User talk:Albannach

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Albannach!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Benny may have resigned because he never wanted to be pope, see Scandal in the RC Church. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

RSF and DDI[edit]

A man after my own heart. Least you know a thing or two about Ireland and some of it's nuttier political parties. If you're interested here's another crowd to go after: http://directdemocracyireland.ie/. CivisHibernius (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know someone in the Scottish branch of RSF. I made the usual faux pas and was promptly corrected. Then there's IRSP and all the NI parties.
I hope you can improve the Irish articles. (Ian Paisley could do with expansion, he definitely belongs on this wiki!) A lot of British Isles (IONA?!) articles are written from an English perspective, which is better than an American one but not ideal.Albannach (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll do my best time permitting. It's not even that, a lot of the stuff is outdated. RSF actually suffered another split after Ruairi O'Bradaigh retired. One faction is led by Des Dalton and another by a crowd in Limerick City.
There's around 10 different IRA's now.....
Yeah Paisley deserves a major expansion.
CivisHibernius (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sign.[edit]

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Inspiration Move me brightly. 02:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm using a phone just now on which it is ridiculously complex to do. -me ps Did you really have to delete that foot thing? Was in user space.
I think I did. The website exists for a broad variety of reasons. Storing an annotated guide to one's preferred masturbation material, in any space, is not really one of them. Inspiration Move me brightly. 03:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

"This user also supports Scottish independence...."[edit]

Do you get as much flak for that as I do for supporting Quebec independence? Inspiration Move me brightly. 12:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a fairly mainstream position now, but ten, or twenty years ago, it was less so, although the SNP has had a substantial vote since the end of the 1960s. There's also the added issue of the European Union, which assuages the fears of some people (and also feeds the fears of a few others. Scots tend to be less Eurosceptic than people in southern England though.) The usual tactic is to blame it all on hatred of the English (although a substantial number of English in Scotland support independence and some are SNP members), and stir up things that way. The other tactic is to complain that we're inward looking, although in my experience, there's no more evidence of that amongst nationalists than unionists.
These are some of the main issues, that may cause problems:
  • Oil fields. See McCrone reportWikipedia's W.svg (Basically fiddling with the figures goes with trying to undermine/support independence.)
  • Military, a disproportionate amount of Scots are in the British Army.
  • Loyalism. We have our own imported Northern Irish unionist types, usually connected with Rangers football club and the [{Scottish Defence League]]. There's a major overlap with Fascism and the Orange order. These are the guys likely to get violent, and are pretty nasty already. Mostly working class people, and not very intelligent. I hate to say that!
Quebec strikes me as being different from Scotland in several ways. Firstly, the language issue in Scotland is, rightly or wrongly, pretty marginal. Unlike Quebec. Secondly, just looking a map, suggests to me that Quebecois independence is going to result in at least three new states, since it forms a block between the Maritimes and Prairie States. On one side, you've got the USA, and on the other, the Arctic. I couldn't see the remaining bits staying together. The removal of Scotland will take away a lot of territorial waters from the Rump UK (rUK), and I suspect it will have a knock on effect on Wales and Northern Ireland.
That said, both Quebec and Scotland are obviously politically and economically viable as sovereign states, and are not going to become hideously poor dictatorships upon independence. (As some would have us believe.)--Albannach (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sysop[edit]

Yeah, baby. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 22:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You're a vandal so those rights, assigned inappropriately, have been removed. Prodigal (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Pay no attention to this guy. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 22:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
PowderSmokeAndLeather was looking in the mirror when making that comment. Prodigal (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You are a sysop again. I suggest that edit-warring on the Falklands/Malvinas article isn't really productive, and that you open up a discussion on the relevant talk page before you re-insert the edits in question. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 23:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I already had a discussion going before those edits which I thought were completely tendentious. The Argentines do have a case to answer, but one which has been undermined by their own invasion in 1982 and a stupid political system, which has tended towards Fascism and mismanagement. This wasn't reflected in the recent edits. My main question right now is why the UK hangs onto the Falkland Islands and South Georgia, and I think the real long term reason is Antarctica not the sentiment of the Falklanders, I'm afraid. Oil and fishing probaby come into it too.
The Americans have also made dubious claims to a lot of islands from Puerto Rico to Guam... but they have the right of might, which incidentally was long Britain's technique. -Albannach (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC) ps Didn't realise I was a sysop?! Thanks!

