User talk:Dirk Steele

3 month ban now by Sethpeck. I am a one trick pony? I know a bit about one subject. Pathetic but I suppose quoting facts is not allowed here. Pseudoscience rules ok. Feynmans criticism of psychiatry still exists. Nothing has changed. Sethpeck states It's a great game to look at the past, at an unscientific era, look at something there, and say have we got the same thing now' Yet he does that with Hubbard. Is that rational? No. Dirk Steele (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Feynman quote ' Who are the witch doctors? Psychoanalysts and psychiatrists, of course.' Also '“And this is medicine ?”--Dirk Steele (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course the real reason for my ban is that I mentioned Ego-dystonic sexual orientation which parts of psychiatry still seem to think is a mental disease. Obviously the 'Scientific Method' comes a poor second to cultural groupthink on here. Gangs rule ok! Dirk Steele (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I have now been blocked for 7 days! So sorry I will not be able to respond to all your interesting and fascinating questions and ideas that would further research. I am being blocked because I am a 'momomaniac'. That is - my area of expertise is only in one subject. (Although I would like to contribute to Everett's Multi-Universes quantum explanations or even Crowley or Chaos Magick I do not yet feel I am qualified. Although I do consider myself an expert on Jack Kirby/Ditko comic art and the birth of Marvel comics as a dialectical hegemony of USA politics in the early 1960s (based on WW2 belief systems as expoused by Captain America)) I am still awaiting the appropriate time to create a new wiki page). So I just stick to the one subject now.. which is 'Psychiatry is a quack psuedoscience unsupported by the scientic methodology (Popper). I did think that this was appropriate to a site that prides itself on being 'rational' but obviously I have made a serious mistake for which I offer my profound and profuse apologies. So thanks Sophie Wilder for giving me the time to reflect on my stupidity and the true (Godwin) totalitarian nature of this site whereby those ideas not deemed 'acceptable' by the prevailing authority are censored. Book burning still exists even within the libertarian kindle internet ideal. In the meantime I will take a time out to read this interesting stuff. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Extended_evolutionary_synthesis and also take the time to get totally lathered whilst partaking in my favourite psychoactive substances. I quite enjoy exploring the synthesis between epigenetics and niche contruction. --Dirk Steele (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Site rules? So Sophie Wilder. How many subjects do I have to have expertise in in order to contribute here? How many subjects are you an expert on? Please enlighten us on your marvellous superiority. Thanks. --Dirk Steele (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

'How not to block (from RatinalWkik)

Please don't block in anger or spite. Please do not block just because you disagree with someone. And please keep block lengths as short as it takes to do the job (minutes).

If possible, try engaging the vandal, not blocking them. Obviously someone editing random pages to insert gibberish or blank them is not going to respond to kindness, but if an editor seems to be trying to say something, see if you can get them to go to the talk pages. If they make nasty articles, we can de-nasty them in most cases.

Also, unlike certain other wikis that will remain anonymous, we do not block merely for associating with sites we disagree with. So if a well-known fascist user from you-know-where or a similar site joins, so long as they don't vandalize the pages, you shouldn't stop them; encourage them, rather. '

Oh yeh? Freedom is slavery! What bollocks between theory and practise.. almost as bad as superstring ideas. Hippocrates! --Dirk Steele (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh and just to state that I am no anti-Darwinist nutter. Natural selection is still the key theory of biology. But Darwin did not know about genes, or that 'Lamarkian' evolution is possible via gene expression (methylene) inherited by environmental stress, and also niche construction (i.e the idea maybe that replication in hunter gatherer societies may require a different gene expression than in industrial cities depending on sexual selection preferences). I see these views as an extension of Darwinism, like Einstein extented and corrected Newton, rather than overturned. I.e I am not some crazy flaptwatlicker (only sometimes) that engages with (un)intelligent design concepts. Frank Tipler may be a renowned physicist but he is also a religious nuttyfruitcase freak. --Dirk Steele (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for all those who have been anticipating with rapture my new wonderous enunciation. I have been banned by some blockhead. (No not Ian Dury).--Dirk Steele (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I have had a reprieve for which I am truely thankful. --Dirk Steele (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

So the wankface cint http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Mikal has blocked me again. No reason. No rationality. Ha! Why? Why have you blocked me? Ok no reason is required only fascist ability to censor is necessary. Oh dear......

I have been banned again!! Persona non grata???? What the frack? --Dirk Steele (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC) Rational explanation please. I made a new thread... Americans are dumb cos they do not understand irony. An Ironic statement!! I got banned!!! Ha ha! Can anyone tell me how to use the emoticon 'facepalm' ? Or even to load an jpg? --Dirk Steele (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I recommend you take this time to leave with whatever semblance of dignity and sanity you have left. Sincerely, some BoN. 209.188.16.122 (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I suffer from a mental illness. I cannot help the way I behave and I am taking medication. You should treat me with kindness and compassion rather than attempt to denigrate and stigmatise my person. You should be ashamed of yourself to treat those less fortunate than you in such a cruel manner. --Dirk Steele (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I use the word 'dialectic' in irony and I get blocked? What the fuck is this site? I hesitate to use certain banned words in case Godwin's law is evoked! Ha Ha!. --Dirk Steele (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Although I must say this site is more libertarian than say JREF, (I was banned after only one thread), and that great philosopher Steven Novella who banned me after a few days after Dirk objected to his promotion of Electro Convulsive Therapy http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/how-electroconvulsive-therapy-works/ after which he had to call me a 'troll'. Ha! (Note to inform you all that Dirk Steele is actually a totally fictional character. (Drink! Gurls!)He has no sanity or dignity apart from that which his Author allows him to have - which is not a lot!) ^{— Unsigned, by: Dirk Steele / talk / contribs}

In this particular case, the block was made explicitly to yank your chain and feed your persecution complex. Not that you need any help for the latter...--ZooGuard (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You utter bitch! Wank my chain all you want baby! --Dirk Steele (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Dirk Steele! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

I guess tonight the lone wolf is riding in a wolfpack...of one! -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey! Just go and frack yourself! I see you are still reading your juvenile comics. Me .. I was brought up on the occultist writer/artists such as Kirby and Ditko. In fact I may just visit my attic again to re read all my 60s marvel comics. --Dirk Steele (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I am too stupid to know how stupid I am. I mostly suffer from confirmation bias, or as described in the DSM5, the Dunning-Kruger effect. I self medicate with 'aqua fortis' as well as copious amounts of hashish. (although I think this medicine makes my condition worse but I am forced to take it as part of my rehabilitation into the mental health Care in the Community program.) Although in person I can seem to be a pleasant chappy, once shielded by anonymity I become a 'keyboard warrior' and have the tendency to rave and rant like a pathetic idiot. I know that wisdom comes with age, (I should be a sage by now), but in my case dementia seems to be the more prominent trait. I am hoping that becoming a member of RationalWiki will cure me of my preposterous ideas but it would seem I need to be here for the long haul. --Dirk Steele (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Minimal talk page etiquette

