User talk:Ariel31459

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Unacceptable username

Firstly it wasn't an unacceptable username, secondly that's not a valid reason for an infinite block. Ace^Moderator 01:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ace McWicked OK boss. I assumed it was was used as a form of address, in which case I think it is unacceptable. But, that's just a guess. I yield to your better judgement.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Normal behavior

So this just happened based on a very benign reference including a cited article and he kept trying to remove it from the conversation. Is this normal behavior? This seems indicative of some major issues here (Censorship topic below was left on my page via that user) Einlanzer (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Einlanzer I'm noticing that you have a weird aversion to actually talking to me. Talking about me, sure, but definitely an aversion to conversation. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

GrammarCommie is an energetic critic of newcomers who look like trolls, or so he thinks. He will get used to you if you persevere ( I hope). ^{— Unsigned, by: Ariel31459 / talk / contribs}

I also have a low tolerance for political illiteracy. Which this person expounds. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren

Why are you so adamant on stating that her claims of Native heritage weren’t false? We discussed it here, and came to the conclusion that the best way to categorize that particular claim was “false”.TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Allow me to explain: The claim may be false , but the expression "to falsely claim," means about the same as "to claim falsely," which has the implication of being intentionally misleading. Since you are new here you need to be aware of the fact that we tend to give progressives the benefit of the doubt. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, she fucking lied. It was a false claim that she had native heritage. It was a harmful lie at that. It’s cute that you think you should give a white woman the benefit of the doubt for stealing indigenous identity for her own benefit, but that’s a terrible stance and not one any rational person should make. It isn’t something that should be justified or given the benefit of the doubt. Further, your semantics are beyond stupid. I stated, verbatim, that she claimed falsely (in that order, though it would mean no difference if I put “falsely” first). I did not say “she meant to lie to her constituents”. A false claim is a false claim regardless of intent. And in this case, it’s harmful regardless of intent. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The case is clearly stated that Warren took advantage of her situation. Get over yourself.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, which is established in the simple fact that she had falsely claimed to be Native. I don’t get what’s not clicking for you. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Something else will be "clicking" soon... 79.67.78.210 (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Don’t be shy, tell us what you mean. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Behind a bunch of numbers. I wouldn't expect this one to elaborate but who knows. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 16:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

nudge nudge wink wink say no more say no more, a nudge is as good as a wink to a blind man ^{— Unsigned, by: 92.0.195.203 / talk / contribs}

Timbah

What are your thoughts on his recent three part essay on O'Keefe and Project Veritas? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie: I watched the first and most of the second. Looks bad on O'Keefe, though the titles might make them seem to be eulogies (Ten Years of Truth). Before I go back for the rest, is there anything in particular you want an opinion on?Ariel31459 (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted your general impression. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie: OK. The series is open ended, with at least one more part to come. Our wiki article on O'Keefe is very incomplete compared with these three videos, which total about four hours. The stuff in the third video is about George Soros ( a big O'Keefe fuckup ) and also, the 2016 Presidential Campaign. Watch the third video if you haven't gone through it. There is a lot in there not mentioned in our article (which can be improved). If you are feeling creative you could use the series as a guide to rewriting the article, or just adding the more recent stuff. My impression is the series tells you everything you would ever want to know about O'Keefe's dishonesty, and his continuing pernicious influence in American media.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

grammarcommie

Hi, this is just to say that while you tried to contact commie about a discussion you had on a talk page he is currently under LANCB status and he told me to tell you.Vorarchivist (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Mod nomination

I have nominated you for moderator. Bongolian (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Collapse

Per the documentation, it is closed with Template:Collapse end--Hastur! (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I was struggling to get it right.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Sig/DocYankem^{Prevent Truth Decay!}16:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Paradolia or, more likely, Agnosia

The pictures on your user page are prime examples of paradolia. They're just fucking rocks. — Oxyaena ^Harass 04:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It's "pareidolia". Twodots (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Cool. — Oxyaena ^Harass 05:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Well that wouldn't be a reasonable explanation if there were not over 100 such rocks in a dig about 15"x 8", most with red and black paint smeared over them with clear tool marks throughout. Anyone who took the time to look should be able to recognize the deeply engraved appearance of the bears with bees stone. The others have signal tool marks as well. What ever gave you the idea that you would have anything useful to add here? Aren't you 19 years old? Ariel31459 (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but she was a qualified neurosurgeon at, like, 13 years old, so fUcK yOu AnD tHe CeNtRiSt DuNnInG-kRuGeR hOrSe YoU rOdE iN oN. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible she meant she was interested in neurosurgery and not claiming to be a neurosurgeon? If not, thems is some god-tier lolz. Twodots (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

