User talk:Bob M/Archive3

respect

Dirty page. How suitable

Do you mind? Susan^{talk to me} 06:28, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

I am difficult to upset. :-) --Bob^{'s your uncle} 06:30, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunately I'm not òó Susan^{talk to me} 06:37, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Btw a certain company has been debiting me for broadband for the last 3 months - I'm a tad annoyed. Susan^{talk to me} 06:40, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Bob - nip over to beta & try to log on I think you can. Susan^{talk to me} 07:21, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, been there. Think that I've broken something already. (Or done something silly)--Bob^{'s your uncle} 13:04, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

'm here now! Susan^{talk to me} 03:14, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Can't believe you missed that apostrophe s. :-) --Bob^{'s your uncle} 03:53, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Hi

Do u leik pie?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Elassint

Hi Elassint. I se yur spellin is teh sam us evr. :-) Ys oi du. Y?--Bob^{'s your uncle} 03:53, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm feeling destroctive 2day. Should i crap up conservapedia? -Elassint

It's difficult to make it worse I think. :-) Actually, the RW war against CP has been declared over. You might consider getting an account at CreationWiki ?--Bob^{'s your uncle} 16:36, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

seasonal sig suggestion

You oughtta change it to "for apples" for a bit. human 22:50, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Cool idea. Thanks.--Bob^{bing for apples} 02:32, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

And then you could go to 's your uncle Susan^{talk to me} 02:40, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, you've lost me. :-( It was that. Or am I failing to see something blindingly obvious as usual?--Bob^{bing for apples} 02:42, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Bob's your uncle -> Bob ^{'s your uncle} Susan^{talk to me} 02:47, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

She's forgotten your old sig, even though she helped you make it and commented on it ;) I thought you had one of those random ones, since your name is so much fun to play with. But I couldn't find a file on your user space to hack the apples into, so I settlled for leaving you a note. I like the autumnal version, thanks! human 18:40, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Yup! I had forgetted it - sorry! Susan^{talk to me} 19:02, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Short memory, eh? Locke ^{Always Watching......} 19:04, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

A nice site

Hey Bob, you seen this site:Religious Tolerance? It's a good read, very evenhanded as far as I've looked. Susan^{talk to me} 05:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I am familiar with it. In fact, some time ago, I put a link to it from our dominionism article - very worthy of a quick read on their site. On the other hand I've only looked at a small part of what they've got.--Bob^{bing for apples} 06:01, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Recreating Garbage

This guy on Liberapedia keeps recreating CVP'd garbage from Uncyclopedia. Got any suggestions? Elassint 22:30, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

If he's persistent would the most obvious thing be to get Ajuk to block him? Or am I missing something? If he keeps coming in from different IP's and you want to stop a particular article being recreated there is a way to prevent such an article being recreated - but I don't know what it is. You'll have to ask around. I think CP uses it a lot. :-( --Bob^{bing for apples} 04:24, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

B4M

You are listed as an editor...feel free to write articles if it amuses you. I don't really have time, but I thought it might be a fun outlet.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 15:39, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

If I feel bouts of liberal insanity I'll give it a shot. :-) --Bob^{bing for apples} 15:55, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Could you help me out on CreationWiki?

I'd had a debate going on on the abiogenesis page, but got blocked, so I can't continue it... :-P. Could you continue it for me :-)-αmεσ (soldier) 17:56, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

I applied for an account at creationwiki! - Icewedge 18:56, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Good luck dude :-)αmεσ (soldier) 18:56, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

OK, I'll have a look later.--Bob^{bing for apples} 03:51, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Hi Ames, I had a look at the abiogenesis page but I can't see anything going on. Last post was Feb. Did they wash your post? Out of curiosity - why start with abiogenesis?--Bob^{bing for apples} 04:01, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

I think it was the law of abiogenesis, or something like that... I started there because it's an easy argument to make. They were arguing that abiogenesis is stupid, and therefore evolution is stupid. I tried to remind them that they're two separate theories: evolution assumes life's existence, and cares not for how the first single-cell organism got there. They missed the point though. Not very smart, CreationWiki users... but if you want, you could look at my contribs, and find out from there? FEEL BETTER TOOOOOO!-αmεσ (soldier) 13:15, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Ah. OK. I´ll truck back on over later then. :-)--Bob^{bing for apples} 13:19, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Hello Ames. They've got 14 articles with "abiogenesis" - (though some of those are redirects) and what look like multiple hits on the rest of the site. I looked on the talk pages of the most promising ones - but no luck. I found your user page from a link on Alien's page, I couldn't see it on the list of editors. On your user page your "User Contributions" link is missing. Seriously. Alien's is there but yours isn't.--Bob^{bing for apples} 13:44, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm Not Well

Get well soon!