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Kleinzeit (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok will do. Sorry new to this... Dirk Steele (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah I get it! For once. Dirk Steele (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Testing...Dirk Steele (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

thanks--Dirk Steele (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The preview button will help you as well. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Temporary Block

I am temporarily blocking you. This will last only a day, so don't lose your mind. I want you to use this time to sit and calm down and consider re-approaching your posting here. Dissent is good, but you're arguing against decades of well accepted science not with evidence suggesting a better explanation, but with accusations of pseudoscience, most of which can be explained in an Intro to Psych course. I want you to use this time to consider the way you are presenting your position, if there's a better way to present that opinion, if your position is based on the evidence, if there's a better place for you to discuss your position, or if you may want to take some classes (possibly online classes) on the subject at hand and come back to discuss the manner at another time.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Hamilton. - You are a complete and utter knob (english word meaning dick). Why don't you piss off and stuff your patronising attitude up your anal sphincter (english for asshole). Thanks. --Dirk Steele (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Dirk, you are not blocked. Hamilton, please refer to the RationalWiki:blocking policy and RationalWiki:sysop guide, and don't use blocks to control a conversation. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou Weaseloid. Hamilton, I would like to point out that I have spent nearly 40 years researching psychology, from Freud,Jung and Adler as well as the evolutionary psychologists/social biologists such as Bill Hamilton, E.O Wilson, and Konrad Lorenz. I obtained a Bsc(hons) in psychology from the University of Sussex in 1979. I also subscribe to the scientific method as expounded by Popper. Would you like to give me an exam in order to prove my understanding? Frankly I find your continual advice to take an 'intro into psychology' an insult. Would you please let me know your academic credentials? You do not even seem to be aware that psychiatry is a different discipline from psychology. It is a well known fact that within psychiatry there are no biological markers used to identify a mental illness. There are no objective tests/measurements employed clinically to diagnose a psychiatric disorder. Read the DSM5 for example http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx. Or to save time see http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/streams-of-consciousness/2012/05/11/why-are-there-no-biological-tests-in-psychiatry/. If you want to argue against this then you will need to cite the evidence or else risk looking foolish. Dirk Steele (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Dirk, you've been responded to as an unqualified troll/spammer by Dr. Steven Novella, whose credentials are in no way in question. It seems like you did not learn how to behave in April when he pretty much bent you over a table and spanked you.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed he did, although when you examine the comments I left to him on his mental illness denial blogs starting here http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mental-illness-denial-part-i/, I do not think he made much effort to address the issues and prefered to define me as a 'troll'. A fact that he may not be aware of, is that there are many within the field of psychiatry who have felt Szasz to be an important figure (Popper was one). A simple read of wiki or at www.Szasz.com would see that he is not considered a 'crank'. Novella has taken a 'populist' position without examining the evidence. Are you going to continue to use the argumentum ad hominem against me or address the issues? The fact is that I admire and agree with Dr. Novella on most of his other positions. --Dirk Steele (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Szasz was an important figure when he was one of the people who was helping to fix earlier mistakes. Now all he does is complain about things that are either not true, or where fixed in the 70s. I will not continue this conversation, but just know that I have my eye on you. --Logic and Empricism (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You have your eye on me? What a bizarre thing to say. "Now all he does is complain about things that are either not true, or where fixed in the 70s.". What was fixed in the 1970s? Any evidence you can cite? Have you actually read any Szasz? Dirk Steele (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey -Logic and Empricism (sic) Have you still got your beady eye on me? I do hope you approve of the comment I made on Crowley and Magick. Do you? I did have to smile when you asked that question about physics. Also after reading your User talk page about your interest in the social 'sciences' including economics and feminism and ordoliberalism I could not supress a little chuckle. Not really real sciences though are they? I now understand your confusion. Stick with me ... you may learn something. Cheers. Dirk Steele (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm a math major planning to do graduate work in economics. Going to tell me you think economics is pseudo-science?--Logic and Empricism (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Economics is not my field. I have always assumed that it identifies causal mechanisms that can be empirically tested and used to predict future events and I presume that economic theories can be falsifiable? I am not sure it is a science like physics, which is why I would define it as a 'soft' science (whatever that means!) Would you say it is possible for a marxist economist and an Austrian school economist to analyse the same data and come up with the same agreed conclusion? I am sure you have far more expertise than I here... Dirk Steele (talk) 10:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Marxist and Austrian School Economics are both complete jokes and are roundly and thoroughly ignored or mocked in the mainstream. You might as well ask if a creationist would come to the same conclusions as a biologists when looking at data: Who knows, who cares.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

mmm... so are Marxists and Austrians both the creationists of economics? (given that biologists are the scientists) As I said.. it is not my field so I am ignorant. Who do you define as mainstream then? Why do you think they are more scientific? My youngest son is at Manchester Uni studying economics so any advice would be useful. BTW, I do not understand the hero worship that Dr Novella commands. He plays everything so safe and never invokes anything contentious. His blog is pretty monotonous.. see Shuzi Magic Power Bracelet! Who the hell is going to argue about that? So his comments sections are full of acolytes praising his wonderous musings. How boring is that? Have you read neurological blogs such as http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.co.uk/ , http://neurobonkers.com/ , or http://neurocritic.blogspot.co.uk. At least these guys attempt to raise contentious issues. Dr Novella is more interested in furthering his career than upsetting any convention. I do not understand how so many people just bow at his feet. Of course he bans any dissenters like myself. (Well I did use the word 'mufferthucker' (sic) in a Freudian jest which then gave him the excuse to get rid of me. Ha! I did laugh! You can read the thread if you want). Of course the first course of action for the 'new age skeptics' is to banish those that question. Like you did to me! Anyway... I accept you can keep your Godlike eye on me for any trangressions. I am used to dealing with religious fundamentalists. Cheers! Dirk Steele (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hamilton Logic and Empricism (sic), since I have a little knowledge of the old math stuff... what do you study in this discipline? What do you specialise in? Give us a little insight into what you consider to be your field of expertise... Just looking at your page you claim to have a great deal of knowledge.. about so many many fields. 'Economics, Ethics, Philosophy of Science, Social and Political Philosophy, Social Psychology, Economic History, Reconstruction Germany, Reconstruction Japan, the Four Asian Tigers, Reunified Germany, making fun of Libertarians and An-Caps, harassing Nazis and racists, and calling Marxists overgrown children.' 'Standpoint/Liberal Feminism, Communitarianism, Ordoliberalism, Classic Republicanism, Meritocracy, Social Capitalism, Bright Green Environmentalism, Conservationism, Ethics of Care, Social Contract Theory, Liberal and Economic Nationalism.' 'American Propaganda from the 1930-1950s.Military history, theory, training, and the like (taking a breath) and Real Time Sims, Platform games, Puzzles Dungeons and Dragons (nerd!). Wow!! What a fucking genius you must be!!! And you are still at school! But you are actually a simpleton (according to your posts about basic physics and evolutionary biology!) And you claim to be an expert on psychology and psychiatry as well! What a brain you must have. I hope you leave it to science.... ;-) RationalWiki must be so proud to have you as a moderator. Ha ha! I must stop here before I piss myself laughing... Dirk Steele (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm a Sysop, not a moderator. You are also mistaking my interest in various subjects and my hobbies for expertise. --Logic and Empricism (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes... I have certainly mistaken your expertise. I notice you say 'I'm looking for a short to long term relationship with a nice young woman in the early to mid 20s.' I am surprised you have the time to take a dump.. let alone have any sex. (Apart from in your Dungeon and Dragon dreams).. oh.. I have pissed myself...haha!