GTL ftw. Weird kid's gonna weird. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

From a rational point of view

An Introduction

The scientific study of cultures of ancient peoples makes demands on the types of questions that might be presumed to be answerable. We can create a profile of what the environment might have been like during the period in question. The weather patterns and vegetation would be important in establishing the types of game available. The natural resources, such as steatite, graphite, flint, chert, banded rhyolite, quartz, obsidian, etc., would determine the kinds of weapons and tools that would be possible to manufacture and use in the life ways of the people. Would they make improvised homes of animal skins, thatched huts from stout hardwood branches for warmer environments, or pit enclosures for colder ones? The active archeologists must begin by imagining what is even possible for an early people to accomplish as the physical evidence is laid before them.

The method of science is humanity's most powerful tool yet, when some empirical studies are disregarded, difficulties in our understanding may result. By this I mean that the patterns all scientists look for, at some point, may be dogmatically applied to all situations, when they are only useful rules of thumb. This is not news to any scholars who have surveyed the general fields of the humanities. The general principal here is that it is difficult to revise scholarship and historical narratives once wide acceptance has taken hold of the educated public. It is more typically the case that our academic determinations are overall correct and our understanding substantial. It is not the general rules that tend to change however, it is the particular cases where the weight of evidence can force a change in our common sense judgements.

A contemporary example of this type of event relates to the theory of the land bridge of Beringia between Siberia and Alaska. The oldest secure habitation of human beings in Alaska dates to about twenty to twenty-five thousand years ago. In contrast "Material evidence gathered at Monte Verde [at the southern end of Chile] has reshaped the way archaeologists think about the earliest inhabitants of the Americas. Radiocarbon dating has provided a date of 14,800 BP and possibly 33,000 BP, establishing Monte Verde as the oldest-known site of human habitation in the Americas." The point here is, the narrative has been contradicted by some physical evidence. There is at least a possibility then, that the narrative is somehow incomplete if not incorrect. We must remain aware that the first of these two conclusions is not only possible, but more than likely to be true. In other words, one should always be prepared to accept that there may be facts to learn, or unlearn among those facts that are currently held to be certain.

My last romance

I begin my romantic vignette with an apology. Too often, even in scientific discussions, the rational objections of our critics are met with irritation and even outright hostility. When such objections themselves are couched in spiteful or dismissive language, so much the worse for the hope of fruitful discussion. I am now relating some information about my attempts at objective investigations of a site in southern New England. In a stretch of active brook about 20x10," I began to collect unusual rocks that I will here call image stones. By image stone I mean a stone with the appearance of a representation or picture of some common object, in this case, wild animals or people. We may assume that such a stone is a natural creation of stochastic processes. In fact, this is a common assumption among some archeologists.

I should begin by saying that I have no native American ancestors. My people trace themselves back to the shores of the Baltic. There were Vikings settlements along the Baltic coast, north of Palanga. A people known as the Curonians or Kuršiai , related to the Western Balts, spoke a language similar to the modern languages of Latvian and Lithuanian. The visits of the Vikings to North America are documented as historical fact. Around the year 1000 A.D., Leif Erikson, sailed to a place now known as the province of Newfoundland. I imagined myself associated with Norse settlers in America of one thousand years ago. This act of pure imagination, attempting to see oneself connected to a narrative of an early culture, might be an aid to developing sympathy for, and intuition about that culture.

It is difficult to identify or accurately define a culture that has been lost to history for many centuries, or thousands of years. What remains is hardly detailed enough to suggest even a vague picture of what life might have been like, long before the written word appeared, in a land inhabited by humans since the beginning of the Holocene. The materials I have found date to some time between the the Archaic and the Late Woodland periods. I have no relation to the people who made them, if people did make the items I had discovered. Yet I felt myself following the path that could be described as psychological displacement. I was there, then, transported in imagination. The people could have spoken to me as though I were a traveler in a land of travelers. There is a native American belief about animals. Larger animals, like the bear, are considered to be cousins, and are like people mentally. But animals are given to acting on their own non-human designs. Bears understand human language, though they speak their own language among themselves. Though I was not like one of the people, I might have been like one of the bears.

The bridge to somewhere

The property I had been working on is adjacent to a long series of streams and ponds. The brook through the land empties into a large pond and I was considering some kind of bridge to join both parts of the property. It occurred to me that a stone bridge would be possible. It would allow the water to pass through and be sturdy against fast currents. It was plain that many large stones lay at the bottom of the brook. I determined to collect stones and place them across a narrow part of the brook near the mouth of the stream.

Your awesomeness knows no bounds

You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations.

