User talk:Hastur/archive9

Archive

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Hi Brx

I quotemined you. I'm sorry. It was really humorous. I don't think you're a racist, at least not consciously (though that was probably not the point anyway). — Haamer 19:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

That's okay, I'm laughing about it myself, now. By the way, you should also add that I can't be a racist because I have a black cat. --"Shut up, Brx." 20:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what kind of job do think Clarence Thomas has done on the Supreme Court? and do you think it was racist treatment Herman Cain received from the media when they obviously gave a good 'ol white boy like Clinton a pass? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 01:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that Clinton got a pass, but I think that with Cain, it was a bigger issue because he made unwanted sexual advances and got sued for it, and as a conservative candidate it's implied he's running on family values, and thus any extra scrutiny he might have gotten also rested on the pretense of hypocrisy. As for Clarence Thomas, I don't know much, but I think he gets a bad reputation for not asking questions during hearings and for mirroring Antonin Scalia. Supposedly, asking questions during that talking part of it all is less relevant than the part after when they read a bunch of stuff, so I'm unsure what the big deal is (but like I said, I don't know much about SCOTUS proceedings). Of course, when it comes to Thomas' political ideology, suffice to say I vehemently disagree.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If I learned about Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers in the New York Times, how does that equate giving Clinton a free ride? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 01:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's not forget Kathleen Wiley and wp:Juanita Broaddrick, those certainly were cases of unwanted advances. But the question relates to the racist treatment Herman Cain received in a he said-she said, whereas the media in the Clinton cases became apologists for perversion and mouthpieces of the Democratic attack machine.

Do you disagree with Spike Lee's assessment that Clarence Thomas is a "handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom"? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 02:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This is all part of your "if you don't like ..... then you are a racist/sexist" train of thought, isn't it Rob. Remember that time you accused me of being a sexist because I said Palin was a fucking idiot. Herman Cain is a fucking nit-wit, does that make me racist? Ace^Moderator 02:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, Rob, I don't consider it my place to decide who is and isn't an Uncle Tom--"Shut up, Brx." 02:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

....nope. Just to make racialized rape jokes. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 02:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Fuck off already--"Shut up, Brx." 02:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Not likely. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 02:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ So, are the common sentiments harbored by and openly expressed by liberals, Democrats, and communists that Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Thomas Sowell, wp:Edward Brooke, and others are Uncle Toms and "house niggers" is a pretty disgusting form of blatant racism? If so, why would you want to be associated with such bigots and have you ever openly condemned that form of racism? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 02:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I quite like Colin Powell. Ace^Moderator 02:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I never said that was racism, and I'm not entirely sure who you're accusing me of associating with--"Shut up, Brx." 02:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

wp:Uncle Tom cannot be viewed as anything other than a pejorative, in the modern sense, IMO, yet you seem to imply it can be legitimately applied to person. And then again you've failed to condemn the use of the term "house nigger" applied to respected persons with a high degree of personal accomplishments. Is this an effort to cover up, legitimize, or apologize for open left-wing bigotry? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 02:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

What it is is a noncommittal response implying that I don't feel as though I have the authority to either condemn or endorse the practice of labeling some "race traitors." --"Shut up, Brx." 03:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Brx don't know from left wing or ring wing or any wing but chicken wing. He's just a racist and a misogynist, two character flaws that tend to concentrate in the dregs of society. 02:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Brx, so there is some implicit loyalty required to a race? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 03:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Depends on which race, I'm quite loyal to the Human race, being, you know, a human. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The concept of treason against an amorphous, unorganized group like a "race" is silly anyway. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a little more than silly; under the Nuremberg Laws race traitors were dealt with harshly. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 04:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

One, Godwin, Two; theres sort of a difference when, you know, that was 6 million people being killed for the crime of being a useful scapegoat. --il'Dictator Mikal 04:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that the "Uncle Tom" view of those figures is the "mainstream Democratic view"? I don't know about the others here, but Herman Cain is a fucktard because he believes fucktarded things and says fucktarded things, not because he is black. Mr. Anon (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