Sorry. I did not mean to make an 'argumentum ad hominem' . But you make it so easy I could not help myself... Dirk Steele (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You're a nasty little twonk aren't you? Scream!! (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Explain why you think that.. If he wants to insult me..well I can give as good as I get. Maybe better. Dirk Steele (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No. Scream!! (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It's customary to indent one more : for each successive comment on talk pages. The two periods (..) which you are using are, I presume, intended for an ellipsis (…) which you can see has three. I do not see that Hamilton has insulted you anywhere. Your knowledge & interpretation possibly, I wouldn't know. You're not really worth the bother. Scream!! (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Read the start of the thread.. he f**king banned me. Until a nice mod explained to him the fu**ing rules. So now you can ban me for using fuc**ng banned words. Jeez.... RationalWiki? How can you ban a word? I do not understand that concept scientifically. And if I am not worth the bother... why do you bother? You are irrational. Dirk Steele (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Honestly Scream!!, I mostly respond to him here because then he responds to me which reminds me to check his contributions--Logic and Empricism (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc

Is this is rational scientific wiki? Or a pile of garbage. Dirk Steele (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 01:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Very good. That describes me to a T. I can see I have a lot to learn here. Thanks. --Dirk Steele (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry... but you lot seem a pile of religious w****s. You claim to be right from a religious position. Dirk Steele (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm honestly impressed with how quickly and aggressively you've gone into suicide-spiral. I'm somewhat tempted to ask if any of the other sysops want to take bets about how long it takes Dirk before he does something that someone decides is bannable.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course I understand how a Bruno or Copernicus be banned from a pathetic wikipedia. The sheeple cannot abide dissent. Dirk Steele (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course you so love the scientfic method... apart from when it deviates from your personal beliefs... total t**s. You want to debate science? Dirk Steele (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Come on you flapwits..

I'm going to suggest that you reread the Community Standards page.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok ban me.. Steven Novella and other numpties who cannot argue. Cheers!!! xIrprratdioynalmratfionalpedia! Di*ks. I will read the community standards once more.. OK. I suffer from the mental disease known as ODD. http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=106. Normally I am a nice kind person who is very respectful. But sometimes I cannot control my behaviour and have to take my prescription ( generally when the hydroxyl functional group (-OH) is bound to a carbon atom). Dirk Steele (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This morning I have the 'depression' (or as some call it - the 'shame') of the night before. I never learn. Dirk Steele (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleting Talk page stuff

Don't. It's one of the few rules we have. NO TALK PAGE DELETIONS. Archive instead please. Scream!! (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok I see. Any chance you could delete my whole ID/account? Thanks. --Dirk Steele (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

?

I love you too. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 19:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok I will forgive you then.. you never had ADHD, you were just a very naughty boy. --Dirk Steele (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

... Wha?--Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 22:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You aren't the only one who has no idea what's going on.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You dunce. --Dirk Steele (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Why? I don't know what is going on. I don't think anyone knows what is going on.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

But seriously

Why are you staying here? As you've made abundantly clear, we are irrational pseudoscience supporting retards and have no real ability to debate you? so why not fuck off, declare victory and go on your merry way?--Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 03:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

We also can't speak English, don't forget that. Sam ^Tally-ho! 04:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hilariously, he said that while having the worst spelling and syntax of everyone in that thread.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Hilarious" sounds like people are having fun watching this. Right?
• Note to Dirk: it's funny the first time. With repetition, the joke gets old very fast. Eventually, as you can observe, people who have had no interaction with you, who have no position on your Terribly Important Issue, will start blocking you, because you are irritating them, and it will stick, because you have developed no support, having effectively shown no gravitas, pointed humor, clue, or other redeeming quality.
• Heh! Every day on RatWiki is skating on thin ice for me. It's fun, because the ice is purely imaginary. Being blocked is being promoted. That's not just a joke. --Abd (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Forums

Please sign talk page entries using four tildes like this: ~~~~ or by clicking on the sign button: , on the toolbar above the edit panel. Thank you.Evil fascist^{oh noez} 13:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked and vandal binned

I have promoted you to the "vandal bin." This was intended for unfunny vandals; you are not a vandal, you are a troll or exceedingly clueless, even though you are also unfunny.

The vandal bin will allow you one edit every thirty minutes. I suggest that you use Preview before saving, or create your edits off-line, make sure they are what you want, before saving them, because you won't be able to do what you have been doing, make many small changes to your work, as individual edits. This, when done as often as you do it, is irritating, not to mention inconsiderate, and it impacts many users.

I removed the nine-hour block that had been placed. Consider this an opportunity to practice coherence, pointed humor, snark, or effective trolling, whatever you choose. "Effective trolling" means that your target explodes, it has nothing to do with your own love of your own cleverness, which is commonly deluded.

Extra points for actually making at least one truly funny comment during this period in the vandal bin, which will last until I or another editor is inspired, or drunk enough, to demote you to regular editor, or someone is crazy enough to demote you further to sysop, in which case you'll be able to remove your damn self.

Remember, the real goal of RationalWiki is fun. The name of the wiki is trolling by an entire community. Happy editing, have fun, and enjoy your day. --Abd (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Paroled because Abd is in no position to decide that. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 16:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Reblocked because parole so quickly destroys the compromise. Complain to the idiot with tools. Or rebin or unblock. Or whatever you please, I've done my work for the day, once the smoke clears.

