User talk:Avengerofthe BoN

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

See also My Archive and the other archive

New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Avengerofthe BoN!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

If you don't stand up for poor helpless BoN, who will? Pull up a goat and make yourself at home. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

We hope you enjoy your newfound POWER — and these external tools:
Thanks. I hope to prove worthy ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


Zum Thema Abmahnanwälte[edit]

Abmahnanwälte (I don't know a really suitable English translation for this word, but it might be "lawyers who send cease and desist letters for copyright or similar reasons") are lawyers whose sole or main bread earning activity is to go around and find real or perceived misbehavers (such as people who illegally download songs or have a website without a contact Email) and thaen proceed to send letters to them where they claim that they are going to sue them unless they pay some outrageous "fine" or "settlement" (usually in the several hundred Euro range). Despite the fact that many of these cases are laughed out of court due to many separate reasons (them "defending" a client who doesn't even know about them for instance), many are too terrified and/or fear the legal costs of losing in court (with the added benefit that according to German law the winning side has to pay the costs of the trial if the losing side in a civil suit can't. Yes. Really.), so they pay. And if you copy and paste the same letter a couple thousand times per month (and have a nice looking letterhead to boot) you can get yourself quite a nice salary from doing basically nothing of value to anybody. Hence my dislike to this particular "profession". Thankfully many of the loopholes that enabled this epidemic have now been closed and lawyers are now doing at least a little bit more useful work. For the most part, that is. I hope this was illustrative. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


Welcome back[edit]

among the gods!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeeeeehhhhaaaaaa!!!! I shall erect a pantheon on suitable land, once I get it ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to succeed[edit]

Avenger, if you want some of your edits to be accepted on the Israel-related pages I suggest you raise the issue first on the article's talk page. Your reputation precedes your every edit -- and these edits do usually conform to your unacceptable standards. The fact is, I and the people who generally share my perspective and standards are reasonable people and anything you wish to include or challenge -- and can document from credible sources -- should be included/modified/deleted. But you cannot simply assert controversial claims not accepted by the majority with no (or inadequate) support at all. Please keep in mind that I am not, by any means, the sole determiner of what constitutes acceptable and adequate: you have repeatedly failed to meet these requirements of the majority.---Mona- (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

One other thing, Avenger, And please share this with Arisboch. To my mind, there is one, and only one, intellectually respectable pro-Zionist argument. It's on offer by the Israeli journalist Ari Shavit in his book My Promised Land. The man can write, and he tells mostly the truth in this book, in gut-wrenching detail. But he says: “If need be, I'll stand by the damned." He largely admits all that I and others have detailed that you so want to see deleted or softened; Shavit quite directly documents it. His position is simply that, as ghastly as it was an is, it's necessary. There really is no other place for you and other Zionists to go.---Mona- (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Your obsession with Rail[edit]

and those who disliked it is strange and you should tone it down to something more manageable. You don't see me ranting off about Zoroastrianism or zeppelins, afterall. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The same goes for the Is-rail-i stuff. :D 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:01, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
It all makes sense now! --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
what about the Iranian record on Zoroastrians? Also, there are many reasons to hate Nixon (for example) and the way he set Amtrak up to fail is one of them... And I am not obsessed. I freely admit that I would like to take a coast to coast Amtrak trip once I got the time and the money for it, but who wouldn't? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Car dealerships and the airline industry? And Zoroastrianism is one of my favorite religions and yet You don't see me going crazy and railing against Iran or the muslims every time they pop up as a subject because of it. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
You should be railing against Iran. I am. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
My dislike of Iran comes in other forms than bitching about their treatment of Zoroastrians every time the concept of Iran is brought up. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Well rail is not the only topic I care about. But I care about it. And bikes. Or bikes on trains... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

you're big on Israel[edit]

do you happen to know anything about Dr. Rami Arav? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't yet heard of the name, but am currently listening to this with half an ear. Why? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Curiosity as I'm taking a class of his in the spring. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

NWO Essay[edit]

You're overwriting someone else's deleted essay. Perhaps give it a diff name? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Is that really a big problem? After all, it was deleted... Also, you can move it to "New World Order / Avenger" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
IDC. Just wanted to inform you, if you cared. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
If someone complains, I am open to having it moved. Though I like the somewhat snarky title... But I ain't married to it... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You appear to continue to miss my point[edit]

which is unsurprising given who you are. What you disagree with does not make something a fallacy, something you bandy about far to often. Nor is finding support for your position in authorities always authority fallacy, if it was entire fields of academics are invalid as is any possible implementation of law or a law system. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Law is nor a subject of science. If anything it has an associated branch of philosophy. But the ultimate joke about law is that it is just societal conventions, subject to change on any given moment (at least in theory). And law is only law where it is enforced in practice. A law that's not enforced is no law at all. Just words on paper... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
You continue to miss my point. Please, reread it again until you discover the obvious meaning of my words and why your endless declaration of things you dislike as fallacies reflect poorly on you.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Please, reread it again until you discover the obvious meaning of my words- Paravant WAKE UP, SHEEP, TO THE INFINITE WISDOM OF PARAVANT'S KNOWLEDGE OF TEH LAW!!!!!!!!11--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 03:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Good post! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Amusing but idiotic. But please, avenger, continue to regail me on how it is always an appeal to authority to cite authority. Explain how we should handle law if authority is always fallacious, how we can handle ANY academic field if we can only ever rely on our current feelings on the matter.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
In the natural sciences (and in many of the things social sciences do as well) there is always repeatable experiments that show us why an authority says what it says. Science is not taking things as true "because I said so" but being able to test in a laboratory or other environment whether the theory/hypothesis holds water. But of course, you know that, don't you? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Really now[edit]

Stop tying people saying something bad about Israel to hating the jews. It's tedious, it's annoying, and it is going to stop. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

All I did is that the sentence in question sounded as if an Antisemite had said it. Which does not necessarily mean that the person saying it is an Antisemite... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the main premise, being tedious, but then everyone should be submitted to the same constraint. It is tedious that everything Israel or Israelis do is automatically bad. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop edit warring[edit]

RoThorpe, I, and others, do not agree with you. Stop it. Now.---Mona- (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Now you've heard from 142BoN. Why do you persist in this nonsense? You know very well the majority is not with you on almost any of this? Why do you ALWAYS -- nearly every day -- find some I/P-related article to revert, knowing the majority won't accept it, and often enough has already vetoed you preference?---Mona- (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you want me to say? And do you really think you are going to get me to say it? Answer this question and if you are honest answer this one: Why are you doing what you are doing? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
As you know, I answered that long ago. You need to say nothing. You need to stop the nonsense.---Mona- (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
You are a bit dense aren't ypu? I wasn't asking for your cry me a Jordan story on how the evuls of evul Zionism were revealed to you by the archangel Michael in a cave Through selective reading judicious study of all the Jewbaiters neutral sources you could find (which incidentally excludes all sources written in Hebrew or Arabic and not yet translated into English) I was asking what the purpose of this specific posting on my talk page and crying wolf was Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
You truly are incapable of learning. Virtually every time you challenge my claims, I just document the shit out of them which only reinforces the facts you so detest. Yet, you continue. ---Mona- (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I swear[edit]

though you've gotten better at understanding RW, you continue to display and flaunt your massive ego, massive stupidity over english spelling variants and absolute conviction you ahave done no wrong. stop it.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually fuck you[edit]

Enough. You've been told to stop the accusations of antiseminitism and then you declare that living jews is a problem to Mona? No. You can sit out for a while. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Am I still allowed to defend myself?[edit]

Apparently my English is rather bad or Paravant would not have misunderstood me that much... What I wanted to say is nothing more thaen what Arisboch said in gentler words with his quote of Anne Frank... Dead Jews get a lot of sympathies... Living Jews are a bit more complicated. I did not intend to say or imply that Mona hates the fact that Jews are alive, what I wanted to say is that while expressing sympathy for dead people is easy, defending people who do what is (in their opinion at least) necessary to avoid a major case of dead-ness is a bit more complicated... But maybe this is something present in German language discourse that does not translate well. I apologize for anybody who may have felt offended. Also, when did I ever accuse someone of antisemitism? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe you.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Imagine if by some accident of history I were a mod and had misinterpreted a statement made by Mona or you and put said user in a two week block... Wouldn't you at least wish to be heard? Whether or not Mona actually is an Antisemite is besides the point. The fact of the matter is that she has a problem with Jews engaging in (collective) self defense in the form of the IDF. That is what I wanted to say. If that is somehow offensive, well I don't know what to say to that, frankly. Oh and also, putting me in the vandal bin concurrently with a two week block is rather silly, as the only place I can do any "harm" is my talk page, regardless... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
You are being heard, I don't believe you. You accuse people of being antisemites for disliking Israel and told Mona she is affended by living jews, so fuck off for two weeks. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Avenger, I think you forgot a word in that last sentence. Between 'ever' and 'accuse'. Starts with an 'n', ends in a 't'. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:23, 11 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
To better sum up my reply: I don't care what you "intended to say" when you sad "Mona is offended by living jews", that is what you said and it is to far, so you can fucking sit out for 2 weeks and think about learning to discuss without throwing in the antisemite card.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
You are selectively quoting a statement that frankly came out wrong and looks even wronger in the selective way you quote it. What I wanted to say is essentially the same thing Arisboch said way better and more succinctly with his quote of Anne Frank. In essence: Solidarity with dead Jews is easy, but solidarity with living Jews who don't want to be killed is not as universally shared as putting some flowers on some grave... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
It looks no better in context. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

a little[edit]

over a day until your block is also up.are you going to continue to be a problem? Going to continue to toss around accusations, implied or outright, of users being antisemites? Going to keep edit warring? Because without you or Arisboch we've had almost no issues related to IP for a week-2 weeks, and that is incredibly telling on both how much support you two have and how in the wrong you are on who is the problem. This will be my only warning for when you are unbanned - Don't be a problem anymore, esp. not for any new mods --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Do not[edit]

imply, do or even think of ever putting this wiki at legal risk Do not make statements that your actions are only not putting us at legal risk because they wouldn't bother suing us. That is not how we operate. Are we clear? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