ShabiDOO 16:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on your election as alternate Moderator in 2021. Good luck on your mission, and always remember, all the goats are here to back you up.

—cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 23:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Gullotta's article

Hi! I know I've suggested this before, so I don't want to come off as a broken record, but I'd highly suggest you read Richard Gullotta's response to Carrier's book. Regardless of which side you fall on, I think it does a great example of at least giving a look at the kind of research and evidence Biblical historians use vs. the standard of evidence for more hard sciences. I'll leave the link here if you want it. https://sci-hubtw.hkvisa.net/10.1163/17455197-01502009 Friedman (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you a Jungian? What exactly is your opinion of Carl Jung?

You seemed to have reverted some of my edits on Carl Jung’s article, plus the video you cited on The Jung Cult and The Aryan Christ seems to endorse MBTI. You seemed to have fixation on Neolithic artefacts and their mythological meaning. Plus some of your expansions to the Jung article seem to be sympathetic to Jung. Just need to know before the community can make a consensus on Carl Jung. What exactly is your opinion of Jung? --Jakester499 (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Also please tell me if I come across as rude. I try to be as sensitive to everyone as possible--Jakester499 (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to be unclear about Jung, I don't know a lot about him, as I suspect is the case with most rationalwikians. I have been offering, in the article, his own view of basic analytical psychology. That is not sympathetic so much as an accurate attempt to express what his views appear to be. I am not competent to criticize it, except where it seems to stop being practical and becomes hyper speculative, which is a rational complaint about some of his writing; Though some of his ideas are not widely held, he is no "shyster" and though often criticized for being unorthodox, he is still widely respected as one of the founders of modern psychology and I regard it as disingenuous to suggest otherwise. From WP: Jung's work has been influential in the fields of psychiatry, anthropology, archaeology, literature, philosophy, psychology and religious studies. I am not a Jungian, though I am interested in learning about his theories. In psychologies "theory" has the implication of academic speculation. MBTI is nothing I have studied. The references were chosen for general topic consideration. The "fixation on neolithic artifacts" comment is a peculiar one. I would say I was delighted to find them. It doesn't really relate to our discussion on CJ. I am glad to discuss the artifacts if it is an interest of yours. Finally, my opinion of Jung is that he was very important in 20th century psychology in ways that reach into the present. Like any subject in a vast field it can be complex to present a complete picture. I have been planning to continue to add to the description of Jung's analytical psychology. As far as I know, his theories are neither hateful nor dangerous, and are in fact particularly helpful for artistic or creative people undergoing therapy.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

well well well

I'm warming up to your efforts at keeping civil discussion. I like it. Now I feel bad for being a little snappy at you years ago. Here's a cute goat badge for you. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 02:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Lefty. You are a sweet person.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, you've a very lucid person, I wish you were more active. I think you would make an excelent job as a moderator too, if only you were here more often. GeeJayK (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Just here to hop on the compliment train. I'm also appreciative of your presence here. Friedman (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks friends. I'm trying to be here more often.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

AT&T troll

You might want to protect his talk page, and be prepared for a rangeblock when he realizes he can reboot his phone and get a new IP. FranceGlass (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Done.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. I actually do know how to format this stuff, I just didn't want people to know that. ;) FranceGlass (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

He's still able to edit it for some reason. FranceGlass (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

question

any idea why my edits were reverted here? I responded to you.Brain Galaxy (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

It's all good. Mop back is fine. Lately I mostly just edit psychiatry/psychology related pages but can help with vandalism if/when it's needed Neiltyson1fan (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination

Nominated you for mod. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

You dropped this

1 Iluzasipal^{Stone them!} 16:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

All things in moderation

A case involving you has been raised at All things in moderation. Feel free to comment. Bongolian (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but the discussion on the talk page is clear enough. I would note that I never meant to revert anything but the terrible style point, i.e. use of the pejorative "bigot" in the first sentence. Editing out muckraking content has always been an interest of mine. Some people call that "whitewashing." I don't like underhandedness, which I fear is preferred on the wiki. Ariel31459 (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Mod notice

You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations.

