Information icon.svg Survey Closing Today: The RationalWiki Community Survey 2017 is closing at 2300 UTC today. See the results.

User talk:ClothCoat

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, ClothCoat!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Greetings, ClothCoat, and thank you for joining the wiki containing dozens of pimpalicious flightdecks! I hope you enjoy your time here. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 11:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, great job writing the Dennis Prager article. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 11:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sign.[edit]

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 02:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If I'll stay here long enough that title will be mine ;) - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  • The weird part is that I don't even know what I did. Oh well, I'll take it as a complement. ClothCoat (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Clothcoat
    • Sorry to burst your bubble but you haven't been voted the biggest asshole. The page is just designed in a way that whomever views it will see himself voted as biggest asshole. I went there just now and it showed me voted as biggest asshole. I then logged out, and it showed "anonymous user" voted as biggest asshole. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
      • LOL that's pretty funny actually. I didn't know about that oh well thanks for the heads up. This is embarrassing lol.ClothCoat (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)ClothCoat

The Five[edit]

I have left comments on Talk:The Five. Your input would be appreciated.--ADtalkModerator 12:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Your screams have not gone unremarked[edit]

Here is your mop. Use it joyfully, and in good health. Sprocket J Cogswell Talk to Sprocket 20:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Haha thank you very much. ClothCoat (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone unblock me right fucking now[edit]

I did nothing wrong besides delete a page no one wanted (trey parker and matt stone). I was just finishing an edit and now I have to do it all over again. ClothCoat (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Sysops can unblock themselves. Ya big baby. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 22:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
How does one unblock oneself or another? Btw, I never blocked anyone here.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 22:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah. I've only been a sysop for an hour How do I unblock myself? ClothCoat (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I unblocked you.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 22:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. ClothCoat (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Next time, start here. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 22:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. ClothCoat (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
My apologies. I should have used the drop-down block reason that says it's up to you to unblock yourself. Shall we consider this part of the ritual complete, or must we go through it all over again? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I managed to unblock myself anyways, so it's good. I'm glad I didn't do anything wrong to get blocked though. ClothCoat (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Obama and fascism[edit]

I understand why you chose to delete "Obama and Fascism" unilaterally, seeing as we're a wiki about exposing hoaxes and yet we seem to be advancing a hoax. I should note, however, that there were indeed 14 characteristics of fascism proposed by a scholar of philosophy who live through fascism, namely, Umberto Eco. His 14 characteristics can be found here. You will notice, they are not the same as the 14 listed in our recently-departed article. All this said, I think it may be worthwhile to find out the true source of the 14 characteristics in our article, as they are pretty good, incomplete as they may be, even if Dr. Lawrence Britt isn't real, and maybe the article could be restored if the source was deemed credible. Rand0 (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure but you should start from scratch if you want to do that. I would also include the opinions and definitions of fascsim from people who specialize in the subject though, such as Roger Griffin. ClothCoat (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Economist revisited[edit]

I know you have a (IMO, pretty justified) grudge on the magazine's content, but it's stuff like this which shows that there are much worse publications out there. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that of course. They are relatively moderate and reasonable but I just think they're also overrated and, like most VSP's, get away clean with horrible predictions that would destroy anyone else's reputation. ClothCoat (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I misread your username...[edit]

...and I thought you were Bagpuss. Now I am sad that you are not an old fat furry catpuss. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm genuinly sorry this happened to you, I should probably change my name to not sound so similar to Bagpuss so that no more hearts are broken. ClothCoat (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd be happier if you were an old, saggy cloth cat, baggy, and a bit loose at the seams. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
This conversation has taken a path I have difficulty following. ClothCoat (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
it saddens me even more that you seem to be unaware of everyone's favourite cloth cat. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Well now even I wish I was the real Bagpuss as well.ClothCoat (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Republican Party[edit]