Please re-read the Sysop Guide.[edit]

At least the parts about blocking. Blocking an IP for three days is not cool, unless he's done something egregious -- in which case, something other than a joke message has to be given for a reason. Thanks. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 12:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Said user plagiarised a screed of text from revisionisthistory.com amongst a whole load of racist stuff.-12:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
That's not apparent from the block log, is it? Next time, just revert, and if necessary, use the vandal bin. Thanks. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 12:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I made a small adjustment to your block of the racist BoN. I think enough eyes are on that business for now. Be well, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sprocket, not only is he stealing stuff but coming out with tedious phrenology etc 17:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No, seriously.[edit]

Stop blocking IPs unless they are spammers or go on epic vandal sprees. Revert, if necessary, and bin, if necessary. Please. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 18:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I might be missing something here but people on RationalWiki block each other all the time, and the poster was inserting dubious material into articles.Albannach (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see: The people who block each other all the time are able to unblock themselves -- IPs do not have that ability. As for the dubious material, simply remove it. No harm, no foul. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 22:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

White Commonwealth.[edit]

1. There are a ton of terms in that article that can link out to other pages. 2. More importantly, nothing links into that article, so you should hind some ways to link to it. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 14:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Erm, I've only just created the bloody thing. Hang on!--Albannach (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I know, but this list only seems to grow. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 14:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I've added links from the article, I intend to add some to it in due course. Federal Commonwealth Society deserves a page...--Albannach (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Creationism and "Planet of the Apes."[edit]

Not really. The film addressed racism, of course, and the relationship between knowledge and power, and the relationship between science and tradition in a Cold War/post-Cuban Missle Crisis environment when the destruction of the planet was on the table. But biblically literal creationism vs. evolution was not, to the best of my knowledge, the kind of political issue that it became after the 1980s when the Evangelicals got into power. "Teach the controversy" and all of that came much later. I could see how one could read that dynamic back into the film, but it just wasn't a real thing in 1968. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 13:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt you on this, but evolution is mentioned explicitly in the film. Creationism, in another form was around in Darwin and Wallace's day. The Scopes trial was decades before as well.
If something has any cultural merit, it often expresses things which its creator didn't originally intend (at least conscously) POA probably falls into this category. It's one of the best fictional send ups of creationism out there.-Albannach (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop deleting talk page stuff[edit]

Stop deleting talk page stuff. SophieWilder 14:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you simple, or just being a jerk?[edit]

Stop deleting talk page stuff. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 14:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Firstly. you lot are the "jerks" as can be seen by the way you treat each other on this site (not just me). You have no system of etiquette whatsoever. Not only are you a bunch of pseudo-intellectual literalists, you're a bunch of boorish cunts to boot.
Secondly, talking of being simple, certain morons couldn't distinguish between a few notes, which I'd left on a draft page, and a finished article. Edits done with a phone no less.
Thirdly, I don't see why I should keep abusive, unconstructive criticism on my own pages. If it had any use, I'd keep it on there. -Albannach (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
It's not YOUR talk page. It's OURS. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 15:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Seriously - FUCK OFF YOU LOSER. Try getting off the computer occasionally, and learn how to treat other people. And learn the difference between personal pronouns while you're out there.--Albannach (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC) p.s. I see you don't even have any taste in music either.
"A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. However, users are permitted to delete posts from their own talk pages at their discretion, being responsible for any abuse of this permission." So, no, the talk page doesn't belong to you. I would like people around here to actually be less abrasive, but that's never going to happen. That's why I keep to myself. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

(Long screed approaching) But the fact remains that the discussion in question was incredibly stupid, since many of the people who contributed to it seemed unable to distinguish between a draft and a finished article. What resulted was an idiotic free-for-all, a considerable amount of which was along the lines of "this is shit". Well, of course, it is "shit", it was nowhere near completion, which I would have thought was fairly obvious to all and sundry. Apparently not.

"I would like people around here to actually be less abrasive, but that's never going to happen." - Why not? This is supposedly a community, and a community which continues in this way is barely worthy of that name. (I understand that this developed in opposition to Conservapedia. I appreciate Conservapedia is a worthy target, but my interest in it is somewhat limited, particularly as I am "unamerican" in the proper sense of the word.) Rot starts at the top, or at the bottom, but has a tendency to take over if improperly policed.