And since when did Clinton get away with anything? He got impeached and nearly thrown out of office, one of the largest dishonors any President can have. Al Gore lost the elction largely because of that. But I know you've defended Newt Gingrich for his hypocrisy (a move that got you in trouble with your fellow Conservapedians). Mr. Anon (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought Gore lost the election because the popular vote doesn't actually mean anything; what with him having 500k more votes and 6 less electoral votes--il'Dictator Mikal 05:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting point you raise; for all the alleged popularity of William Jefferson Clinton, he never received more than 47 million votes in two tries. Whereas a dyslexic moron allegedly spewing conservative values got 50 million votes against an known quantity and exponent of Democratic party values. While the GOP vote in 1992 and 1996 was flat (39 million), Bush picked up 11 million votes. The real hypocrisy among Democrats bitching about the election of 2000 can be seen in the election of 1992, when 16 million more people voted against Clinton than for (For comparison sake, for every one vote against Bush than for, Clinton received 32 votes against rather than for, 16m/500k = 32). It was the Electoral College then why 16 million voters were disenfranchised, but Democrats didn't seem to have a problem with it then. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 17:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

He was a bad campaigner. He tried to distance himself from Clinton due to the President's scandals, but ended up distancing himself from Clinton's good economy. As a result, he did poorly in key swing states, like New Hampshire, Florida, and Tennessee (his home state). Add in the presence of that asshole Ralph Nader, and we get one of the closest elections in history at a time when it should have been a landslide. Mr. Anon (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately, the electoral college was irrelevant. If Gore had campaigned well, Florida, New Hampshire, and Tennessee would have been pushover states. Mr. Anon (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Gore was a bad campaigner? Getting beat by dyslexic moron like Bush isn't saying much. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 19:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"The electoral college was irrelevant" besides, you know, the part where he lost by 6 EC votes that he should have won. --il'Dictator Mikal 05:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

He should have realized that the electoral college works by winning states, not necessarily individual votes. As a result, he should have focused his campaign towards key swing states like Florida and New Hampshire rather than in states where he knew he was going to win. If you look at his total "wasted" votes (that is, all the votes in states he won that he didn't need to get a plurality), most of them are concentrated in Democratic states. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Reason #whatever for why people don't like you

1. Revert an edit
2. Edit-war until the editor you reverted takes it to the talk page
3. Continue edit-warring in the background while there's an open discussion wherein no one agrees with you
4. Use a bot to slip a revert under the radar hoping no one notices

Seriously, what the fuck? Is this how they roll on ED or something? Cow...Hammer^time! 16:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

K, so you didn't use a bot, but my point still stands. Cow...Hammer^time! 17:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I was edit warring while one person disagreed with me. You want to know why people don't like me? It's because they (you, just now, for example) are determined to warp the truth to fit the narrative that they don't like me--"Shut up, Brx." 17:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh huh. People don't like you because they are jerks and want to not like you. It absolutely has nothing to do with you. Keep on keepin' on, champ. Cow...Hammer^time! 18:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Look at the facts--"Shut up, Brx." 18:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact your an annoying little fuck?--il'Dictator Mikal 18:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I have said it before, I will say it again. Has it ever occured to you that the reason people object to you is that your behavior is objectionable, not because you are so special that people just love objecting to you? Look what you just did. You basically got on a high horse that doesn't exist, ignoring all previous conversations detailing exact instances you behaved badly and claimed that your innocence is fact at someone who is citing a specific, recent instance of unpleasant behavior. Your ego is the size of Antarctica if you not only think people would devote so much time to your sorry behind without there being some reason behind it. You want me to look at the facts? This thread is self-demonstrating. Straighten up and fly right. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 18:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Though it turns out he didn't use a bot. I did apologize for that assumption. Not that I give a shit, since he's a flying rat's ass of a jackass.Godot 18:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring while people are discussing what to do and trying to get a consensus on a final edit and maybe a goal for the final content of the article in general is still bad behavior, and it seems that he's done this more than once. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{yeah, well you fight like a cow!} 18:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh, this is a lot of bitterness..RandonGeneration (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Meh. I'm not bitter. He just tends to play dumb whenever someone says they don't like him and I was pointing out a reason. Edit warring is the least productive way possible of getting a consensus. I honestly just don't know why he thinks it's a good idea. Cow...Hammer^time! 18:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It's more that this is repeating behavior that irritates me than this singular instance. He's all about claiming he's so oppressed for no reason other than that we all dislike him because it's fun and we're evil or something. But here he is demonstrating exactly WHY people get so irritated with him: not just constant dismissal of his own egotistical behavior, but using it as a springboard to claim that other people are the problem. Even when someone is coming to him about how he's causing problems. It wouldn't be a big deal if it was just once or twice, but it's near-constant. I like to be nice to people when I meet them, but when one repeatedly demonstrates total shamelessness in regards to one's own mistakes, I just cant tolerate it. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic} 18:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"Look at the facts" - the facts being that you reverted 5 times two other well-established editors. I don't normally get involved with the kid's bickering but you need to either learn what consensus and being part of a community are or get some treatment. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Doppelgänger

