User talk:Avengerofthe BoN/Archive2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
you know what people don't do on RW?[edit]
Go around to other users pages going "come look at this!". If people care to look at the discussion they will on their own time. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am sorry if this is not a thing that is done around here. On the other wiki I edit at (which bans political discussion implicitly) it is considered good form to tag users in a debate that might interest them. Especially if they have shown interest tin this or a similar topic in the past. As may be perceptible, there are some things about the culture of this here wiki that I still am ignorant about. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- What other websites you visit do is irrelevant to RW, here we don't go roun' Sayin' "discussion!" to random users talkpages, in particular ones who haven;t edited in 10 days and haven't edited the article in question since MARCH. Christ. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- So consensus is not established by engaging as broad a base of users as possible but by engaging just one particular subset who happen to stumble across the topic in recent changes at any given time? Forgive my bluntness, but that appears to be a way to ensure frustration for latecomers to any discussion Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus is not made by going to random users, some who have not edited the article more than a handful of times nearly a year before and who havent even edited in over a week and going "GO LOOK AT THIS". you accuse Mona o going around spreading shit and yet here you are, making sections on pages for the sole interest of dragging more into your stupid shit. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that tagging would have been a more elegant solution to achieve the same result and indeed it is what is practiced at the other wiki I edit at. And it works just fine. In some cases I have been tagged in a discussion that does not particularly interest me after all, what usually happens thaen is that I say one or two words to that effect and that's that. I don't quite understand your agitation at the moment though. You seem to be angry for some reason. Would you mind to calm down a bit? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- If you could tag it would be just the same: Going round' to other users and yelling LOOK AT THIS when they are only vaguely involved, such as a user who had not edited apartheid in almost a year. Get that through you're head. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Okay I show you how tagging would have looked like [words starting the relevant discussion] (usernames of tagged users) might wish to join in. That is it. It does wonders for engaging all users that might be interested and finding the user in question who might have the needed technical expertise or similar things. It is also a tremendous way to get to a consensus. But if there is an (explicit or implicit) agreement or policy not to notify other users of any ongoing discussions in any way shape or form this should probably be explicitly stated somewhere lest somebody make this same innocent mistake. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Only if any indication you have given it will include users with no relevance to the discussion at all besides one time a long time ago they edited the article. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Just a question: What harm does it do to notify somebody of a discussion they are ultimately not interested in and/or won't participate in? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Go knocking door to door about some issue and see. Or did you not notice how we weren't going around to random userpages letting people know about a discussion? RW has its ways, you dont get to demand we follow yours. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- False analogies and an appeal to tradition? Siriusly??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- "We have our ways of doing things" is not a fallistic appeal to tradition, and if you consider it one that fallacy is so general as to be worthless.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 13:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- False analogies and an appeal to tradition? Siriusly??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Go knocking door to door about some issue and see. Or did you not notice how we weren't going around to random userpages letting people know about a discussion? RW has its ways, you dont get to demand we follow yours. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Just a question: What harm does it do to notify somebody of a discussion they are ultimately not interested in and/or won't participate in? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Kind of interesting that the only users who you alerted were people that might've agreed with your point, judging by the previous discussion on the page.
Why don't you ever tag me for a discussion? :( 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:41, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)- You should know by now that tagging is not implemented on this wiki. And even if it were, I could not remember your username for long enough in order to tag it. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm talking about the equivalent on RW of course; alerting people of a discussion on their talkpage. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:00, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Given that it is discouraged - at least according to Paravant - the point is moot Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm talking about the equivalent on RW of course; alerting people of a discussion on their talkpage. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:00, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- You should know by now that tagging is not implemented on this wiki. And even if it were, I could not remember your username for long enough in order to tag it. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Only if any indication you have given it will include users with no relevance to the discussion at all besides one time a long time ago they edited the article. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Okay I show you how tagging would have looked like [words starting the relevant discussion] (usernames of tagged users) might wish to join in. That is it. It does wonders for engaging all users that might be interested and finding the user in question who might have the needed technical expertise or similar things. It is also a tremendous way to get to a consensus. But if there is an (explicit or implicit) agreement or policy not to notify other users of any ongoing discussions in any way shape or form this should probably be explicitly stated somewhere lest somebody make this same innocent mistake. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I recommend looking again at the comments made at the end of the saloon bar section about Footnotes and your attempt to make RW like how you want it instead of you conforming at all to our own standard. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- If you could tag it would be just the same: Going round' to other users and yelling LOOK AT THIS when they are only vaguely involved, such as a user who had not edited apartheid in almost a year. Get that through you're head. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- He did that yesterday to get some uninvolved user to embed his dopey al Quds page -- and add his other crap -- in the Corbyn article yesterday. Parvant, I can't care whether it's kosher here or not: Avenger is an energy sink (who is, after all, on autopatrol) so mostly when I revert him the only reason I'm gonna give is "your ususal crap." The Zionism draft needs finishing (I've made progress today) and I really do want to write an article on those "Targeted Individual" lunatics who think governments are aiming microwave weapons at them ("touchless torture") and planting voices in their heads, etc. ad woo-woodum. That will take time to marshal sources and to draft. I simply begrudge Avenger any more significant amount of my time.---Mona- (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that tagging would have been a more elegant solution to achieve the same result and indeed it is what is practiced at the other wiki I edit at. And it works just fine. In some cases I have been tagged in a discussion that does not particularly interest me after all, what usually happens thaen is that I say one or two words to that effect and that's that. I don't quite understand your agitation at the moment though. You seem to be angry for some reason. Would you mind to calm down a bit? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus is not made by going to random users, some who have not edited the article more than a handful of times nearly a year before and who havent even edited in over a week and going "GO LOOK AT THIS". you accuse Mona o going around spreading shit and yet here you are, making sections on pages for the sole interest of dragging more into your stupid shit. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- So consensus is not established by engaging as broad a base of users as possible but by engaging just one particular subset who happen to stumble across the topic in recent changes at any given time? Forgive my bluntness, but that appears to be a way to ensure frustration for latecomers to any discussion Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- What other websites you visit do is irrelevant to RW, here we don't go roun' Sayin' "discussion!" to random users talkpages, in particular ones who haven;t edited in 10 days and haven't edited the article in question since MARCH. Christ. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
if you really want to know[edit]
I'm tired. For a month we have had an ongoing and neverending edit conflict between two camps, neither of which are willing to discuss or compromise and my initial hopes that this could be resolved in any way than one side getting forced to deal with it have completly gone away.
And then you come in and start spending several days causing god awful amounts of shit. That is my problem with you, and until you either go away or stop causing so much shit, i'm going to be hostile to you. And i've been lenient on you, I could have put you in the Bin for all the stuff you did between now and when you got Sysop.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I understand your frustration and I know I made it worse with my outrage-driven behavior in the first several weeks I was here. Speaking only for myself, I will and have discussed and compromised with others on issues relating to "the topic." It's really only Avenger, and pretty much also Arisboch and that person from Iceland, that I just can't and won't wast time with -- their bullshit about me being someone else, or my supposed boyfriends here, tendentious and unsourced edits/articles -- it's just not worthy of serious and intelligent people. But I do engage, e.g., CorruptUser. He is hostile to my views but can be reasoned with and we have compromised. All of which is to say, if Avenger -- and to some extent those other two -- are under control, the rest of us can compromise and be productive ---Mona- (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- An equal amount of balance fallacy, personal feud and bullshit. "Nice".--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Who said you were someone else? And the thing about your "boyfriend" was clearly a joke. But unfortunately humor seems to not work on the Internet. Describing your twitter antics in the way you do is not going to convince any of the people who were disgusted at what you did Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- A number of users here hurl fallacy accusations as if they've acquired some brand new shiny toy they want to show off. Formulations are not fallacious unless they are proffered for a particular invalid purpose. I am also reminded of the college freshman who has learned some (he thinks) sophisticated vocabulary and takes to injecting it into conversations about, say, the quality of the weed.---Mona- (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Damn, you sound like that old masseur in the apartment below. Teh invasion of grumpy old coots is underway!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hey, quit talking about me like that! Last week my old lady and I got a vaporizer, and now I realize that not getting one is like being on the wrong end of Pascal's wager. Think about it... Spartacus (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- A number of users here hurl fallacy accusations as if they've acquired some brand new shiny toy they want to show off. Formulations are not fallacious unless they are proffered for a particular invalid purpose. I am also reminded of the college freshman who has learned some (he thinks) sophisticated vocabulary and takes to injecting it into conversations about, say, the quality of the weed.---Mona- (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Who said you were someone else? And the thing about your "boyfriend" was clearly a joke. But unfortunately humor seems to not work on the Internet. Describing your twitter antics in the way you do is not going to convince any of the people who were disgusted at what you did Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Do note I didn't say anything bad about the venerable plant cannabis. I simply don't take mine with incorrect invocations of fallacies.---Mona- (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- The problem with RW is precisely the same as Wikipedia's before it was brought under more control. As long as the articles were fairly neutral, say about physics, chemistry and stuff like that, you could be relatively sure that the article had been carefully reviewed and was reliable. The articles about the Middle East, Greek-Turkish relations etc. were at the mercy of a few fanatics. Same thing here. There's an oligarchy operating which will simply not have a neutral discussion, pushing an anti-Zionist agenda. Perhaps they suffer from Fischer's syndrome, which is also beautifully illustrated in everything Noam Chomsky has ever said. I do not know from where Parawant draws his power, real or imagined, but he seems to feel certain in laying down the rules with authority. Probably because he has allies who will reinstall him at a moment's notice. Avenger has been reverted to autocontrol whereas Mona retains her sysop status although he/she/it is just a propagandist. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Just one stupid question: What is Fischer's syndrome? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- That is the Fischer Slyngel named the syndrome after.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'd like to believe my hitting avenger with a big stick a few times has worked, as he is no longer actively committing the actions that got him almost vandal binned anymore. I'll reiterate my statement that i don't want avenger gone, just not causing problems like edit warring on shit points like a irrational dislike of British english --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- How very right, Arisboch. :-) You'll get a reward some day. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I had a hunch, but I wanted it confirmed... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- How very right, Arisboch. :-) You'll get a reward some day. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'd like to believe my hitting avenger with a big stick a few times has worked, as he is no longer actively committing the actions that got him almost vandal binned anymore. I'll reiterate my statement that i don't want avenger gone, just not causing problems like edit warring on shit points like a irrational dislike of British english --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- That is the Fischer Slyngel named the syndrome after.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Just one stupid question: What is Fischer's syndrome? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- The problem with RW is precisely the same as Wikipedia's before it was brought under more control. As long as the articles were fairly neutral, say about physics, chemistry and stuff like that, you could be relatively sure that the article had been carefully reviewed and was reliable. The articles about the Middle East, Greek-Turkish relations etc. were at the mercy of a few fanatics. Same thing here. There's an oligarchy operating which will simply not have a neutral discussion, pushing an anti-Zionist agenda. Perhaps they suffer from Fischer's syndrome, which is also beautifully illustrated in everything Noam Chomsky has ever said. I do not know from where Parawant draws his power, real or imagined, but he seems to feel certain in laying down the rules with authority. Probably because he has allies who will reinstall him at a moment's notice. Avenger has been reverted to autocontrol whereas Mona retains her sysop status although he/she/it is just a propagandist. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
"Mona retains her sysop status although he/she/it is just a propagandist copiously documents many facts that I find unpleasant." Fixed that for you Sorte Slyngel. ---Mona- (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well some people would suggest you have an agenda - and clearly showed it from day one - that sometimes gets the better of you. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- If people felt I was acting out of turn I would have been smacked down for it, already. Nay, there were calls for harsher treatment than was given to you. If people felt I had given Mona sysop prematurely, they would have undone it. that is not the case. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not quite Mona dear. I will grant you „copiously documents“. Unpleasant facts have nothing to do with the matter. As for what you marked as stricken, perhaps there's a more pleasant way of phrasing that, but the contents apply. By the way, the worldwide coalition consisting of Jeremy Corbyn and the City Council of Reykjavík isn't nearly as threatening now since the Council has withdrawn it's „embargo“. :-) Cheerio Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well without the city council of Reykjavik, it's no movement worth having, is it? After all, Reykjavik is one of the biggest and most important cities between Greenland and Northern Norway. (if you miss the humor, it's your loss) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, she (no typo, it's a she) actually is by default if you look at a map. But let's not underestimate Corbyn. I'm sure the Israeli government is having an emergency meeting right now. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Mea culpa, mea culpa. I missed the point. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Asche auf dein Haupt :-P In seriousness though, Corbyn's stance on BDS should probably be mentioned once he comes down explicitly on one side or the other... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- (ec) As I looked at this it occurred to me that there's a slight error above. „[C]opiously documents“ should be „copiously copies“. But that is also a labour of love. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- You should see the whip I use for atonement. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'd rather not. As for the work of the copyist... It has suffered mightily by the invention of the copy and paste function. Could you imagine a beautifully drawn Initial in one of the copied around Bullshit-heaps of this our Interwebz? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thinking about it - well, yes I can. There are lots of beautifully illuminated Bible manuscripts online, also available for copy-paste. It doesn't matter there either that the content is crap. In fact, since another sort of Bible is being written here, I think that would be appropriate. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Bible? Or rather protocols? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- By the way, googling for illuminated Bible manuscripts turns up more than I expected. So, Avenger, I'm rather preoccupied with Luke II at the moment and don't have all that much time for myself, just enough to look in here every now and then to take a break, if you could find some pretty initials for him, I'd be happy. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm using Bible as a concept, so it shouldn't be capitalised. But a bible there is indeed in the making quoth the lord. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- By the way, googling for illuminated Bible manuscripts turns up more than I expected. So, Avenger, I'm rather preoccupied with Luke II at the moment and don't have all that much time for myself, just enough to look in here every now and then to take a break, if you could find some pretty initials for him, I'd be happy. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Bible? Or rather protocols? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thinking about it - well, yes I can. There are lots of beautifully illuminated Bible manuscripts online, also available for copy-paste. It doesn't matter there either that the content is crap. In fact, since another sort of Bible is being written here, I think that would be appropriate. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'd rather not. As for the work of the copyist... It has suffered mightily by the invention of the copy and paste function. Could you imagine a beautifully drawn Initial in one of the copied around Bullshit-heaps of this our Interwebz? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- You should see the whip I use for atonement. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Mea culpa, mea culpa. I missed the point. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, she (no typo, it's a she) actually is by default if you look at a map. But let's not underestimate Corbyn. I'm sure the Israeli government is having an emergency meeting right now. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well without the city council of Reykjavik, it's no movement worth having, is it? After all, Reykjavik is one of the biggest and most important cities between Greenland and Northern Norway. (if you miss the humor, it's your loss) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not quite Mona dear. I will grant you „copiously documents“. Unpleasant facts have nothing to do with the matter. As for what you marked as stricken, perhaps there's a more pleasant way of phrasing that, but the contents apply. By the way, the worldwide coalition consisting of Jeremy Corbyn and the City Council of Reykjavík isn't nearly as threatening now since the Council has withdrawn it's „embargo“. :-) Cheerio Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- If people felt I was acting out of turn I would have been smacked down for it, already. Nay, there were calls for harsher treatment than was given to you. If people felt I had given Mona sysop prematurely, they would have undone it. that is not the case. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are also a bible in that sense. And a heartfelt thank you to Mona for the outdenting tip. You see, we can all let the love flow and all the animals in the forest can be friends except for those who are forced to eat the others. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- How dare you insinuate eating meat is somehow "natural"! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's addictive you know. First you start with not to rotten carrion - now harm, no foul, the animal is already dead, but believe me, you are then on a slippery slope which ends, well you know what. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Eating the still beating heart of a panda-whale? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Fetishistic cannibalism? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:08, 22 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Depends. If the heart has been separated from the body, yes. Fetishist - no, I'm just a cruel sort of fellow, you know. But I'll make arrangements to get absolution from some Catholic priest at hand, when my time comes, and pop, lo and behold, I'm in heaven. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'll take my chances with hell. Seems the more interesting fellows are there anyway... I would love to debate Zionism with Hitch, for instance ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Why not debate the merits of Zionism here, in the land of the living? Instead of just unilaterally asserting your support for it... 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:18, 22 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- (ec) Don't worry. The real Hell is a very cold place, but you are issued nice, protective clothing at the entrance. We might meet, if Óðinn turns out to be right after all. To BoN: We're taking a break and since this is Avenger's talk page, that's for him to decide, isn't it?Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I think Hitch is one of the very few anti-Zionists (and he was that without a doubt) who could nonetheless see the very real threats Jews face and the very real evils of Hamas and Hezbollah. And he was not so stupid as to blame all ills that have befallen the Arab world on the existence of one rather small state. But enough of that topic for now. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm all for taking breaks, but since the topic came up... And yup, it's for him to decide, though what I'm wondering is why he decides the way he does. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:27, 22 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- (ec) That's one of the eternal mysteries. I don't know either. I can only speak for myself. But to conclude an enjoyable evening, here's something for all of us: „Nu aber bleibt Glaube Hoffnung Liebe diese drey Aber die Liebe ist die grössest vnter jnen.“
- Really sorry, forgot to sign off. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- (ec) That's one of the eternal mysteries. I don't know either. I can only speak for myself. But to conclude an enjoyable evening, here's something for all of us: „Nu aber bleibt Glaube Hoffnung Liebe diese drey Aber die Liebe ist die grössest vnter jnen.“
- (ec) Don't worry. The real Hell is a very cold place, but you are issued nice, protective clothing at the entrance. We might meet, if Óðinn turns out to be right after all. To BoN: We're taking a break and since this is Avenger's talk page, that's for him to decide, isn't it?Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Why not debate the merits of Zionism here, in the land of the living? Instead of just unilaterally asserting your support for it... 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:18, 22 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- I'll take my chances with hell. Seems the more interesting fellows are there anyway... I would love to debate Zionism with Hitch, for instance ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Depends. If the heart has been separated from the body, yes. Fetishist - no, I'm just a cruel sort of fellow, you know. But I'll make arrangements to get absolution from some Catholic priest at hand, when my time comes, and pop, lo and behold, I'm in heaven. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's addictive you know. First you start with not to rotten carrion - now harm, no foul, the animal is already dead, but believe me, you are then on a slippery slope which ends, well you know what. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
| Another copy and pasted Mona rant by Mona. You have been warned. |
|---|
" I'm sure the Israeli government is having an emergency meeting right now"Several. Israel is becoming a pariah; it's status as that increases daily. For that reason, the Israeli government has been forced to pay attention to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, even calling it an "existential threat."