We are clear. But to be clear: How and where did I put the wiki into legal risk, if you take into account this and this, where all involved (including the person being sued right now) continue to use the term in question... But I have of course not the slightest objection to any changes to the page if necessary to avoid any law suit. I just don't see any coming... And funnily enough, even Mona seems to tacitly agree on that... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I am talking about your point that it isn't worth suing us. That is irrelevant. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Avenger, I'm fine with the word "allegedly" preceding the word "antisemite." It bothered me that there is a live case and you were taking one side, the so-far losing side, and I couldn't read any of the source documents myself. I'm not an advocate of truth-seeking outlets letting themselves become paralyzed by terror of lawyers and lawsuits, but in the case of an accusation that's currently being litigated, there's no reason to ask for trouble.---Mona- (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Call it alleged and link to some of the reasons for that allegation. When the constitutional court rules, we will see how to respond. Given precedent by the same court, I have a hunch of how it will end... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Mona deleted the following from her talk page[edit]

Your staggering tendency to defend all manner of atrocity[edit]

As long as it is carried out by "not the West". I am of course able to see that the west has done horrible things in the past and is still doing horrible things, most of them while exhibiting a huge amount of hypocrisy. But ignoring that Iran recently broke its own execution record (including by hanging gays from cranes for the sole "reason" of them - you know - loving somebody) because it is an atrocity committed by "not the West" is just staggeringly stupid. And quite frankly offensive to the victims of the Iranian regime. Or of course Mugabe... Sure he overthrew one of the most "this has to go" regimes in human history (white minority rule in Rhodesia) but he managed to fuck up even that. I mean come on, which country has been so thoroughly fucked up that some people would wish to have their old oppressors back if only the new one would leave? (Truth be told, some Nicaraguans are pining for Somoza, but they are either stupid or born after 1979). My point is this: Oppression can have a black face, a brown face and a white face. It can come to you speaking German, Nahuatl, Spanish or English. And just because a country is independent that doesn't mean its people are free. The worst thing ever to happen to leftism was Lenin declaring nationalism a somehow emancipatory movement if only the right kind of people exhibited it. It is not. Marx was right when he said the proletarian has no fatherland. And we should always fight for freedom of people. Not freedom of nations or religions or ethnic groups or something like that. That is - among other things - why it is so important that the Jewish state be a democratic state. And that is also why so many Arab citizens of Israel wish to be no other thing more in the world. Because they now the "freedom" of having "their state" is worth nothing if they don't have a say in it. So no. Western crimes are not to be ignored. But we are in fact allowed to talk about people who make bad stuff and come from poor countries. Especially if their bad stuff is the main reason why the country is so poor. Or such a unpleasant place to be even or especially after "the West" "leaves them alone". There's a thing I heard somewhere: Truth resists simplicity. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Groan. Not these retarded edit wars over talk pages ... again ... There are two options: Mona either ignores your post and you get no reply, or Mona removes it and you get no reply. Net result: the same. Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
(Reply to Avengerofthe BoN) So what? Is this supposed to mean that Mona is bad? Answer me straight, Avengerofthe BoN. No poking around. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
But Carpetsmoker, I thought we didn't own our talk pages. Ryu got shat on for archiving, and what Mona is doing here is far worse. I don't understand how you could defend her! :) - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Reply to Pbfreespace3: My intention is not to say any ad hominem things about Mona. believe it or not, I actually want to talk about the issue. It is pervasive and prevalent among people who call themselves leftist and I really want to understand it... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I still don't understand the issue here. You posted a wall of text that Mona deleted from her talk page. I have maintained that people should in general have the right to edit their talk pages how they please, so long as it does not incriminate them with regards to a "RationalWiki rule break". I don't think you're being clear enough here. What is the reason you are talking about this? Tell me. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, the thing that prompted me to write this rant (surely I could have formulated it better, but yaknow...) was Mona replacing a reference to Iran hanging gays with American botched executions... That was just the straw that broke the camel's back of course... Mona is a serial defender of non-Western atrocities... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Kitsunelaine, while it is the case that we do not own out talk pages, it is the long-standing convention here that users are allowed to revert what they deem to be trolling. AgingHippie has so reverted me, and I recently reverted an antisemite. This has been thoroughly discussed recently in the Saloon.---Mona- (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I mean it's not like there was an entire shitfest of you people shouting at Ryu about how he had to leave shit he didn't like and considered trolling on his talk page-- oh wait. I guess it's different when it happens to you, huh? - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know anything about that. But I do know that established users -- not necessarily newbies -- are allowed to revert what they deem to be trolling on their talk pages. And I just did that.---Mona- (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I apologize for assigning any of the blame onto you, but I still feel like I made a point. And do note that I'm not defending BoN here, because I personally disagree with him, but I find CS's position in particular, rather hypocritical. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 02:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And once again we are not talking about the issue[edit]

Instead there is some fucking meta discussion... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

So here to the issue in brief words:
Is there a tendency among the left to downplay atrocities committed by "not the West"
If so, why?
What can we do against that? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
"tendency among the left to downplay atrocities committed by "not the West" "; Noam Chomsky's full time job for the last 30 years has basically consisted of complaining about crimes committed by "The West" and how all the world's problems are because of "the west". I don't think you can find many more influential left thinkers than Chomsky. Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
So you agree that the issue is real. Now to the other two questions: Why? And what can a person like myself, who is a leftist but can see atrocities even if not the fault of the west, do about it? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, I misread your post as "atrocities committed by "the West"". I missed the "not" there. It's late :-/ I'm not sure if there's a tendency to downplay issues by "the left" per se. I think this is true in general for both the left and right. Saudi-Arabia is the obvious example. I would rather say "ignore", though, as "downplay" implies active participation in "shoving it under the rug", so to speak. Also, not paying enough attention to Saudi Arabia does *NOT* necessarily mean that too much attention is given to crimes committed by the US, Israel, etc. Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
While there may be some right wing people who defend or ignore the atrocities of Saudi Arabia (if only because the US has allied themselves with that thing), you will never hear a right wing person defend Hugo Chavez (unless of course it is Jürgen Elsässer or his merry crew). I think there is a tendency among some self described leftists to go a step further and say "West bad - people who fight west good". Even if that means being in favor of the Dinner Jacket or the Taliban... And then of course there is the non-interventionist crowd (though the Spanish civil war (in which we lack an article) could teach them a lesson or two) whose only argument seems to be "we have no business being in country X".... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, first off, I don't think it's fair to compare Hugo Chávez with Saudi-Arabia; it definitely seems to be that SA (as a country) is a far greater evil than Chavez, so "defending chavez" does not quite compare to "defending SA". There are also plenty of "left" people criticising Chavez; this site is generally considered "left" and our Hugo Chávez page is hardly flattering. Sure, I don't doubt there are people defending Chavez, so? I most certainly have never seen leftist "being in favor of the Dinner Jacket or the Taliban" just for the sake of "West bad - people who fight west good". Perhaps there are a few extremists to be found, but that's a case of nutpicking. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Well there certainly was a certain Chavez-mania in some circles in the first few years of his reign... And leftists don't necessarily defend the Dinner Jacket as him being a good guy (nor likewise the Taliban) but say Iran has a "right" to a nuclear weapon. Or Islamic terrorism is a result of "legitimate grievances"... Or that we should talk with "moderate" forces within the Iranian regime... Or that we should continue to tie our fortunes to the sinking ship that is the house of Saud (though that is mostly a right wing thing)... And if one dare raise the question as to whether war should be an option on the table with regards to Iran, some even excommunicate the apostate from leftism... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course, war would be beyond foolish and disasterous :D. Regardless of being a left or right thing, but even worse than Bush's Iraq war. About Chavez, I agree that criticism toward those types or regimens, shouldn't be approving of capitalist golpes. Let's remember that Us only didn't like socialists, not dictatorship, so most of the criticism against Chavez was hypocritical. I agree that this wiki is too often excessively biased, it would be better if some of the irony or left point of view didn't stand in front of facts too much, so people could actually learn something.