I've been laid up (again) for the last two days feeling sorry for myself. Would anybody like to send me some sympathy?--Bob^{bing for apples} 12:23, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Have some balloons to liven up your sickbed! human 16:52, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Thank you Human. Cough, Sneeze, Dat's berry kind oof you. (An attempt at phonetic spelling of a man with a very bad cold.)--Bob^{bing for apples} 16:55, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Are you sure you don't need some intensive therapy?162.82.215.199 17:00, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

That looks like loads of fun Palm - but I think I'll stick with the hot lemon juice. :-) --Bob^{bing for apples} 03:19, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Yeah

I was getting worried that there were no Sysops to take care of You smell. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 09:25, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Sorry about that. Although I should be at work actually. SO it's lucky I was about. Thanks for all your reverts. And Czolgolz too. Well done those men.--Bob^{bing for apples} 09:28, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

It's pointless blocking that 8/9/10 char wandal - it just jumps ip - just revert & carry on. (It comes round every afternoon (our time)) Susan^{speak your mind} 12:58, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, it makes it look like I'm working for my money and it gives the impression I'm a toughguy. :-) --Bob^{bing for apples} 13:10, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Claiming to be multitasking maketh me to doubt your "guyness" - only us grils (sic) can do that (allegedly). Susan^{speak your mind} 13:17, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

There must be an article on pop psychology there somewhere ..... Going off on a tangent Teratornis-style, "guy" and "gay" are frequently mispronounced in Spain. Spanish speakers have difficulty differentiating the vowel- sometimes with humorous results. (I should hasten to add that English people speaking Spanish are liable to similar pitfalls.)--Bob^{bing for apples} 13:34, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Sockpuppets

I have just discoverd that there are like 50 users hiding in the Liberapedia User list with names like "PuppetMaster" And "The Three Bishes"! What should i do?

Oh, and do you think i would do good as a sysop for Liberapedia?

Elassint 16:29, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Hi. Well, it isn't really a question of whether they are socks or not - it's a question of what they post. If they either don't post or post on-topic material what does it matter if they're socks? I think you'd be perfect Sysop material for Liberapedia. I think I proposed you once, didn't I?--Bob^{bing for apples} 16:32, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Is Great Leader gone?

Great Leader not make edit sense 16 September 2007. Great Leader not respond to emails. What should we do about Great Leader? (we need him) Ajuk no want to phone him and me to shy. In short, Great Leader has been missing for too long now. Elassint Throw things at me 17:49, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Great leader back. Great leader make me sysop. Great leader make me happy! --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! 12:00, 24 November 2007 (EST)

R U sysop?

PFoster 13:44, 18 November 2007 (EST) Yes, list here. List of RationalWiki sysops --Bob^{bing up} 13:48, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Thanks - Ellasint took care of it - WhitePower was leaving links to nazi websites in a couple of places. Sorry to trouble you. PFoster 13:49, 18 November 2007 (EST)

I rather suspect that Ellasint IS WhitePower.--Bob^{bing up} 13:51, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Ellasint (Elassint) is our current iconoclast, and also makes good edits here and there. Don't hate on him/her/it. We need these people to help avoid groupthink, eh? human 02:39, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Mmmm. Thee is a difference between trolling, vandalism and being an iconoclast I think. But I shall heed your words.--Bob^{bing up} 04:56, 20 November 2007 (EST)

And Elassint treads it very closely! Or should I say, Team Elassint, which has more members than a typical Conservapedia Cut and Paste fest. human 13:58, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, but after so many incarnations it gets easier to identify the new identities as they spring to life, abuse the English language, embark upon some weird misspelled crusade, get banned and slink into cyber anonomynity again.--Bob^{bing up} 14:07, 20 November 2007 (EST)