Mikal unblocked, so he's responsible for what ensues. Welcome to RatWiki, Dirk. --Abd (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You obsess far to much over "responsibility". Dirk is responsible for his actions; not anybody else. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 16:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Responsible for what? A crank cranking on forum pages? I think we can live with this. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 16:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Those were not the issues. We will see over the next few days. --Abd (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Sysop

I've sysopped you since people with nothing better to do seem to get off on blocking you. This may not be a popular decision on my part, so try not to fuck me over, okay? Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 16:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I will not abuse this position. I will also never block anyone or even unblock myself. The only reason I am on this site is to promote science over superstition.

I believe (and I realise I am in the 'crank' minority) that psychiatry is a pseudoscience. I would like to be able to change the RationalWiki page on 'mental illness denial' and also the entry on Thomas Szasz - whom I consider to be a rare formidable intellect. I am quite open to debate and I can change my mind on these issues if presented with evidence I find credible. (I have done this many times in my long life!). But if I am insulted I reserve the right to give as good, or more, than I get. So thanks. --Dirk Steele (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

As a sysop, Dirk, you have the right to unblock yourself, you are somewhat expected to do that. On Wikipedia, this would be a no-no, but it's de mode here. However, I do suggest paying attention to block reasons, and short blocks (like 3 minutes or less) are used to send messages. If someone blocks you for a period, you might usually block them back for the same period, but, be careful. That's my opinion and it merely makes sense, which often means little around here. As to Szasz and psychiatry, you are taking a position that is not necessarily irrational. Whether psychiatry is a pseudoscience is sometimes difficult to test; it's clear that much of it is art rather than science.

My suggestion to you is that you learn to edit well, that is, always use preview and don't save your edit until you are fully satisfied with it. Certainly exceptions to that are fine, but when you make a dozen edits to accomplish one, it floods Recent Changes, which is how some users see what is going on. You will also find that the community is quite intolerant of long comments. They may oppose what you want simply because you justify it with too many words. Be aware of that. If your goal is to irritate, write a lot. Doesn't matter if it's true or false, they won't care. --Abd (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable to try it, and it's easily undone. (Remember that, Dirk.) However, there was cause to block, and ToP shows no sign of having actually looked at the history of this user and what was going on. Really, Dirk was only seriously blocked by one user, Sethpeck (and for adequate cause, my opinion), because my own block was simply a reversal of my own unblock, reinstating his, because of Mikal's interference with the compromise of temporary vandal binning (the basis for my unblock). Mikal had previously issued the longest block of Dirk, after Hamilton's block September 6, and you, ToP had previously unblocked as well. Nobody appears to be "getting off" on blocking the user. That's a really poor excuse for sysopping him. --Abd (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Forgot that the user requested to be blocked.[1]. (Mikal and TheoryOfPractice obviously had not researched the history.) Accordingly, I am reblocking and promoting the user; otherwise he'd be tempted to unblock himself. I will reverse the promotion if he is unblocked and stays unblocked for a day. (I will not reblock.) (I am notified of edits to my Talk page, the user is welcome to request demotion there, which would be a sure sign that he's crazy enough to qualify as a RatWiki sysop.) --Abd (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This was undone. --Abd (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Your edits

Please do not rewrite your posts after others have commented on them - except to make typographical corrections. If you wish to not appear such a twat then think about what you write beforehand rather than engage in revisionism. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 23:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. But I hope you are looking at all the others that change comments on my posts to make my comments look more stupid. I have a reply on my 'new inquisition' page about leprechauns that makes no sense since the original writer deleted his comment. This activity seems to be rife on RationalWiki. But of course, I know I am a drunken twithead subject to the usual psychological bias used in order to increase my own self esteem and my status within this Wiki. As such, I will take the piss out of those who are up their own arses and who do not think they are subject to the D-K effect or whatever. The first thing one must do is to attempt to disprove a hypothosis not to subject it to confirmation bias. This is what science is. Dirk Steele (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Also.. if I call you a twatlickerflapwit... can you define what this word actually means? Is it an insult? How? Is it maybe a compliment? Please explain your justification for your explanation. Thanks. --Dirk Steele (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Editing other user pages

Unless you're reverting vandalism, please don't do it. If you could, please move your comment from his user page to his talk page under a new heading. Thanks! Sam ^Tally-ho! 00:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry did not realise the rules. No malicious intent intended. Dirk Steele (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Sign your posts

Please remember to sign your posts. Especially since you sometimes add new posts in the middle of an old discussion. It's crucial that others be able to see what order things were actually said in. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I am used to using decent internet forums that make this obvious. Is there are new commercial market to be exploited to merge the two software programs? Dirk Steele (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki (the wiki software we use) is free and open source, so it's technically a noncommercial market. But yes, it's called LiquidThreads, and it's still a huge pain in the ass. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well forgive me that I have to conform to your standards rather than you conform to me and adopt other software idiosyncrities. Blame me.. like my Bank does for all my failures to contact them in the way they would like. It is all bollocks! Where there is a will... there is a way. But one must be determined! And not have free will..... bla bla bla... Dirk Steele (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, RationalWiki is not meant to be an ongoing debating forum, discussions here work best when they are confined to specific points rather than broadbrush arguments. We are a community of individuals who often have diffent political and religious views but have worked and played together for five years. It is your choice to come here and argue, all we ask is that you abide by a few simple conventions so that other people can follow what's going on. Nobody is forcing you to edit here and if you expect everyone else to change just to accommodate then you really are a twat. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I was just kidding. I haven't had so much fun since I implemented CICS on an IBM DOS/360 system. Dirk Steele (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Very good, you had me there. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, despite my recent colonscopy, I am making an effort to abide by RW standards. http://www.madinamerica.com/2012/10/antipsychotics-change-architecture-of-the-colon/Dirk Steele (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

For f's sake, you didn't get a ban for "pointing that out". Grow up. I am so tired of people acting like whiny brats, today. its called "context". and in your case, i'm thinking the context of the bans has more to do with your style of posting than what you say. we have people who disagree with what direction the sun rises in, and they are allowed to post. posting crap we hate is not a banable offense. being a general ass dick, is. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Explain to me exactly why I got a three month ban. With facts. Look at my edits. I wrote that Feynman thought psychiatry was a cargo cult science and gave links. I pointed out Behaviourism was an early form of mental illness denial. I wrote that Ego-dystonic sexual orientation was not voted out the DSM until 1987 and there were still psychiatrists today that believed in this diagnosis. I also wrote about the false association with 'mental illness' and violence. I did not delete or change and existing text. Read the talk page and fossil record. And then explain why I have been banned for 3 months. Thanks. Dirk Steele (talk)

19:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

YOu weren't banned for 3 months. are you actually dense, or just like to play it on tv? You were blocked. by someone who was tired of something you did. I've blocked people for 5 years before. I've blocked them for 10 seconds before. It's not a ban. trust me, if you were banned, you'd know it. it'd be all over the pages, cause we don't really take kindly to banning people. I'm told i should ignore the troll and it will go away. but i'm pissy. so i'm commenting. --Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the difference between bening blocked for three months and being banned for three months? Please explain. Ta. Dirk Steele (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Virtually any editor can block any other editor. Virtually any editor can unblock any editor. You should be able to block / unblock yourself, and if you aren't - then play nice and i'll give you the awesome power to do so. A ban is permant. it's done by one of the elected moderators, and only the other (7, i think) moderators can remove it. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

There, you're a sysop. stop fucking whining. And it will be removed if you act like a dick. Just edit, say your peace, and move on to some bigger and better article to edit.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE Occasionaluse (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have uber bad insomina right now. I'm whiny and short tempered. :-) figured i'd take it out here, instead of at home or at my job. ;-) Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Which 'bigger and better' article do you propose? I think it more important to attack a 'myth' and medical quackery that actually affects millions of people. I am tired of arguing with homeopaths, creationists, chiropractitioners and all the obvious woo shit. I would prefer to challenge the less obvious ideologies that lack the objectivity of the scientific method. Otherwise RationalWiki is just like all the other skeptic sites out there. And of no added value. Dirk Steele (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't claim to know anything about phychology beyond 101. I know that lorazapan allows my brain to stop spinning in uesless circles. Seems like there is an "illness" (or rather a mis-function) and a "cure" there. The point for me is that you are going against a vast amount of science, and claiming "you aren't being rational cause you don't follow the one thing I am hitching my strings to". Science seems to suggest that there are real brain functioning issues. if their aren't, it's going to be a hard fight with just one or two links against PubMed's articles.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 22:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Whiskey does the same for me as lorazepan does for you. All psychotropic chemicals effect our brain. That does not mean at all that there was an illness or disease to be 'cured'. I am not 'going against' science I am supporting science against quackery. Do you really think a bone fide disease can be cured with prayer or talk therapy? Really? There are 5000 pubmed research papers on homeopathy mostly in favour. Should that make me support homeopathy or think that confirmation bias and money have screwed medical science. I have changed articles on mental illness denial (only added not deleted or changed wordings) based on recognised facts only. I have not stated opinions. See the fossil record. You say that science suggests brain functioning issues despite there being no evidence presented. Which is why Tom Insel of the NIMH lamenets the fact that after years of study and billions spent there are no biological markers for any mental illness. Yes if is a hard fight because the mythology and ideology that our 'unwanted' behaviours are caused by a brain disease is so ingrained into human culture. I doubt if my musings will have any effect to change this view at all. But I would appreciate it if I am allowed to state this rather than be blocked continually without reasons given. This is censorship not debate. I quite accept I can be wrong. I have been wrong many times before and am happy to be educated. Not preached to. Rant over. Cheers for at least attempting to listen unlike many here on RW. Dirk Steele (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Protip

People who have enabled "enhanced recent changes" in in their preferences don't see your edit summaries, only that you've made a number of edits to your talk page. So shouting "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" in the edit summaries is not as effective as you'd think.

I am being repressed because changes I have made to the Mental illness denial page are just deleted without any explanation. Which is quite annoying given the time I have taken. So can you explain why my additions (I deleted nor amended existing text) were deleted. Please. I really would like to know this. Look at the fossil record. Dirk Steele (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Bro, do you even MediaWiki? Occasionaluse (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they take it out, cause it goes against main stream science. Maybe they take it out to be bitches. who knows. but take your arguments (not your whines) to the talk page. "this person here who is a respected expert in the field has said this, and therefore it should be considered". not "don't take that out, cause i want it in there". just saying.... --Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have only asked why my additions were deleted. Nothing I stated was against mainstream science. I was blocked so I could not discuss on the talk page. Have you even examined what I wrote? I do not know how to rollback deletions but I expect this ability would not have affected my block at all. And I do complain (whine?) when I have thus wasted my time trying to improve pages here. For example I stated that Behaviourists were early 'mental illness deniers'. This comment was just deleted. Dirk Steele (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Also, your talk page is a mess, but I guess this is its intended state.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Which talk page? What has this to do with my 'block'? Dirk Steele (talk) 19:22, 3 December

2012 (UTC)

Every question of mine totally left unanswered. Thanks for the education. Dirk Steele (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you put your questions on the talk page? and if so, did you offer evidence for why they should stay in the article? I'm trying to be serious here. And if you did, you have to give people time to respond. If they don't respond in a reasonable time, like 2 or three days, then revert, and see what happens. If they re-revert without addressing your questions, then you have a real beef. I've not been on the pages you edit, but it seems you push your views without much evidence. or that's what i get from comments. So try to be better at justifying your position. and ultimatly, it's a wiki. mob rules. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions on the talk page are always ignored. I wrote about the views of Feynman on psychiatry, the views of Behaviourists as early 'mental illness' deniers, the psychiatric concept of Ego-dystonic sexual orientation, and the myth that those deemed 'mentally ill' are more likely to have violence committed against them that to initiate (countering today's Secret Squirral edit which was not deleted or even commented on). I gave citations in the talk page. All of my changes were deleted without explanation. I am still asking why. No answers at all. Zilch. Dirk Steele (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

What the fuck does that even mean? How many "psychiatric survivors" (I can only assume that like "rape survivor" you mean they survived the psychaitric experience, and not people who have survived psychosis, depression, etc.) do you think we have here, and are bashing daily?--Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 23:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I am saying that many people who have experienced sexual abuse or other trauma which may result in 'abnormal' stress related behaviour which is then diagnosed by psychiatry as a 'brain disorder' to be 'treated' by 'medical drugs' are completely stigmatised by this 'Rational' Wiki site. People who have experienced such distress (ie. as explained by organisations such as MindFreedom, PsychRights, MadPride, Hearing Voices Network etc etc) are told that they suffer from 'mental illness denial'. Despite the lack of any scientific evidence at all. So yes this 'Rational'Wiki promotes this stigmatisation just as much as racist and homophobic stigmatisation exists. And I think this situation is despicable and disgusting. But of course any attempt by me to expose this results in a lengthy block. Dirk Steele (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The pseusoscience bible called the DSM 5 has been approved by the APA (the guys that wrote it!). This guy http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2012/12/03/30632/ can explain better than I can. Dirk Steele (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Mental illness is a brain disease? No. http://www.madinamerica.com/2012/08/op-ed-schizophreniapsychosis-brain-disease-or-existential-crisis/ Dirk Steele (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC) The fact is that there is only, and has only been, one 'medical' speciality ever that has generated such criticism. Have you ever heard of anti-cardiology movement? Or even ananti-endocrinology debate? Have you ever thought why? Because the voices of those subjugated and stigmatised by society now have a voice. Dismissed by RationalWiki as mental illness deniers. It reminds me of the time when homosexuality was considered a 'brain disease' as was masturbatory insanity and drapetamania. Not to mention those feminists with hysteria. Eugenics rule on this site. Of course the apologists say... that was all in the past and we have learned now. What bollocks! 'Normals' still denigrate those with 'abnormal' or deviant behaviours/feelings as having an incurable brain disease to be 'cured' by inflicting brain damage. Dirk Steele (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thus far I've avoided engaging with your broken record of talking points, but, seriously, are you too lazy to even click on the link to the page of criticisms of psychiatry? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to change the RW page on 'mental illness denial' http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mental_illness_denial. Seriously are you too lazy to click on this?? Dirk Steele (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"Eugenics rule on this site." This is why no one takes you seriously. Yes, we just love eugenics here -- look at our glowing review! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You link to an article on psychology. Clue. Despite the first 5 letters being the same... psychology is not the same as psychiatry. The clue is that there are different letters that finish the word. You should learn to read mate. RationalWiki suffers from a massive cognitive dissonance. Oh dear. Dirk Steele (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