New section[edit]

Exactly. We need to criticize all crimes, but we should place emphasis on those crimes that we have the capacity to control or stop, namely, crimes committed by our own governments. I can criticize Iran for hanging gays, but nothing we can do will stop that without causing more pain. However, it is far easier for us to engage in massive street protests to stop daily drone flights and bombings over Yemen, and also to stop Israel from bombing Gaza. I can support presidential candidates that oppose the death penalty. You can too. Those are crimes we can act to stop, those that are within our power to curtail. We should remove the log from our own eye before mentioning the twig in another's. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You seem to assume that I am a citizen or at least a resident of the US. While I am related to citizens of the US, I am not in fact a citizen or resident of the US. And I don't think Israel gives a flying shit about some Hamas picket line. However, the Saudi entity does pay close attention to what happens to the oil price. That's why they crowded out the competition in the last year and a half. And that's why they hate the fact that China builds HSR and renewable energies. As for Iran: The Iran deal stinks. The only reason it may have been a wise move by Obama nonetheless is the fact that Russia and some EU countries (*cough* Austria *cough*) have been blatantly ignoring the sanctions. Guess who delivered those cranes the gays were hanged from.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If you vandalize....[edit]

any more articles in an attempt to get my attention I will VB you. You are fully aware that "All lives matter" is a racist insult to BLM. Stop it.---Mona- (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Saying "all lives matter" during this time is like saying that after the Holocaust of Jews in 1945. "We should save the Jews? That's a little biased, isn't it? All lives matter!
That's just so obviously offensive towards the people who are being persecuted in this case. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you are referring to, Mona... Could you please link to the diff in question to make sure you are not confusing my edits with someone else's? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I erred about your revert and misread what it was you edited the section to say. Nevertheless, stop edit-warring over the I-P articles or any article touching on that issue.---Mona- (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Avengerofthe BoN, I believe Mona was referring to this edit you made to the BLM article, which has very little to do with the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. You tagged it with an edit summary that was an indirect reference to the I/P debate and your previous disputes with Mona. Mona viewed this as an indirect attack on her editing. I think any reasonable person who knows the history between you 2 (I consider myself to be one such person) would consider this to be an indirect reference to your past arguments, and I think even if this edit was well-intentioned, it should still not be directed at a person the way it was in this case. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Well Mona, do you see me telling you to stop being a Hamas apologist? I won't cease trying to root out the worst anti-Israel propaganda. It is a fight against windmills of course, but I like Aaron Sorkin. And Sorkin loves him some quixotic characters... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Why the hell are you talking about Aaron Sorkin? Why can't you talk to people in a direct way? I think you're trolling, and also that you should stop. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I know my fight against Mona and her ilk is a losing one (at least as long as she has bullied some of the RW community into her Hamas corner). But I am still fighting it. Just like characters in Sorkin's works. Which I happen to like. Even though I don't care for baseball. Or Cricket. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to talk to him if he engages me in a way that makes sense and doesn't mention random celebrities and unimportant. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

−

And see, more of what I just mentioned. Anyway, allow me to offer some criticism. Your statement about your fight against Mona being a losing one is probably intended to be sarcastic/ironic at some level, but it also sounds of you making yourself out to be the victim. You are acting as if a significant portion of the RW community is largely supportive of Hamas, when in reality no-one does. Go to Gaza and you will find TRUE supporters of Hamas, people who fight, kill and die for that organization. Writing stuff on a freakin forum does not constitute support. So you are not a victim here. Hamas does not have the RationalWiki community cornered, or anything remotely close. I would say that most people here are ambivalent about the whole issue, giving some generalized "That conflict has been going on for thousands of years and we will never see the end of it". Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
You don't have to kill and die for a cause in order to support it. Otherwise pacifism would be non-existent. And I know that nothing we do on this tiny webpage is likely to influence the world at large, but I still dislike the fact that Mona has been successful in pressing her narrative. You know what the main reason for violence between Israel and its enemies is in my opinion? The answer is simple, but saying so is often misunderstood... Just look at the Mandate period and look at who was massacred by the Arabs. The Arabs killed Zionists and non-Zionists alike. At least a major portion of the Arabs in the area had something against Jews period. And a lot of them still do. Just like their old guru Hajj Amin al Husseini... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The main reason for violence was the introduction of foreign colonists to an already occupied land. If this had not happened, the current conflict would not be occurring. Nonetheless, Israel exists, so now the best possible outcome is for the minimum amount of violence to happen. Not bombing Gaza could help, and also removing the conditions that lead to massive Gazan discontent with Israel: namely the land, air, and sea embargo. Free up travel with Israel and Egypt, and allow people who want to leave to leave. Also, Israel should withdraw unilaterally from the West Bank and return to the 1967 borders. What objections do you have with what I have stated? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
If Zionists are the problem, why was there a massacre against non-Zionist Jews in Hebron in 1929? The perpetrators were Arabs and also another A-word. And the victims were directly descendant from generations upon generations of Jews who had lived there. And as for the "colonization wah wah evil" argument... You sound surprisingly close to the Argentinian opinion piece writer who want the people currently living on the Falklands gone because of... I don't know... But to be fair, you at least seem to be in favor of the Jews staying in Israel. Which Mona has never explicitly said. And as for Gaza.... Trust me, if it were at any other geographic point and still ruled and inhabited by the same people, the US or even Russia would be bombing it. Hamas is among the worst scum in a region where decidedly unpleasant people tend to rule over countries (with a few exceptions, of course)... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
You need to read your history again Avenger, sorry. Long before 1929, Zionists, including Herzl, were calling for the transfer of the Palestinian population. Palestinians were also being displaced by settlement purchases long before 1929. I don't remember the slogan, but the phrase "in blood and fire shall Judea rise" was prominent among certain Zionists. The British issued reports at the time and found that Palestinian violence was specifically a non-racial one.
From Finkelstein - The British attributed Arab anti-Jewish animus to the Jewish claim over Palestine, which denied Arabs an independent state, and to Arab fear of being subjugated in an eventual Jewish state. The Peel Report affirmatively quoted a prior inquiry headed by Sir Thomas Haycraft that “the root of the trouble...was the Arab fear of a steady increase of Jewish immigration, which would ultimately tend to their political and economic subjection.” It went on to affirmatively quote a second inquiry headed by Sir Walter Shaw that “[t]here can...be no doubt that racial animosity on the part of the Arabs,consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future,was the fundamental cause” of hostilities; and it then restated that the Shaw Report “attributed...the main cause of the outbreak to Arab antagonism to the National Home, as being on the one hand an obstacle to the attainment of their national independence and as tending, on the other hand,...to lead to their economic and political subjection.”
The Peel Commission itself similarly concluded that the “underlying causes” of Arab-Jewish hostilities were, “first, the desire of the Arabs for national independence; secondly, their antagonism to the establishment of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, quickened by their fear of Jewish domination."
[T]he Peel Report stated: “Nor is the conflict in its essence an interracial conflict, arising from any old instinctive antipathy of Arabs towards Jews. There was little or no friction...between Arab and Jew in the rest of the Arab world until the strife in Palestine engendered it. And there has been precisely the same political trouble in Iraq, Syria and Egypt— agitation, rebellion and bloodshed—where there are no ‘National Homes.’ Quite obviously, then, the problem of Palestine is political. It is, as elsewhere, the problem of insurgent nationalism. The only difference is that in Palestine Arab nationalism is inextricably interwoven with antagonism to the Jews. And the reasons for that, it is worth repeating, are equally obvious. In the first place, the establishment of the National Home [for Jews] involved at the outset a blank negation of the rights implied in the principle of national self-government. Secondly, it soon proved to be not merely an obstacle to the development of national self-government, but apparently the only serious obstacle. Thirdly, as the Home has grown, the fear has grown with it that, if and when self-government is conceded, it may not be national in the Arab sense, but government by a Jewish majority. That is why it is difficult to be an Arab patriot and not to hate the Jews."
Cited on Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah, p. 302-03. ChrisAmiss (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The 1967 lines are not borders and were never agreed upon in any sense by anybody. If anything they can be a basis to start negotiations from. They cannot be the final borders. That would be ridiculous. My preferred solution would be a democratic multiethnic state in the West Bank with Ramallah as its capital, Gaza annexed to Egypt (or under a non-Hamas regime, but that is extremely unlikely). Jews that would find themselves within the border of the Arab state can apply for its citizenship and are treated fully equally in the eyes of the law. Bot state commit to full abortion rights, civil marriage, gay marriage and a permanent arbitration committee to rule in disputes. No permanent resident shall be thrown out of either state (i.e. no Arabs forced out of Israel and no Jews forced out of the Arab state) if a Jew decides to move to Israel, they are to be reimbursed for their property. Claims from all 1948/1967 refugees are to be collected and assessed by an independent agency financed by contributions of all former belligerents (including the Arab League) and reimbursed in financial terms. There is no right of return and it can't be inherited. That is in basic outlines the peace plan that we could have gotten in 1995 (or much, much earlier), if only Antisemitism did not exist... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, in the negotiations on 242, all parties came to the agreement that the resolution could not have pissed were it not for the preamble "it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war". ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm busy with school work, but I'll cite it at some point later tonight or at some point in the future. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