Many factors have compelled this jerk to attention. Among them that the obscene carnage Israel inflicted on Gaza duering the summer of 2014 went viral online and the world stood appalled; BDS was put on steroids (tho it was working before that). Israel's farmers demanded something be done:
So, finally, the government is paying attention, as much as it has tried not to. I mean, really, if Iceland's capital reversed its decision, so did FIFA. Do you really think that's the last of you'll hear of this? Israeli officials don't:
And:
So yes, there are indeed quite a few emergency meetings going on over BDS.---Mona- (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC) |
Neat![edit]
It's a good idea with the collapse, Avenger, and this time I don't mean Mona alone. After all, she is not responsible for all that goes wrong. Threads on your talk page do have a tendency to grow. I think you should do more of that. Another thing, don't you have an archive somewhere? Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- There's a link at the end of his Footnotes message at the top. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:59, 23 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Thanks, I missed that. In any case these drop-down thingies are good for housekeeping. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- That's what I use them for. If I am allowed to, that is. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- My purpose was served. You Zionist need to learn about the Streisand Effect. Hiding my fact-intense comment in response to Soret Slyngle's comment about my views and statements, that pissed me off. Now others are here and involved, which only drew attention and thus almost certainly garnered more readers for my FACTS. Thank you.---Mona- (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- That's what I use them for. If I am allowed to, that is. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, I missed that. In any case these drop-down thingies are good for housekeeping. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Do you see[edit]
this? You stop doing that,or are you really just that stupid?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Paravant, could you please stop your goddamn pointless pissing contest with Avenger??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Being harsh has thus far worked - there are no longer endless edit conflicts. All that remains is for avenger to actually follow our guidelines and not be a tosser and everything can be great. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Did he started to get this panties in a bunch about refs on talk pages??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I want him to stay on rw, all actions have been to get him to understand how to mot end up leaving or being banned. Inserting refs for no reason on a talk page after being told to stop is not conductive to that goal. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- But only, cause the one getting his panties in a bunch for no intelligent reason over it is no lowly grunt or lowly sysop, but a guy swinging a more powerful mop.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well it seems Paravant is not able to calm down even for a brief interval of time to actually acknowledge who or what the real problem is. If there is overwhelming consensus for any of your moves (hint there isn't, at least not among people who know more about the issue and disagree with Mona) you could surely get the policies informing those moves enshrined into a formal manual of style or anything of the sort. As long as there is no rule against footnotes on talk pages anywhere though, you are the one being unreasonable. But who am I to judge that? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- The mob has a pretty fair picture of who you are "to judge that," and you continuing with your attempts to poison the well about Mona is not helping. At least one other user of long standing has rolled back your inappropriate use of refs on talk pages, so don't try to claim it is just Paravant getting his undies in a bunch. If they really were in such a twist, you would be sysoprevoked and banned for a good long cooling off. The way I see it, you have been treated with more patience than your antics deserve. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well it seems Paravant is not able to calm down even for a brief interval of time to actually acknowledge who or what the real problem is. If there is overwhelming consensus for any of your moves (hint there isn't, at least not among people who know more about the issue and disagree with Mona) you could surely get the policies informing those moves enshrined into a formal manual of style or anything of the sort. As long as there is no rule against footnotes on talk pages anywhere though, you are the one being unreasonable. But who am I to judge that? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- But only, cause the one getting his panties in a bunch for no intelligent reason over it is no lowly grunt or lowly sysop, but a guy swinging a more powerful mop.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I want him to stay on rw, all actions have been to get him to understand how to mot end up leaving or being banned. Inserting refs for no reason on a talk page after being told to stop is not conductive to that goal. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Did he started to get this panties in a bunch about refs on talk pages??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Being harsh has thus far worked - there are no longer endless edit conflicts. All that remains is for avenger to actually follow our guidelines and not be a tosser and everything can be great. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
People messing with my talk page edits (including those to my own talk page) and thaen edit warring over it constitutes patience? Well I don't want to experience the opposite of it thaen... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
LEAVE MY COMMENT ALONE. It was a bona fide response to Sorte Slyngel in respone to what s/he wrote. I workerd hard on it! hands off!---Mona- (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- You're a funny fellow, Mona. You stated you would not engage in any sort of conversation about a month ago. Yet here you are copy paste shitting all over my talk page... You crack me up. Unfortunately, your antics are not funny to those people whose lives are threatened by Hamas and their ilk feeling emboldened by you and the likes of you. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- As if some clown on the net like her would make any kinda splash beyond some obscure websites...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Watch out Mona. He's subtly accusing you of providing support to terrorists. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well I can only hope that Mona has no influence beyond our tiny community of RW. But I know all too well how ugly words can turn into ugly acts. And ugly acts produce dead and maimed bodies all too fast. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Stay classy Avenger. Wëäŝëïöïď
Methinks it is a Weasel 23:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Stay classy Avenger. Wëäŝëïöïď
- Well I can only hope that Mona has no influence beyond our tiny community of RW. But I know all too well how ugly words can turn into ugly acts. And ugly acts produce dead and maimed bodies all too fast. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
| The same Mona rant as above, need I repeat myself? |
|---|
" I'm sure the Israeli government is having an emergency meeting right now"Several. Israel is becoming a pariah; it's status as that increases daily. For that reason, the Israeli government has been forced to pay attention to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, even calling it an "existential threat."
Many factors have compelled this jerk to attention. Among them that the obscene carnage Israel inflicted on Gaza duering the summer of 2014 went viral online and the world stood appalled; BDS was put on steroids (tho it was working before that). Israel's farmers demanded something be done:
So, finally, the government is paying attention, as much as it has tried not to. I mean, really, if Iceland's capital reversed its decision, so did FIFA. Do you really think that's the last of you'll hear of this. Israeli officials don't:
And:
So yes, there are indeed quite a few emergency meetings going on over BDS.---Mona- (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC) |
There ain't no such standards[edit]
You pulled them out of your ass.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)There is no explicit policy or anything of the sorts disallowing me from using ref tags on my own talk page. If you would like to have such a policy, I am sure there is an established way to achieve such a thing. Though I would advise you against needlessly complicating things and dividing the community in that way, Paravant. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- You should go look--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Look where?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe in the last part of your signature? scnr.... We're about as likely to find it there as anywhere else, though... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- If you are going to lie, atleast be convincing--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Awright, so that's some horseshit Weaseloid unilaterally pulled out of his tuches. So what of it??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody has seen fit to complain about it on the saloon bar or revert him since it was put up. Your inability to go looking without being led is not our problem.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- There was no vote! You railroading your nonsense to solve some petty pissing contest you have with Avenger is complete nonsense.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I railroaded it? Other users put it in and the only people who have so far seen fit to remove it was the person who instigated its addition in the first place. And a petty pissing contest? He was a problem and was punished for it, and continues to remain a problem by wanting to make us bow to his way of using Rw instead of him at all bowing to how RW does things. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- There was no vote! You railroading your nonsense to solve some petty pissing contest you have with Avenger is complete nonsense.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody has seen fit to complain about it on the saloon bar or revert him since it was put up. Your inability to go looking without being led is not our problem.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Awright, so that's some horseshit Weaseloid unilaterally pulled out of his tuches. So what of it??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- If you are going to lie, atleast be convincing--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe in the last part of your signature? scnr.... We're about as likely to find it there as anywhere else, though... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Look where?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Unilaterally creating a policy without even asking the people who currently employ things that are against the words of said policy is a behavior that seems to be damaging no matter the context. This could be a wiki about fluffy kittens and it would be grounds for controversy. Given that there is some perception of a political element to it in this case as well makes it.... troubling. To say the least. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- There was a discussion about References, you started it and people didn't like it. When brought up in the bar, nobody felt fit to complain about the policy, even after it was brought into use except by the people who instigated its addition in the first place.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I actually just did the counting, and 10 people made statements that were not pro-references on talk pages, down to 9 if we dont count notabons statement which wasn't explicitly against them either. Of the others, 2, maybe 3 at most said somethingin favor of them? Thats your consensus. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- A change in policy (which this was, there was no policy prohibiting refs on talk pages) should require consensus. Not just a majority. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody has seen fit to challenge it but those who led to its being put in - That is a consensus by inaction. It was discussed and brought up in the bar, it went against you. Stop being a twat and just accept that we don't want Refs on talk ages, in particular for stupid reasons like how you use them to break up your own statements. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree Avenger is being extremely unreasonable, but perhaps calling him a twat will further provoke him? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Probably, but he is bringing it onto himself.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nah, Paravant's only error is that "insufferable fucking moron" isn't spelled T-W-A-T.---Mona- (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's spelled "M-O-N-A".--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twat#/media/File:Twatt_road_sign.jpg <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's spelled "M-O-N-A".--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nah, Paravant's only error is that "insufferable fucking moron" isn't spelled T-W-A-T.---Mona- (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Probably, but he is bringing it onto himself.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree Avenger is being extremely unreasonable, but perhaps calling him a twat will further provoke him? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody has seen fit to challenge it but those who led to its being put in - That is a consensus by inaction. It was discussed and brought up in the bar, it went against you. Stop being a twat and just accept that we don't want Refs on talk ages, in particular for stupid reasons like how you use them to break up your own statements. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- A change in policy (which this was, there was no policy prohibiting refs on talk pages) should require consensus. Not just a majority. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I actually just did the counting, and 10 people made statements that were not pro-references on talk pages, down to 9 if we dont count notabons statement which wasn't explicitly against them either. Of the others, 2, maybe 3 at most said somethingin favor of them? Thats your consensus. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
And now Paravant protected Avenger's talk page[edit]
If I thought, that you couldn't sink any lower...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Wenn man denkt es geht nicht mehr, kommt von irgendwo ein Lichtlein her... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say, that "schlimmer geht's immer" would be the more appropriate quote on that occasion.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Of course. But I wasn't done. "...Aber das Licht am Ende des Tunnels kann auch der entgegenkommende Zug (In diesem Falle natürlich einer der deutschen Bahn - diesmal pünktlich :-P) sein" ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oh fuck, how could I not think of that... Shit!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I just have one question: What is wrong with Avenger having drop-downs on his page? He's supposed to be free to format his own talk page, right? And the same goes for footnotes on his own page. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Only no, that isn't how this is working. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps this may be relevant? http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i51/5/4/26/frabz-FORUM-MODERATOR-What-my-friends-think-I-do-What-my-mom-thinks-I--c84c27.jpg <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- How do you know that isn't my HID?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Now I'm confused. The footnotes have been removed by Paravant (personally, I don't care), but the drop-downs were left in peace. There is only one difference between Avenger's drop-downs and mine, that is, I kept the original headings. So can I expect to have my talk page vandalized too? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- PS: I want the drop-downs to stay. It's less cluttered. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you can expect it shortly. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry I forgot to mention it, but I was talking about my own page. And if I choose to bring in extraneous, but explanatory footnotes on my own bloody page, what is there against it. Not a single thing. It may be bad form to do it on other people's, but I should be the one to decide at home, so to speak. Anything else is unfair and calls for abuse of power. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Then RW is a piece of shit, enough said. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not serious, I'm trying to show you that you're overreacting. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Then RW is a piece of shit, enough said. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry I forgot to mention it, but I was talking about my own page. And if I choose to bring in extraneous, but explanatory footnotes on my own bloody page, what is there against it. Not a single thing. It may be bad form to do it on other people's, but I should be the one to decide at home, so to speak. Anything else is unfair and calls for abuse of power. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you can expect it shortly. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- PS: I want the drop-downs to stay. It's less cluttered. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Now I'm confused. The footnotes have been removed by Paravant (personally, I don't care), but the drop-downs were left in peace. There is only one difference between Avenger's drop-downs and mine, that is, I kept the original headings. So can I expect to have my talk page vandalized too? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- How do you know that isn't my HID?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps this may be relevant? http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i51/5/4/26/frabz-FORUM-MODERATOR-What-my-friends-think-I-do-What-my-mom-thinks-I--c84c27.jpg <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Only no, that isn't how this is working. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I just have one question: What is wrong with Avenger having drop-downs on his page? He's supposed to be free to format his own talk page, right? And the same goes for footnotes on his own page. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oh fuck, how could I not think of that... Shit!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Of course. But I wasn't done. "...Aber das Licht am Ende des Tunnels kann auch der entgegenkommende Zug (In diesem Falle natürlich einer der deutschen Bahn - diesmal pünktlich :-P) sein" ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say, that "schlimmer geht's immer" would be the more appropriate quote on that occasion.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, Fedora, thanks. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- You should really read this Guidelines#Talk_pages which calls it community property. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I just did. But the name Roy Bean still keeps coming to mind, since it is only a short while ago, that I reread the Lucky Luke album The Judge - which I really recommend by the way. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ah well Franco-Belgian comic, I do have some catching up to do with you... Give me the cliff notes on it Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Very early in my tenure at RW it was explained to me that my user talk page was not "mine" in the sense that I could set all of my own rules. That the RW rules standards still applied. I have accepted that and behaved accordingly. ---Mona- (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Avenger: here. @Mona: Good girl. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- It appears that Avenger has (appropriately) been vandal binned.---Mona- (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Which i'm rather sad because I was hoping to avoid doing that after being told I should earlier. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I know I'm under suspicion of having it in for Avenger because of his intense enmity for me. But I don't advocate that kind of discipline for any other user, and several others also find me and my views unpalatable. Avenger is simply unable to follow reasonable rules and appears to lack impulse control. So, I support what you've done.---Mona- (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yea, Paravant handled this pretty well. This is why we don't need 7 of the fuckers again. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity, to whom or what does 7 refer to? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- 7 people elected
8 monthsover two years ago. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- 7 people elected
- Just out of curiosity, to whom or what does 7 refer to? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yea, Paravant handled this pretty well. This is why we don't need 7 of the fuckers again. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I know I'm under suspicion of having it in for Avenger because of his intense enmity for me. But I don't advocate that kind of discipline for any other user, and several others also find me and my views unpalatable. Avenger is simply unable to follow reasonable rules and appears to lack impulse control. So, I support what you've done.---Mona- (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Which i'm rather sad because I was hoping to avoid doing that after being told I should earlier. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- It appears that Avenger has (appropriately) been vandal binned.---Mona- (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Avenger: here. @Mona: Good girl. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Very early in my tenure at RW it was explained to me that my user talk page was not "mine" in the sense that I could set all of my own rules. That the RW rules standards still applied. I have accepted that and behaved accordingly. ---Mona- (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ah well Franco-Belgian comic, I do have some catching up to do with you... Give me the cliff notes on it Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I just did. But the name Roy Bean still keeps coming to mind, since it is only a short while ago, that I reread the Lucky Luke album The Judge - which I really recommend by the way. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
And now I've been binned[edit]
The casual observer may ask why I have not weighed in on the debate recently. Well there is one person you have to thank for that: Paravant. After deliberately escalating a fight over how I am allowed to design my own talk page (one of the issues he has been unreasonable about to no end was whether I am indeed allowed to collapse one of Mona's wall of text tracts that have neither logic coherence nor factual accuracy). After that he continued to escalate a fight over whether I am allowed to use footnotes of any sort. Now I won't list a number of well regarded authors of fiction and non-fiction alike who use the footnotes for various purposes. I won't point to any usage on Wikipedia and I won't even dare to suggest that it has been a good tradition to let everybody do in their own user-space (including their talk page) as they please. Nor will I bring up the fact that changing the content of someone else's talk page contribution without their express consent, nay against their clearly state will is a major no-no on many places where talk pages exist. I will however, mention that Paravant's crusade against footnotes on refs began before any semblance of discussion as to policy was held. And that the current pseudo policy Paravant keeps maintaining as his legal fig-leaf to suggest his behavior to be justified goes back to an undiscussed unilateral change to a page so obscure the majority of RW editors won't even have it on their watchlist. But all this is of course irrelevant as the opinion of most here is made up not by the merits of the case but by my opinion on the state of Israel. Or the opinion espoused by Mona. I have not yet seen a person who agrees with Mona on Zionism yet who would stand up to Paravant to even suggest he may have gone to far. I thank all of those who can see clearly and who support me in this. I know that I am not perfect, but if there has ever been a reason to do any of the things that have been done to me, that same reason could apply to many a user who has not been hit as hard. Sadly the issue of Israel is a divisive one and it tends to spread. Once people dislike the opinion someone holds on that subject, most are unlikely to agree with them on a wide range of other subjects. Be it public transit or haute cuisine. This is in no way a LANCB rant, in fact I wish to stay. But if Paravant's bin is not removed (and remember all it takes to do that are sysop rights and courage to speak truth to power), I may have to seriously ask myself whether contribution to rapid fire discussions can occur at a thirty minute interval. Not to mention the fact that I would have to solve a bloody captcha for crying out loud. I know you will have questions or points to discuss. But I am afraid you will have to wait thirty minutes or longer for my responses. It has been an honor getting to know some of you guys and gals. See you in thirty minutes. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- "Mona's wall of text" -Avengerofthe BoN 2015. Alright. -<-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Why so negative about CAPTCHAs? They can be a lot of fun. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:11, 24 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Well I would have preferred the short form here as well Mr(s) Kostersomething. But knowing that I can only write every thirty minutes, makes that rather hard. I hope you understand Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- "Mona's wall of text tracts that have neither logic coherence nor factual accuracy"" Avenger, no snark follows. My aggressive pro-Palestinian POV and ability to marshal many facts in support of same have induced in you both: 1. an extreme obsession with me and my statements about Israel, and 2. an attendant inability to think clearly and behave well. Let's look at the sentence I quoted from your long whine. Avenger, you, Sorte Slyngel and others were engaged in a discussion of me, my views of Israel, and my observations about the Reykjavík city council's support of a boycott of Israel. My reply that you disaparage was titled with a quote from Sorte Slyngel from that discussion, and my text constituted an entirely logical response to her statement. Nobody reasonable here believes that I post logically incoherent and factually inaccurate material (the very few times my facts were inaccurate I immediately conceded to the corrections). In sum: you have allowed your personal enmity for me -- caused by my extensive documentation of unpleasant facts about Israel and in favor of Palestinians -- to degrade your behavior. If you want to remain here as a productive editor you are going to have to adjust better to my presence and positions.---Mona- (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I kindly ask for this discussion not to be derailed to engage Mona in the section below. I know that I cannot enforce this (lest the punishment meted out by Paravant) but I really would like to have one discussion in one place for once. Thank you. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- "Mona's wall of text tracts that have neither logic coherence nor factual accuracy"" Avenger, no snark follows. My aggressive pro-Palestinian POV and ability to marshal many facts in support of same have induced in you both: 1. an extreme obsession with me and my statements about Israel, and 2. an attendant inability to think clearly and behave well. Let's look at the sentence I quoted from your long whine. Avenger, you, Sorte Slyngel and others were engaged in a discussion of me, my views of Israel, and my observations about the Reykjavík city council's support of a boycott of Israel. My reply that you disaparage was titled with a quote from Sorte Slyngel from that discussion, and my text constituted an entirely logical response to her statement. Nobody reasonable here believes that I post logically incoherent and factually inaccurate material (the very few times my facts were inaccurate I immediately conceded to the corrections). In sum: you have allowed your personal enmity for me -- caused by my extensive documentation of unpleasant facts about Israel and in favor of Palestinians -- to degrade your behavior. If you want to remain here as a productive editor you are going to have to adjust better to my presence and positions.---Mona- (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well I would have preferred the short form here as well Mr(s) Kostersomething. But knowing that I can only write every thirty minutes, makes that rather hard. I hope you understand Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Compromise[edit]
Here's my attempt for a compromise: Avenger will agree to not re-insert footnotes into talk-pages (or probably not use footnotes on talkpages at all) and to not change an article's English flavor from British/Indian/Martian English into American English. For that, Paravant's gonna remove him from the vandalbin and, perhaps, reinstate him as a autopatrolled user of RW. I'd do that in a heartbeat, if I hadn't the suspicion, that either Paravant or Mona re-vandalbin him and re-de-autopatroll him right afterwards. I don't like this compromise, but I hope, that this compromise will at least make some kinda modus vivendi possible.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I unbinned him like what, a half hour ago? He hasn't demonstrated the ability to handle autopatrolled yet. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for not looking at the log. orz. But the other part of the compromise still stands. My compromise is no support of the Lex Avenger Weaseloid inserted into the Community Guidelines or Paravant's anti-Avenger-jihad, but a compromise for Avenger to at the very least get his autopatrolled status back. So, if he agreed to the stuff above (no footnotes, no changing into American English), what then?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Do you object to what they wrote in the Guidelines? If you do, you can say something about it. Right now Paravant views it as consensus by inaction (assuming lack of action from anyone besides Avenger is because it's otherwise accepted). <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have a conditio sine qua non for any "compromise" before I sign it. And I must at this point state that any compromise would be just about as rotten as that of 1850. And this is that there shall be a whitelist of reasons that constitute a legitimate grounds for any taking away user rights blocking binning or other shenanigans on the part of Paravant. And this whitelist must not, I repeat must not include anything that has to do with any edit I make or may not make. If it shall be deemed that I am engaged in any type of edit dispute in a faulty manner, some other sysop may apply means as deemed appropriate, but not Paravant. This is my conditio sine qua non. Here I sit, I can do no other. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, good luck sitting there then, I guess. *shrugs* 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:21, 24 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- So, just to be clear, you want Paravant to not moderate solely your actions? A special privilege (that no other has), after you've done all this?