For you --Logic and Empricism (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The section covers clinical psychology and psychiatry. You are the one who needs the reading lesson, "mate." Now, back to the bliss of ignoring your posts. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies to you. I had not come across this section because it deals with psychology and not psychiatry. I am frustrated because of my 3 month block and unable to respond apart from via my talk page. And angry cos I do not think I deserved this block. Maybe I will return in 3 months with my emotions more calm. But thanks for the link anyway. Dirk Steele (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

We keep telling you, and you apparently don't get it. Yes, you have been blocked for three months. But you will almost definitely be unblocked before then. Here, watch this: I'm going to unblock you, and then block you for 3 years, and then unblock you.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

What? Dirk Steele (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and look, I left you unblocked. Who'd have fucking guessed that what's happened to you every damn time you've been blocked for more then a few minutes happened again! And you may remember, you're a fucking sysop! You can unblock yourself! Watch, I'm going to block myself for 40 years, and then unblock myself!--Logic and Empricism (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Fuck, i gave him sysop powers a few hours ago, just to shut him up. he can unblock himself. but hey, that's not as fun as whining.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 03:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

He's been a sysop for the last few months. Either he doesn't understand despite being told several times, or he would rather bitch on his talk page about how we're oppressing him.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

perhaps if you wrote an essay expressing your views with appropriate citations people could review it and if you get agreement it could be merged into the article in dispute. I have used Lorazepam myself after a stroke. Its not a bad anti-anxiety drug.Hamster (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Pikey

Your name vill also go on ze list. Sophie^Wilder 19:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Do not edit mainspace.

It won't go your way. Stick to trolling talk pages. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 04:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

0ops. Now you gone and did it, the wikipopo are watching you. Next comes the cooping and the banning. Whelp, so long! 04:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Ok. I made a factual statement that someone has stated about the theory of autism. Much like Sacha Baron Cohen. If rationalwiki does not like these theories then I will not change the page again. Sorry Dirk Steele (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Purpose

Hello! I'm sorry that your time here at RW has not gone as you'd hoped, and I appreciate that you're getting upset. You think you're being censored and oppressed, and that your legitimate point of view is being removed out of malice, I believe? But let's pause and take a step back. I know this may come across as condescending or something, but before you dismiss it, know that I really do want to just solve this. The current conflict doesn't serve anyone's interests, either yours or RW's.

That's the key word: interests. Please consider what your purpose is, here. I can see several possibilities:

• You want to provide information and an alternate point of view to the world on some issues that are very important to you.
• You want to become a member of our community, which is generally very smart, accepting, and fun.
• You want to win an Internet argument.

Now, if your mission is either of the first two - particularly the first - you are not going to achieve your goal by continuing your behavior. In fact, you'll probably give people a very negative impression of the point of view you're proposing, inclining articles further away from your position. Instead, it seems as though you've become focused on the third goal: being "right" and making RWians "wrong" in an argument. To that end, you keep shouting about being censored, keeping posting the same line of challenging stuff, and so on. Do you honestly think this will work, or is it more likely that it will just make everyone angrier? Has continuing the same line of behavior helped matters so far, or has it made it worse?

Take a moment and think, and put your ego aside. Know this: no one is interested in persecuting you, because that would be boring and not fun. People disagree with you, and are increasingly starting to dislike you personally (especially with your accusations), and that's it. No one is oppressing you to restrain the truth: they're moving your comments not because they are an uncomfortable brave statement, but because they're annoyed.

So what is your purpose? Is it to get the truth out there? Then calm down, read, and engage. Discuss talk edits, and provide arguments and evidence for proposed changes. Put forward the truth, and you may actually change someone's mind. Keep shouting, and you may well just solidify the opposition.--^talk 04:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

My purpose here is to help promote the scientific method and to expose pseudoscience. The topics i have engaged in here include promoting the ideas of Popper and falsification, which many here seem to disagree with, suggesting that psychiatry is a pseudoscience, (of course no-one in the USA would agree )and other issues such as circumcision, and the morality of using drugs to control child behaviour, and other obscure issues as Aleister Crowley and Magick.

I have also I am quite willing to be proved otherwise and have backed down and accepted for example that I have been shown wrong about falsifiability by user Hamilton.

Every edit I have made on pages has been undone. (See just above your 'purpose' where I made a change to the Autism page). Every single one - even if I have discussed it on the talk page. Now I find that every topic I discuss in the saloon is immediately moved into 'Dirk Steele whines' or some inappropriate forum. This to me is censorship but if I even mention censorship the topic here is deleted or moved. I seem to be stalked by Sophie Wilder, RachelW, Weaseloid, and user Hamilton so that every single line I write is immediately countered and undone by them. I have provided arguments and evidence. I am not here to 'win' an argument since I have been proved wrong many many times in my life. I know the chances of 'winning' any 'mental health' issue on a skeptic site is as impossible as an atheist on a creationist site. I am now continually blocked, or put in the vandal bin. I am not here to be popular. I accept that my views are in a very small minority. But do not worry, I will not stick around much longer.