From one type of fanaticism to another[edit]

Avenger, read Mona's User Page - not her talk page. You will find a perfect description of a fanatic, flipping back and forth in her own words. Apparently she thinks she wields a great deal of power. The tragedy is that she might bluff otherwise sensible people and so she does, perhaps, wield some power. She is not more intelligent than the average user, but she is tenacious. Mona will call out for the extinction of Israel as long as she can type, and since she has nothing else to do, she can type 10 pages for every sentence you write. Try to ignore her. She's not worth it. She's just a compiler with a degree, it seems, in law, but that does not make her intelligent. And, with all good wishes to you, I'll keep away from the Middle East. It's just that I sometimes get so disgusted - not at you - that I have to let off some steam. Prost Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I can understand the sentiment... And Yeah, Mona must have a pretty boring live... Me on the other hand, I have quite a bit happening in the - you know - real world... So I probably can't win a war against Mona on the internet... But it is still tempting to try sometimes... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
we are not your battleground--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
What are you on about? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
RW shouldn't be a battleground, but it is, and Avenger is not the worst of the lot. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
And some of them are fighting dirty... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
2 weeks of peace disagree.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
"peace." Hipocrite (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
„Peace in our time“, perhaps? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
that was my writing yes. Sadly it ended when aris and avengers bans ended--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
(ec) It seems that without this individual to focus on, ABoN's antagonsts picked someone else to get rid of. I wonder (wait, no I don't, it's me) who is next! Hipocrite (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Now you got me curious: What is your supposed crime? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
[1]. Hipocrite (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Wait that has gotten you on the blacklist? That's ridonkolous... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

That was when she threatened to go to the press and expose me as a deep cover Israel something, yes. Hipocrite (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Back in those days a "ban Mona" coop actually had a chance of succeeding.... Ah well... Those days seem to be over... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Wait, so "because you said X, it makes perfect sense that you get called antisemitic a lot" and agreeing with a claim that she's calling for the extinction of Israel, today alone, is you not calling her an antisemite? What would actually count, posting it as a headline in the BBC News?KrytenKoro (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm negating on a promise to stay away, but I read Hipocrite's contribution which apparently got him punished. I'm rather curious. Why was that culpable, but the innumerable insults our lady of law dishes out on a daily basis, usually in articles unrelated to her labor of love hatred get the applause of most everyone? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Who's giving her applause for those? What in the actual fuck are you people talking about?KrytenKoro (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
She seems to be well regarded by the „geniuses“ here, even if she is a one-cause fanatic. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Where? Both you guys and her manage to assume everyone else on this site is grouped against you. From all I've seen, you're both wrong -- the only ones against the lot of you are the lot of you. Instead of constantly seeing Enemy Agents everywhere, why not just assume that, somehow, there's someone who disagrees with you on the Internet?KrytenKoro (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
"and her manage to assume everyone else on this site is grouped against you" Moi? Not at all. I've settled in here quite nicely and am friendly with many or most, and happily collaborating on an awesome article that is the actual reason I joined, as I announced at the outset. It's true I got side-tracked on the I-P issue, because I thought I was going to also make some edits at the (then unsourced and shitty) Zionism page, only to be told, by Avenger and Hipocrite, that I would not be allowed to make any edits that did not argue "Israel is great." I was fucking gobsmacked at that, went into battle mode, and have essentially prevailed -- because my POV is more or less that of the majority here. Someone simply had to force the issue, and that someone was me. I've moved on, but Avenger has not.---Mona- (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you don't do it anymore, then. I've definitely seen it in the past. You've not been as obnoxious about it as Avenger, but I've definitely seen you accusing/strongly implying people of, among other things, being agents for some sort of Israeli cyber-ops group. That's...really just incredibly unnecessary.KrytenKoro (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you mean the hasbara brigades. Yes, but you see, that is real. The Zionists do not hide it. Really, it's a thing, both formal (run by Israeli govt and pro-Israel orgs) and informal. I don't make stuff up -- I either document my claims or retract them. Do I know that Avenger is a hasbara agent or volunteer? No, no one knows whether any specific Zionist propagandist is. But anyone spending minimal time online quickly learns to recognize the talking points and learns of the copious documentation that these hasbara activities are organized and actual.---Mona- (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's not a real group. I'm saying that accusing other editors of being part of it is incredibly unnecessary. If they're behaving bad, let their bad behavior be their downfall. Trying to smoke out Enemy Agents on a wiki, even if Enemy Agents exist, is just an incredibly waste of time, and leads to the kind of frippery where people are accusing each other of crimes against humanity for moving commas around.KrytenKoro (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"Trying to smoke out Enemy Agents" Oh, no, that's not at all what I was doing; I do not ultimately care if Avenger is consciously committing hasbara. No, I was alerting others to the existence of the hasbara brigades. Sites are entitled to know that Zionists target them for propaganda efforts. Some specific targets are known, e.g., The Guardian. But most are not. This has nothing to do with "only Hitler would put a comma there" type shitfests. This is real and should be heralded. It would certainly explain Avenger's monomaniacal devotion to opposing the merest hint of any truth that is unpleasant for or about Zionism. ---Mona- (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Well there you have it. If you are not with us you are against us. You either sign on to Boycott Divestment Bullshit or you are a paid Hasbara shill taking orders from the learned elders of Zion government of Israel... I only have one question, Mona: Where do I take my secret Hasbara commands from? Who informs me what opinion is the "right" one to have? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

A question that's begging for an answer[edit]

Since you apparently possess such profound wisdoms as "terrorists become terrorists because they want to", I thought you might be the perfect person to answer a particular question. (lol)

Okay, joking aside, here's my actually serious question: Why does Israel, as one of the most civilized, democratic countries of the Middle East[citation needed], seem to respect the territorial integrity of ISIS so much? Their oversized army could actually do some good over there. Why are they sitting on the sideline biding their time? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:17, 8 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

I don't think any of Syria would appreciate Israel marching an army through territory they control, nor would they let Israel fly planes over their airspace. Further, if Israel were to take a side, the remaining neutral Muslim states would be hard pressed to join that side. Hipocrite (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
While Israel's army is strong, it is not strong enough to fight the whole Islamic World at the same time. The main reason for Israel's military triumph in 1948 and 1967 was inept Arab leadership where nobody trusted the others. And if Israel were to get involved in any war (no matter how just) it would be fodder for "legitimate criticism of Israel" by people who have no problem marching side by side with Hezbollah... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
And you think the Islamic World is now one unified front? Ha! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
It is not and it will likely never be. But Israel is wise to not give them an excuse by invading what de jure is still Syria... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The same problem as during the 1st Gulf War: If Israel joins one side, many Arab countries may leave that side, which is why Israel mostly stays out of this mess and also, cause they don't want this mess to spill over e.g. into the Golan or give the ISIS any more propaganda fodder to get more cozy with the Hamas.---Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Where is the thank for post button? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Not Autopatrolled[edit]

Why did you lose autopatroll, or is it just glitching out? TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Because they were very very naughty. Also, the verb you're looking for is "lose". 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:57, 8 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
I don't seem to recall them losing it again, odd. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
They lost it back when Paravant changed their group to sysoprevoke. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:01, 8 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
Which I still don't quite understand... But you know... That's because I am exceedingly stupid... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know, you might be but you've never demonstrated that to me. Mind sharing why they felt the need to do these things to you, if you don't mind?

TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: apparently the reason is "Acussing other users of being antisemites and disliking the idea of living jews is to far, you don't deserve this bit" TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I used a a saying that is rather common in some circles in the German language that goes roughly "Oh dead Jews get a lot of sympathy, but don't go around asking sympathy for living Jews"... (And I might have been less than 100% clear in my formulation) Paravant (deliberately) misunderstood this and mixed it up with my supposed calling people antisemites on wiki (hint, I never did) and that's that... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
We didn't believe you then and it's unlikely that has changed, Avenger. @the question, A long, long, long list of showing total irresponsibility and a need to be patrolled. There is a reason they lot sysop almost right after getting it every time. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Alright. Avenger is certainly interesting, though (not like that is the criteria for becoming patrolled). TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I still think it is hilarious that Mona is a sysop and I have been banned for two weeks for something I never said... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

"Americans with Disabilities act"[edit]

It isn't like 18 U.S. Code § 1111 is actively stopping people. Amendments 13 - 15 didn't exactly stop much, either. Laws are nice, but the assumption they are working 100% is idealistic foolishness. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I would love to discuss this in more detail, but I am currently put in the bin by some user who shan't be named, so unfortunately I won't be able to... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Why are you afraid of using names when someone enacted a penalty on your account? It's obvious you're talking about David Gerard anyway. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
As to the subject matter; have you ever tried getting onto a passenger train while in a wheelchair, Avenger? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I see your/Para's point, but I have to agree with Avenger here. The train gap is largely an issue with older infrastructure -- modern stations in municipal rapid transit and inter-city railway systems use newer gap-reducing designs and devices (such as bridge plates and mobile lifts) and station/onboard staff aid to make it much easier. Unless you've got the data to back it up, I'd say that I wouldn't consider it still a "vast majority" to be "not accessible". Troublesome, sure, but not inaccessible. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying in this instance that what he used to justify was wrong, but that his justification, via citing the existence of a law, is flawed reasoning. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
First of all, it is really frustrating to be in the bin for something that - whatever it was - is blatantly NOT vandalism. And back in the day the bin was called the vandal bin. Anyway. Back to topic... I know from first hand experience that this train, i.e. the "workhorse" of the regional travel in Germany (used on S-Bahn as well as regional services) comes with nifty little boards that make the gap between platform and train a non issue. They are automatically extended before the doors open. As for the "premium product" this train is obviously built accessible and runs on almost all high speed systems throughout Europe (Spain, Eurostar, Germany, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland [non high speed routes] and of course Turkey and Russia [broad gauge]). And as for the Americans with disabilities act, I have actually seriously heard people say that it may drive costs upwards and be part of the reason why investment in public transit is so expensive in the US (especially when compared to - of all places - Spain (on a side [foot]note, that blog is a really great source for all things transportation)). The Americans with Disabilities Act (first signed into law by Bush sr. if memory serves) also served as the basis for the UN convention on the rights of disabled people, which a Republican Congress has rejected due to some black helicopter BS (Rachel Maddow did a superb piece on that). Yes there can and should be more done for mobility impaired people. But really if you compare now to just one or two decades ago or America and Europe to places like Managua, where they are actually building an urban freeway on stilts in 2015 - and you can't even walk from one place to another in comfort if you are reasonably good on your feet and healthy... But I digress... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thats great, good writing, but it missed my point: That a law exxists that declares we must have good train disability access does not mean we will have good train disability access. Citing the existence of said law is not a convincing argument, while citing actual evidence of train disability access being the norm is. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
At what article is this argument occurring? I've won ADA cases.---Mona- (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

edit warring[edit]

Can you promise not to edit war? Really deep down promise to not revert people like, ever? Period? And always go to the talk page? And not even a pretend "not really edit warring but obviously edit warring" thing? I'd consider unbinning you contingent on an agreement from you to never ever ever ever edit war. Hipocrite (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

we're longpast the point of trusting avenger wouldn't abuse any trust put in him.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Yup, what Paravant said. Do not do it, Hipocrite.---Mona- (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, guys, but I'd like to hear if he can promise or not. It's unhelpful to pile on like this. Hipocrite (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
a promise is only worth as much as the one who makes it. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Unlike other places, reblocks are cheap. Let's get the promise and see where we are. Hipocrite (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
If this was his first punishment, maybe we could assume such faith, but it isn't. "Hey nobody v thinks this is a good idea! Let's take his word on himself though"--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Some people think it's a good idea. I don't know what I think, but I think giving him the opourtunity to explain how he's gonna be different wouldn't hurt - unless you think he's so persuasive that even giving him that tiny platform is too much. I figured out why he hadn't responded, though! In your promise to not edit war, please accept additionaly a restriction to your talk page only if I were to unvandalbin you for the purposes of discussion - IE, I will remove you from the bin, but you will only edit your talk page, period, on your honor, until such time as a different resolution is determined. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
No, Hipocrite. This isn't the first, our even the fifth, Avenger rodeo. No. He's now a fully known entity who has used up all grace. The only thing I would support is doing a Ryu to Avenger, but I lack any enthusiasm for another coop case right now.---Mona- (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Where is his epic crime that can never be forgiven? Are you worried he's going to say mean things and I'll ignore your pleas to stop him? Have a little faith. Let some other people review his promises and comment - trust me, the world knows what you think. Hipocrite (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
(multiple edit conflicts) Paravant I know that for some reason you seem to personally dislike me (even though we've never met and I am perfectly capable of imagining that we could have had a civil conversation with a civil drink if we'd met under different circumstances), but please don't let that cloud your judgment. (Okay that is psychologically proven to be impossible, so please try to be aware of your biases). What I argue for is that I will promise only something that is clearly defined. I can promise not to engage in unexplained reversions. I can promise to take issues to the talk page - if - and that is no small if here - those talk page discussions are taken seriously and not derailed or collapsed just because my evil opinion has stained the holy wiki. What I cannot promise is that I will sit idly by while Mona character assassinates anybody even remotely connected to pro-Israel advocacy. What I can't promise is that I will willingly accept that the issue nobody but Mona and her sycophants have any nerve for is inserted into pages where it has no place. What I can't promise is that I will at all times refrain from using uncouth language. If you have a problem with the latter, fuck you! I can promise to not intentionally disrupt the wiki, nor expose it to legal threats either through action or through inaction. I can promise to keep to something akin to the three revert rule on Wikipedia if the other side also does. And I can promise to not rules lawyer the latter point - if the other side also does. I can promise to make my disdain for Mona and all she represents less obvious and less blatant. I cannot promise that my hatred towards the Anti-Zionist rabble (for those saying I am calling people something, please read what I am saying) will diminish by one iota. I can furthermore promise that if I am ever given sysop tools - that we just had a coop case about all too recently - I won't ever block any non sysop for significantly longer than an hour and I won't block a finite number of editors some consider my enemies for longer than a token few seconds. I cannot promise to never write anything that people misunderstand or misinterpret. I can promise that I intend to amend and clarify any misunderstandings that may arise from the fact that English is not my mother tongue. I cannot promise Buddha-like patience. But I can promise that I will never be a Buddhist. I cannot promise that I will put ash on my head and walk to Canossa, but I can promise that I will try and make amends for any real harm. Now is there any one thing any one of you is willing or able to promise here and now or at some later point and time? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
While I personally support your unbinning, I can't do it unilaterally based on the above. If you are interested in walking away from Mona, I'll happily unbin you, unilaterally, conditional on a topic ban on all subjects related to I/P or the Middle East (regardless of how right I, personally, think you are) and an interaction ban with Mona (where you don't show up to topic she's already at, and you don't interact with her on topics where you got there first. Hipocrite (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed framework for return:[edit]

1. You will make no edit to mainspace that would obviously be reverted by your antagonists. You will agree to a test of this ability to understand your antagonists before resuming mainspace editing.

2. You will make no comments about other editors except for unabashedly positive ones. This includes any and all snark ("Thanks for your edit! I really enjoy copy-editing and you really gave me a lot of things to do to day!")

3. You will accept the judgement of a slate of editors (TBD) who you have never interacted with or interacted with positively to ban you from any/all pages for any length time without any possibility of appeal.

