (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Canadian poetry

Thanks for that poem! I had read that years ago, I think. And it begins by alluding to Emile Nelligan, who wrote one of the best poems written in North America. I grew up in Canada, and learned French in the schools, and am glad I did, because I was later motivated to brush it up to read poetry like this....

C'était un grand Vaisseau taillé dans l'or massif:
Ses mâts touchaient l'azur, sur des mers inconnues;
La Cyprine d'amour, cheveux épars, chairs nues,
S'étalait à sa proue, au soleil excessif.

Mais il vint une nuit frapper le grand écueil
Dans l'Océan trompeur où chantait la Sirène,
Et le naufrage horrible inclina sa carène
Aux profondeurs du Gouffre, immuable cercueil.

Ce fut un Vaisseau d'Or, dont les flancs diaphanes
Révélaient des trésors que les marins profanes,
Dégoùt, Haine et Névrose, entre eux ont disputés.

Que reste-t-il de lui dans la tempête brève ?
Qu'est devenu mon coeur, navire déserté?
Hélas! Il a sombré dans l'abîme du Rêve!</poem>

- Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice. I actually don't read a lot of poetry, but the Lalonde piece came up in some research I did for an article I'm writing, so I've had to venture in to a bit of analysis....PS: Lalonde would kill you for calling that selection "Canadian". We're talkng about a hard-core Quebeois nationalist, at least at the time... PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"Who led them here"

User:David1234, in his various incarnations - look at who started all these articles about psychics and mediums.

Oh, and since you have a Thing about doxing, I suggest you also develop a Thing about impersonation. Enforced by blocking, if necessary.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

As much as it goes against the idea of consensus, it would be wonderful if all of these people (and the associated articles) just disappeared one day... - Grant (Talk) 14:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I am totally in favour of having a Thing about impersonation, but that can sometimes conflict with assuming good faith (...if John Smith registers an account here, I'll treat that account like the Real John Smith until it's clear it's not) and with a total unfamiliarity/disinterest in with the people involved in these debates (...except insofar as they are polluting my wiki).