Good job on the Republican Party! God forbid it should contain any facts or remotely resemble reality. Keeping it the stinking partisan piece of crap it is, is exactly what Rationalwiki, and rational sense, demands. nobs"It all depends what Isil is" 20:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It is widely known that Eisenhower was the last Republican president to balance the budget google it if you must. It's not my fault you can't come to terms with that. Again I'm pretty sure I would hate you by now but I am still too thankful that because of you I know who Kara Duhe is.ClothCoat (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Yah well your information is screwed. GW balanced the budget in 2001 (the fiscal year goes from Oct 2000 to Sept 2001; that means Bush inherited Clinton's budget after four months, made proposals and revisions, and Congress acted on those in Supplemental Appropriations. Of course if you were a gringo yankee you'd know these things. It is understandable someone with a third world education can have his/her/other facts skewed.nobs"It all depends what Isil is" 21:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Go away you racist prick and I AM a "gringo yankee" you moron. Also check your facts GW Bush spent more than any other predeccessor until you go back as far as LBJ.
This is pretty fucking simple: you got the date of Eisenhower balancing the budget as 1961. Ike left office January 1961. You deny the new president, GW Bush, balancing the budget in 2001 when any moron can google the Washington Post and see Oct. 29, 2001, when George Walker Bush was President, the budget surplus was $127 billion. nobs"It all depends what Isil is" 20:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Ike also balanced the budget in 1956, 1957 and 1960. In fact I don't see anything on 1961. And yes he was still working with Clinton's budget then and by 2002 we had deficits again due to Bush's tax cuts and wars. Why is it whenever I google "last republican president to balance budget" I'm just redirected to Eisenhower? Why no mention of Bush? Why isn't the GOP bragging about Bush's balanced budget? Why isn't ANY economist talking about and why is the consensus that he didn't balance the budget? Now go away. ClothCoat (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

This is me quibbling[edit]

If Marx made genuine contributions, is "discredited" the right adjective to describe him? [1]--"Shut up, Brx." 16:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I meant in terms of a communist revolution and command economies, hence why most economists are not Marxists. Marx was very intelligent but he was limited by the tools of his time. It would be like a doctor in the 19th century being able to make a correct diagnosis but not having the medicinal breakthroughs to correctly deal with it. As Keynes said "How can I accept the Communist doctrine, which sets up as its bible, above and beyond criticism, an obsolete textbook which I know not only to be scientifically erroneous but without interest or application to the modern world?" You can believe whatever you want and maybe one day we'll have the technology to allow a command economy to work but from a mainstream econ school point of view (which is what the sections about) it's only a bit better than the Austrian School. ClothCoat (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Except he was an idiot on surplus value then, and it remains bullshit today. Even Wikipedia says, "Many liberal economists believe that the Marxist labor theory of value has been discredited. nobs"It all depends what Isil is" 20:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
That's basically what I said but I was trying to be nice. Oh and um Rob? GET OFF MY TALK PAGE ALREADY! ClothCoat (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

So, about Chris Ladd[edit]

He's predicting Cruz as 2016 nominee. I'm not so sure. Osaka Sun (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If the primaries were held today and every Republican had to decide who to vote for right at this instant I think Cruz would probably win because he is so popular with the base. However when they have time to think about it and they see the Democrats have a very good chance of winning, and Cruz probably starts having his history used against him, then as the election gets closer to happening I think they'll chicken out and choose someone blander. They'd have to have zero self-awareness to nominate Cruz, he's a worse candidate that Goldwater was. ClothCoat (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
For many Americans it will probably be the most consequential election they've seen in their lifetimes. You just can't predict the outcome: there was a real chance that an establishment candidate could've tried a "Bull Moose" and take on the Tea Party (Chris Christie was well-positioned to do this until the bridge scandal), but now the far-right might feel they're not getting their say under a Republican Congress and go the Dixiecrat third party route, or (what I think is most likely) there's no nominee going into the Convention and they'll have to make another wingnut, possibly Cruz, the VP pick. I didn't anticipate the speed in which Jon Huntsman, who is the closest thing to rationality in the GOP, to effectively say "Abandon hope all ye who enter here." Osaka Sun (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
If they go full Dixie then Huntsman or some other (relative) moderate right-winger may run against them. If they try to moderate, someone like Mike Huckabee may, as you suggest, go the AIP route. To keep both happy they'll probably have to run someone bland who flip flops like no tommorow like Mitt Romney. Either way I see no possible way they could win unless the Democratic nominee is truly awful, it will decide the future of the GOP however. The Dixiecrats have to be in someones party however, they won't stay third party for long. ClothCoat (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Again, Huntsman's already said he's not running. The ones to watch in the next year will be donors and members of the RNC who come to the same conclusion. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
One has to wonder if liberals will be smart enough to take advantage of this and get one of their own to be the Democratic candidate. Considering the trainwreck that's coming to the GOP in 2016 this may be their chance to actually have a comeback over the centrists who have been the Democrats nominee's for so long (and I actually have serious doubts Hillary will be the Democratic candidate). Then again they could just wait ten more years for that to happen naturally. Anyways yes I understand where Ladd is coming from in that Cruz is probably more popular with the base than any of the other candidates but there's no sure way to know who it'll be, as you say it's chaos in there. Any conservarive darkhorse could have a chance if things get bad enough. ClothCoat (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Obama was the liberal candidate (another reason why 2008 was a big deal). The Democrats' main goal is to nominate someone who can bridge the progressive and centrist wings quickly and then observe the spectacle. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
True though he's been centrist since being elected. I think the progressives are eyeing this election with them wanting Elizabeth Warren to take the nomination from Hillary Clinton. Needless to say Warren is to the "left" (by American standards) of both Obama and Clinton so it's hard to tell if she could win but considering the chaos in the GOP well, I think that's why the progressives are getting more anxious (allong with anger at Obama's Third Way path). They may be starting to feel they can elbow out the centrists since the opposition that united them is so weak anyways right now. ClothCoat (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I won't go into all the endless "Is Warren gonna challenge Clinton?" yammering at this point, though I agree with you that some ideological issues need to be resolved. But faced with the prospect of a political realignment and the craziest Republican ticket yet, I won't bet on a party revolt. Osaka Sun (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Very true. I think I'm one of the few people who finds the Democratic nominee more interesting than the Republican one, since they will most likely be our next president. If Hillary has it in the bag with the Democrats than she is going to be our next president. I could care less about the Republicans at this point, I know they probably aren't going to nominate anyone who could win so they exist more for amusement than anything else. I'm just curious to see how badly they'll probably lose. However I don't understand the excitement over Hillary, as she'll probably govern very similarly to Barack Obama, which is to say "Passably well, a B minus perhaps. Could be worse". ClothCoat (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, we've already started the 2016 Republican Party presidential nomination article. Most of the editors responsible for 2012 have LANCBed, so... Osaka Sun (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm think it would contribute anything to break them up into subgroups of conservatives such as "establishment vs populist" since that's who the fight is going to be between. ClothCoat (talk) 08:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