--RWRW (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Why did you edit my comment?

https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki%3ASaloon_bar&type=revision&diff=2682512&oldid=2682508

What the heck man?UncleKrampus (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

My man, just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 20:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'd have it checked out before it gets far long.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that UK. Mia culpa. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

Your other account can have one too. Plutocow (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

This keeps getting better! It's been a while since the site made me laugh.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I know, these guys are hilarious.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

To the bon who is not amused by this wiki: you need an attitude adjustment. But, here is the thing: no one will do it for you. Ariel31459 (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear ArielKrampus - I'm laughing at you - not with you.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Apart for the ambiguated nomenclature, I thank you. Laughter is a good thing on almost any occasion. I laugh at myself all the time. It seems a lost art. Cheerio!Ariel31459 (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It's been two days and you are still humiliating yourself. Impressive!-Flandres (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The model of the world we have before us exists only in our own minds. I'd get to work on that.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

And he's still at it folks!-Flandres (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I know more about deadpan humor than most people would care to know. I can visit your talk page and we can work out some routines if you like?Ariel31459 (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No, thank you. You've embarrassed yourself enough for two years, let alone two days-let's not add anything else. It would probably be best if you just admitted Krampus is your sockpuppet, and then we could all just get on with our business. There's no real reason to deny it anymore. You've made yourself look like a world-class buffoon but you didn't actually violate any rule (to my knowledge) so you wouldn't be punished or anything.-Flandres (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

But, dear Flandres, you continue to offer straight lines. Perhaps if you still have your vestments we can find a confession booth somewhere. But, seriously, what I don't understand is, if as you, or someone, continues to say, "no rules were broken," can you explain what your business is here? "The devil can cite scripture for his purpose." Do you think I have an invidious intent to inveigh against unwary people? If, as you say, UK talks like me, and for practical purposes we are the same guy, why does that bother you? There are half a dozen users here that I can't tell apart because they all espouse the same, as I see it, problem-ridden, moral vision. Later.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The two of you were caught using the same IP. That's not something you can just hand wave away. Plutocow (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

My, Plutocow, you and Flandres seem of a mind. Are you two different people? I suppose not. Still, maybe get another hobbyAriel31459 (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, UncleAriel! This whole affair isn't "bothering" me, it's hilarious to me. It has been proven beyond doubt Krampus is your sock and you still deny it. As for my business here...I came here to laugh at you.-Flandres (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, then. I assumed you were here in good faith. Questioning people's identities here, of all places is really quite a novelty. I'm not surprised Flandres. Not really. I did suspect that you have some residual hard feelings from some past indiscretion of mine. For that, I can apologize. You may continue to laugh, I don't mind. I actually am amused by it. But be assured, I am not laughing at you personally.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't really think you can invoke good faith when you have spent this whole affair lying. Really there is nothing left to do except laugh at you.-Flandres (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No, now don't be confused. I presumed that you would be somewhat coherent in your responses. I meant here in this wiki. But, how can I know that you are somewhere laughing at me? I can't really tell you know. It's funny you should say that. I really can't tell if you were hurt somehow and just acting out now. Tell me more.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what's most hilarious about this whole thing. Option 1) You denying that Krampus is your sock even though Plutocow gave us proof of this. (You haven't actually rebutted that, incidentally.) Option 2) The fact that you brought all of this on yourself. Option 3) The fact that you are so obsessed with "getting the last word-" as if that "makes you the winner" somehow-that you have kept this dispute alive for three days, embarrassing yourself every step of the way.-Flandres (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I know she didn't prove that. Second, "All this" is what exactly? And finally, this is my talk page. I will always have the last word here. I suggest we move to your talk page and I will allow you to have the last word.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It's been two days since Plutocow proved Krampus is your sock and all you have as a counter argument is "Firstly, I know she didn't prove that."-Flandres (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Ariel it would be more convincing if you and UncleKrampus didn't have the exact same tone of voice when it comes to reading like you're trying to sound like you're an old man. Just give it up already. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, the two accounts are making the exact same argument about how we're supposedly denying their identity. Also, no offense taken but I use they/them pronouns Plutocow (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

This whole thing proves Ariel views the rest of the community with utter contempt. He makes no effort to distinguish his personas as he insists to us they are completely separate people and clearly expects us to forget rock-solid proof Krampus is his sock...repeatedly saying it isn't true. The inescapable conclusion is that UncleAriel thinks we are all gullible morons.-Flandres (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong about one thing Flandres. If I thought you were all morons, I would not bother with this wiki. Animosity aside, I think you are a smart person. All three of you really.

OK Plutocow. I am glad to comply with your wishes. Thank you for presenting the issue so amicably. In light of this, I admit to Techpriest that I am in fact, an old man. I will be 74 in November. I have a friend who likes to chime in here on occasion. We named him UncleKrampus. I don't always agree with UK, but mostly I do. I admit this much because not knowing is clearly aggravating the hell out of all of you. Peace. You can have any last words. I'm heading out for the weekend. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't address the proof Plutocow gave but it does clear one thing up, I'll admit. Like all too many septuagenarians you only know so much about computers, and thus do not understand that Plutocow has, in fact, caught you red handed.-Flandres (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

So you say. Thanks for that.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)