Haha --BBrrxxBBrrxx (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

So you know

If you send me an email, you might want to let me know as I tend to be logged in on one of my other emails.--il'Dictator Mikal 07:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You need to change your Yahoo! password

I've received three of these today, please change your password so that the spammers can no longer use your account.

Return-Path: X Received: from spam05.embarq.synacor.com (LHLO smtpout01.embarq.synacor.com) (10.50.1.5) by md19.embarq.synacor.com with LMTP; Sun, 27 May 2012 22:27:21 -0400 (EDT) Return-Path: X X-BINDING: md19.embarq.synacor.com X_CMAE_Category: 0,0 Undefined,Undefined X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=XI+yuHdE c=1 sm=0 a=f8_S3n9t2uQA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=QhovQ1LSeOkA:10 a=CjxXgO3LAAAA:8 a=pQf55m42AAAA:8 a=LTAYPKdimAlAYm2gDxYA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=c9KhK1VLPBsA:10 a=aCztOfP6pkj/rRbGKqCvrA==:117 X-CM-Score: 0 X-Scanned-by: Cloudmark Authority Engine Authentication-Results: spam05.embarq.synacor.com smtp.mail=X; spf=neutral Received-SPF: neutral (spam05.embarq.synacor.com: 98.138.91.93 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of yahoo.com) Received: from [98.138.91.93] ([98.138.91.93:46768] helo=nm17-vm2.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com) by smtp.embarq.synacor.com (envelope-from X) (ecelerity 2.2.3.47 r(39797/39798)) with ESMTP id C1/41-23169-882E2CF4; Sun, 27 May 2012 22:27:21 -0400 Received: from [98.138.90.52] by nm17.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 May 2012 02:27:20 -0000 Received: from [98.138.226.168] by tm5.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 May 2012 02:27:20 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1069.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 May 2012 02:27:20 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 248021.52038.bm@omp1069.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 23895 invoked by uid 60001); 28 May 2012 02:27:20 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1338172039; bh=tgmr+mHRYlLZ1zFNHZfGs6gusuJEr6JR110oMyNzFJc=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=UyOJEk4kWYuy4QCOdhesOrwuabjRh53te7OYO856+Yk1ZtfTS2m1EUT2CqhPj7wXXvuElpTiFW8e9iX+Jx6KWyuXqrixSFE7zU6rvRy9Ne1WWO778QKqyQU1KCJU3/tUt4f8qEBYJn5EiPFl0VpmiL3223W+Vj0ogABl54Q0xAE= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Fqr4dxfuyQ2xgThYSlRmHK4A5A6JgAp6onpDHVz4nbuTa2ovXrkxcMrONZbljuv+wbIr1MtDbDdl2lnjOnpbxdXtGgP7f/A5aAgxP3d+OGLYT09lJvJrYJqiRq3ukwW8leWhzUOvsFYo4ZNwnpv9GSJeTQCynrx3g+AO1MgJ0Gw=; X-YMail-OSG: HG8QpTsVM1mnFIQSt3_EeS9xBeU2zuP4Y_X9ZTv1pbUQFay dUBjcPJ6QoeW7H0YmXCFALnh4VxiXg0Wrz3RCTKqPjg99.tB.IyazQFJ_Uio U4m8uMgJklwpYkkBop_VoYreq7cT4EZFBe91RECPO35BbqTsfdmtmOkVf_bJ on7MixB1L9GnMY9N1tJMzY2UxiOpFEG68k3aMGjSxonxMBiy08ktBUUFHnOE 0x0HPImbXQIH9JehEPv08yJ3s6iUM67xPHsXnhZZpybAhysyrUVQzAFi63yS 7RONbOuubwSLcAzr1Lqe2GP62NiHeuDzUSwc.MiLldNvBEhkQPnkhIogJVfR 6FbExgTsPI3sqHDCLnL5fncwDw5xmJK4rxvnNpTCfm1rZTNv735h8Sl2bTII 5_QtGNiosWisVooEuP9OJSZ3odZM5v2sBwUD1tY8RtqW.g0nui0b_6fKWpaK fEcpbBn.4eLAS2CymKNdWeaBFXJpnmRlKrz3CXbZ476doWVf8ifY.gnRaX.7 eE4fizkXBzg5JSMX3vKwM9VARzVj6_q53bQdr Received: from [190.222.102.163] by web126006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 27 May 2012 19:27:19 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.118.349524 Message-ID: <1338172039.22101.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web126006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 19:27:19 -0700 (PDT) From: X Subject: Hey To: X MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii look at this http://www.news15jo.net/jobs/?employment=1094425