You are very general in your accusations. Please can you show more specific examples. Thanks. Dirk Steele (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I can easily believe that everything you do is reverted now - you have irritated a lot of people, so they're much less inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt or to sort through your edits carefully. If you wish to change minds, perhaps you should calm down (even now, you sling accusations) and pause, and then talk amicably about things. Continue to present reasoned and evidence-based argument, and don't be shocked that everyone is not immediately convinced. And, of course, consider their point of view as well, and try to see the merits of their arguments.--^talk 22:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Something I've noticed

This isn't a criticism, just an observation: whenever you comment on, say, the saloon bar, you seem to open the whole page for editing instead of just the relevant section. Wouldn't it be easier for you to click on the section edit button instead of having to scroll through al those kilobytes to find your place? (NB I'm going by your contributions trail and Recent Changes, I can't see what you're doing on your computer) Sophie^Wilder 21:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Jeez! Am I a dumbtwatflap or what? Why couldn't someone written 'edit' in BIG letters so that an old geezer with cataracts could read it! Mind you this software reminds me of my days spent debugging FORTRAN progs using punched cards... now I should be able to improve my productivity on the saloon bar by 427%. Watch out babes! (Thanks Sophie. I forgive you a little bit more now... ;-) ) --Dirk Steele (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I, however, can see what you're doing on your computer. I've never seen an octopus used in exactly that manner before. You need help. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 21:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

What, predicting football results? Sophie^Wilder 21:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to make sure you saw this:

I am not advising you that you "should adapt to the 'norms' of creationism, homeopathetic or even anti-vaccine communities." I am advising you to adapt to the norms of good manners and being a cool person to hang around with. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 04:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Where have I shown bad manners? I am not here to be popular. Exposing the deep assumed 'myths' of all communities and societies is bound to ruffle a few feathers. Just following the advice of Mr Popper. Without this viewpoint rationality is doomed by religiosity. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Socrates had the same idea and I fully accept all that you think I deserve. --Dirk Steele (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hijacking treads is bad manners. Turning conversations over to your own pet interests on a regular basis is bad manners in real life and on the internet. Ranting is bad manners. Not shutting up about stuff is bad manners. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 04:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

...oh and coming to a party and smugly bitching about how it's not the party you want it to be? DEFINITELY bad manners. Try to stop being an asshole. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 05:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You do a half decent MC imitation! Do try to play nicely with the other inmates editors.

Please do not become troublesome. 05:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

now we have a pair--Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 14:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"There is no-one here willing to debate."

Because your chosen debate topics are spectacularly uninteresting. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 00:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh I am so sorry. Define 'interesting'.

You should just stop

No one wants to listen. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ban me then. Dirk Steele (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking to be banned? Aceⁱ⁹ 22:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Many people are listening. But if you need to express your authority over me which you have.. then ban me. Ban me and then explain your reasons on the Dirk Steele trial thread. Go on. Do what you threaten. Else you are a pussy. All mouth and no trousers. --Dirk Steele (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is the fundamental problem, and where things started to go wrong for you. Everything was fine when you were isolated to your own little debate pages, but when people stopped responding to you (because your are ignorant on the topic, rude beyond tolerance, repetitive, boring, and I am sure many other reasons...my personal one being your refusal to outline evidence you would accept as contrary to your pet hypotheses, which for someone so hung up on falsifiability is pretty hypocritical.) you started spamming the fuck out of the site trying to force people to respond. If you agree to keep your thoughts isolated to a few forum areas then this whole issue will go away and you can talk to yourself all you want, or maybe the occasional person that stops by to ponder it all. If you insist on spamming all areas of the site screaming "LOOK AT MEEEE!!!! LOOK AT MEE!!!!" then your going to be restricted. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

My evidence is clear. The term 'mental illness' is a metaphor and because the mind is not a physical object it cannot be examined by medical science. If one wants to argue that mental illness is a brain disease then one has to cope with the irrational fact that 'talk therapy' can cure a medical disease. Maybe prayer can cure cancer after all? 100 years ago Kraeplin defined the 3 mental illnesses, melancholia, Mania, and Dementia Praecox, whilst today there are over 300!! And there is not one cure for any of them. There is also no biological markers, (the last thing a psychiatrist does is examine the brain) no etiology and the diagnosis, (climbing trees inappropriately, forgetting homework and not paying attention to teacher) are absurd. I could go on but you get my drift. Psychiatry is a pseudoscience. It does not even pass the falsifiability criteria. The fact that I keep getting blocked and am currently in the vandal bin for expressing this is also questionable. And I am not spamming all areas. Evidence? Dirk Steele (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to ban people simply for being irritating which is why I voted not to have you banned (because that isn't what we do around here). I have no authority over anyone, no one on RW has authority over others. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Well do not threaten to ban me then.. Be on the jury in the trial. I welcome you. Support justice. Dirk Steele (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't threatened to ban you. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You ought to also realize that becoming a pariah will chase off any of those who might have otherwise been a supporter of your ideas.

(By the way, is this person you?)

Win me over with being a nice guy...then slowly, delicately, reveal with trepidation one or two of your most compelling arguments. Right now, as it stands, I am beginning to regret having unbinned ye. 01:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I would have more sympathy for Dirk if he wasn't always trying to paint himself as a martyr. Dirk, you've had a good run, had many many people intensely debate with you on the same topics over and over again, but now you complaining about censorship, even though you aren't being censored. It seems to me that you just want people to feel sorry for you.--Damo^Hi 00:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

An introduction

Dirk Stelle, meet The "Thinking" Housewife. (Note that she's not a psychiatrist, just a garden-variety bigot.)--ZooGuard (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I read 'When the Insane Are Medicated Instead of Institutionalized' and probably won't bother to read more. I do not like knee-jerk reactions when the facts are not even known. Her idea of imprisoning millions of 'weird' people in order to prevent such happenings is not proven and is just totalitarian hysteria. I don't doubt that psychiatric drugs change people, and you have probably experienced what a raving loon I can become after a bottle of scotch, but the fact is that no-one knows in the slightest what psychotropic drugs to do thought processes (apart from giving brain damage such as tardive dyskinesia). I think talking therapies which examine a person's life and experiences are much better that the pseudoscientific 'brain disease' causes bad behaviour hypothesis. On this basis even Obama suffers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/us-killings-tragedies-pakistan-bug-splats

This is why you are universally scorned.

Do you not see the problem there? Diving into a thread about site policy -- the creation of a new edit space -- and filling it up with comments about mental health care and Popper? Are you so far on the "poor social skills" scale that you are completely unable to perceive how that's really rude, annoying, and bound to piss people off? Straight question, yes or no : is that how you behave with people in real life? If so, do you get the sense that they enjoy it when you do? If no, can you understand why it's not really working for you here? Again--because this seems to be a concept that's very difficult for you to grasp--it's not about "rejecting your arguments." It's about disdain for your manners. Your style is so bad, that your content is rendered irrelevant. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 23:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Inability or unwillingness to follow social guidelines is one of the symptoms of ODD, which Dirk has admitted to having. Assuming he is telling the truth in that, he may be largely unable to help himself in that regard.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

ToP - It is only fair that I am able to defend my views on any thread where I am called a crank. In real life it would be you locking me away somewhere and throwing away the key.