- Well, good luck sitting there then, I guess. *shrugs* 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:21, 24 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Sorry for not looking at the log. orz. But the other part of the compromise still stands. My compromise is no support of the Lex Avenger Weaseloid inserted into the Community Guidelines or Paravant's anti-Avenger-jihad, but a compromise for Avenger to at the very least get his autopatrolled status back. So, if he agreed to the stuff above (no footnotes, no changing into American English), what then?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
And Arisboch, really, if you disagree, voice that opinion. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I voiced that opinion, to which Paravant answered something like "too late, fuck you".--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Why Arisboch claims to fear I'd take any sysop action to Avenger is mystifying, as I have not done so to anyone and have explicitly said I'm too partisan to do it vis-a-vis Avenger. That all said, I fully support the vandal binning and continued patrolled status. Avenger's behavior warrants it.---Mona- (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Paravant may employ any agreed upon sanctions, provided they can't be interpreted as directed against the content of my edits (as his sanctions for "edit warring" have frequently been blatant attempts to ensure Mona-dominance on Zionism). Hence why I advocate a whitelist. This whitelist thaen clearly spells out which behavior Paravant may in due course relegate me for. Other behavior that may seem problematic to him may be dealt with by another sysop or moderator. Paravant shall have the right and my full permission to raise awareness of such behavior in any way he deems necessary. Including by throwing a hissy fit. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- either you stop doing what gets you punished or you don't. You don't get special status after everything you have done. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- He already had. He has you on his tail.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but I don't quite understand who the several pronouns refer to... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Don't apologize, he was quite vague. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but I don't quite understand who the several pronouns refer to... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- He already had. He has you on his tail.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Section for those wishing to engage Mona[edit]
http://skudelnica.ru/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%80%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5.jpg <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. You literally made me cough from laughing. And I mean literally (I got myself a bit of a cold, it seems). But still, this section should reserved for a discussion of Mona's statements for those who wish to do so. Openly derailing it would be intellectually dishonest on my part and is thus not my intention... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Frankly, I shivered with fear and trepidation. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was mean. I mostly got a good laugh, which I haven't quite got rid of yeat. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Frankly, I shivered with fear and trepidation. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Arithmetic[edit]
First off, I freely admit the obvious that I copied the following from my own talk page. I'm quite sure people have seen it, given the extraordinarily short reaction time to completely Israel-free pages. If this is a breach of something, let me know. To me this is just posting the same question twice, just that the second time I'm posting on what has become a public forum. So here goes.
Since I am here, someone could perhaps answer a question, if he or she wanders by and knows something about the issue. We have this, which seems to demand the immigration of about 5.000.000 people to a country which already has a population of over 8.000.000 (about 1.700.000 of them Arab citizens) with an area of around 21.000 square kilometers. I'd be interested to see, how this is supposed to be implemented without butchering or expelling a couple of million people. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- PS: Inserted a link that got lost in transmission. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- You're not breaking any rules. Maybe you shouldn't be putting this HERE, but otherwise the only thing you'd come at all close to is marginally spam, but that's pushing it and would require a dick with a chip on his shoulder to take action. Just have a look at the guidelines (which shouldn't be egregiously ignored) and by sticking around you'll get a pretty good idea of how things work. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Guidelines (including our very mission statement) can certainly be bent either way if the case warrants it or the sysop in question sees fit to do so. And I can only say to the substance of your question: I fear that some BDS supporters actually think that either the Israelis currently living there are "taken away" or are killed. But that is just my hunch. A "return" of the great-grandsons of some guys and gals who might have set around in Eilat from 1935 to 147 is just not a thing that can be done while maintaining the state of Israel in existence and guaranteeing the full rights of all its citizens, particularly its Jewish and pro-Zionist ones... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Are you sure? It seems you may just be pissed because you don't want to follow guidelines (just maybe, I'm not accusing you of anything). <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Given what has been considered on and off mission at several times... But I don't want to derail this discussion that Sorte Slyngel started. So please Fedora Tipping Skeptic, do say what you think about this... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am just wondering if Mona has an adequate response. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- The response so far has been calling the question an exercise in speculation and suggesting that this should be left to the pros, that is herself and others of like mind. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am just wondering if Mona has an adequate response. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- The response so far has been calling the question an exercise in speculation and suggesting that this should be left to the pros, that is herself and others of like mind. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am just wondering if Mona has an adequate response. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Given what has been considered on and off mission at several times... But I don't want to derail this discussion that Sorte Slyngel started. So please Fedora Tipping Skeptic, do say what you think about this... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Are you sure? It seems you may just be pissed because you don't want to follow guidelines (just maybe, I'm not accusing you of anything). <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Guidelines (including our very mission statement) can certainly be bent either way if the case warrants it or the sysop in question sees fit to do so. And I can only say to the substance of your question: I fear that some BDS supporters actually think that either the Israelis currently living there are "taken away" or are killed. But that is just my hunch. A "return" of the great-grandsons of some guys and gals who might have set around in Eilat from 1935 to 147 is just not a thing that can be done while maintaining the state of Israel in existence and guaranteeing the full rights of all its citizens, particularly its Jewish and pro-Zionist ones... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- You're not breaking any rules. Maybe you shouldn't be putting this HERE, but otherwise the only thing you'd come at all close to is marginally spam, but that's pushing it and would require a dick with a chip on his shoulder to take action. Just have a look at the guidelines (which shouldn't be egregiously ignored) and by sticking around you'll get a pretty good idea of how things work. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Kosterortiizbrock, my response is to: 1. simply end the apartheid. Enfranchise the almost 4 million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, and 2. make reparations to the refugees and their descendants along the lines that other colonialist nations have done with their indigenous populations, such as the Indian Claims Commission in the United States. Opinions vary, but the settlements have made a 2 state solution impossible and established a de facto 1-state, apartheid state. Justice demands that that end. (Please ignore Sorte, Avenger and Arisboch when they essay to state my views and positions. They seldom do so honestly.)---Mona- (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, well, when have I been dishonest? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hamas already controls Gaza. Any final agreement on the status of any territories at any time held by the Israeli government will give Gaza over to some power other thaen the Israeli government. Claiming otherwise is deluding oneself. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I thought there already was a Palestinian state. The UN say so. My own government says so. A 2 state solution is practically impossible, not only because of the settlements, which I agree should be stopped and withdrawn, but also because - well, just have a look at the map. The Palestinian state is geographically - I'm not sure how to put this, but I'll say fragile from a geographical and economic point of view but also because of a neverending factionalism and corruption within. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Kosterortiizbrock, I'd add that Palestinian-American journalist, Ali Abuniumah, has thought a great deal about this issue and written a book on it. He's persuaded me that Iserael has already established a 1-state solution --- it is simply an apartheid state. He analyzes at length in his book the South Africa experience and how almost nobody thought the white majority would give up its privileged status. But it did so after being made an international pariah (which BDS is doing now with Israel). This article of his gives a sense of what he sets forth in his book.---Mona- (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Apartheid? That's why Arab Israelis have more rights than in any Arab state?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Israel being better than other countries does not justify them doing something wrong. "Well they aren't being outright murdered here so people should just accept they dont have full rights"--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not full rights? Fuck, Israeli Arabs have even more rights than other Israelis (besides the yeshiva students): Anyone has to haul ass to army, they can haul ass to army, if they want to. Besides that, they have the same rights (private discrimination still happens, but you can't always prevent people form being assholes, they always find a way).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oh shit they don't have to go do mandatory armed service Well fuck, what are all the Palestinians whining for they should just have PLO merge into Israel. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not full rights? Fuck, Israeli Arabs have even more rights than other Israelis (besides the yeshiva students): Anyone has to haul ass to army, they can haul ass to army, if they want to. Besides that, they have the same rights (private discrimination still happens, but you can't always prevent people form being assholes, they always find a way).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Israel being better than other countries does not justify them doing something wrong. "Well they aren't being outright murdered here so people should just accept they dont have full rights"--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Apartheid? That's why Arab Israelis have more rights than in any Arab state?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Kosterortiizbrock, I'd add that Palestinian-American journalist, Ali Abuniumah, has thought a great deal about this issue and written a book on it. He's persuaded me that Iserael has already established a 1-state solution --- it is simply an apartheid state. He analyzes at length in his book the South Africa experience and how almost nobody thought the white majority would give up its privileged status. But it did so after being made an international pariah (which BDS is doing now with Israel). This article of his gives a sense of what he sets forth in his book.---Mona- (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I thought there already was a Palestinian state. The UN say so. My own government says so. A 2 state solution is practically impossible, not only because of the settlements, which I agree should be stopped and withdrawn, but also because - well, just have a look at the map. The Palestinian state is geographically - I'm not sure how to put this, but I'll say fragile from a geographical and economic point of view but also because of a neverending factionalism and corruption within. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hamas already controls Gaza. Any final agreement on the status of any territories at any time held by the Israeli government will give Gaza over to some power other thaen the Israeli government. Claiming otherwise is deluding oneself. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the "settlements" are a red herring. If there are Arabs in the Jewish state, why should there not be Jews in the Arab state? And in essence the problem is not where to draw which line or how to settle a certain claim by certain people. The problem is and has been from day one that Israel happens to find itself in one of the most antisemitic regions of a very antisemitic world. We should call a spade. Antisemitism is the problem. Not some line in the sand or UN resolution this court case that or the building of a light rail line in Jerusalem... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- The settlements you discount have the unfortunate reality of being used to justify giving palestine less territory because Israel chose to move them into the occupied areas from israel. They do matter--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- When Israel withdrew from Gaza - unilaterally to boot (and on the direct orders of a "hardliner") - they forcibly removed all Jews from that area. Now imagine if Israel or any other regime for that matter were to remove - either through incentives or forcibly - any number of Arabs from any part of the territory of Israel inside the 1967 lines. I don't think we should accept any "solution" that would remove Jewish live from yet one area more of this earth. In my humble opinion a Palestinian state in what is often called the West Bank can and should grant full citizenship to those Jews who wish to get it. And there should be a permanent guarantee for Jewish live in all parts of the historic Eretz Israel, just like Israel protects Arab live in all parts of its territory within the 1967 lines... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Even those Jewish settlers deliberately sent into another countries land and being used to justify giving said country less land than they are internationally obligated to have? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- When Israel withdrew from Gaza - unilaterally to boot (and on the direct orders of a "hardliner") - they forcibly removed all Jews from that area. Now imagine if Israel or any other regime for that matter were to remove - either through incentives or forcibly - any number of Arabs from any part of the territory of Israel inside the 1967 lines. I don't think we should accept any "solution" that would remove Jewish live from yet one area more of this earth. In my humble opinion a Palestinian state in what is often called the West Bank can and should grant full citizenship to those Jews who wish to get it. And there should be a permanent guarantee for Jewish live in all parts of the historic Eretz Israel, just like Israel protects Arab live in all parts of its territory within the 1967 lines... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Jewish-American journalist James Besser has stopped denying the apartheid label upon the re-election of Netanyahu. He recently wrote in Haaretz:
In the absence of any willingness to work toward a Palestinian state in the West Bank, the future is clear: continuing occupation with no effort to find a way to end it, accelerating settlement construction and a hardening of policies toward Palestinians in the West Bank.
In other words, apartheid.
Mainstream Jewish groups go ballistic when they hear the term because of what it implies: an official policy of unfairness so profound that a fractious world unites against it with sanctions, boycotts and a pariah label for the perpetrators.
Once, it was possible to argue that Israel's policies were not the same as apartheid because their stated goal, however imperfectly pursued, was to end the occupation. No more: Bibi's reelection makes it clear that Israeli voters, more clearly aware of Netanyahu's intent than ever, have chosen the apartheid path, and will now have to live with the consequences.