DMorris, on the EIP Network ^{1 855 282 2882} 03:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on it. So far, it hasn't worked, which makes me wonder how their spambot functions. Must not have logged out or something. I'm worried I'll have to get a new email address.--"Shut up, Brx." 04:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It's still a crappy arguement brx

To say "Well it is ok to do x at location A, therefor you can't fault me for doing x"; in that it doesn't change the fact you did it. So, I wouldn't rely on it to much. --il'Dictator Mikal 18:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

When are you going to fuck off?

Ace^Moderator 23:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

^{— Unsigned, by: 84.158.56.199 / talk / contribs (User:UHM)}

a request

if it isn't to much work for you; do you mind removing LQT from it so we dont have to have RC spammed every time you post on it? Thnx, from one of the people who doesnt actually hate you.--il'Dictator Mikal 05:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

it's not a talk page, and it's in my user space

Theoretically you're right but you are also reverting other people's edits/comments...so it's an interesting gray area. Ace^Moderator 06:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No, Brx is being an idiot. Any page where people talk is a talk page. The saloon bar is not technically in a talk namespace, but it's still a talk page. Blue (is useful) 06:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

And if we're wikilawering today, the 'deleting' section below that does not state that liquidthreads pages can be deleted without discussion. In addition, it's not in your userspace - it's in Thread: space. Peter ^{Blessed are the cheesemakers} 07:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocking Human

Using your banhammer at this point in time is similar to swinging a large axe about while standing on a particularly thin tree branch. Take it easy. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a problem if some people didn't think they and their friends weren't above the rules.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You are edit warring just as badly. Acting like a child doesn't help your cause. Ace^Moderator 03:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

(EC) To quote Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society, "There is a time for daring and a time for caution, and a wise man knows which is called for." ListenerX^TalkerX 03:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