I'm well aware that the USA can sometimes be an unsophisticated, and often uncouth, loud-mouthed culture*, with global pretensions, but that doesn't mean we should replicate that online. I would have thought "rationalism" referred not only to logical thought, but also how we treat one another. I've spent time in rough-and-ready working class, and erm Scottish, environments, that make this place look socially inept by comparison. People are rude to each other, but if they continue down that path, they generally don't last very long, and/or the entire set up breaks down and most of the people leave. Is this is what a "rational society" is supposed to be like? "God" help us, indeed.--Albannach (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

  • And also a very noble one in certain respects, but still.
I don't know how to fix the problems at this site. I also have no input (good, bad, or ugly) about your essay, so I'll leave you be. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that RWikians tend to be unnecessarily aggressive and foulmouthed when it comes to discussing things; the words "fuck" and "shit" appear in 2997 and 2,788 non-mainspace pages, respectively. (OK, I snapped once at Brasov, but I regret it.)--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 00:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
What's not being mentioned is that the whole page started as an essay before Albannach moved it into his userspace. SophieWilder 09:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
And why did I do that? Because of some of the incredible comments left there, by folk who obviously couldn't tell the difference between some notes cobbled together and something purporting to be a finished article. This is what happens perhaps with people who require "Poe's Law" on a regular basis.
I frequently edit by phone - now for instance. The browser cannot cope with long sections of text and the keyboard is not ideal. My plan was to convert the notes into something more substantial.
Thanks for replying on this occasion, by the way Sophie, very gracious of you.-Albannach (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
This was what, six or seven weeks ago now? Maybe it's time to stop being so butthurt. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe your time would be better spent devising a functional system of relationships/etiquette for this website than inept anal metaphors & yet more coprolalia. I've been looking over a number of different talk pages here and they suggest this place is badly run & organised.-Albannach (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
EPIC BUTTHURT. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 15:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Angry stare.gif--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 16:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
"Epic butthurt" - that's not even proper English, and is basically abusive (and pitiful) adolescent gibberish. I'm guessing that you are not in the first flush of youth, which makes it sound even more ridiculous. Come up with something constructive & stop responding with this trash.-Albannach (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 22:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
"Come up with something constructive", says the guy with a weird obsession with Poe's Law and stereotypes about Americans. Seriously, you need better putdowns. Ones that make sense outside of your head, for a start.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

(Untabbing) Well, it would help quite a bit if y'all weren't so stereotypical in your behaviour. LOL! Arrogance, literalism (eg needing pages to be blatantly flagged up as "fun" or jokes, so that you know they are), poor use of anal references, being culturally illiterate & insular, thinking that if you shout and swear loud enough that you win the argument, thinking in polarised/bilateral terms ()such as that liberal/conservative trash), believing the rest of the world thinks just like your culture, lack of a long term historical perspective/overestimation of ephemera etc etc Now these are indeed American stereotypes, but they all occur writ large here. Fortunately, I know plenty of other Americans, so am aware of plenty examples to the contrary. But still...

A sysop larding out abuse like that obviously shouldn't be in that job. Perfect example of the Peter Principle. You severely need better management round here, but you'd rather have a food fight than deal with that issue. Now back to my holidays - have my offline family and friends to waste my time on...-Albannach (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Watch and learn, folks: [1] Sterilesig.svgtalk 12:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr. I've always enjoyed his talks. I try keeping my negative tone to procedural stuff and other non-substantive wankery. I should probably just limit it to Brxbrx. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
If we're such a bunch of borish cunts then why are you still here? If you don't like RatWiki, then, quite frankly, fuck off. You're just wasting your, and everybody else's, time. You're not the first to demand that we need a new culture and it ain't gonna happen. Innocent Bystander (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not here for you, I'm here to put articles on the website. Totally different. And no, you're the timewaster. Why even bother contributing to this? The whole point of wikis is that they're to be read and contributed to. The discussion side is frankly, secondary, but has a tendency to take over. I've never joined a wiki anywhere for the social side. I've no reason to. And there's another American cliche - "if you don't like it here, why don't you move somewhere else?" - one that has never quite gripped the fact that such an attitude is antithetical to democracy and free expression.
"You're not the first to demand that we need a new culture" - Glad you admit to that. That suggests that you have an ongoing problem, and it is not just me. Perhaps you too need to get out of food fight mode, and work out why so many people are complaining. An abusive culture is not a healthy one. I can swear as well as the rest of you (better than some of you), but there's no point. It resembles nothing so much as a group of schoolchildren. Not a rational, quasi-scientific future.
"and it ain't gonna happen" - That's why you'll eventually implode. I doubt this website is going to be around in, say, fifteen years' time, it continues like this. If you thrive on being rude to people, you won't thrive for long. I suspect that the root cause is partly because most people on here have to be explicitly against something or other. It started as being anti-Conservapedia, and is now against other things. More negative than positive. Perhaps that suggests a degree of self-loathing or dissatisfaction deflected outwards from the individuals concerned. And which is also one of the issues with much of atheist/rationalist activism now. It needs to oppose something. Why not promote their own merits more, rather than being in opposition to something or someone? I'm probably guilty of this too.-Albannach (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I gotta hand it to you.[edit]