---Mona- (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Apartheid in graphics.---Mona- (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Mona, that was the most reasonable thing I've ever seen you say (the bit about enfranchising the palestinians as a solution). They could call it the Union of Israel and Palestine or something. I would imagine there would be a moderate short term death toll but once thing were settled it would be a elegant solution, no genocides, no forced relocations and both sides get to live in there own culturally ancestral homeland. Being realistic though it seems a long way in the future if it ever happens. Does anyone in Israel (political anyones) consider it an outcome? International pressure will only work towards such a thing if the pressurized see it as a possible end to the pressure. SolPyre (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- "International pressure will only work towards such a thing if the pressurized see it as a possible end to the pressure." Well, the Israelis certainly feeling the pressure, as I document in my comment that Avenger saw fit to collapse here on his talk page. White South Africa could not endure "Don't play Sun City," and Israelis are going to find it very unpleasant to live with "Don't play Tel Aviv."---Mona- (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- What I'm asking (regardless of pressure amount) is if anyone political is proposing it as a solution, just about the whole world is behind a two state solution right now. SolPyre (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- The one state "solution" is in essence a demographic gamble. Will the territory between Jordan and Red Sea be inhabited mostly by Jews or mostly by Arabs? What about hundred years hence? One Caroline Glick
thinks the majority will stay firmly Jewish. In that case the one state "solution" would just be a bigger Israel with a bit more Arabs in it. In case she is wrong it will in essence an Arab state with a big Jewish minority that will sooner or later become dhimmis only suffered by the Arabs if they feel like it. And we all know what any international guarantees to anything will amount to. A solution not without its charm (but likely entirely unrealistic) would of course be to give Gaza to Egypt while annexing all or part of the so called West Bank while leaving the rest to its own devices or giving it to Jordan. The problem with that is of course that neither Egypt nor Jordan want a bunch of radical Palestinian fanatics within their borders. A two state solution as the international community envisions it however would only be a desirable outcome if Israel can be sure to never be attacked from the Arab state. A thing that is unlikely to happen, given the outcome of prior "land for peace" deals... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- "a demographic gamble" ? What does it matter if its mostly Jews or mostly Arabs? There'd be fuckin peace and no forced relocations. "In that case the one state "solution" would just be a bigger Israel with a bit more Arabs in it" Sounds good to me, though I'd imagine there'd be more than 'a bit' more. "In case she is wrong it will in essence an Arab state with a big Jewish minority that will sooner or later become dhimmis only suffered by the Arabs if they feel like it" So in your opinion the Palestinians will in the long term never lose their ravening thirst for jewy blood? (sarcasm) The part about other states annexing bits of palestine doesn't sound that good to me why would the Palestinians settle for that? SolPyre (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- The one state "solution" is in essence a demographic gamble. Will the territory between Jordan and Red Sea be inhabited mostly by Jews or mostly by Arabs? What about hundred years hence? One Caroline Glick
- What I'm asking (regardless of pressure amount) is if anyone political is proposing it as a solution, just about the whole world is behind a two state solution right now. SolPyre (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- "International pressure will only work towards such a thing if the pressurized see it as a possible end to the pressure." Well, the Israelis certainly feeling the pressure, as I document in my comment that Avenger saw fit to collapse here on his talk page. White South Africa could not endure "Don't play Sun City," and Israelis are going to find it very unpleasant to live with "Don't play Tel Aviv."---Mona- (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
SolPyre, yes, I largely agree with you. However, Zionism really is based on ethno-religious supremacy, and Israel -- especially the Likudniks in power -- consider Arabs to be a "demographic threat" to the "Jewish character" of Israel. They are dead-set against Jews constituting anything less than about 70% of the population. This is why I ultimately rejected Zionism. There can be no peace or justice for Palestinians within that ideology.---Mona- (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Zionism isn't based on ethane-religious supremacy, it is based on Jews having a nation of their own so they can thrive, as they have been unable to do so in almost every other country in the world. A "demographic threat" is seen because the Jews do not want to be a minority in their own country, which would ultimately alter the essence of the state itself, and would cause the Jews to lack a homeland again, leaving them vulnerable. Kentuckyball (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- "because the Jews do not want to be a minority" Yes, hence the ethno-religious supremacy. You are trying to square a moral circle. You offer what you think is a good reason, but it remains ethno-religious supremacy (and blood and soil nationalism) all the same. The laws (de jure and de facto) Israel enforces to maintain this majority are as repressive as one would expect. Such an ideology, no mater how sympathetic the motives might be, is to racism and fascism what a warm moist environment is to mold. Jews have traded their victim status and become a horrific victimizer -- of Palestinians.---Mona- (talk) 01:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- ADDING: Mark Braverman is one of the Jewish writers I've read a great deal and his argument to fellow Jews is one I find compelling: The Two State Illusion, Racism in Israel, and Jewish Hubris — Unsigned, by: -Mona- / talk / contribs
- It isn't about any sense of supremacy. I don't think you understand what that word means. It is not about Jews being superior to non-Jews in any way (despite what neo-Nazis like to claim). The Jews fear persecution and genocide on Holocaust-scale taking place again, and that is why they want their own country with a solid Jewish majority. Also, what are these "repressive" policies that Israel uses to maintain such a majority? Kentuckyball (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
so[edit]
Are you going to stop, or are you going to keep doing the stuff that's getting you punished? There isn't really a compromise - I don't punish you when you don't do things that get you punished or else i keep punishing you. Which is it? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- In response to what is that? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, I'm just going to come and say what's been on my mind for weeks now. Paravant, your basic grammar is absolutely fucked. Not that you care, evidently. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed it is, but you know what we fought a god damned war for freedom AND THAT MEANS I AM BEHOLDEN TO NO LANGUAGE LEADER. Plus the terrible joke of slavery man, the hero nobody asked for, wanted nor needed.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Use ROT-13 if you wish, but I'm still confused. Exactly how is Avenger going to obey the royal orders, if he doesn't know the specifics. The Inquisition used to tell people to confess and when the victims asked „Confess what?“, The answer was „You know, just confess“. And so confessions started poring in for everything anybody could dream of and then some. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- And to use Yank, „Yeah, I'd gotten it“. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- That you are not aware of the problems Avenger has been told to stop doing is irrelevant because I'm asking Avenger. They know exactly what to stop and merely has to say he will or he will not. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Be that as it may, but who made you Chief Whip? And Avenger is, as far as can be seen, properly referred to in the singular. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oh the arguments one could have on whether they is singular or not. nobody made me chief whip, I took on the task of being the one to put Avenger back in line because i'm willing to do that sort of things. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, quite. But not without being certain, that who have enough collaborators, so that you will never be on the receiving end yourself. I'm vaguely reminded of South American officers - especially in states, to borrow from TinTin, which have 3.462 colonels and 52 corporals. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- If you feel I have misused my powers take me to the coop/AtiM, but several people, including those who have taken me to task in the past, have done nothing to admonish me for it. If you believe that this will accomplish nothing due to some cabalistic running of the show, then you've already lost and should abandon RW as worthless.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, quite. But not without being certain, that who have enough collaborators, so that you will never be on the receiving end yourself. I'm vaguely reminded of South American officers - especially in states, to borrow from TinTin, which have 3.462 colonels and 52 corporals. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oh the arguments one could have on whether they is singular or not. nobody made me chief whip, I took on the task of being the one to put Avenger back in line because i'm willing to do that sort of things. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Be that as it may, but who made you Chief Whip? And Avenger is, as far as can be seen, properly referred to in the singular. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- That you are not aware of the problems Avenger has been told to stop doing is irrelevant because I'm asking Avenger. They know exactly what to stop and merely has to say he will or he will not. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- And to use Yank, „Yeah, I'd gotten it“. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, I'm just going to come and say what's been on my mind for weeks now. Paravant, your basic grammar is absolutely fucked. Not that you care, evidently. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe. What is clear is that you have a lynching mob behind you and you are their self-appointed executioner. The lynching mob will always be everywhere, it's just a degree of control. But those self-appointed executioners - and I call you that with support from your own words - are usually not respected to say the least. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thankfully I'm not mopping up a problem user to get respect. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Then you won't be disappointed. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- If you feel I have misused my powers take me to the coop/AtiM, If you believe that this will accomplish nothing due to some cabalistic running of the show, then you've already lost and should abandon RW as worthless. If all you intend to do is bitch about me while taking no action, you can, but it sure isn't going to get us anywhere. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Then you won't be disappointed. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Eligible[edit]
See http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Eligible_users you could easily become one and vote. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. I have tried to confirm my Email several times, in fact I even tried to use another email to get this done. It did not work, I did not receive an Email. What can I do? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- He won;t be eligible until october 28th. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Why? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Anyway Avenger, get that email confirmed because the November elections are coming up. Spam folder, promotions, etc. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- To be Eligible, you must have 75 or more edits, a valid email, signed up on the list and, most important for you, been here for three months. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Surprised he wasn't here that long, anyway, like I said, the November elections. Get it confirmed- you may just be the one vote stopping Paravant (assuming he is a candidate) from being reinstated. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- The email won't arrive. I don't know why... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Try another email, if that fails, I have a way to get around it if you really want to know. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Assuming I choose to run. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Try another email, if that fails, I have a way to get around it if you really want to know. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- The email won't arrive. I don't know why... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Surprised he wasn't here that long, anyway, like I said, the November elections. Get it confirmed- you may just be the one vote stopping Paravant (assuming he is a candidate) from being reinstated. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Why? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- He won;t be eligible until october 28th. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
This is the third different email hosted at two different providers that does not work. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- If you're willing to tell me your email (I'm not sure if the revisions are allowed to be hidden) I can email you a secret on how to get around it. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hiding them would just induce the Streisand effect anyway. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:24, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- I can also tell you a user that knows an email under which I can be reached... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- No need to tell, it's pretty obvious who that would be. :P 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:26, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Mona? I am actually her sock, y'know... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Anything will do. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I will find a way of informing you of it that is not super-obvious... After that please hide the revision in question... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- By the way Avenger, did you remember to check the 'spam/unwanted mail' folder? Maybe that's where the confirmation email has been hiding. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:29, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- I already suggested that, 142. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, seems you did. Maybe they glanced over that part though. Better sorry than safe! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:35, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- I already suggested that, 142. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- No need to tell, it's pretty obvious who that would be. :P 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:26, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Empty spam folder, I am sorry to say... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's still unclear, would I be allowed to hide the revisions since it's not doxing? I remember in the past, this was allowed before when someone from the United Nations or something put their email here to get contacted. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sure revdelling the stuff won't be controversial if it actually contains an email address. But like I said; Streisand effect! ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:41, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Isn't there the implicit principle of "everything not explicitly forbidden is allowed"? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yea, but people on this site....sometimes they ..start stupid shit for lack of a better way of putting it. If you choose to put it, it will be revised (I'm referring to hiding the visibility of revisions, incase you didn't get my jargon). <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sure. The recent clusterfuck with Paravant is just one example... And it might be a good idea to just have a dummy edit hidden as well for the finding to be a bit more complicated ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, the dummy might stir controversy so let's try to do this before the British arrive just to be safe. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'll hide it for you myself, you fucking twat. Jesus if you think all of this comes from a dislike of you and not because you act like a tosser. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, the dummy might stir controversy so let's try to do this before the British arrive just to be safe. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sure. The recent clusterfuck with Paravant is just one example... And it might be a good idea to just have a dummy edit hidden as well for the finding to be a bit more complicated ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yea, but people on this site....sometimes they ..start stupid shit for lack of a better way of putting it. If you choose to put it, it will be revised (I'm referring to hiding the visibility of revisions, incase you didn't get my jargon). <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't there the implicit principle of "everything not explicitly forbidden is allowed"? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sure revdelling the stuff won't be controversial if it actually contains an email address. But like I said; Streisand effect! ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:41, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
The British? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- The British, as in the person who just said one of the most British statement's I've ever heard on the site. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is what happens when you grow up on Monty Python and other british productions. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Righto, good chap. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well Paravant maybe I don't want you to have any Email of mine? I mean sure, I could get a new one, but you having an email of mine is gonna be a major inconvenience... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ, just open up a can of Limey Repellant if he bothers you that much. http://www.allenscreations.com/images/dtmmm.jpg <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Why would that be? and regardless of who does the revision, I can see the edit still, mod powers and all. @FTS, Limee repellent doesn't work on fool blooded irish yankees, infact it just makes us stronger because of our hatred of all things England.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Just create a new expendable email if it bothers you so much, Avenger. People will be looking whether it's hidden or not anyway. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:03, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- This brings to mind the classic image of Richard Sharpe calling SGT Harper a "bloody bogtrotter". <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ, just open up a can of Limey Repellant if he bothers you that much. http://www.allenscreations.com/images/dtmmm.jpg <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is what happens when you grow up on Monty Python and other british productions. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Well maybe I am seeing ghosts, but Paravant's comments on my most recently published essay appear needlessly aggressive and dismissive to me... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Welcome to RationalWiki, where people aren't always nice. Oh, for that matter, welcome to the Internet. You're apparently one of the newest arrivals. :P 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:06, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- That would be because your ideas are stupid and would cause more problems than they solve. They have no impact or bearing from how I feel about you as a person. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Holy shit dude you're paranoid, what is Paravant gonna do with your email? Spam you with promotions for sexy webcam girls? You can block him from emailing you if he get's too retarded. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's not what he's gonna do. It's the principle of the thing... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- What i'll do: forget about it after 5 seconds like I do 99% of all things I actively and inactively do not care about. My involuntary photographic memory doesn't extend to emails.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's not what he's gonna do. It's the principle of the thing... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Holy shit dude you're paranoid, what is Paravant gonna do with your email? Spam you with promotions for sexy webcam girls? You can block him from emailing you if he get's too retarded. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- That would be because your ideas are stupid and would cause more problems than they solve. They have no impact or bearing from how I feel about you as a person. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- The principle of... not telling your enemies your disposable sock email account? Um, wut? What a lame principle. Also, Paravant isn't your enemy, all you need to do to get him off your back is to stop acting stupid. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:17, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Avenger, make a sock email then. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Truth to be told, years on the Internet are not enough not to get irritated sometimes. That's just human nature. As for an email-address, I can't see the harm. Any abuse of that, if possible, would probably result in some sort of severe ban, all included, Paravant, Arisboch, me, Fedora, the BoN etc. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Sock Email[edit]
If you're still interested, you can make a sock email instead of giving your real one away. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not today. The Giants are up against the Racists... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I fail to see the connection between a game and you being able to do this.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't much matter when he does it, November is quite a while from now isn't it? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- There's a decent chance of my Giants actually winning this time. And I won't miss this rare event ;-) In all honesty though, if they lose it they probably won't make it to the Super Bowl this time round ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- You remind me of my co-worker, who, already lazy enough, becomes more so during game time. God forbid he do work when a game is on to watch instead. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Remember when the Giants won the Super Bowl? That shit was close. I really thought it was gonna tie. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I watched it with a rabid Eagles fan from Philly (are there any other types of Eagles fans?) and actually bet some money on the outcome. It was quite some fun ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Least you're not a Patriots fan. Can't stand living in that environment as a Ravens fan. Arrogant and self-entitled fan-base the Patriots have. ChrisAmiss (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am generally unsympathetic to teams being moved around... So if you are a longtime Baltimore or area resident, you have my sympathies for what the owner of the Colts did to you and a grudging disdain for what Art Modell did to Cleveland. I think there should be some kind of law that any team playing in a stadium with more thaen 5% public funds in its construction needs the explicit approval of the authority that approved the public funds to move out of said stadium... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- You are unsympathetic and yet give Sympathy? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think he means he's unsympathetic towards the motivations behind teams being moved around and sympathetic towards those hurt by that moving around business. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- You are unsympathetic and yet give Sympathy? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am generally unsympathetic to teams being moved around... So if you are a longtime Baltimore or area resident, you have my sympathies for what the owner of the Colts did to you and a grudging disdain for what Art Modell did to Cleveland. I think there should be some kind of law that any team playing in a stadium with more thaen 5% public funds in its construction needs the explicit approval of the authority that approved the public funds to move out of said stadium... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Least you're not a Patriots fan. Can't stand living in that environment as a Ravens fan. Arrogant and self-entitled fan-base the Patriots have. ChrisAmiss (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I watched it with a rabid Eagles fan from Philly (are there any other types of Eagles fans?) and actually bet some money on the outcome. It was quite some fun ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Remember when the Giants won the Super Bowl? That shit was close. I really thought it was gonna tie. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- You remind me of my co-worker, who, already lazy enough, becomes more so during game time. God forbid he do work when a game is on to watch instead. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- There's a decent chance of my Giants actually winning this time. And I won't miss this rare event ;-) In all honesty though, if they lose it they probably won't make it to the Super Bowl this time round ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't much matter when he does it, November is quite a while from now isn't it? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I fail to see the connection between a game and you being able to do this.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I actually wasn't alive when the team moved to Indianapolis, and I was only 2-3 years old when they moved to Cleveland, so I can't say I've had that experience. I started watching the NFL in 2001, and I liked the way the Ravens played, smash-mouth, hard-nose brutality. And that's remained that way since, though the performance in Oakland last week left much to be desired in terms of toughness. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity[edit]