If you keep trying to talk to me in block comments I will keep not listening, Brx. Ace^Moderator 03:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) You don't seem to understand. By enforcing the will of the community and preventing Human from making revisions nobody came out in support of, I am doing nothing wrong. Human is edit warring, not I. He must wait until the community reaches a decision. He is not the emperor of RationalWiki, and he needs to stop acting like it. I get blocked when I edit war, as should Human.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand just fine - you don't. You were edit warring - Human just keeps reverting you and he can unblock himself so you were getting absolutely nowhere and it was going to keep going until one of you gave up. The adult thing to do is recognise this and try a different approach. Ace^Moderator 03:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that while human did make changes, he took it to talk page pretty quickly. That's not "edit waring" per say, that being stuborn. and virtually every one of us is stubborn, and there is nothing wrong with it. I think you could both use a 5 minute timeout with your noses against the wall, saying your multiplication tables, but i'm not your mother. But you are both acting like 5 year olds.GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 03:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Ace^Moderator 03:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Brxbrx, there is absolutely no need for you personally to be the policeman in such matters. It makes you come off like a tattletale squealing to the teacher over mala prohibita. I think it would be wiser for you to leave such policing duties to others. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

What you did has been noted. You used a tool clumsily and obnoxiously. If you EVER block me again, I will have you erased from this wiki permanently. Consider your idiot self warned. To everyone and anyone else, I do not consider being blocked (for more than 3 seconds, which "reload" can fix) "fun" or "useful". Want to comment on something I did? I have a talk page. Disagree with an edit? Revert it, and the article will have a talk page. And thanks to the sane people for pointing out just how wrongly Bricks was behaving. Only Nutty Roux's calming advice kept this situation out of the silly coop. ħuman 03:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think that one of the block reasons is "Boring, repetitive revisions to an established article?" You were edit warring against community consensus, and I blocked you for it.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Bricks

It's requiring an almost Zen-like level of self-control not to abuse the standards on you myself. You show a staggering lack of self-awareness, my friend. Perhaps it's you with the developmental disability. Blue (is useful) 03:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. The person who accused Armondikov of possibly having developmental disorders want WfG to avoid children due to not considering other peoples feelings? Weird, man. Ace^Moderator 03:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I snapped months ago. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Aceshouse.jpg

Brx, you are not welcome

Wait what about Godot and children? She's fucking lovely. Lovely. Jesus Brx. How many times do people have to express their revulsion at your base character before you muster the dignity to just fucking leave? You're and awful person! 08:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

ED slang

Please stop using ED slang, it really is childish. We do not need to call every offended person "butthurt", pipe things to various 4chan-esqe memes, etc. RandonGeneration (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't appear in articles, it's fine. It is highly telling of the editor who uses such language, but that's the case with any racist comment, ignorant comment, emotional comment, sware word comment, etc. If an editor writes like a pre teen, he'll be seen as a pre teen. It's all good. --GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 18:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"Butthurt" is pretty widespread. I've seen it used quite a lot on RW, & sometimes used it myself. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't used "butthurt" here in quite a while. And what slang have I used here of late?--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You know all the dumb things you say linger on forever, right? So whether you were an EDiot last year, last month, or yesterday, you come across to people as an EDiot. And I'm willing to bet Randon's comment is based on very recent history. Too bad they didn't provide a difflink. ħuman 03:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to do a "diff link", but this is the page. I undid the change of David, who restored Brx's "buttlink" that probably started this, since RG's comment is the same day as the BON removed the butthurt line. here. GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 04:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Never mind. it resorted to Brx, who had been the last editor but he didn't write it. so who knows. GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 04:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems to be a case of mistaken identity. I can't find a 'butthurt' in any of his contribs in the day or so before Radon's comment. Peter ^{Blessed are the cheesemakers} 04:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Seriously Brx

brx, seriously. STAY THE FUCK OUT OF DEBATES ETC THAT DO NOT CONCERN YOU. Not because it isn't allowed but because you are already on thin ice with EVERYONE. So lay low. Ace^Moderator 04:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This is good advice.--^talk 06:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

History of discussions

A history lesson. In the Good Old Days, pre-emptive "discussions" were not quite so common on the Wiki as they are now. Usual operating procedure, to which Human still hews, was to be bold at all times; if there was disagreement over some edit, after about ten reversion cycles the dispute was usually taken to the talk-page, to be hashed out by discussion until we reached a consensus. In those days we could usually reach it. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Saw this and thought of you

check out #2 Bad Faith (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

And what have I done to seek attention, exactly? Tell me so I can improve myself.</sardonic>--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how the fool managed to say "Asperger's syndrome" where he meant "psychopathy." Slight difference there. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Email