I have no idea what you are talking about. No idea whatsoever! --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! 22:23, 23 November 2007 (EST)

medotion

You are now able to anoint sysops, or promote them back to editors. Plz uz yr pwerz fr gd not evl. human 02:37, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Wazzock

D'you like the wazzock entry in dyslexicon? (bragging re lulz!) Susan^{purrrrr ...} 11:29, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Perhaps a tad challenging for the lulz impaired. :-) --Bob^{bing up} 13:35, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Rationalwiki

Is the main point of Rationalwiki to hassle Conservapedia ? I am not sdure that I do not slightly sympathise with Schafly's boys and that this is compromising his freedom to talk garbage in the privacy of his own website, but then I think "what the heck, let's do it anway". I have been planting the odd untruth (such as ---- is the daughter of Hattie Jaques) so that when I am eventually blocked - as I believe 54% of users are, there will be sufficient bits of woodworm introduced to subvert the whole structure. I have created an entirely bogus entry on -----, but I think they are on my trail over this one. Merry Christmas. Dreadnought 07:29, 11 December 2007 (EST)

No the main purpose of RW is not to hassle CP. However, as all the original members of RW were users expelled or horrified by CP its original incarnation certainly was very focused on CP. Our present "mission" - as identified on the front page is: 1. Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement, ideas and people. 2. Analyzing and refuting the full range of crank ideas. 3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. (Having fun is also important)

Nevertheless, as we have somewhat of a reputation as CP critics, we continue to be a magnet for many people disillusioned or repelled by CP and this, coupled with our origins, tends to keep us focused on CP. Some of us, myself included, would like to have as little as possible to do with the place: others still visit the place daily either looking for examples of insanity of for perhaps darker purposes.

There continues to be active debate about what our position should be in respect to CP and whether or not we should hold an explicit position as a site in respect of vandalism. If you look at recent the mainpage discussions you will find evidence of this.

You should also be aware that CP Sysops visit this site regularly and post here from time to time and certainly read all comments about their site.

I hope that clarifies things. :-) Please feel free to ask questions of myself or any other member. Have fun. Please don't frighten the goats. --Bob^{bing up} 10:57, 11 December 2007 (EST)

They're after me - you've got to save me Wiki! (Wiki don't stick his neck out fer anybody. Here's lookin' atcha, kid) Dreadnought 18:35, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Yes, I see. Or rather I don't. Good luck anyway.--Bob^{bing up} 02:21, 14 December 2007 (EST)

They got me- allegedly for trolling, which pisses me off because all the so-called trolling was quite serious. The real point was me just telling lies, but they reverted all my articles. I understand that I can use a false IP but I did find that I was a getting a bit obsessive Dreadnought 16:07, 15 December 2007 (EST)

HA well, can't win them all. :-( --Bob^{bing up} 17:44, 15 December 2007 (EST)

I forgot

Sorry for blocking you. Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 01:12, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Apologies accepted of course - but I'm still not voting for you as sysop. :-) --Bob^{bing up} 12:42, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I wa sarchiving you explicative deleted

You are an UTTER JACKASS!! You explicative deleted reverted my archiving! Boob you! Opebo 14:40, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Don't feed the Troll--Bob^{bing up} 14:41, 12 December 2007 (EST)

This is so explicative deleted hypocritical

So when I call some guy an explicative deleted, it's "abuse", but when he refuses to answer my question for no reason, it's not. Also whoever invented "autoblocks" is a explicative deleted and desvers die he's so gay. Opebo 15:10, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Yes, calling someone an explicative deletedis abuse strangely enough. And no, not answering a question is not abuse. I understand the concept may be confusing to you, but there it is.--Bob^{bing up} 15:12, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Answer my question. What is so horrible about making an archive? If you were doing it, it would be just fine. Opebo 15:13, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Actually I was wondering why you wanted to do it. I suppose it is a bit on the big side, but it's not really a problem. Also we typically don't archive everything on a page, only the old stuff. Is there something you especially want to hide?--Bob^{bing up} 15:16, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I have taken the liberty of replacing the bad language with "explicative deleted".--Bob^{bing up} 15:21, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Very nice. Adds just the slightest hint of surrealism to the discussion. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:06, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Yes, it changes a slightly unpleasant exchange into something faintly absurd one instead.--Bob^{bing up} 17:42, 15 December 2007 (EST)

You have bureaucrat powerz, I believe?