Would that work for you? Hipocrite (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not doing a mini-coop case here, and I have to go do something. If Hipocrite (or anyone else who is not a mod) unbins Avenger, much less gives him back his mop, I will undo either or both. I will also take the matter to Goonie and ask him to uphold the status quo with his mod hat on. I will not further participate here. It is pointless and that's all I have to say.---Mona- (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems that we are at an impasse. While I think the terms you propose are much too hard - and there is no real reason as for why they are there. (I won't mention Kafka). It appears that some don't even know what exactly I am being accused of specifically, apart from a view on Israel that judging by this is neither uncommon among Atheists nor unlikely to be arrived from with Atheism as a starting point of reasoning. However, in the spirit of compromise that seems to be seen as weakness by some, I am willing to have Arisboch and Sorte Slyngel impose any type of penalty on me as they see fit, as I have never seen anything but reasonable discourse in their interactions with me. Even if and when we disagreed. Furthermore both of them speak enough German to understand when I try to explain certain things that just came out wrong due to a failure of my use of English. I don't think asking anybody to only ever say flowery positive things about other people (least of all at this place, that was founded on the principle of making fun of something) is a reasonable request. I also don't quite understand what horrible things I have done to mainspace for my edits to be blocked from it or restricted by some arbitrary rule that is not even spelled out clearly in this proposal. And last of all I am willing to only comment on this here talk page for a time until a conclusion is reached (unless of course the discussion is just ended without any conclusion or moved to some other place) if I am moved out of the bin. Having a conversation in half hour intervals is tiresome and not helpful to the case. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps if you hadn't abused our trust and goodwill to go on edit wars and ENDLESS arguments where you ever refused to even consider you were at fault, let alone the problem ou wouldn't have to be locked at half hours--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Your views are not why you have been censured, your inability to express them in anything reflecting constructive discussion were. Your inability to consider this is anything but ideological persecution is why nobody trusts you--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I had a ten hour workday today (actual getting your hands dirty work, not some fancy sitting your ass in a chair and doing facebook BS) and am much too exhausted to deal with that particular type of canard right now. The truth of the matter is: You are opposed to one or several of the opinions I like expressing ardently and you have a dislike against me personally. Believe me or not, when it seemed you were leaving this project for good I was tempted to post something of the sorts of "sorry to see you go" on your page. But I thought better of it because I did not believe it would be taken seriously. It is unfortunate that you and others have allowed that this wiki has strayed so far from its mission to become more often than not a rabid anti-Israel hit-piece instead of passionate, snarky or razor sharp debunking of pseudo science and woo. A place like Rationalwiki is needed on the web. Yet another place where people can hate on Israel is not. But let's just for a second assume my opinions or indeed your personal dislike against me has nothing to do with this... What short of getting a sockpuppet account (which I can't due to my IP being mistaken for a proxy) and avoiding recognition is there that I can ever hope to do to get back to posting like a normal human being? And please remember that I did not threaten to write some article on the supposed bias of RW with my Journo-Buddies, nor did I AfD some page out of spite, nor did I do any of the myriad things that have occurred in current or former fights. But whatever. Mona has threatened her unilateral veto. And short of some major changes that are unlikely and maybe even undesirable I don't see it getting overturned. Even though there is no known mechanism by which one user determines community consensus... If your goal is to get me off this wiki, well you are at a path to success. If your goal is to somehow "reform" me, well you are failing spectacularly. But maybe that is due to some countries treating punishment as punishment first anything else later (or maybe never) and other treating punishment as "let them learn and reform" first and punishment later. Good night. And may Zeus bless your Krishna. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I can tell you that making it out to be a unilateral, unfair persecution of you and your views, while attempting to deflect the problem away to Mona and literally anybody but you, isn't going to make it happen. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
What of it? He is refusing to kiss your ass or agree with this draconian bullshit above just to get out of the vandal bin.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
mm, there's that unilateral this is just unfair paravant being mean thing you've spent half a year trying and failing to get any traction. And in reply to "What of it", well, idk, why would we have trust issues and feel the need to restrict the editing ability of a user who starts shit constantly (aagain, one of his first actions after you debinned him was to start shit) and then shifts the blame solely onto others while acting a persecuted innocent lamb?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
What "shit" you're talking about? Contradicting his Holeyness Paravant the First and his acolyte Mona?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 10:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
If there were some way to turn Mona into Arisboch, I would give half the gründerzeit buildings in Germany to get that done. And trust me, I love Gründerzeit buildings. As should any sane person who cares for city planning. Unfortunately Paravant - despite technically being "just a user" can make his mere opinion of things the way things are. And unfortunately Paravant is doing Mona's bidding more often than not... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
If you could just step back and realize how ridiculous you're making yourself sound... (That goes for Arisboch too.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I just saw this now. I must admit, that I'm moved by your trust, Avenger, but the probability of Arisboch and me being accepted as judge and jury is lower than the 2. law of thermodynamics being wrong. And for quite understandable reasons. Personally I'd try to be fair and Arisboch would too, but we'd probably impose quite a harsh penalty to avoid something worse. In any case, there's no way we'd be seen as unbiased. I'm actually only writing this because the idea tickled me, although it has of course died a natural death since then. And I value you too much to want to be your judge. The same probably goes for Arisboch. But still, it made me smile. Prost Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

There has been a lot of talk about promises here. I have two questions for Avenger. I hope you'll listen. For how long are you binned? If you give me a personal promise to keep things civil, and edit only articles which you know about (I know you have much to contribute) but not about Zioism, Israel etc. for a couple of weeks, would you keep that as one gentleman to another? I believe you would, but I'd like to hear it from you. If that's the case, there's no reason to keep you binned, if you set store in personal promises, as I believe you do, from one friend to another. This applies even though I have mostly made peace. Prost Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry: Should have been „know about except Zionism etc.“. Prost Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorte, the problem is barring Avenger from "Zionism" articles is not remotely sufficient. The bar would have to include anything touching on Israel or Muslims of any sort, terrorist or otherwise. Including New Atheists. Really, I don't see how your proposal can work and therefore cannot support it. Not with Avenger's track record.---Mona- (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
C'ause this proposal stands in the way of your attempts to have Avenger purged from the RW (who's next?), comrade.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
(ec) The etc. was supposed to take care of that. Nothing controversial. I know Avenger can write about a great many things other than engaging in edit wars. He's not stupid, you know, but he is rash. If I unbin him - and I have the formal authority to do that - then that will be based on a personal promise from him to me. If that doesn't work, you can rebin him for a year, for all I care. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
@Aris, the more you say "it's persecution!" the less true it becomes. @Sorte, why should we trust that he'll hold to a gentlemens agreement with an ally when following the actual site rules and being told to stop by other users and mods hasn't managed to work out? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Of course you deny it, after all you're the main perpetrator besides Mona (she couldn't have done shit without your patronage and your mod-stick waving and swinging).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
If you feel that my actions as moderator and now sysop were out of line, and truly solely my unilateral unsupported actions to persecute you and Avenger, please, take me to the coop over it. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I almost hate to say it, but Paravant has been relatively fair. This Middle East war is a war of attrition, and the side which has more resources, in this case mostly time, will gain the upper hand. In this case it's Mona. Writing invective-free, sourced contributions to the articles themselves instead of the talk pages are the only way to make any progress. I haven't changed my opinions, it's just that it seems futile to continue the way it has gone. An unassailable paragraph in an article is worth a hundred comments on the talk pages. I do regret the total absence of humor in the articles themselves, but I do not have the detailed knowledge nor the least inclination to waste all my time researching the minutiae of a subject when my real interests lie elsewhere to remedy that. Having said that, I will proudly claim that I do have a sense of humor, but not to everyone's taste. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Paravant is no longer his moderator. What's done is done, justly or unjustly, and there's no use in going on about it. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I thought Paravant had been reelected. Or is he still a moderator but the newly-elects have divided the „clients“ between them? Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Paravant was reelected but has recently abdicated from his position as moderator. By-elections for a replacement (and possibly a number of extra moderators) are currently being organized. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Paravant: I overlooked your comment to me. I will trust him to keep a promise solemnly given. I count him as a friend, and I did say, that I would take that seriously. I've withdrawn from the fighting, but if Avenger makes a personal promise to me, I would regard that as as binding as if I made a similar one to him. After all, you have the chance to vindicate yourself or disappoint. If he gives the promise, I will unbin him. If he then breaks it, then do as you please. And he can not be banned from editing controversial articles in perpetuity. When he has researched and is ready to submit something substantial, then he should be allowed to. But there must be a cooling off period and it is best if he learns to control himself. When all is said and done, everybody involved has hurled insults at everybody else. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