make sure you[edit]

take yourself off bot when you aren't using it--Miekal 03:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

What does that mean should I sign out more? I'm sorry I'm technologically illiterate. Oh ok I looked it up yeah I didn't use a bot I revised the extreme wingnuttery category one article at a time. I had to really, since there were three seperate categories to sort them into based on ideology/government control and I don't think a bot could handle that efficiently. ClothCoat (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Bot is a tag that makes you invisible on RC, just make sure you put yourself in that user category before going on a spre--Miekal 14:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

...for adding sources to the Stopped Clock article. I've tried to gain the attention of the community on both the Stopped Clock and Inverse Stopped Clock talk pages. I'll give it some more time obviously, but if need be I may be forced to manually decimate the length of the articles by baleting every single unsourced Claim. If nothing else, that ought to get the beehive buzzing, heh heh heh... *massages hands violently* Anyways, thank you! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'll try to add some more sources for already existing claims in my free time. ClothCoat (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You've been nominated![edit]

Over here. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:10, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Are you going to accept or decline? SolPyre (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
As I'm not entirely sure how moderators are much different from systops I think I'll decline thanks for the offer though. ClothCoat (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

An invitation to discuss[edit]

A mirror of the same invitations sent out to 142 and to Mona, I would greatly appreciate it if you could possibly find the time to look into my suggestion that the article, as it stands now, displays a lack of coherent formatting and indeed overall quality that we ought to adress, largely by the addition of sources that - for one - are in english. The goal - a better article on this woman, with no inherent change in tone being necessary whatsoever, on the assumption on sources in english that are not contested by other sources of equal or greater respectability to us. The discussion itself is located here. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Chomsky[edit]

At some article or another when I first got here I reverted the "left of reason" because I thought it was a put-down. Someone pretty snidely took me to task for my ignorance. So, I recall that.---Mona- (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

OK sounds good thanks. I think we shouldn't call him a moonbat or "left of reason" because he sort of walks the line between the two, usually being reasonable but then having enough weird outbursts to place him in the latter cateogory. ClothCoat (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of article[edit]

You shouldn't have deleted the adultism article without going through the articles for deletion process, especially not when many people - including User:Reverend Black Percy, User:Owlman, User:FuzzyCatPotato and 141.134.75.236 - all voted for the article to stay. Put it back. Totallynotharambe (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Easy, grasshopper[edit]

You have to learn to detect obvious trolls better, man. And to not feed them. You caught his act eventually (the same act he's been pulling on several other talkpages at once), but next time, don't even waste your breath. Your first official test in resisting the urge to feed the troll will begin when he invariably shows up here to sealion further. All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

True. I figured out he was probably a troll when he said he was hoping for the French Revolution 2.0 but he does know his commie memes pretty well for a troll. ClothCoat (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm way behind on my friendly chatting quota[edit]

Apologies for not answering sooner. ADHD, y'know. Regardless, in response to this; Yes — yes, you may. All the best Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)