Seems you emails have fallen into the wrong hands....Ace^Moderator 04:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You haven't received jackshit. Go back to cleaning the vomit off of your cheap suits all the while telling yourself that you're hip--User:Brxbrx/sig 06:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I am guessing I am one of the "political opponents" of which you speak... (P.S. My suits are very expensive and I rarely if ever vomit). Ace^Moderator 07:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you hacked Maratrean's email account?--User:Brxbrx/sig 11:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You have no political enemies. People hate you because you're irredeemably worthless sleaze. Your email was precious, as if it were written by someone with the emotional life of a child. 12:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

And once again Nutty Roux leaves a nothingness of data and takes up some drive space... --Thérèse Raquin (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, anonymous coward. 13:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This is UHM. Nice to see that you are still a narcissistic blowtard. --Thérèse Raquin (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have hacked no ones account. Ace^Moderator 20:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It would seem no one has honored your request either, after checking the user rights log. Ace^Moderator 20:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Saw this and thought of you #2

El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 12:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Brx, do you still get e-mails whenever someone posts here? The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 13:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder also. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 13:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I mean, You could change that. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 13:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

That's why I had to ask. The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 13:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I just thought I would check in and see if he still gets them or if he changed it. The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 13:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Jah, fuck ya all. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 13:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I no longer receive emails every time somebody edits my talk page--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Chewing on glass and eating fingers.

Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 14:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I like Ministry! I have their Animositomina album--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

And a few of their songs I got from compilations I pirated--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

And a few of their songs I got from compilations I pirated- That's illegal. I have advised the NZ mounties of your treachery. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 14:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

And I the Florida Department of Agriculture And Whatever. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 17:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

How many times do you need to be told?

Fucking stop it. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 07:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

What the hell are you doing? I am allowed to create alternate accounts, and since they are me, I can give them user rights. Are you going to desysop Pimobile, too? And when Weaseloid told me to stop, he specifically said it was because it was a time of turmoil. So piss off.--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Fucking stop it. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 20:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah? Why?--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No one listened to your email because no one thought there was any reason for to create yourself a whole load of sysop accounts because you feared 'political enemies'. So fucking stop it. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 21:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ace does have a point, it really is pointless to create multiple accounts for political reasons. If anyone desysops you, they get reverted, and cooped, and no lasting harm is done. ✓RandonGeneration (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the only reason I survived the Easter chaos was because I was able to notify people I was blocked with my alternate accounts (which before then had been created for the sake of either humor or to prevent impersonation)--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No one listened to your email because no one wanted you to do it so fucking stop it. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 21:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No, why don't you fuck off? There is no issue with me creating these accounts, no reason to stop me except for you to get on my case. Everybody else was content to leave it be, and let me have my backup accounts--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No one listened to your email because no one wanted you to do it so fucking stop it. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 02:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"Everybody else was content" with the situation where they were blocked, or at very least not sysops. Peter ^{Urist for Mod!} 02:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think about how little it would take to disappear Brx from the entire database and server-side block him and it makes me smile. ^{— Unsigned, by: Nutty Roux / talk / contribs, Champion of the Oppressed, Defender of Liberty and Justice} 03:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Quite a lot actually, you would have to manually remove his comments from each and every revision that contains them, which could be thousands if not more. -- Nx / talk 06:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Heeeeey, NX IS BACK! Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 07:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

(EC) 1984-style memory-holing is significantly easier with databases than with paper, but it is still slightly difficult to remove unpersons' utterances in a surgical fashion while keeping everyone else's as intact as possible. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Which would be a little confusing considering most interactions with brx are people yelling at him while he whines and taunts. I'm obviously not talking about removing his edits. 13:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not slightly difficult, it's a technical nightmare for a pro regexer. I can't even conceive of how youd do it. There will be a cascade effect of hundreds of thousands of iterations of his edits due to the way WM stores revisions. 14:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Advice, Friendly, non-contentious, non-antognistic advice.