Do you detest me as much as you (apparently) do Paravant? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Did you engage in silly revert fests over things like the use of the outdent template? Did you vandalize my talk page? Do you seem to follow me around out of - what appears to be - a personal grudge? If your answer to any of these questions is no (and I assume it is no to all of them) thaen I don't have any major problem with you. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- following around implies I did anything but look at RC.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- If the vote ends up deciding that they are unacceptable or can only be used in some cases, are you going to still be pissed at Paravant? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- To be fair, if you read Paravant's posts, it becomes clear that he's no saint. Not evil, but definitely not in any superior moral position. Despising someone is really - and to surprise you, this is an honest feeling - not pleasant. One tries to get rid of that feeling. I'm sure Avenger, being human, feels the same. But to take an apparent pleasure in punishment? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I take no pleasure in doing my role as a moderator, i've made that more than clear this entire time. You should stop pulling things out of your ass when discussing other users motivations --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I know you've said so. Words are cheap. My precious behind is not involved, it is of use in an entirely different situation. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- I take no pleasure in doing my role as a moderator, i've made that more than clear this entire time. You should stop pulling things out of your ass when discussing other users motivations --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- To be fair, if you read Paravant's posts, it becomes clear that he's no saint. Not evil, but definitely not in any superior moral position. Despising someone is really - and to surprise you, this is an honest feeling - not pleasant. One tries to get rid of that feeling. I'm sure Avenger, being human, feels the same. But to take an apparent pleasure in punishment? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- If the vote ends up deciding that they are unacceptable or can only be used in some cases, are you going to still be pissed at Paravant? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- following around implies I did anything but look at RC.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
You know[edit]
The main reason I went against footnotes was things like your use of them for frivolous comments that really belonged in the statement or set aside in a parentheses. If you'd actually used ref tags mostly for references and not to break up the comment I'd have been much more ok with them. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Then why the fuck outlawing them wholesale on talk pages instead of just restricting their use???--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- because I didn't make the poll. I didn't want a poll in the first place or even a rule. The unwritten convention was good enough to me. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Coop[edit]
I am here to inform you that, due to the Zionism debacle, you have been taken to the coop due to your role in the issue. Please be civil so we can find a solution. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Coop[edit]
"If you do report an editor's behaviour here, please leave a message on their talk page to alert them to this,[..]" <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- I did in fact inform Paravant. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- You call that informing? You actually vaguely mentioned a coop case, then proceeded to bitch and moan. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- You are of course entitled to your opinion. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- You call that informing? You actually vaguely mentioned a coop case, then proceeded to bitch and moan. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
no[edit]
You and your attempts to lie. Just like you lost your sysopery for being a complete twat and not for your views on anything, you are a extremist leftist because you think bombing people is ok if they vote for the people you don't like. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- He lost his sysop-rights due to you abusing your mod-rights and catering to Mona's jihad.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't become any more true the more you say it. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Über Abmahnanwälte[edit]
P.S.: Da es aber Online-YouTube-Konverter-Seiten mit Servern außerhalb Deutschlands gibt, ist es am Ende nur halb so wild.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nicht schlecht. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
How low the mighty have fallen[edit]
Not that you were ever high or mighty, but oh my God dude. Oh my God. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:07, 28 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Indeed, Fake-BoN, wht did you join Mona on her anti-Israel jihad??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Check out the Dresden bombing talkpage, Arisboch. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:16, 28 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- I dared to suggest that Dresden was not "innocent". Cue, well see for yourself... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- No Avenger. You suggested that the way they voted a dozen years before made them valid targets. Scream!! (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The train station and the train lines as well as the significant (war-relevant according to the Nazis themselves) industrial and military capacities in the cities were legitimate targets. The point about precision bombing not being a thing in 1945 has been repeated ad nauseam already... And yes, the fact that they voted for the Nazis means that they are not "innocent" or at least not as "innocent" as these guys would want you to believe. It was an air raid on a legitimate target. Germans brought it upon themselves, at least a too big plurality of them. Life's unjust and there are better things worth crying over thaen a couple of long dead Nazis. Deutsche Täter sind keine Opfer. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- I cannot understand how you believe that. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Believe what, exactly? That Dresden was not innocent? It wasn't Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Also, you heard it here first folks: People cannot change their beleifs once they have voted for them. People who voted for the nazis in 1933 and were killed in 1945 deserved to die solely because of that because they must still be nazis. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Of course people can change their beliefs. That's why the proxy of the 1933 election result is no cure-all. However, quoting Victor Klemperer at length would possibly not solve anything and bloat the article needlessly. And as for people who voted for the Nazis in 1933 suddenly becoming anti-Nazis... Well did they leave the party? Did they risk their lives like these guys? Did they emigrate like this fine fellow? Did they do something, anything? Even one? A small worker? could an individual do something? Was there any resistance to the Nazis in Dresden? No. They continued screaming "heil". They took the stuff of their murdered Jewish neighbors, colleagues, even former friends. They did nothing to stop it when others were doing the dying. Why should I regret or bemoan their dying? Dresden. Was. Not. Innocent. Period. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please continue to argue a point nobody has made. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Of course people can change their beliefs. That's why the proxy of the 1933 election result is no cure-all. However, quoting Victor Klemperer
- I cannot understand how you believe that. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The train station and the train lines as well as the significant (war-relevant according to the Nazis themselves) industrial and military capacities in the cities were legitimate targets. The point about precision bombing not being a thing in 1945 has been repeated ad nauseam already... And yes, the fact that they voted for the Nazis means that they are not "innocent" or at least not as "innocent" as these guys
- Thanks for posting that incriminating link yourself, Avenger. Saves me the effort. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:22, 28 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Avenger, you're certainly very interesting. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well I take it that this was not intended to be a compliment, but if there is one thing I never wanted to be, it's boring. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Avenger, you're certainly very interesting. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- No Avenger. You suggested that the way they voted a dozen years before made them valid targets. Scream!! (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- I dared to suggest that Dresden was not "innocent". Cue, well see for yourself... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Check out the Dresden bombing talkpage, Arisboch. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:16, 28 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
My opinion whether Dresden was "innocent" or not[edit]
n/a.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that this is a good answer for the broad brush formulation of the question. However, the discussion originated with a very specific Nazi canard, the "innocent culture city" of Dresden the "Florence of the Elbe" that had "nothing to do with the war". This canard is obviously wrong, and that is all I am saying. Unfortunately the discussion has now been dragged on to some association of my position with that of Bin Ladin Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- An apt, as you used the same justification - they voted for it and thus were fuckers deserving a sucker punch. Not because it was a target city or war sucks, but because they voted for the nazis. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- "and that is all I am saying" At least you implicitly acknowledge some of the things you said were highly problematic and are now backpedaling. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:58, 28 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Well war sucks, but Dresden was not the wrong place to do some bombing in tbh. In my not so humble opinion, the Germans got away way too easily. All those supposed fellow travelers with their SS and Nazi party membership and whatnot. The thing the Allied Powers should have done would have been to hang or lock up the high ranking Nazis and start over with people who fled or actively fought against the Nazis on the top. Not guys like Hans Globke or Kurt Georg Kiesinger. But thaen again, the western allies were too afraid of the commies and the Soviets thought they needed the Nazi experience in building an army. So the exiles and resistance fighters got punished twice and old Nazi connections floated to the top once more. Just like scum always does. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure where you are going with that, but ok. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well war sucks, but Dresden was not the wrong place to do some bombing in tbh. In my not so humble opinion, the Germans got away way too easily. All those supposed fellow travelers with their SS and Nazi party membership and whatnot. The thing the Allied Powers should have done would have been to hang or lock up the high ranking Nazis and start over with people who fled or actively fought against the Nazis on the top. Not guys like Hans Globke
Avoiding edit war[edit]
Avenger, please address my points on the Israel talk page. Defend your choices, and if we can come to an understanding or compromise, great. I won't revert any more provided you can defend your edits with more than "because I like them."---Mona- (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
so[edit]
are you happy now? Consensus was gathered - This is dumb and no, they aren't going to be allowed. Good lord. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
If nothing else[edit]
we atleast agree that Saudi Arabia should fuck off. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- True that, though I am willing to be more radical about it thaen you are. What are your opinions on the Islamic Republic of Iran btw? Should it be treated as an international pariah until it reforms its ways? Or is it even a potential ally? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly the same as Saudi Arabia. If it's going to be a islamic dictatorship which exports a religious ideology of hatred, it can be treated with a pole between us and them - we ned their resources and they need ours, but that doesn't mean we have to be friends about it. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- See and there is where we two differ: I say that we should try to get rid of our need for their resources. Not only because it is advantageous for our foreign policy goals, but also because it has numerous domestic benefits. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- The "ignore them utterly" approach never seemed to work out that well when we tried it on Cuba. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Cuba (and to a lesser degree Iran) have at least somewhat functioning domestic economies independent of their biggest export commodity. The Saudi entity on the other hand is basically a big parking lot for Saudi Aramco. It has been said that Prussia was not a state with an army but an army with a state. Well Saudi Arabia is not a state owning a company but... You know the drill ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- The "ignore them utterly" approach never seemed to work out that well when we tried it on Cuba. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- See and there is where we two differ: I say that we should try to get rid of our need for their resources. Not only because it is advantageous for our foreign policy goals, but also because it has numerous domestic benefits. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly the same as Saudi Arabia. If it's going to be a islamic dictatorship which exports a religious ideology of hatred, it can be treated with a pole between us and them - we ned their resources and they need ours, but that doesn't mean we have to be friends about it. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
you know what you should stop bitching about?[edit]
footnotes. You lost the discussion and lost the policy vote. Whining about them in sections you could have explained whatever you are wishing you could footnote is stupidity beyond. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- You know, I would have just used them and all would be well. But you insisted on being a dick on it. Not that there is any bad thing about male genitalia... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Should try a dick sometime, pretty good. And again, you are literally bitching about how you can't use footnotes in a section you could use instead of a footnote. Think, perhaps, instead of just going "wah people are mean life sucks"--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
SmartFeller (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Who says I have never tried a dick? And I don't say 'people are mean. I say you are an unpleasant human being with an ego complex who can't handle power. But that's just, you know... my opinion, man... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Few seem to agree with you, if the fact nobody has swooped in to restore your rights back to you. I'm not some magic immune to reprimand user here, i've been taken to task many times. It is telling this is not one of them. Get over your victim complex already.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Who says I have never tried a dick? And I don't say 'people are mean. I say you are an unpleasant human being with an ego complex who can't handle power. But that's just, you know... my opinion, man... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
why, you may ask?[edit]
Because this is not an isolated incident, it's a long term pattern. That the weather is currently a little chilly does not negate Climate change and all that. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
This NPR Story[edit]
might be interesting to you. Caught this as I was going through stations earlier today.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The vandal bin[edit]
Am I still in it? If so, would you please unbin me as the agreed upon period has run out and I would love to say a thing or two about the topic Paravant raised above... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- You should be out. But leave the thing or two, pretty please. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed upon periods only work when you're trusted to not cock it up again. There won't be endings if you cock it up again, understand? Be good and you may oneday regain sysop!. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Avenger. Now is a good a time as any. Don't answer Paravant. It's a test of restraint. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed upon periods only work when you're trusted to not cock it up again. There won't be endings if you cock it up again, understand? Be good and you may oneday regain sysop!. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
A completely non-political question[edit]
Do you prefer scaled dinosaurs or feathered dinosaurs? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Depends. Are we talking about frying them in hot fat or watching them on TV? In some honesty though, I rather prefer some degree of accuracy from movies that claim to be accurate. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- I ignore that kinda claims of accuracy, lean back and enjoy, if it is enjoyable at all (MST3K mantra).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Of course, being a Dinofreak, it only increases my enjoyment when my movies are both enjoyable AND scientifically accurate. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but BS in stories that don't openly embrace BS annoys me to no end. And in some cases even stories that are openly BS annoy me for being BS... Yes, I am fun at parties. Why'd you ask? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not a fan of The Coconut Effect I see--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Feathered, obviously. They are so good with freedom fries and cocktail sauce. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- I guess it tastes just like chicken doesn't it? Also Central American cuisine (at least in the parts where it isn't merely an extension of the Yucatan subset of Mexican cuisine) is ripe with greasy deep fried chicken. And rice. And beans. And rice and beans. And gallo pinto (a mixture of rice and beans literally called "painted rooster"). And sometimes the choice between gallo pinto on the one hand and rice and chicken on the other. Oh and greasy fried chicken. And rice. And beans. Did I mention gallo pinto? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Feathered, obviously. They are so good with freedom fries and cocktail sauce. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not a fan of The Coconut Effect I see--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but BS in stories that don't openly embrace BS annoys me to no end. And in some cases even stories that are openly BS annoy me for being BS... Yes, I am fun at parties. Why'd you ask? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Of course, being a Dinofreak, it only increases my enjoyment when my movies are both enjoyable AND scientifically accurate. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- I ignore that kinda claims of accuracy, lean back and enjoy, if it is enjoyable at all (MST3K mantra).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
You know, it's kind of like chicken - no, exactly like chicken. And stop, I'm thinking about our feathered edible friends right now and ... well, getting hungry again. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- And they always say people from Nordic countries like to eat fish... Guess that's another untrue prejudice ;-). Point is: CHICKEN! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- It depends on the fish. Many people overdosed on one species or another growing up. I did. I like the others however. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- I missed the point. You can never go wrong with chicken or stockfish with butter. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- I was born and raised too far from both the sea and Catholicism to really consider fish a daily or even weekly staple, though I do like me some fish on occasion (just had some fish&chips from our local fish raping plant today). However, it is often pointed out by (former) residents of some small hamlet I happen to know a few things about that in said small hamlet a common laborer was entitled to x amount of stockfish. Which incidentally is the first document to ever mention the name of said hamlet. Which is a big deal as the date of the first document to mention the name of a place is usually how "age" of a place is defined around these places... The point is: If there still were ichthyosaurs around, I'd like to taste some ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- If you ever get the chance of buying dried fish with the word „Harðfiskur“ on the package, do indulge yourself and butter it with salted butter. The package will be light 100-200 g, but it is the equivalent of about 1 kg of fresh fish. Astronaut fodder, as somebody said. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- As I recall the preferred method is allowing the fish to freeze and thaw at least once, then dipping it in saltwater, ideally the ocean and then hanging it out to dry. Guten Appetit Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds... Interesting... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- I was born and raised too far from both the sea and Catholicism to really consider fish a daily or even weekly staple, though I do like me some fish on occasion (just had some fish&chips from our local fish raping plant today). However, it is often pointed out by (former) residents of some small hamlet I happen to know a few things about that in said small hamlet a common laborer was entitled to x amount of stockfish. Which incidentally is the first document to ever mention the name of said hamlet. Which is a big deal as the date of the first document to mention the name of a place is usually how "age" of a place is defined around these places... The point is: If there still were ichthyosaurs around, I'd like to taste some ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- I missed the point. You can never go wrong with chicken or stockfish with butter. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- It depends on the fish. Many people overdosed on one species or another growing up. I did. I like the others however. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Whataboutism + Downplaying *Ahem* Totally a legit question, yo[edit]