You are very good at being indignant and holding a grudge. Your skills in nationalistic self-superiority are also outstanding, but really, I've rarely seen anyone hold a grudge like you, except maybe my first wife--but she was holding real-life grudges, not internet-based ones, which makes this all the more spectacular. Well done, sir or madam, well done. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 15:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I hold Internet grudges for years. Where's my medal? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you miss the point. It's not about a particular incident or grudge, it's the general atmosphere & behaviour. Nor have I been a member very long. You behave disgustingly to one another (not just me) and seem unashamed of your barbarism. You don't seem to appreciate the irony of this in regard to your supposed mission.

As for "nationalist superiority", thanks to cultural imperialism the aforementioned American stereotypical traits are developing here as well - short term thinking/focus on the ephemeral and a particularly idiotic form of individualism. They're going to bring you down, and probably us with you. That's why we all need to get away from them. (I could mention many undesirable Scottish traits as well) -Albannach (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Point one: or you just have a very thin skin, you delicate flower you. Point two: I started a thread calling you out for something. You went off about how "the USA can sometimes be an unsophisticated, and often uncouth, loud-mouthed culture." I am not American, and neither are quite a few of the other users who chimed in. Neither are a lot of us. I'm not sure why you had to drag nationality into it at all. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 14:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Then why do you write using Americanisms frequently?! Jerk?! And even if you aren't American, what I said at the end still applies. Your two section titles demonstrate you are unsuitable for an admin position. Most of RW outlook is US-centric anyway.
And no, I'm not a delicate little flower. You don't last long round here behaving like you do. You might even end up with a knife in your guts in a worst case scenario. That is the wrong solution, but shows how strongly some people feel about such behaviour. Any community that interacts like this one ends up failing eventually, or evolving into something worse.-Albannach (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, we've been here since 2007, and I have been part of it under various names since nearly the beginning. Six years of steady growth is a pretty good run for a small online community. In this case, maybe the problem is you. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 15:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

If "it's me", then it must also be him, her & them as well. There's a track record and an ongoing problem here regardless of what I do. Someone else admits this above. But as part of the system, you refuse to deal with it. -Albannach (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"keyboard atheist"[edit]

Say what now?--MikallakiM 21:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


Vote[edit]

Hi Albannach, you seem like the type who doesn't mind speaking truth to power. People such as you will be useful in the coming revolution - I know it might be too late, but have you considered casting your lot in with either Marcus Cicero or Markman in the moderator elections? If you are tired of pandering to the purple circle who cling to their power like babies to their cuddly toys then please consider my words.

Your comrade, Tielec01 (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't remember exactly who I voted for as I put all of the candidates in ranking order. However, yes I agree, it would be good to see some kind of change here. Unfortunately I have already voted, so I can't actually change my vote, but needless to say, I've actually changed my opinion slightly since I voted!!! So, the moral is I shouldn't have been so hasty!
The other problem is that some candidates provided little or nothing in the way of a manifesto etc. I mean, "vote for me because I like my parents' cushions and have Aspergers" is not going to sway me either way! It tells me nothing. -Albannach (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious what you thought of my abolitionist stance. Surely a great change is near to us. As moderator, I will direct and concentrate this revolutionary change into a sustainable programme. — Unsigned, by: MarcusCicero / talk / contribs 2013-07-07T07:16:29‎

MacNab[edit]

Random factoid: the pipe tune you may know as "Crossing the Minch" is known in the Canadian maritime provinces as "McNab's Hornpipe" and is played, of course, on the fiddle. That's about all I've got to say about that. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough LOL! I learn something everyday. Did take piping lessons as a child but never got far.-Albannach (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)