As you know you people are rather wary of you at RW. Whether or not that is fair is a matter of opinion but you'll admit you do cop flack from quite a few people. Not just people like Nutty and I but people like Blue, Ty and AD who you'll agree have been very even handed with you. A long term issue is that you don't seem to think before acting or speaking and frequently have been chastised for involving yourself in heated arguments between other users if which you have no cause to be involved in. You consistently do this and it makes you a target because instead of hanging in background or making a quiet point you instead usually make a sneering, off topic remark - usually poorly stated and unnecessarily inflaming.
Here are two hints:

• If you see a dispute between users you have previously had bad relations with it is best not to involve yourself.
• Unless it is a community wide debate(coop, mods etc) think to yourself before commenting "Is what I am going to say relevant and helpful or antagonistic and unneeded?"

None of this is to say you shouldn't express an opinion but more to get you to understand why people have such a low opinion of you. So please heed this. It's to help you and everyone that has dealings with you. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 03:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"If you see a dispute between users you have previously had bad relations with it is best not to involve yourself." -->"If you see a dispute between users you have previously had bad relations with it is best for anyone not to involve yourself themselves." That would cut down on so much of the bullshit here. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 04:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed but someone as high profile (for all the wrong reasons) as Brx needs reminding about this. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 04:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

tu quoque--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are two hints: *If you see a dispute between users you have previously had bad relations with it is best not to involve yourself. *Unless it is a community wide debate(coop, mods etc) think to yourself before commenting "Is what I am going to say relevant and helpful or antagonistic and unneeded?" Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 04:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Brx, brx, brx, brx....

When you emailed me with your request/entirely unearned 'megafavor' you left me in a rather tricky situation. You wanted me to, in effect, abuse my rights in secret for an end that I in no way supported - hence my calling it absurd.

So what was I going to do? It would be more in my nature to reply with a kind 'no' and an explanation, but there was good reason why I wasn't going to do that in this case. For one, replying would A. only encourage you to send me further emails and B. give you my email address, and with it my full name. And given AD's increased antagonism towards you brought on by your incessant mailing, along with what I've heard from others, I get the impression that doing so would be a rather bad idea. [ED: see Ace above.] So I didn't.

But what else to do? When, in your tantrums, you email Blue pleading for aid she tends to make a token and/or sarcastic effort to do so. However, there wasn't anything equivalent I could do here. I could have just ignored you, but you threatened to ask someone else to do your dirty work and in order to stop the "shitstorm" that you seem to have been unaware would not have been averted by me doing the dirty business for you, passivity was not an option.

So I wrote a semi-vague reply to your 'receipt' request, and made the issue if not public then close enough to ensure that nobody else in their right mind was going to give the thing a second thought. And when Ace mailed me to ask what you wanted I decided, in the end, to give it to him. Why? Because, frankly, your favour was a little insulting. Did you really think I was going to do it? Consider, also, the content, and the fact that you wanted to control who I passed on your top secret instructions to.

It was perhaps not the best option - it certainly wasn't perfect - but I'll not turn my back on it now. You can call it a breach of trust if you like, but I'm not asking you to trust me and I'm not sure how I got this trust to breach in the first place. Carry a grudge for the rest of your days by all means, but please don't raise it in entirely unrelated thread with a "While I have your attention." You now know my reasoning, do with it what you please.

(I was going to post this more than 24 hours ago, but I was delayed in pushing 'save' by the increasing rumblings of HCM and a day trip to Feilding. G'night.) Peter ^HFB2 09:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You could have just said no, and then you wouldn't be a jackass.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Take some responsibility for your own actions, brx. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 21:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That's rich, coming from you. What the fuck did I do, anyways? I made a request of PeterL. I saw that he was on the ninja list and at the time I thought he was an okay guy, so I emailed him. As a result, he decides to get his douche on. All he had to do was say no. Now, Ace, would you please fuck off?--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You are calling PeterL a jackass without considering your own behaviour which lead him to make the decision he did. This is an ongoing problem which everyone keeps trying to point out to you. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 21:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I have had to remind 3 times to stay out of discussions