Hey Avenger! I'm not sure if you've heard but... There is so much bad in the world! So much human rights abuses and violence and stuff! Why do you focus so much on defending Israel from some bad rumours? Why don't you care about Darfur, Congo, Rwanda, Bosnia, East Timor, Pakistan, the global war on Atheism and many many more things that are much worse than anything Israel has to deal with? What have the Yazidi, the Syriacs, the Afghans, the Palestinians etc. ever done to you that Israel's reputation on the Internet is worth focusing on more than real actual ills in this great world of ours? ...Hmmm? ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:50, 13 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Okay first of all it is quite obvious that you are not really asking this question to start a debate or get a serious response. It is just some attempt to try and ask a tough question I won't answer after Mona won't answer tough questions. Well guess what: I won't give you that satisfaction. First of all: I do care about human beings. Had you made the effort to look at my contributions in various fields, you would have noticed that my interests range from the victims of police shootings over the victims of car accidents all the way across to Congo Darfur and the mind numbing number of victims of politicized Islam. In fact I have even half-jokingly founded my own BDS movement - concerning the Saudi entity. So I guess your accusation is only good if you assume a very shallow reading of me and my interests. As to why I defend Israel, the answer is rather simple: Because Antisemitism exists. And given recent events in Europe, it sadly appears to not be going anywhere. And as I think I have already stated more thaen once: As long as Antisemitism exists, Jews need a refuge, a safe haven, a place that will take them naked and broken and broke. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah cut the sanctimonious crap. You tried justifying Israel's torture on account of antisemitism and repeat regurgitated myths regarding the Israel-Palestine even when someone shows you the historical, diplomatic, and on the ground facts. Antisemitism is not an excuse to justify state terrorism and torture anymore than past colonialism is an excuse for jihadists groups to commit terrorism or Israel's occupation is an excuse for Palestinians to commit terrorism. ChrisAmiss (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Even worse, but like many Zionists, Avenger reacts very strongly against setting forth facts that do not reflect well on Zionism and Israel. He/they carve out a huge exception to the classically liberal pursuit of truth, and that is anything to do with the reality of Zionism, past and present. Such facts should not be aired.---Mona- (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Facts as in "world renowned civil libertarian on daily Jihad"? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- The facts you smugly told me would not be allowed to be incorporated into this site's Zionism article (and related articles). But now they are. You nearly got yourself banned trying to stop that, but failed.---Mona- (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Daily Jihad is not a serious source. I tried to keep our article on Zionism and other issues that are at best tangential to our mission from turning into the Mona Holland shits on Israel fuckfest, but thanks to your buddy Paravant and left wing Antisemitism (though you with your constant excuses for Islamist terrorism are an embarrassment for the political left) I got no where. Well I am willing to admit that I lost a battle. But don't you ever think that I lost the war. Zionists are tough. As the Arab Antisemites had to see in 1948, 1967 and 1973. As has been said to your ilk before and as will be said again ¡No pasarán! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- The persistent and everpresent myth that I worked alone as a stoolie for Mona. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well I do know that you hate Israel as well (though maybe not as virulently as Mona does). And your collaboration with Ms. Holland may have indeed been tactical first and foremost. The result stays the same: Steamrolling articles into your personal hatchet piece and silencing dissent through abuse of power and deliberately escalated conflicts of your own making. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody else seems to think so. But please, continue on the charade I am somehow silencing the majority opinion with my magic antisemitism powers. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well I do know that you hate Israel as well (though maybe not as virulently as Mona does). And your collaboration with Ms. Holland may have indeed been tactical first and foremost. The result stays the same: Steamrolling articles into your personal hatchet piece and silencing dissent through abuse of power and deliberately escalated conflicts of your own making. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- The persistent and everpresent myth that I worked alone as a stoolie for Mona. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Daily Jihad is not a serious source. I tried to keep our article on Zionism and other issues that are at best tangential to our mission from turning into the Mona Holland shits on Israel fuckfest, but thanks to your buddy Paravant and left wing Antisemitism (though you with your constant excuses for Islamist terrorism are an embarrassment for the political left) I got no where. Well I am willing to admit that I lost a battle. But don't you ever think that I lost the war. Zionists are tough. As the Arab Antisemites had to see in 1948, 1967 and 1973. As has been said to your ilk before and as will be said again ¡No pasarán! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- The facts you smugly told me would not be allowed to be incorporated into this site's Zionism article (and related articles). But now they are. You nearly got yourself banned trying to stop that, but failed.---Mona- (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Facts as in "world renowned civil libertarian on daily Jihad"? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Even worse, but like many Zionists, Avenger reacts very strongly against setting forth facts that do not reflect well on Zionism and Israel. He/they carve out a huge exception to the classically liberal pursuit of truth, and that is anything to do with the reality of Zionism, past and present. Such facts should not be aired.---Mona- (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah cut the sanctimonious crap. You tried justifying Israel's torture on account of antisemitism and repeat regurgitated myths regarding the Israel-Palestine even when someone shows you the historical, diplomatic, and on the ground facts. Antisemitism is not an excuse to justify state terrorism and torture anymore than past colonialism is an excuse for jihadists groups to commit terrorism or Israel's occupation is an excuse for Palestinians to commit terrorism. ChrisAmiss (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, about this: "Mona Holland shits on Israel fuckfest" Actually, Chris probably knows even more than I do on these issues. Much of the documentation comes from him.---Mona- (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
"so"[edit]
do you ask people who have degrees and focuses on Black studies why they don't focus on the plight of other ethnicity? Do you tell them they are bad people because they are focused on just one group? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Say someone only focused on abuse of blacks in blue states but not on abuse of blacks in red states. Would you call the question as to why whataboutism? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, because that's called "a focus". I am a student of history, and all of it fascinates me, and yet I am devoted largely to the topics of the ANE, Ancient Greece and to some degrees American History. The others are not less important, but I am one human and cannot do all of them. Entire books have been written on singular specific topics such as the History of cheese making in 18th century France, and yet I do not see you complaining about this person not focusing on cheese making in 19th or 17th century France, or cheese making in 18th century Italy. All are as equally important. If you want effective coverage, you focus on one subject - The history of slavery in Virginia will be more detailed and useful for the information than a history of slavery on the The South Or America as a whole would be. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- First of all a hearty and honestly meant fuck you for vandalizing my talk page (and "justifying" it by something you yourself did to me to boot). And as to your incredibly silly distraction just this: We are not talking about some esoteric ivory tower bullshit. We are talking about real suffering of real human beings. And Mona chooses a course of action that has been empirically shown to only prolong and worsen the suffering of people she claims to be in favor of. Gazans never had it worse thaen now. And the cause for this is - in one word: Hamas. Still Mona monomanically focuses in making up excuses for Hamas (including to claim to better understand the Hamas charter thaen Hamas leaders and spokespeople themselves). And all this while real problems with real people dying persist in areas that have nothing to do with Israel. And thaen you dare throw dirt at me because I manage to look at this with sober open eyes and see the glaring hypocrisy? Mona claims to care about people. It is an easily demonstrable fact that she does not. She only cares about smearing Israel. And I will continue to point this out. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- o you continue to not understand the concept of Focus. Wonderful. Lets go back to your example then: Telling somebody and criticizing them that focuses on the sufferings of blacks in blue states they should also do so for red states is inane. Both are topic of note, worthy of attention. But its easier to get change done when you focus on one part of a problem, not the entire vast problem. Even more, again, it's called a focus: you focus on one area, such as black issues in blue states, or the north, because as I said, information gathered is more useful when specific, not general. Should we focus on helping all of the palestinians lives? Yes. Is it going to work when many of them are currently under the heel of a dictator? No. Therefor, we should focus first on the places change will -actually possibly happen-, like Israel and Palestine. If you cannot understand this, please, do not ever try to direct policy on human aid, I fear it will only worsen the situation.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- your talk page is not your own, and changing peoples comments out of a dislike of them is against the rules. Please dont do it again. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yup the cause of Gaza has nothing to do with the occupation and blockade. Even when Israel itself admits it wants to stifle any development on Gaza and put it on the edge, it's those damn Palestinians...I mean Hamas that's the problem. Even when Hamas enforced the ceasefire as admitted by Israel (those are jsut the facts, there's no apologia for Hamas here), it's all bunk. ChrisAmiss (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Blockade as in Israel delivering tons of goods even on Shabbat? And Hamas proceeding to squander it all on yet more luxuries for their leaders and cronies and yet more rockets and terror tunnels? You know, back in the day there was talk of a "peace dividend" when after the fall of the USSR huge nuclear stockpiles and hypertrophic armed forces would be redundant... Of course this never came to pass. However, the people of Gaza could get a peace dividend beyond measure if only they managed to replace Hamas with a regime willing to take a chance on peace. That's why I have always said and will continue to say Free Gaza from Hamas! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Don't be facetious. Israel only allows in the bare minimum of goods that doesn't meet the daily demand (which means Gaza will take years and years to rebuild), which still doesn't dispute my point that Israel's intent of the blockade is to stifle development (which is at 43% unemployment according to the World Bank). Hamas doesn't squander the aid. Because they're a designated terrorist organization, there are mechanisms in place that prevent aid from being distributed to them. It is correct that there is a degree of corruption in Hamas, but it is not the same as embezzling aid (which Fatah has actually done on the other hand). Hamas profits from the black market produced by the blockade thanks to exorbitant taxes, but that is not the same thing as embezzlement. And if you read the Israeli publications I pointed out to you, Hamas only fires rockets when Israel attacks or commits an assassination. If Israel wanted the rockets to stop, it would adhere to the ceasefire and stop firing upon the people of Gaza to start a provocation. And the terror tunnels are a fantasy of your imagination. Even the UN report on the Gaza Conflict which in my opinion unfairly tried to place an equivalency between war crimes admitted that the tunnels were to attack IDF soldiers, not civilians. Hamas had an opportunity attack civilians through the tunnels, and they still didn't do it. Peace will come when Israel respects international law and ends the colonialism and occupation. ChrisAmiss (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Israel only allows in the bare minimum of goods that doesn't meet the daily demand
- ChrisAmiss [citation needed] Do You Believe That?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Don't be facetious. Israel only allows in the bare minimum of goods that doesn't meet the daily demand (which means Gaza will take years and years to rebuild), which still doesn't dispute my point that Israel's intent of the blockade is to stifle development (which is at 43% unemployment according to the World Bank). Hamas doesn't squander the aid. Because they're a designated terrorist organization, there are mechanisms in place that prevent aid from being distributed to them. It is correct that there is a degree of corruption in Hamas, but it is not the same as embezzling aid (which Fatah has actually done on the other hand). Hamas profits from the black market produced by the blockade thanks to exorbitant taxes, but that is not the same thing as embezzlement. And if you read the Israeli publications I pointed out to you, Hamas only fires rockets when Israel attacks or commits an assassination. If Israel wanted the rockets to stop, it would adhere to the ceasefire and stop firing upon the people of Gaza to start a provocation. And the terror tunnels are a fantasy of your imagination. Even the UN report on the Gaza Conflict which in my opinion unfairly tried to place an equivalency between war crimes admitted that the tunnels were to attack IDF soldiers, not civilians. Hamas had an opportunity attack civilians through the tunnels, and they still didn't do it. Peace will come when Israel respects international law and ends the colonialism and occupation. ChrisAmiss (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Blockade as in Israel delivering tons of goods even on Shabbat? And Hamas proceeding to squander it all on yet more luxuries for their leaders and cronies and yet more rockets and terror tunnels? You know, back in the day there was talk of a "peace dividend" when after the fall of the USSR huge nuclear stockpiles and hypertrophic armed forces would be redundant... Of course this never came to pass. However, the people of Gaza could get a peace dividend beyond measure if only they managed to replace Hamas with a regime willing to take a chance on peace. That's why I have always said and will continue to say Free Gaza from Hamas! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yup the cause of Gaza has nothing to do with the occupation and blockade. Even when Israel itself admits it wants to stifle any development on Gaza and put it on the edge, it's those damn Palestinians...I mean Hamas that's the problem. Even when Hamas enforced the ceasefire as admitted by Israel (those are jsut the facts, there's no apologia for Hamas here), it's all bunk. ChrisAmiss (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- First of all a hearty and honestly meant fuck you for vandalizing my talk page (and "justifying" it by something you yourself did to me to boot). And as to your incredibly silly distraction just this: We are not talking about some esoteric ivory tower bullshit. We are talking about real suffering of real human beings. And Mona chooses a course of action that has been empirically shown to only prolong and worsen the suffering of people she claims to be in favor of. Gazans never had it worse thaen now. And the cause for this is - in one word: Hamas. Still Mona monomanically focuses in making up excuses for Hamas (including to claim to better understand the Hamas charter thaen Hamas leaders and spokespeople themselves). And all this while real problems with real people dying persist in areas that have nothing to do with Israel. And thaen you dare throw dirt at me because I manage to look at this with sober open eyes and see the glaring hypocrisy? Mona claims to care about people. It is an easily demonstrable fact that she does not. She only cares about smearing Israel. And I will continue to point this out. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, because that's called "a focus". I am a student of history, and all of it fascinates me, and yet I am devoted largely to the topics of the ANE, Ancient Greece and to some degrees American History. The others are not less important, but I am one human and cannot do all of them. Entire books have been written on singular specific topics such as the History of cheese making in 18th century France, and yet I do not see you complaining about this person not focusing on cheese making in 19th or 17th century France, or cheese making in 18th century Italy. All are as equally important. If you want effective coverage, you focus on one subject - The history of slavery in Virginia will be more detailed and useful for the information than a history of slavery on the The South Or America as a whole would be. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
He needs no citations on a talk page, but in any event has provided them before. And I believe has inserted them into the apartheid article.---Mona- (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- "'As part of their overall embargo plan against Gaza, Israeli officials have confirmed to (U.S. embassy economic officers) on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge,' one of the cables read. Israel wanted the coastal territory's economy 'functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis,' according to the November 3, 2008 cable." Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/05/us-palestinians-israel-wikileaks-idUSTRE7041GH20110105.
- "Israel sells Gaza electricity, water and food. It does not give these out for free. By the way, as far as electricity goes, despite the rumours, Gaza owes nothing to the Israel electrical company, unlike the situation with electricity sold to the West Bank. All Gaza electricity debts are paid with Palestinian taxpayer money. Additionally, not all the water Israel purports to sell the Gaza Strip actually gets there, and in any event, the amount of water and electricity Israel does sell Gaza are far from meeting residents’ needs." Source: http://gisha.org/en-blog/2015/09/09/gaza-fact-check-10-myths-for-10-years-of-disengagement/.
- "Israel is not rebuilding Gaza. It is allowing construction materials, bought and paid for by others, to enter under narrow conditions. The materials enter Gaza only with Israeli authorization and under United Nations supervision, which renders reconstruction efforts difficult and costly. In fact, it took almost a year from the time the mechanism for coordinating the entry of construction materials into Gaza was established before authorization was given to build new homes in Gaza, partly because Israel could not reach an agreement with the Palestinian Authority about the formula for bringing in construction materials for new homes. The quantity of construction materials that has come into Gaza since the mechanism was put in place has met just 10% of need in the Strip. A recent ban on the entry of wood planks is making matters worse for the construction sector and threatens to destroy the furniture industry." Source: http://gisha.org/en-blog/2015/09/09/gaza-fact-check-10-myths-for-10-years-of-disengagement/.
- Also, "It does not. It sells 120 megawatts of electricity at full price, at most a third of demand. The bill is deducted from the customs fees that Israel collects for goods passing through its ports destined for the occupied territories. Food and medicine that Palestinian traders buy at full price enter Gaza through the crossings under Israel’s control.
- According to the Gisha Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, in 2012, 1.3 billion shekels ($379 million) worth of Israeli products were purchased in the Gaza Strip. So Gaza is also a captive market for Israel.
- As for water, Israel has imposed an autarchic water economy on Gaza; that is, Gazans must make do with rainwater and groundwater that collects in its territory. Israel, which imposes a water quota on the Palestinians, does not let them share the West Bank’s water sources with Gaza.
- As a result, demand outstrips supply and there is over-pumping. Seawater seeps into the groundwater, as does sewage from decrepit pipelines. Ninety-five percent of Gaza’s water is not fit for drinking. And based on past agreements, Israel sells 5 million cubic meters of water to Gaza (a drop in the ocean)." Source: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.604844. ChrisAmiss (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Who the fuck is "Gisha" and no-one is gonna pay these dollars to read the paywalled Haaretz articles you link to.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Human rights organization. Well even if it's pay-walled I cited parts from it so that it'd be visible. ChrisAmiss (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Judging by a quick glance, for the "human right" to rocket and knife Israeli citizens (Jews and Arabs, after all, all the intifadas were, to a certain extent, civil wars to get rid of opposition).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 17:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Uhh, what? ChrisAmiss (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Chris: Pearls, swine. I no longer document claims solely for either Avenger or Arisboch. There is no fact you could demonstrate which would cause them to consider that Israel treats Palestinians abominably and always has. They have total epistemic closure on the issue.---Mona- (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Uhh, what? ChrisAmiss (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Judging by a quick glance, for the "human right" to rocket and knife Israeli citizens (Jews and Arabs, after all, all the intifadas were, to a certain extent, civil wars to get rid of opposition).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 17:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Human rights organization. Well even if it's pay-walled I cited parts from it so that it'd be visible. ChrisAmiss (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Who the fuck is "Gisha" and no-one is gonna pay these dollars to read the paywalled Haaretz articles you link to.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- As a result, demand outstrips supply and there is over-pumping. Seawater seeps into the groundwater, as does sewage from decrepit pipelines. Ninety-five percent of Gaza’s water is not fit for drinking. And based on past agreements, Israel sells 5 million cubic meters of water to Gaza (a drop in the ocean)." Source: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.604844. ChrisAmiss (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, I said nothing about "groupthink." You have epistemic closure on the I/P issue -- for you, the Zionists are always justified, or if not justified, whatever heinous thing they do is not a big deal -- and should not be mentioned in any event. Tho you are intelligent, this one issue induces you to make extravagant recourse to fallacies, including whataboutery. (And seek to have a fallacy article here rewritten so that it permits your recourse!) It's really rather sad to see what happens to a brain on Zionism.---Mona- (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- According to the article on this very wiki, it's the same.
for you, the Zionists are always justified, or if not justified, whatever heinous thing they do is not a big deal -- and should not be mentioned in any event
- -Mona- [bullshit]--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- If Hamas lays down their weapons, nobody in Gaza has to die. If Israel lays down its weapons the barrage of rockets from Gaza and the slaughter by Hamas of all domestic opposition would never end. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Have it backwards. Israel attacks first and usually breaks lulls/ceasefires, not the other way around. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody except Mona and you is fooled by your pro-Hamas apologetics.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't know that Israeli officials were apologists for Hamas since they acknowledge Hamas usually fires after an Israeli attack. I'm stating the facts on why and when conflicts happen, that's not apologetics. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Last year's conflict for example: "At least 16 rockets were fired at Israel Monday morning, most of them hitting open areas in the Eshkol region, the army said. The security sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, assessed that Hamas had probably launched the barrage in revenge for an Israeli airstrike several hours earlier which killed one person and injured three more. [. . .] Hamas hasn’t fired rockets into Israel since Operation Pillar of Defense ended in November 2012, and has yet to take responsibility for this latest barrage." Source: http://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-fired-rockets-for-first-time-since-2012-israeli-officials-say/. I'm sorry Arisboch, but sometimes the facts are biased, whether you like it or not. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody except Mona and you is fooled by your pro-Hamas apologetics.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Have it backwards. Israel attacks first and usually breaks lulls/ceasefires, not the other way around. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- If Hamas lays down their weapons, nobody in Gaza has to die. If Israel lays down its weapons the barrage of rockets from Gaza and the slaughter by Hamas of all domestic opposition would never end. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Your honor, you are being unfair! I shouldn't be punished! Look I didn't even kill anybody in the last two years now. And when I threatened to exterminate them all I really really didn't mean it. Man, you are so unjust! This all a huge conspiracy against me! But the press won't write about it because they control them... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- As I said, facts are sometimes biased whether you like it or not and actions speak louder than words (referring to the Hamas charter in this case since propagandists always cite it even if Hamas restraints itself from firing). That you made some childishly sarcastic remark tells me you're not interested in refuting the points. Would you rather they continue to attack you every day instead of restraining themselves and arresting rogue groups who fire rockets? I don't understand the stubbornness. You want them to stop firing rockets, they comply, and yet you're still throwing your arms up in the air. Move on already, the political developments and facts on the ground are changing. Hamas is the least of Israel's concerns. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Arisboch, must you always lie and distort when Zionism is at issue? This is what our "epistemic closure" article says: '[Julian Sanchez's] usage is close to "false consensus" or "groupthink."' I don't agree with that (I am well familiar with Julian and his writing and that's not what he means), but even if I did, "close to" is not coterminous with "the same." You have epistemic closure on anything related to Israel-Palestine, as demonstrated by your literal recourse to illogical arguments and lies.---Mona- (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, must you always lie and distort when Zionism is at issue?