PS: I don't know if my promises are worth anything around here, but if Avenger agrees, I will unbin him. If he breaks his promise, then you have my promise that I will not lift a finger in return. Eventually trust must be part of the equation. So, let's say Paravant: Do you trust me to do as I said I would? Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorte, you've been pretty reasonable -- even before our peace-making project -- in your views on reining in Avenger. But I don't agree he can be reined in. And not just on the I-P issue. Like Ryu, he has a main area where he's the most trouble, but is the same on multiple issues. I simply don't believe, based on extensive observation, that he's capable of refraining from the misbehavior -- and his statements here to Hipocrite, and about Hipocrite's proposal, reinforce my position.---Mona- (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hipocrite's proposal just looked like a total cockslap in the face, even though Hipocrite probably didn't intended it that way.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, but sooner or later his sentence expires. Here's hoping. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I suppose his sentence will expire, altho I'm not sure Ryu's will (I can't really figure out what the community's decision on Ryu was or exactly how Goonie is implementing it). Frankly, I dread the thought of any further coop cases and would like to lock the coop for a good six months. But, I see both Ryu and Avenger as peas in a pod. Both need to either be banned or binned for a very long time.---Mona- (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
You know, I do have a live outside RW... Today has been another logn day of work, so that's why I have not yet responded. I think Sorte's proposal is not a bad one (and to clear up that misunderstanding floating around, unlike blocks which are most often applied with a period of expiry, the bin is usually applied "until further notice"). However, I do think that we should clear up what exactly my word of honor would entail. Not to rules lawyer, but there is a saying in Nicaragua, which I like "Cuentas claras, amistades largas" - Clear accounts, long friendships. Given what Mona has said above, there is reason to believe that me editing something about - say - Bill Maher (whom I generally like, although he does on occasion emit incredibly stupid brainfarts. One example being hist view of copyright law.) while not having anything to do with Zionism (at least not directly) may or may not cause umbrage to be taken by Mona or another contributor of similar persuasion. The other thing is that - as Sorte has rightly pointed out - I can't and shouldn't be banned from certain topics for all eternity (or until all violence between Morocco and Pakistan ceases; I think eternity is a shorter timespan), so we should define in somewhat clear terms (terms which can be checked by a useful yardstick and not something like "a reasonable amount of time") at which point in time or after the fulfillment of which preconditions I am to consider myself absolved of my debt of honor. But yes, I am willing to make this promise as a word of honor, if it is suitably defined. And as the saying goes: Pacta sunt servanda. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The only terms you get are "stop being a tosser or you stay binned". If you find yourself unable to discuss I-P without being a tosser, don't ever comment on it, if you find yourself unable to disagree with mona on content without wanting to start an edit war and long derailing shitfests, don't edit the articles. Those are the only things that will cause you to be trusted by the community, because thats how you should have been acting from the very first moment, not whining about a persecution complex. You were -punished- Avenger, the person being punished doesn't get to set conditions of their own for their return, they follow what the community says, and the community has long said "stop doing all your stupid shit" Thats your options, if you find them unacceptable, you will remained binned.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Avenger, I think Paravant is being pretty clear, although he doesn't couch it in legalese. Do I have your promise that you will adhere to that? A self-imposed ban on I-P and any other articles which may have caused war (I haven't followed all your contributions) would be required. If you still find the need to weigh in, write a draft in your editor at home - and then delete it the day after. How about sourced articles on German geography. Personally, I have fun writing footnotes in articles like Physics, Literature and so forth - nothing substantial, but it amuses me. It might be worth a try. Snark is always welcome and you're especially free to mock Conservapedia. The question is, can you find some light humor to delight us with. I know you have a sense of humor. But I would state the conditions like this: Simply promise not to do anything disruptive. Have fun editing articles about science, humanities, anything but politics. Do I have your promise? If you say yes, I'll pardon you. If you break that promise, that will be a promise broken to a friend and I will do nothing further. Sei vernünftig, nicht hitzig! Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

PS: I intend to remain true to my word, so if Avenger promises, I'll pardon him. But, I admit I'm a bit ashamed to ask this, how does one pardon somebody who has been binned? It's perhaps too much to ask for technical guidance but I'm acting in good faith and if things go wrong, anybody can rebin. So, Paravant, I know you're an honest fellow: What are the technical steps? I have given my word that this will be used no more than once, perhaps never, if Avenger does not agree. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Given what Paravant has just posted to his user page (namely a {{retired}} template) and the fact that he just blocked himself, you may be asking the wring person. Arisboch should know, though. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
We'll figure out the details. But do I have your promise under the conditions I stated? I'll stick to my end. If you trust yourself to adhere to them, then a simple „Yes“ will be enough. I won't terminate the friendship if your temper runs afoul of you again, but I will be very disappointed and will not be able to help you again. Prost Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I understand your reluctance. But do we have a „yes“ or a „no“? Prost Sorte Slyngel (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorte Slyngel - I have not paid too much attention to this but I think any sysop can parole a vandal binned editor. I am not saying that should happen by the way, just replying to your procedural inquiry. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I've received the instructions on how. What I'm waiting for is to see whether Avenger can make a personal promise as a friend to edit only neutral articles neutrally, at least for a good period - and if he does, he will be paroled. If he ventures into IP-area again and behaves well, then that should be OK in the future. If he then is disruptive again, I'll do nothing further. I consider myself a friend of his, but he does have problems restraining himself. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I am sorry, I have been quite busy recently. So yeah, I promise to stay away from the whole Israel Palestine issue for a few weeks, and I promise to try and tone down some of my derisive/offensive/mocking language on other things. Plus I won't try to force people to accept that American English is better ;-) Okay the last one was never part of this discussion, but I digress. I hope to get the Hyperloop article up to RW's standards for quality in the time to come and will see what else there is to do for me. I now recognize that I have not had a beer all December (and I do have something worth celebrating besides the fact that it is a Saturday night) so, I will go to the fridge and salud ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

"I promise to stay away from the whole Israel Palestine issue for a few weeks" Nope. In the bin you stay.---Mona- (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Didn't he grovel deeply enough before you, your highness?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 07:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, when it comes to Avenger you lose most of your IQ points and any judgment.---Mona- (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
So what would he have to do besides licking your feet to get out of the bin?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The form of your question shows, yet again, that you simply do not get it. I've never advocated for your being binned or banned. Contemplate what is different as between your behavior and Avenger's -- the reason I strongly endorse that Avenger remain binned may then come to you.---Mona- (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

For a few weeks should do it - for a few weeks. Then we'll see. I was not involved the unbinning, so my proposal stays. But for love of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, keep it civil. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I shall to the best of my abilities. Even though I am offended by your heretic preference for the IPU as opposed to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. RAmen Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
We're each entitled to our imaginary fetishes. :-) But I take that try as a promise. I know you have the ability. Prost Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
PS: To clarify. My comments are a bit contradictory. But according to an agreement, I still have one pull. You didn't state that your promise was to me, personally. My taking try as a promise was as a promise to RW, not a personal promise to me, although I will be very disappointed if you don't keep that. This is RW-legalese of sorts, but don't make me have to use the only chance left. If you have access to the Economist, there's an interesting article about Germany. Hitler's writings become public property when 2015 is over, which means that Mein Kampf can't be forbidden . There's a lot of analysis of the German psyche. Prost Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
"Mein Kampf" was never banned in Germany, the State of Bavaria just had the copyright and forbade anyone from releasing reprints.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
No. "For a few weeks should do it" No. If you unbin him under these terms I will rebin. I said no above and I meant it. All he'll do is save his shenanigns for after "a few weeks." No. He must personally promise you that he has sworn off all I-P related edits for at least 6 months. I prefer in perpetuity, but this 6 mos. is non-negotiable. The man should be banned, and this is as far as I am willing to go in risking having his grossly disruptive influence unleashed again.---Mona- (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, Slyngel, you know what? FORGET what Mona says, we hammer out an agreement and ifshe'll disagree, we'll take her to the coop. No-one croaked and made her the queen of the RW.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh please. This is not a forum for a formal vote, and you two do not make up some majority on this. We are not having a mini coop case here. No, unbin him now and I will rebin. If necessary, I'll take it to Paravant and Goonie, and even Gerard.---Mona- (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

(ec, I'd like to say I was not pleased) Mona, you have other things to worry about, for instance a very comical appeal to authority regarding Josephus. I'm not your worst enemy, and I'll keep the peace. But Avenger was not pardoned by me in the first place. As I see it, he has to give me his word and only that will result in an action of my part. But if he does, and if he behaves, then you cannot complain. Skål Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorte, in the dispute over Josephus it is entirely about authority, as in, who is a reliable one. Now, are you telling me Avenger is out of the bin?---Mona- (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Avenger's still binned. And I won't leave him out unless you, Sorte, take responsibility for his pledge to not edit I-P articles -- or any section of any article touching on the issue -- for 6 mos. That's it.---Mona- (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC) I have just gotten home from a very cold demonstration (I won't tell what it was about, unless in Email form) and people are already fighting on my talk page. First of all, my promise to Sorte Slyngel stands. I will keep my mouth shut over the whole Israel/Hamas/whatever mess for a couple of weeks, let's say until January 12th. And I don't feel bound by any thing Mona says, croaks, vomits or otherwise emits into the now thoroughly disproven ether. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Can I never edit this bloody page without an ec? I had quite a bit written that got lost. Probably good so. But I haven't checked the status of the bin yet, so I don't know. As for Josephus, I have read him in translation and so have you. You majored in some religious thingy. What does that mean? It certainly doesn't make you an expert, if I've understood the American education system. Guessing, I'd say that would be two years of college, spread along the religions, then you took to law. Cheers in no enmity, I'm just trying to protect Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Avenger: Make that three months as a personal promise. By the you should have grown used to edit this thing. I'll pull you out if you're in tomorrow. I reserve an extra pull-out, as Mona was unduly harsh. The peace between her and me stands. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Avenger is still binned. It's a 6 month agreement, or I will make him stay in. Of course, others may not agree and put him back for some other reason, but for me, it's the 6 mos as stated above, or I leave him in. Not negotiable -- he should be banned, this is as far as I will ever give, as a slightly more generous than the situation his twin Ryu is in, as unwarranted as it is. And no, none of this "I reserve a pull-out" crap, Sorte. I have gone this far only because of your request. Now you are pushing beyond what I already felt uncomfortable with. NO.---Mona- (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Avenger, don't make me regret this. I'll pull you out tomorrow, and then you'll keep the peace. Your friends seem to be in short supply, regrettably, but there it is - Mona has a larger following than you do. Having said that, I still reserve a pull-out on technical grounds and I am asking Mona now, why is it that she always gets involved in wars with sometimes reasonable people - explicitly, not me but why do you have these attacks of Besserwisserei? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Bad news, Gooniepunk did some mod-cock-swinging, most likey out of a retarded kind of solidarity to the ragequit Paravant.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 08:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I have seen this. Well there is apparently nothing I can to do except get a sock. Which for the time being I won't. Let's see if they get themselves sorted out before Christmas, for now I have a train to catch. I just hope (and I do mean this sincerely) for all involved that they are never in my position. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll take the case up in January. Arisboch showed me the link. I don't know how many will be argue your case, but I still believe in a fair hearing. Merry Christmas Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Feliz navidad!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I am back[edit]