Please promote this account to normal, non-sysop user. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

OK. It's your decision I suppose. :-( I see that you have also blocked yourself for three days. Do you wish to unblock yourself first? If not, or if I receive no answer, I shall change your status within the next half hour. In the case of any misunderstanding I should be happy to change you back again. --Bob^{bing up} 12:23, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Having looked around the site I see some correspondence on page which I usually avoid reading. I now understand the background to your request and I am now aware it is genuine. I shall reluctantly honour your request. No doubt you or others may wish to suggest that these janitorial powers be returned to you at some future time.--Bob^{bing up} 12:41, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Reply

This is Ryan, my talk is protected. I was engaging in my final discussions. I still doubt I can keep myself away from RW. I might come back but I am really trying to retire without giving in to temptation to come back. --58.168.187.38 22:57, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Yea me to. 209.17.190.78 22:58, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Pleaz unblock #1290. 209.17.190.78 23:00, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Never mind, i will just use Dial Up. 12.75.67.11 23:11, 23 December 2007 (EST)

It seems we need a new category Gone but not left.

Amendments

As you can see, I changed the wording again. Does it address your objections? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:16, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Hi

Do you want to be a sysop at RWW? I can make you one if you want. --72.232.23.238

I'll respond there. :-) --Bob^{bing up} 06:03, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Thanx

Thank God you showed up. @ my speed it was painfully slow. Susan^{claw! ...} 05:55, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Cheers. Saw you were on it but I know you're on a slow connection. Dedicated little boy isn't he? He must have been orgasming over his keyboard when he managed to get so many on. Still, if that's how he gets off ... :-) --Bob^{bing up} 06:05, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Think it might be some kind of bot - most of the new ones are actually previously deleted pages. What do they really get out of it. (rhetorical) Susan^{claw! ...} 06:17, 4 January 2008 (EST)

I think the fact that people talk about them - as we doing now gets them off in some way. I suspect that shows of anger especially get them going. On the other hand I suppose if could be a bot - but I don't really know enough about these things to comment on that. --Bob^{bing up} 06:24, 4 January 2008 (EST)

I think the reason that they're all deleted pages is that the deletion log gives them a list of red links that only a sysop can revert.--מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

HIlarity

Haha, Schism. :) You sound exactly like the fundie Christians talking about Islam. :) --Eira ^yay! 17:09, 8 January 2008 (EST)

You dare laugh at my defense of the True Word? Now we see your true colours!! LLamsist!--Bob^{bing up} 18:25, 8 January 2008 (EST)

So

You like our articles? :) --~ Elassint ^Hi! 09:07, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Indeed I Am

I guess I could be considered a mixture of chartreuse and yellow lizards: I call myself LemonLizard on some other sites. ChartreuseChameleon 11:57, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Bunchanumbers guy on 10 Commandments Talk Page

Bob - I'm gonna step out of line here a bit, forgive me if you take offense. It's just that the whole TK thing has got me thinking about where we're at an d where we're going - I'm wondering if threatening someone with a ban - even with a smiley face attached to the threat - after dude makes two one-word edits on a talk page is really something that fits in with RW's overarching philosophy. Lemme know what you think. PFoster 15:00, 17 January 2008 (EST)

No. --15:01, 17 January 2008 (EST)^{— Unsigned, by: 79.21.233.194 / talk / contribs}

(edit conflict with user in question) Well, there have been three meaningless "no" posts by IP's on the same page. I gave him a welcome banner and suggested he'd like to be a bit more productive. Maybe you're right and I should have let a few more meaningless posts go before talking about little blocks.--Bob^{bing up} 15:07, 17 January 2008 (EST)

I don't think they are block-worthy. There is no vile content, and they aren't removing anything. Hell, it's probably just Bohdan, "no" to whatever any of us asks is his style, after all. human 19:59, 17 January 2008 (EST)