- -Mona- Nope, I leave that to you or ChrisAmiss.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)- "That you made some childishly sarcastic remark" Both of these, Avenger and Arisboch, have done me the great favor of demonstrating what I have seen to be true of many Zionists, time and time again. They've shown the people here who are inclined toward reason what I would have had to take some time to establish: That many Zionists literally become liars and embrace illogic when it comes to Israel.---Mona- (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nor sure, if nutpicking or just plain bullshit.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Since you and Avenger's lies are well-attested, you basically just admitted to being nuts. :) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:57, 13 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Pray do tell me, Mona what I am lying about... And please be as concrete as possible. Maybe chapter verse and line of the Hamas charter concrete, but hey, we can't assume that both sides know how to read the founding document of a terrorist organization... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- What about the Basle Zionist Congress in the late 1800's that specified that a Jewish state should be established not only on Palestine, but Transjordan, southern Lebanon, and the Sinai? Is that founding call for Zionism not also legitimate? Shouldn't Jordan have reconsidered its 1994 peace treaty in light of that? Or the Likud Charter in 1999 that states there shall be no Palestinian state west of the Jordan River? Why hasn't that been rescinded? The point I'm making is not to engage in deflection, but to point out that a political platform doesn't disengage you from diplomacy or prevent you from making efforts at peace. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Does the WZO charter now in effect contain any references to Transjordan, southern Lebanon and the Sinai (And of what concern would that be to Israel?! The WZO is no political party in Israel, nor do have it's documents any kind of legal character. You talking bullshit. again)? The Hamas charter now in effect still does call for the destruction of Israel, as does the PLO charter (the PLO did make promises again and again to change their charter... but they didn't). The Likud Constitution of 2014 (see footnote 35) now takes no position on that question and equating the refusal to create with the vow to destroy one is goddamn idiotic.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, because it's a historical document. That's the point I was making. The Hamas charter was written in 1988 by one person and not considered to be representative of the group. It is a historical document and not a political platform. Hamas removed the charter from its political platform in 2006 and don't feature it on their website. They very rarely refer to it among their political leaders, and Meshall on one occasion conceded that Israel would exist in an 2007 interview with the Guardian. Also, I was referencing the Likud charter of 1999, not the platform of 2014. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- If Pastor is buying into Meshal's bullshitting, that is his problem, not anyone else's.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- And if we're considering actions rather than words, Israel has done more to destroy Palestine than vice versa. The establishment of settlements and their continued expansion have divided Palestinian areas into cantons by design, in effect hampering a contiguous state. Imagine if Hamas were militarily occupying Israel and decided to colonize the area and divided the Jewish communities into cantons. If they did that, it would probably be called the reenactment of the Nazi ghettos
- No, because it's a historical document. That's the point I was making. The Hamas charter was written in 1988 by one person and not considered to be representative of the group. It is a historical document and not a political platform. Hamas removed the charter from its political platform in 2006 and don't feature it on their website. They very rarely refer to it among their political leaders, and Meshall on one occasion conceded that Israel would exist in an 2007 interview with the Guardian. Also, I was referencing the Likud charter of 1999, not the platform of 2014. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Does the WZO charter now in effect contain any references to Transjordan, southern Lebanon and the Sinai (And of what concern would that be to Israel?! The WZO is no political party in Israel, nor do have it's documents any kind of legal character. You talking bullshit. again)? The Hamas charter now in effect still does call for the destruction of Israel, as does the PLO charter (the PLO did make promises again and again to change their charter... but they didn't). The Likud Constitution of 2014 (see footnote 35) now takes no position on that question and equating the refusal to create with the vow to destroy one is goddamn idiotic.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- What about the Basle Zionist Congress in the late 1800's that specified that a Jewish state should be established not only on Palestine, but Transjordan, southern Lebanon, and the Sinai? Is that founding call for Zionism not also legitimate? Shouldn't Jordan have reconsidered its 1994 peace treaty in light of that? Or the Likud Charter in 1999 that states there shall be no Palestinian state west of the Jordan River? Why hasn't that been rescinded? The point I'm making is not to engage in deflection, but to point out that a political platform doesn't disengage you from diplomacy or prevent you from making efforts at peace. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nor sure, if nutpicking or just plain bullshit.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- "That you made some childishly sarcastic remark" Both of these, Avenger and Arisboch, have done me the great favor of demonstrating what I have seen to be true of many Zionists, time and time again. They've shown the people here who are inclined toward reason what I would have had to take some time to establish: That many Zionists literally become liars and embrace illogic when it comes to Israel.---Mona- (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Arisboch, must you always lie and distort when Zionism is at issue? This is what our "epistemic closure" article says: '[Julian Sanchez's] usage is close to "false consensus" or "groupthink."' I don't agree with that (I am well familiar with Julian and his writing and that's not what he means), but even if I did, "close to" is not coterminous with "the same." You have epistemic closure on anything related to Israel-Palestine, as demonstrated by your literal recourse to illogical arguments and lies.---Mona- (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Stupid question (Mona has called me dumb on several occasions already, so...) What does Hamas gain from keeping their charta the way it is? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- They don't gain anything if they change it. Meshall mentioned that people should ignore it, and that hasn't budged Israel's stance. Hamas' actions of arresting rogue groups who fire rockets and abiding by ceasefires haven't stopped Israel from pummeling Gaza. And historically, the PLO changed its behavior by recognizing Israel in 1988 and got more settlements in return. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wait, have we now reached a point where people deny the Oslo peace process (which came to a halt due to Palestinian violence in the second Intifada) ever existed? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hardly a peace process when it resulted in more settlements, more restrictions on freedom of movement, and contracting the occupation to the PA. The peace process is a charade and is more accurately an annexation. Even then, Palestinian violence in the 2nd intifada came after Israel used excessive force to quell protesters, not the other way around. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wait, have we now reached a point where people deny the Oslo peace process (which came to a halt due to Palestinian violence in the second Intifada) ever existed? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Avenger, let's be honest here[edit]
The reason why you don't care about what happens to Palestinians, it's the same as why you don't care about the Germans who died in the bombing of Dresden, isn't it? They voted Jew-hating extremists into power so they deserve all that's coming for them. That's how you think, isn't it? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:12, 13 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Avenger's rationale is that antisemitism justifies everything Israel does, whether it be torture, home demolitions, firing of unarmed civilians who pose no danger, indiscriminately firing artillery shells, stunting a people's economy, among others. I don't think that's the principle we should adopting of here of using past suffering to justify your current conduct (i.e. Germany used the Treaty of Versailles's punishments and alleged anti-German sentiment to justify its conduct). One would wonder if anti-Muslim xenophobia made it okay for Islamist groups to attack civilians. We should be consistent in our principles and not be selective. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Do continue to misrepresent my points... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- You bring antisemitism into every discussion when I cite a report by human rights organizations criticizing the IDF or cite a scholarly source. I think I made a fair representation of your line of arguing. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Chris, Avenger either outright accuses those who tell the truth about Zionism and its history of antisemitism, or he intimates it. That doesn't work with me or many any more (once, I would have been distracted and outraged if anyone, especially a Jewish person, accused me of antisemitism; that's all over). It's a card that's been played far too many times and as a result become a cheap trick and robbed the charge of potency.---Mona- (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, let me be specific. Avenger when he was a BON made a change on the IDF page under human rights abuses arguing that torture was justified because Hamas/Palestinian are antisemitic and thus we can't be too sure if the people we apprehend are going to kill us. If you mention that Israel is the aggressor in its wars or provokes wars by assassination officials/militants, he'll bring antisemitism into the discussion by arguing that because of the historical crimes against Jews, taking aggressive actions is "understood" or for "security" reasons to protect them. And if you criticize Israel, you're seen as singling the country out, shutting down any criticism because you're perceived as waging propaganda against the one Jewish state and not giving enough focus to other countries' abuses. Anything Israel does can then be seen as fighting against antisemitism (even though it's a fucking country rather than the religious group itself), and if you disagree, you are perceived as enabling antisemitism and not doing enough to fight it. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Chris, Avenger either outright accuses those who tell the truth about Zionism and its history of antisemitism, or he intimates it. That doesn't work with me or many any more (once, I would have been distracted and outraged if anyone, especially a Jewish person, accused me of antisemitism; that's all over). It's a card that's been played far too many times and as a result become a cheap trick and robbed the charge of potency.---Mona- (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- You bring antisemitism into every discussion when I cite a report by human rights organizations criticizing the IDF or cite a scholarly source. I think I made a fair representation of your line of arguing. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Do continue to misrepresent my points... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
" two can play this game..."[edit]
No, you can't. Stop. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Why are you deleting his stuff?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 15:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Spreading shit to other pages is not a thing Avenger should be doing anymore. He was told not to before. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- What do you think the Saloon Bar is ther6e for??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 15:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I saw the edit summary, a I thought: Well this is something I want to hear opinions of other users on. And as Paravant has accused me in the past of attacking positions noone holds, I thought I'd link to an instance of someone we all know actually saying so in clear and unambiguous words... Apparently this is not allowed in Paravant-land... Oy vey. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- You were told not to go to other pages going /'look at what they said!", and yet still do. So imma just revert it. Don't spread shit to multiple pages. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Also, this section was about your comment on a WIGO post: Don't make a WIGO your warzone. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Spreading shit to other pages is not a thing Avenger should be doing anymore. He was told not to before. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
jesus christ[edit]
stop bitching so much, you wasted -500- characters complaining that your own stupidity got you put in the bin. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- I beg to differ, if I may. The amount if characters I use is my business and mine alone. You editing other people's talk page entries however - especially the way you did which is quite blatantly done only to make yourself look better - however is not tolerable. And it may be grounds for yet another coop case... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- If you didn't want to be binned as a problem you shouldn't have tried to spread your mona fight to the bar. A discussion over the amount of bias in various media is perfectly acceptable, a discussion in which you frame it and spend a large portion of your comment going "Guys Mona said this!", because I have no assumption of good faith with you related to her, is you trying to spread a fight to another page for no good reason. It has nothing to do with making myself look better, i'm not really interested in that, but keeping you from spreading your shitfest, which you've tried in the past and is something we -don't do-. We are civilized, we have manners, and that includes not dragging a fight into the bar. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 13:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- If he really thought my reason was poor or wrong, he could have taken the question to that article's talk page. But he didn't do that. Additionally, the idea of Avenger taking someone else to the coop, why, it is to laugh.---Mona- (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- For the record, Mona volunteered her opinion herself. After I finally was allowed to post the discussion (which of course you edited again) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- If he really thought my reason was poor or wrong, he could have taken the question to that article's talk page. But he didn't do that. Additionally, the idea of Avenger taking someone else to the coop, why, it is to laugh.---Mona- (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- If you didn't want to be binned as a problem you shouldn't have tried to spread your mona fight to the bar. A discussion over the amount of bias in various media is perfectly acceptable, a discussion in which you frame it and spend a large portion of your comment going "Guys Mona said this!", because I have no assumption of good faith with you related to her, is you trying to spread a fight to another page for no good reason. It has nothing to do with making myself look better, i'm not really interested in that, but keeping you from spreading your shitfest, which you've tried in the past and is something we -don't do-. We are civilized, we have manners, and that includes not dragging a fight into the bar. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 13:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
British spelling is valid too, you know...[edit]
And more common in Europe. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- First of all I am European and I use American spellings (because they are more logical). Second of all, an article should - where possible - follow the same spelling throughout except for proper names (British Labour Party but American Labor Day, for instance). Third.... Well I don't have a third point, but still. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Almost all of the article used British spelling, only the section about American politics didn't. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Knock yourself out. I just think that as a website mostly read by Americans and given that American spelling is more rational, we'd look silly using Britishisms just because... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's not that I care about the spelling style as such (although my British girlfriend will beat me if she sees me use "Americanisms"), it's just that large changes to an article only because of spelling seem like a bit of a waste of time, not just for you, but also for people who have the page on their watchlist ;-) I also wonder if this page is mostly read by Americans? I think it probably depends on the article? Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, and thanks for fixing the 2 typo's in the part that I added ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah well, that's why I did more thaen (this is a completely irrational idiosyncratic spelling I introduced hoping it to be copied by someone some day) just the spelling change with my omnibus edit. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Knock yourself out. I just think that as a website mostly read by Americans and given that American spelling is more rational, we'd look silly using Britishisms just because... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Almost all of the article used British spelling, only the section about American politics didn't. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Just to enjoy a flame-free discussion. My personal opinion is, that anyone who tries to support one way or another in English spelling by way of logic has already lost. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
You mean[edit]
Like forcing a vote on something the community had alReady discussed and rejected? Such community concerns. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
*gasp*[edit]
Avenger, are you the False Prophet? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:40, 19 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
- You mean because it happens to be 666 Bytes? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Dear God, Avenger, you're an Illuminati/Monsanto/Freemason/Lizard/Reptile/Halliburton/Jerboa-paid shill! ''And the Sun will continue to rise, now and Forever...'' (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- You forgot "Zionist" ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Okay and Zionist. Why did you steal my job? I bet you took the third 6 from me, didja? ''And the Sun will continue to rise, now and Forever...'' (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well for once its not "Tha Mexicuns" who are "takin owr jerbs!!!!!" ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Touché, though I still get that from time to time...which is illogical in and of itself for some obvious reasons (in the real world). ''And the Sun will continue to rise, now and Forever...'' (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I recently went to a rally where someone had made a sign "Schrödinger's foreigner: At the same time stealing your job and living off of government support and mooching". Sums up the inherent bullshit in racism and xenophobia brilliantly Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- The Schrödinger's Immigrant meme doing the rounds on Facebook is similar. And rather clever. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Facebook is the battleground for immigration debates, apparently. I saw that meme a lot of times yesterday, too. You sir frankly disgust me! Hello! Look! 22:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- The Schrödinger's Immigrant meme doing the rounds on Facebook is similar. And rather clever. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
i missed it at the time[edit]
but you should be arguing that Automotive city is missional and a needed article on the grounds of it being a major city design philosophy heavily intertwined in the politics of race and class, not "because something else is missional." and "we discussed it and nobody seemed opposed" It sounds better that way. Advice for the future when trying to justify other articles to the wiki. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Also you never really sold us on how it's "woo", sure it's a bad plan for the long term that people put a lot of faith in as a great solution to many things, but "we should base cities around car usage because that seems a great idea that will help cities be better!" really isn't woo, just dumb. Otherwise, we would have to include any bad city plan based on an attempt to solve problems as woo, like the segway only city, or a city based on people movers or moving walkways. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I might have made an error in phrasing right there. And it is woo insofar as some (I thin Le Corbusier among them) claimed the car was some kind of panacea for all urban woes. And that the "new" kind of city would magically lift all out of poverty and create the new/fascist/socialist man and stuff. The automotive city was not only bad urban planning, it was bad urban planning sold as the best thing since sliced bread. And as a matter of act, cities like Brasilia were explicitly planned that way as a showcase. In a sense it is the ether theory of urban planning: Once very widespread, now laughed out of the room by freshmen students of the subject. Add to that is unfortunate political connotations and intertwinings and I guess you get something on-mission as a result... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- That doesn't make the concept itself woo, it's a perfectly reasonable idea for city building that isn't sustainable, not bunk from the beginning. If it was "woo" it wouldn't have worked at all. And if the car was upheld as a woo-y panacea, then that would be "car woo" not Car city woo. It's not Car Citi--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The point is: It never worked in the first place. None of the "car friendly" cities has less congestion thaen the "car hostile" cities. In fact, some freeway removals have actually resulted in less congestion. So we may be a bit harsh with the benefit of hindsight, but not only is it a concept that has fallen out of favor because petroleum is indeed finite, it would have fallen out of favor at the point in time when people noticed that it does not work in any of its stated goals. At all. Which just so happens to have largely coincided with the oil price shock of 1973... Correct me if I'm wrong, but hardly any major Western city built any major "automotive city" measures after that point. (That does not keep Managua from opening a new urban highway on stilts just this year and announcing plans of more yet to come. For all the good that the FSLN has brought, their urban planning sucks ass) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- That doesn't make the concept itself woo, it's a perfectly reasonable idea for city building that isn't sustainable, not bunk from the beginning. If it was "woo" it wouldn't have worked at all. And if the car was upheld as a woo-y panacea, then that would be "car woo" not Car city woo. It's not Car Citi--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I might have made an error in phrasing right there. And it is woo insofar as some (I thin Le Corbusier among them) claimed the car was some kind of panacea for all urban woes. And that the "new" kind of city would magically lift all out of poverty and create the new/fascist/socialist man and stuff. The automotive city was not only bad urban planning, it was bad urban planning sold as the best thing since sliced bread. And as a matter of act, cities like Brasilia were explicitly planned that way as a showcase. In a sense it is the ether theory of urban planning: Once very widespread, now laughed out of the room by freshmen students of the subject. Add to that is unfortunate political connotations and intertwinings and I guess you get something on-mission as a result... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
also[edit]
Here have autopatrolled back. I'm still weary on you and needing sysop however, due to last month. Keep up the good work though ~ --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for autopatrolled. The other thing will come in due time - or so I hope ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- If I were to espouse conspiracy theories like Mona or Chris do, I'd say, that Paravant only wants to put the question of your getting your sysop-rights back in formaldehyde...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- And he continues to occupy.... Something... ;-). I for one promise to not fire rockets on anything or anybody... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I am also too afraid to loose my fingers, whole limbs or my life while making bombs (which is a real occupational hazard not only among terrorist bomb makers, but especially among them, since they don't have access to all the nifty stuff legit guys have or at least the ones, who have fuckstons of money like the DAESH has) :D ;).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- True that. In fact about 90% of the research money on explosives is not about making more powerful ones, but making ones that are easier to handle... Every chemistry minor from Kansas can cook Nitroglycerin if they so chose... But they are rather likely to blow themselves up in the process... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I am also too afraid to loose my fingers, whole limbs or my life while making bombs (which is a real occupational hazard not only among terrorist bomb makers, but especially among them, since they don't have access to all the nifty stuff legit guys have or at least the ones, who have fuckstons of money like the DAESH has) :D ;).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- And he continues to occupy.... Something... ;-). I for one promise to not fire rockets on anything or anybody... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- If I were to espouse conspiracy theories like Mona or Chris do, I'd say, that Paravant only wants to put the question of your getting your sysop-rights back in formaldehyde...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
"If I were to espouse conspiracy theories like Mona or Chris do" Arisboch, you jokester, you. Yeah, as if Chris and I could get away with promoting conspiracy theories on this site. HAHAHA.---Mona- (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- You do, if you promote the ones some users here tend to find palatable.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- What the fuck? Since when did I promote conspiracy theories? ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Responses[edit]
If you aren't actually going to read what somebody says, don't be an idiot and respond to them? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have taken to the somewhat understandable though not necessarily good custom of only ever skimming Mona's contribution for the words Israel, Arab or Palestinian and ignoring them as just another rant if they appear. Only in some cases do I read them. And given that Canada is a minor player on the world stage (Quebecois delusions of grandeur notwithstanding) True dough's stance or non-stance with regards to Israel is not all that relevant. Besides, I know Mona has a knack for derailing debates and I did not want this to happen. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- if you are not actually going to read what you are responding too, don't respond to it. Lest we see inanity such as yiu declaring her answer to your question off topic derailment. Don't be an idiot.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry bub[edit]
But blocking policy is blocking policy. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:52, 22 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
- It totally doesn't apply here (what he wrote, is controversial at best and not bigotry AT ALL)!