So. I have not had much opportunity to follow the things going on in this rather interesting microcosm. Is there anything that happened "between the years" I should be aware of? Any progress on finding out what precisely I am binned for, for instance? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Passive aggressiveness maybe? Or wilful ignorance? :P 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:12, 3 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
Seriously though. Why am I in the bin for what appears to be forever or until further notice? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's just the way the bin works. Maybe if you weren't so denialist about having ever done something wrong to deserve being vandalbinned people would be more open to unbinning you? *shrugs* 141.134.75.236 (talk)
Well punishing something and not saying why... Well I won't mention Kafka is all I can say to that. Honestly though, what would be the established mechanism to get a retrial? Or at least a way out of the bin? Or do I have to wait four years? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

General comment on growing anti-Semitism[edit]

As this is rather off-topic on the coop page, I'll leave it here:

It's not completely incorrect. In the last few years I've seen some people develop some levels of anti-Semitism that both surprised and scare me. Don't want to victim blame here, but perhaps the extreme views of some on the I/P question, continuing settlements, and some other controversial Jewish actions (like this idiot Jew comparing an animal welfare effort to forbid ritual slaughter to the holocaust: "they want us gone like in '44", or the rabid foaming-mouth protest when a Dutch city also wanted to recognize the suffering of German soldiers) are to blame here...

To put it bluntly, there are a few Jews acting like gigantic dicks. In the last few years, the amount of dickishness and number of those people has grown, and all of this colours people's views on *all* Jews. It's the same with, well, most things where *a few* people consistently do stupid stuff (Muslims, Feminists, etc.) which then reflects on all members of the group.

I know you're not Jewish, but I think Jews should try a bit harder to distance themselves from that sort of stuff... Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm hostile to the notion that Group X has to renounce or denounce acts when any member of their group commits an atrocity or says something heinous. This happens all the time to Muslims and they are well past sick of it. That said, a Jewish friend of mine told me some 10 years ago he was deeply worried about the neocons and so many Jewish voices in that movement. He felt it was inevitable that people are going to blame Jews for wanting American kids to fight Israel's wars. Trump is horrifyingly popular, and while today he's ranting about Muslims, that could turn on the proverbial dime, and he's already said some sketchy things about and to Jews. The rightwing populists supporting him are easily led and will scapegoat anyone they are told to hate. So, just for their safety sake, I think it would be smart for Jews to highlight their prominent anti-neocon voices, of which there are many.---Mona- (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
If all you see on TV are people of Group X saying terrible things, then I don't see the problem with making a concious effort to include a more moderate voice of Group X. Not everyone can be informed about all possible groups, and sometimes prejudices are shaped by just a few brief moments. That's a very human thing, and we're all susceptible to it... Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
There's certainly nothing wrong with pushing to include more moderate voices of diverse backgrounds (it shouldn't always be a white guy that's presenting the reasonable/'civilized' perspective). But at the same time we should encourage people to be critical of one's own prejudices and be wary of the spotlight fallacy, however 'human' it may be to commit the latter. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 06:27, 5 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
That's not a problem with Group X, it's a problem with the media (which it most definitely is).In an case I hardly think that anti-semitism is rooted in reasoned consideration of the abuses committed by Israel against Palestine (any more than Islamophobia is rooted in Palestinian abuses against Israel). In fact I would venture that many anti-semites would have no problem with dead Palestinians at all. Anti-semitism is a consequence of ignorance, stupidity and conspiratorial thought. Tielec01 (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
But on the subject of ritual slaughter it is... peculiar how ritual slaughter tends to be singled out from slaughter in general and either heavily regulated or outright banned. In Belgium, to name one example, it's perfectly legal to slaughter an animal on one's own property, except if it's a ritual slaughter. Then you need to go to a specially designated slaughterhouse. Recently a total ban on ritual slaughter was even pursued by a Belgian minister, but the proposal was quickly withdrawn when it was realized not only Muslims, but Jews as well, would've been affected by such a ban (heh).
And that the Holocaust is a touchy subject is kind of a given. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 06:43, 5 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
I don't know about Belgian law exactly, but there's something to be said for it. Ritualistic slaughter is without sedation, so you want to make sure it's done properly in a controlled environment by someone who knows what he's doing—and not end up with a hatchet job in someone's shed. At any rate, there are many arguments to be said about it, both in favour of allowing it and against, but comparing attempts to outlaw it on what are clearly animal welfare reasons is a disgraceful abuse of the holocaust. I am at a loss of words to describe how disgraceful exactly. If there's a heaven or hell, I'm pretty sure there are about six million Jews just itching for his arrival to give him a good slap in the face. Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, here's another one from Belgium (JoodsActueel.be) "The last one to forbid us from slaughtering was Adolf Hitler"[2]. Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
And from the comments section on that link: "If a political party advocates laws that would make life more difficult for Jews, then that party should be considered anti-Semitic, even if they have nothing against Jews as such". ugh :-/ Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


I am not entirely sure how to respond. Yes I think recently antisemitism has grown in the west. As has anti-Arab racism and anti-Muslim sentiment exhibit AWikipedia. However, we know one thing about Antisemitism: It is not rational. Not in the slightest bit. There are various explanations for Antisemitism, and the one I like best is that it is a form of "personalization" of the non-personal forces that work in capitalism. Back in the 17th century a person from Magdeburg could reasonably say "Warlord X burned down my town", even though warlord X of course was not acting alone. Today the facile thing to say is "scapegoat y is shutting down my company, group z is at fault for problem this and that". However, most of the things happening are beyond the control of individuals. And indeed in the history of modern antisemitism (as opposed to its step-father, religious Jew hatred), the motif of Jews somehow "controlling things", often those related to money, is commonplace. Thus it is of tragic logic that Antisemitism is on the rise in difficult economic times. But trying to explain or justify hatred against a group by acts (real or imagined) of members or alleged members of said group is imho not only dangerous, it is wrong. If that were true, there should be just enough hatred against Germans to last us at least another century. Compared to what a large number of individual members of the group "Germans" did, that group got off very, very, lightly. And yes, that includes the Bombing of Dresden or the refugee situation of 1945, that doubtlessly brought suffering over people who were not personally at fault, but still has to be understood in the context of what Germany had done and in the context of the military and nationalist "logic" of the time. Doubtlessly "removing" the German speaking population from Poland, Czechoslovakia and other places was seen as a way to enforce the desired goal of ethnically homogeneous states. And it is conceivable that some even thought it might reduce conflicts in the long run, as the German Polish border situation had been complicated since the 19th century primarily because of minorities living on either side of the line. That this is hogwash can be seen with the Danish-German border where both minorities live in piece and prosperity and nobody is denied any rights on account of ethnicity. But I digress. The point is: I hope the rise in Antisemitism that accompanies this economic crisis (as it did the crisis of the 1870s or 1920s and 1930s) will not result in anything even remotely as bad as 1933-1945. The fact that Jews now for the first time in almost two millennia have a place to go to and a place to call home gives me moderate optimism in that. Kind regards and shalom. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Captcha: Ceiling Fan[edit]

Ceiling fan vandalstrikes again! Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Pizzameister Meister no more[edit]

Continuing to get away from your bin status eh? Oh if only the masses were so stoopid. Züge Züge Züge all day, this train will still be derailed.— Unsigned, by: 73.45.167.247 / talk / contribs

Saw this[edit]

and thought you might like it. Enjoy! PB (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Have seen it already. Maybe it should be integrated into our Hyperloop page? Also, unbin me, please! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Ever since your failed request to be taken out of the vandal bin, you have made some edits, all of which to the talk pages. I must say I need more than that in order to parole you. I am looking for a substantial number, say 30, of acceptable edits to the regular pages. Nerd271 (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You have not been made moderator[edit]

My condolences.

If you would like to discuss how RationalWiki can prevent the anti-zionist cabal from stealing your victory in future elections, please see Forum:RationalWiki election process. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking back at the arguments this guy and Arisboch got into against Mona, I wonder something...[edit]

What would are their positions on the Israel-Palestine Conflict nowadays, now that Israel's war crimes are becoming more and more clear with every passing day, their treatment of the Palestinians is classified as apartheid by the UN and other Human Rights organizations, and it is not out of the question that their bombings in Gaza are part of a Genocide? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Avengerofthe_BoN&oldid=2666222"