Read the above, AD has agreed my advice is good advice. I am sure if we go back through the archives we'll find more pieces of this advice. It is becoming a moderation issues with you - you need to think before you edit. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 05:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It's called the MYOB rule. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 06:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Kind, friendly advice part duex

In light of the above I had a look over your talk pages archives and there are numerous complaints about you. Before we had even crossed paths on RW many, many people have asked you to many times to cease whatever action it is you are doing. You seem totally incapable of listening and play the same card over and over. Several times people have told you to stay out of debates involving other editors because you never help the situation and almost always make things worse. Heed the advice, think before you involve yourself, stop blaming everyone else for all your failures and engage some fucking goddamned common sense. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 07:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Dude

What the fuck? Enough man, it's hardly a robrail. He hasn't commented for 5 hours and the discussion is old already. Plus it isn't pages long. Chill the fuck out. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 23:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A new low, even for you.

Using homosexuality as an insult. That's pretty low. I'm really not surprised you did it, though. Pretty much par for the course for you. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 23:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a new low, I think I've taken flak for that before and have apologized. And that wasn't the insult. I would have jokingly insinuated that Ace McWicked was the dominant partner in an abusive relationship with AD even if one of them was a woman. Since they are both men, the hypothetical mocking relationship was homosexual in nature.

Say, why haven't you called out Ace for his repeated and unrepentant use of the words "cunt" and "retard?" Oh, right, he's your buddy. That's why. You only really use political correctness as a tool to antagonize people. You don't actually care about social history and others' feelings.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't actually care about social history Jews, Cordoba, cranky conservatives, lynching...etc etc. Oh my...Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 00:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

1. I never said I cared about social history. I do, but
2. I misunderstood the setting I was in, and spoke more quickly than I should have. I regret making those comments
3. Leave me alone, I don't enjoy addressing you

--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You are officially irredeemable. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm feeling smug and self-assured right now. Why don't you explain why I am irredeemable? Who knows, maybe you'll even hurt me enough to knock me off my pedestal!--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Holy shit....Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 00:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

?

What's up with this? Please don't edit my comments on talk pages. Thanks. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 00:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Woops, don't know how I did that. It was an accident, I swear, although it does look like I whitewashed your reaction to me...--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did add that bit after I made my first edit. Kinda dickish on my part, actually. No worries! PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 00:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

:(

Quit warring. Ace is right. There is a strong presumption against moving talk page material unless there's widespread agreement. He objects, so leave it be.--^talk 00:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I was talking directly to Karajou there. He went ballistic last time I suggested Karajou eats hallucinogenic mushrooms and is why I am nw indefinitely blocked from CP. ToP is just a closed minded bigot, so I can't understand why he has such a hard time speaking the same language Karajou understands. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 01:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You should clarify on the page, perhaps apologize. Me, I don't think ToP is a bigot (close-minded, sure, why not), I think he uses political correctness as a means to attack people and overall feel superior. Which is a shame, because political correctness (in my eyes more a matter of politeness than politics) certainly has its place. He just cheapens it.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

He's a piece of shit and just proved it again. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 02:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Always ready to come to the defence of a racist.

Good thing you weren't in Cordova....Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 01:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You are so full of shit, it's coming out your ears--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Rob

To try to resolve this shit over Rob, I've opened a vote on the Chicken Coop and I wanted to make sure you were aware. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 10¹³ points 10:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't start having conversations with people by name when they're just some BoN.

It makes you look creepy, stalkery, and TK-esque. It's really distasteful. And also ill-advised when the person you imagine it to be is an internet hate machine who has already published FB profiles and other stuff from one of our own. Why risk escalating that kind of nonsense? Not a bright thing to do. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 04:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This edit...

...There have been many, many WigoWorlds... noting the deaths of famous people. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 07:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wigoworld is difficult because it covers both positive and negative events. It shouldn't be a vote for or against the actual event but rather a vote on whether it's interesting or not. So a WIGO on someone's death is not necessarily about being glad that they're gone but can be a an appreciation of their lifetime contributions. Генгис^{Gum disease} 11:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)