- And what's with this "bub" thing, is that a Wolverine-parody?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry bub, your bullshit don't work on me. :P 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:01, 22 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
- There is no bullshit. And no spoon, either and the cake is a lie, too.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Am sorry, what exactly are you referring to? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Could you please unblock me? I was asked a direct question in the Israel Palestine forum and I'd like to respond... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Am sorry, what exactly are you referring to? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Somalia[edit]
You've not actually payed attention to the last 10 or so years of Somali history and the Civil War, have you? The gains made in particular during the last decade are not "struggling to gain ground" but "the enemy is collapsing and the internationally recognized and supported government now controls pretty much everywhere but Somaliland and some enclaves of islamist power" who are on the retreat. But please enlighten me to how the civil war has not progressed since the early 90's and there is no international effort, such as being led by the Ethiopia and then the AU, with aid from the US including drone strikes against islamist forces.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well I think I was not clear in my statement. First of all, every state is only lines in the (surface of your choice) to begin with. The three things that can begin to fill it with live are: people, territory and some semblance of central authority. While Somalia claims to have all three and is in fact further down that road thaen they were in the first half of the 2000s, they are not yet a "normal" state in the sense that they don't have meaningful control over big chunks (Somaliland for once and some Ash-Shabab enclaves). This is of course vastly different from e.g. Argentina claiming control over the Falklands when they in fact don't... I of course agree with you that Somalia is getting closer to becoming an actual state again (which includes being able to enforce the law in the portions they ostensibly control), but they're not there yet. My implicitly calling it utter and total anarchy was of course not entirely right. Also, the Ethiopian intervention (and even the AU force was mostly Ethiopians) may hurt the Somali government at some point in the future as the Somali flag is an irredentist claim to (among other things) the Ogaden region of Ethiopia over which Siad Barre waged a war in the 1970s... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Something leaves me thinking the new somalia government won't be claiming some Great Somalia claims on ethiopia.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- If they want to give up said claims, they should change the flag, though... My point was that there might be some lingering resentment between Somalia and Ethiopia and the new government possibly being seen as an Ethiopian puppet won't help matters down the road... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Why, it's a nice flag regardless. That's like saying Germany needs to give up the name Germany as it is in no way the only state of Germans, or Russia as it is, as Putin likes to remind us thanks to centuries of deliberate colonialism, not the only state with Ruskies in it, plus the many other peoples in it as well. |And i'm pretty sure that most Somalian residents who dislike "the ethiopian puppet" will be more concerned with what happended last timesudden regime change took place and will find a way to get over not having an ugly border. --21:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I think you know as well as I do that in international relations symbols are important and disputes erupt over the most inane things (exhibit A). And Germany for example changed the controversial article 23 in its constitution (allowing for the admission of "other parts of Germany" into Germany) and as such has no openly irredentist claims in any of its official symbols any more (the anthem was shortened to only the third stanza for similar reasons). If and when the Somali government gets strong enough to walk straight again, an Ethiopian (or Kenyan, for that matter) politician looking for a nice foreign fight to distract people from domestic woes might well stir up passions on that issue once more Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that there was two countries both claiming to be Germany and a former part of Germany which, when given the option, used this clause to easily become part of West Germany had no meaning, of course, it was purely Irredentism for a Greater Germany--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Had article 23 stayed in the constitution after 1990, it would have been justifiedly seen as irredentist. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Or a relic of a former Era which was written in the context of there being multiple countries claiming to both be Germany and one area which was forcibly removed and peacefully voted back in. Anybody who tried to actually use it as an irridentist claim would be smacked down by any legal scholar and sane people. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Paravant please don't try to comment on things you know scant about. Even in 1990 there was opposition against article 23 even with regards to the German reunification. And of course a certain Erika Steinbach (MdB, CDU) seems to think the Oder-Neiße line is "optional". Given that the German constitution is laughably easy to change, why should it not have been changed? Unlike common law, the German law tradition tends to get rid of outdated laws. Especially if they are rather prominent and/or visible... So there's that, glad to be of service ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, oh my god your statement is hilarious and I love it. I even delayed responding to your actual point because the sheer hypocrisy of what you said is staggeringly funny. | I never said it shouldn't have been removed once it's purpose had been fulfilled both times, I criticized you for linking it to Irridentist claims of a Greater Germany, of which Austria, the Czech Republic and die Schweitz would disagree on being "Germany" for. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Paravant please don't try to comment on things you know scant about. Even in 1990 there was opposition against article 23 even with regards to the German reunification. And of course a certain Erika Steinbach
- Or a relic of a former Era which was written in the context of there being multiple countries claiming to both be Germany and one area which was forcibly removed and peacefully voted back in. Anybody who tried to actually use it as an irridentist claim would be smacked down by any legal scholar and sane people. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Had article 23 stayed in the constitution after 1990, it would have been justifiedly seen as irredentist. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that there was two countries both claiming to be Germany and a former part of Germany which, when given the option, used this clause to easily become part of West Germany had no meaning, of course, it was purely Irredentism for a Greater Germany--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I think you know as well as I do that in international relations symbols are important and disputes erupt over the most inane things (exhibit A). And Germany for example changed the controversial article 23 in its constitution (allowing for the admission of "other parts of Germany" into Germany) and as such has no openly irredentist claims in any of its official symbols any more (the anthem was shortened to only the third stanza for similar reasons). If and when the Somali government gets strong enough to walk straight again, an Ethiopian (or Kenyan, for that matter) politician looking for a nice foreign fight to distract people from domestic woes might well stir up passions on that issue once more Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Why, it's a nice flag regardless. That's like saying Germany needs to give up the name Germany as it is in no way the only state of Germans, or Russia as it is, as Putin likes to remind us thanks to centuries of deliberate colonialism, not the only state with Ruskies in it, plus the many other peoples in it as well. |And i'm pretty sure that most Somalian residents who dislike "the ethiopian puppet" will be more concerned with what happended last timesudden regime change took place and will find a way to get over not having an ugly border. --21:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- If they want to give up said claims, they should change the flag, though... My point was that there might be some lingering resentment between Somalia and Ethiopia and the new government possibly being seen as an Ethiopian puppet won't help matters down the road... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- There we have that live again. Here's something that might help you: "live" is only pronounced as alive minus a- when it's an adjective/adverb. It's pronounced livv when it's used as a verb. If it's a noun, it's written with an f and pronounced lahjf. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:13, 22 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Something leaves me thinking the new somalia government won't be claiming some Great Somalia claims on ethiopia.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
An aside[edit]
Our current coverage on Somalia is woefully inadequate... I would see what I can do, but am currently blocked, so.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, seeing as you like inserting false information and denialist bigotry into some of our articles, perhaps you are not the best choice to improve said article. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:37, 22 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Oy vey, one has to pay a price for being a Zionist in this times, has one not? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nah, only the extremist kind. Unless you're living in Israel. They like extremists there. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:43, 22 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Define extremist Zionism, please. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Zionism that engages in denialism/whitewashing of Israeli atrocities towards Palestinians (or, even more troublingly, incites or engages in the latter). Kinda like... Well, I'm sure I don't need to spell that comparison out for you. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:51, 22 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Well, that definition is bullshit, but for the sake of argument which "atrocities"? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- For the sake of argument? You want to argue against there being Israeli atrocities towards Palestinians then? And why is that definition bullshit? Isn't the self-serving re-interpretation/distortion of the historical record closely tied to extremism? Wouldn't you consider the Nazis, Neo-Nazis, present-day black-hating Confederate-sympathizers, the North Korean ruling elite, Stalin's regime etc. etc. extremists? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:37, 22 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
- I tells ya, it's an ongoing source of astonishment to me that so many people who don't believe in god(s) or in woo "argue" so similarly to creationists. Or a cross between creationists and the faith-filled Western Stalinists of yesteryear. Facts and words are exactly what these Zionists want them to be; nothing more and nothing less.---Mona- (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's not astonishing at all to me, but then my bread and butter is "nothing all that new under the sun"--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Now that's cryptic. You earn your living be seeing that the more things change the more they stay the same?---Mona- (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Until 1870 (When the industrial revolution -really- began to set off) people and countries pretty much did the same things over and over, just with differing people telling them who to do it. Even after the great social changeup urbanization and industrialization brought, it's pretty much the same situation, just with a veneer of civilization and whistling bells overtop. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Now that's cryptic. You earn your living be seeing that the more things change the more they stay the same?---Mona- (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- The reason why people will so readily believe in religions, conspiracies, extra-dimensional aliens and nationalistic ideologies is two simple words: mental laziness. People go for what's easy or compelling to believe in, whether it matches reality is secondary (and hey, history can always be
rewrittenretroactively corrected, right?). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:10, 22 October 42015 AQD (UTC)- Mental laziness is also the number one reason for antisemitism in all its varied forms... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yup. Many well-educated, intelligent people strongly advocate "American exceptionalism." Relatedly, the U.S. has a deeply entrenched civil religion that fucks up reasonable politics.---Mona- (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- @142, Religion also gets a pretty big boost from "Dying is fucking terrifying and we don't like it". --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Paravant, Yeah, and if this personal god of their's exists who created a world where we all know we face a certain and possibly horrible death, and where things like the Holocaust and childhood leukemia happen, if that god exists, fuck him.---Mona- (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'd classify that under "compelling to believe in". It often also gets a handy helping of "the people who raised me and who I basically have no choice but to trust ensured me this is all true". 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:33, 22 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
- That mostly didn't work out all that well for me. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's not astonishing at all to me, but then my bread and butter is "nothing all that new under the sun"--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- I tells ya, it's an ongoing source of astonishment to me that so many people who don't believe in god(s) or in woo "argue" so similarly to creationists. Or a cross between creationists and the faith-filled Western Stalinists of yesteryear. Facts and words are exactly what these Zionists want them to be; nothing more and nothing less.---Mona- (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- For the sake of argument? You want to argue against there being Israeli atrocities towards Palestinians then? And why is that definition bullshit? Isn't the self-serving re-interpretation/distortion of the historical record closely tied to extremism? Wouldn't you consider the Nazis, Neo-Nazis, present-day black-hating Confederate-sympathizers, the North Korean ruling elite, Stalin's regime etc. etc. extremists? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:37, 22 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Well, that definition is bullshit, but for the sake of argument which "atrocities"? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Zionism that engages in denialism/whitewashing of Israeli atrocities towards Palestinians (or, even more troublingly, incites or engages in the latter). Kinda like... Well, I'm sure I don't need to spell that comparison out for you. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:51, 22 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Define extremist Zionism, please. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nah, only the extremist kind. Unless you're living in Israel. They like extremists there. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:43, 22 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Oy vey, one has to pay a price for being a Zionist in this times, has one not? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Attention[edit]
Not wasting my time with you. You will either take to the talk page and offer reasonable reasons for reverting facts in the cited WP article, or I will VB you if you revert again. You have tired the patience of many people here, and I am one of them. ---Mona- (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll let you out in a bit. Leave these discussions to the adults. Arisboch may be someone who can be reasoned with, I don't know, but I do know that you cannot be on any topic, but especially anything Israel-related.---Mona- (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well why would you say that? Also, have you read the article I linked to on your talk page? Or is Spanish another language you don't speak? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- using sources we can't speak and verify is not acceptable avenger--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Have a look at her talk page. I did not cite it as a source in anything. I just linked an article to a topic that Mona might care about. I am sorry that I assumed that Mona would speak the most common second language in the US after proudly proclaiming to speak two whole languages... Maybe the one we are looking for is French. Or pig-Latin. Mona never cared to tell us, so at this point it's just guesswork.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Paravant, I don't even know whether he means that as a source. He's a nutbar and is obsessed with knowing what languages I speak. Have no idea why. But I'm not engaging him on that or most other matters.---Mona- (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- It was an article in a Spanish language newspaper about people dying while defending their land against colonizing settlers. Given that Mona claims to care about a situation she views that way, I thought she might be interested and I also thought she might speak Spanish. But fuck me for trying to be nice for once Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Lol, trying to be nice? That's hilarious. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- You linked to the death of an indigenous person?! In Nicaragua?! This is just basic Gov't. Corruption 101! And Mona speaks Spanish? Como los haces?!
You sir frankly disgust me!Hello! Look! 22:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- You linked to the death of an indigenous person?! In Nicaragua?! This is just basic Gov't. Corruption 101! And Mona speaks Spanish? Como los haces?!
- Lol, trying to be nice? That's hilarious. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- It was an article in a Spanish language newspaper about people dying while defending their land against colonizing settlers. Given that Mona claims to care about a situation she views that way, I thought she might be interested and I also thought she might speak Spanish. But fuck me for trying to be nice for once Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Paravant, I don't even know whether he means that as a source. He's a nutbar and is obsessed with knowing what languages I speak. Have no idea why. But I'm not engaging him on that or most other matters.---Mona- (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Have a look at her talk page. I did not cite it as a source in anything. I just linked an article to a topic that Mona might care about. I am sorry that I assumed that Mona would speak the most common second language in the US after proudly proclaiming to speak two whole languages... Maybe the one we are looking for is French. Or pig-Latin. Mona never cared to tell us, so at this point it's just guesswork.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- using sources we can't speak and verify is not acceptable avenger--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Germany is lucky[edit]
Mein Kampf is so boring, suppressing a book of terrible things is easier when the fucker who wrote it sucked at writing it. Man may have been great at giving a speech and finding people who were good at taking picture/video, but a writer Hitler was not. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think I already said something to that effect. You may be a cold-blooded mass murderer, which Hitler was, but you don't have to be boring at the same time. Alas, most of the dictator's of the world have fallen into that trap. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't know of a single dictator who could write... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- My father once told me a joke, that people in Teh Big Red (where he, my mom and me were born) were asking themselves, if Brezhnev at least read his "auto"-biography .--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's a good one... I shall try to remember that one... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- My father once told me a joke, that people in Teh Big Red (where he, my mom and me were born) were asking themselves, if Brezhnev at least read his "auto"-biography .--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't know of a single dictator who could write... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Neocon Netanyahu[edit]
Here: A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm — Unsigned, by: -Mona- / talk / contribs
- Neocon is mostly a political movement (and more thaen that, a slur) that mostly applies to the US. The first people to call themselves so were former Trotskyists. Applying the term to a political landscape different from the American one is borderline nonsensical. I don't go around calling liberals "yellow", am I? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nah. Neocons are all over the Western world, from the UK to Australia. Israel is a Western country, is it not?---Mona- (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The polices set forth in the paper were rejected by Netanyahu.
- Wikipedia in the fucking first paragraph. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)- The neocon movement has to be understood with the particular military might (only rivaled in relative strength by the Roman Legions during the heydays of Rome) and the (understandable) thought to use them for "good". This ideology does not work in the real world - at least not the way it was applied under Bush. But it particularly does not work if the requisite military might is absent. The US can go against the will of China and Russia in removing someone from power. Australia can't. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- What Mona cites here is a clear example of Israeli neoconnery, clearly proving that it is a thing. Also, that Netanyahu disavows this particular neocon proposition doesn't mean he can't be neocon. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:59, 27 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
- The neocon movement has to be understood with the particular military might (only rivaled in relative strength by the Roman Legions during the heydays of Rome) and the (understandable) thought to use them for "good". This ideology does not work in the real world - at least not the way it was applied under Bush. But it particularly does not work if the requisite military might is absent. The US can go against the will of China and Russia in removing someone from power. Australia can't. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nah. Neocons are all over the Western world, from the UK to Australia. Israel is a Western country, is it not?---Mona- (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
So...[edit]
You've been around long enough to have a clue about the culture. try to fit into it by not poking things with sticks. Don't press the "undo" button too often, and we can have less of this kind of nonsense. If you really think good edits are being undone without cause, bring it up with an uninvovled outsider. Weaseloid is pretty much straight-up and reasonable, and Gerard has his problems with me but usually gets it right. Try them for starters. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Look, asshole.[edit]
I fucking went to bat for you to keep you out of the bin and holding a mop. Do not fucking repay me by edit-warring me with shit writing. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think the whole section with regards to BDS has no place being in that article in the first place (where is the relevance to the subject), but I still think we should not equate BDS with "the Palestinian cause". Even figures who are generally supportive of "the Palestinian cause" like Jimmy Carter don't like BDS and have said so publicly... The headline is imho misleading if it just says "support for Palestinians". Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that other people who support the Palestinians do not support BDS is irrelevant to a discussion of the fact that BLM supports the Palestinians by supporting BDS. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well if you ask me, BDS actually hurts Palestinians and the peace process, but we probably won't get an agreement on that one. Be that as it may, I started a vote on whether said section is necessary. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Your insistence that we hold votes when good old community discussion does much of the same thing is stupid. It's exactly what led to us wasting time on a vote over an issue we had already resolved in the past, and I have low hopes of its use by you in the future. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well if you ask me, BDS actually hurts Palestinians and the peace process, but we probably won't get an agreement on that one. Be that as it may, I started a vote on whether said section is necessary. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that other people who support the Palestinians do not support BDS is irrelevant to a discussion of the fact that BLM supports the Palestinians by supporting BDS. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Some band[edit]
My second level German professor had some band she really liked, with a music video involving them in some alley. Any idea what i'm talking about. Also my HS german teacher loved Peter fox when some Exchange Students showed it to us. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Do you happen to know the rough style they were going for? And as for Peter Fox... meh... not my cup of tea Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Whatever kind of band would have a music video as they did stuff in an alley, thats all I remember anymore. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, can't help you there... Also, Alleys are a rather common thing in Germany (though less so thaen before the war), so it could be pretty much any band... Of the newer German music, however Kraftklub are one of the better ones - they also sing in German... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Whatever kind of band would have a music video as they did stuff in an alley, thats all I remember anymore. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)