Hamilton, you really do not have a clue do you? Of course I self diagnose with Oppositional Defiance Disorder. Every Libertarian is ODD. You fail to see that psychiatry is a political system pretending to be a medical science. It is the means by which all anti-authoritarian views can be suppressed and blamed on a 'brain disease' (without any scientific proof needed). All totalitarian countries such as Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and China have used psychiatry against dissidents. Psychiatry in the past has 'diagnosed' slaves wanting freedom as 'suffering' from the mental disease Drapetomania. Deviant sexual behaviour such as homosexuality was a brain disease. Hysteria was the term given to women who failed in their 'marital' duties. Today those that want to use illegal drugs suffer from 'drug abuse'. Adolescents who do not obey parents are now bi-polar or ODD. Children who oppose the authority of the school (prison) institutions suffer from the brain disease of ADHD. Psychiatry is rife in the institutions that control behaviour - in old peoples homes, child foster homes, prisons, the military etc. Any dissent from authority is blamed on the pseudoscience pseudo-medical concept of mental illness. I was a punk in the UK in 1976. Today such movements would be suppressed by the use of behavioural controlling drugs such as sedating anti-psychotics. You should read some Gregory Bateson, R.D. Laing, Szasz, Richard Bentall, medicalization, and other 'anti-psychiatrists' for further education. Try http://psychology.wikia.com

You might be interested in my sources - at least have an understanding of these before you call me a crank and tell me to attend an intro to psychology.But here goes.

1. The views of cognitive science especially George Lakoff and Mark Turner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphors_We_Live_By In this book, and others, Lakoff shows that much of our language is metaphorical in nature and actually frames how we conceptualise our world around us. Conceptual metaphors actually frame the ways in we can actually think. (Think of the use of Newspeak' in the novel 1984). So, for example, a morally disapproved act can be framed with a medical metaphor. Someone who performs an action in ways which we cannot 'understand' will be deemed crazy or sick. Defining an action as 'sick' is a metaphor in the same way that a 'joke is sick'. Defining unusual behaviour or thoughts as 'sick' frames the action into a medical ideology. Thus the idea that insane people are 'medically diseased' to be treated by the medical model is formed, although society does not recognise that the idea here is metaphorical and treats it as a literal truth.

2. The ideas of Marshall McLuhan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message and the work of Neil Postman who takes these ideas and applies them to institutions such as schools. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Postman http://www.amazon.com/Teaching-Subversive-Activity-Neil-Postman/dp/0385290098/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1355309546&sr=8-7&keywords=neil+postman So in the same way that Neil Postman asks us to look at the medium of a school to fully understand the message (I think a prison!) I have applied these ideas to psychiatry and its institutions.

3. From sociologists and the theories of deviance and medicalisation of society. For example Peter Conrad, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Conrad_%28sociologist%29 http://www.amazon.com/The-Medicalization-Society-Transformation-Conditions/dp/080188585X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355310013&sr=8-1&keywords=peter+conrad http://www.amazon.com/Deviance-Medicalization-From-Badness-Sickness/dp/0877229996/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1355310084&sr=8-3&keywords=peter+conrad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicalization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deviance_%28sociology%29 So the idea here is that the behaviour and thoughts of people who transgress social norms are scapegoated in order to consolidate the norms of a particular society or group and to punish those that fall out of line.

4. The study of Mythology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology The term mythology here is not used to define a belief that is 'untrue' but in its academic sense it is an ideology that underpins a particular culture and is used to condition group members into a particular belief system which is then used to frame and explain the worldview of a society and its social institutions. I enjoy looking at todays society and to uncover modern myths that people may be unaware of.

5. The work of Karl Popper and the definition of what is science, and the demarcation of science with other disciplines. (Although I have recently been told that Popper is not relevant to the philosophy of science today so I am trying to explore this issue further.)

6. Of course the work of Thomas Szasz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz and the 'anti-psychiatry' brigade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz#Therapeutic_State Thomas Szasz was the first psychiatrist to point out that the mind was not a physical thing which could be examined by scientists and therefore could not be diseased. The term 'mental illness' is actually a metaphor and not a scientific concept. An examination of the history of psychiatry and how it is used within a society - for example within the courts and the use of forced imprisonment and drugging, and the totalitarian concept of 'mental hygiene' is all covered in his books.

7. The work of psychologists such as Richard Bentall, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bentall and The Critical Psychiatry Network http://www.criticalpsychiatry.co.uk/.

8. Psychiatry. Obviously. In particular the current war between psychiatry and psychologists as exemplified by the debates over the new DSM5. Also the 'psychiatric survivor' groups as can be found here http://psychrights.org/index.htm http://www.mindfreedom.org/ amongst many others.

9. I have also read a ton of shit about evolutionary biology, philosophy of the mind, psychology, the nature of consciousness, psychotherapy, neuroscience, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, information theory etc, all of which have contributed to my views. --Dirk Steele (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit button "A"

Whom do you suppose is going to read your wallotext? Huh? First off you won't even bother to wikifying the links so that we all have to read a dozen http://'s couched in the middle of the screed. Secondly you demand to be heard but for some reason cannot find it within yourself to listen to anyone else. I'm fixing to block you for a month but will allow you to edit this page to your heart's content. 12:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I was talking to Hamilton. I do not know what wikifying the links means. I am not demanding to be heard by anyone - I am responding to what people here say to me. I also had a bit of trouble with the format but I can only make edits every 30 minutes. Ok block me. Dirk Steele (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

" I am not demanding to be heard by anyone." By inserting your stuff into every available conversation, you are doing just that. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 13:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

'Every available conversation'? Slight exaggeration methinks. I do feel that it is fair to comment on any thread that refers to me as a 'crank' and my ideas 'crackpot'. I am sure you would regard that as a simple right to defend oneself. Dirk Steele (talk) 14:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong. That conversation was about how the wiki should deal with cranks and crackpots. It wasn't about your crankery and crack-pottery. You were nothing more than a convenient example, and nobody was interested in discussing the content of your crankery until you made it an issue. Seriously -- is that how you behave with real people? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 14:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No you are wrong. The discussion was about me. There was even a vote taken to ban me or not for being a 'crank'. I have a right to defend myself do I not? Dirk Steele (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"The discussion was about me." No, it wasn't. At least, not until you made it about you. You "have the right to defend yourself." Sure, I suppose you do, but if you're thinking about the goings-on at a marginal website in terms of "defending yourself," then you surely have some misplaced priorities. But just because you have said right doesn't mean that you should turn any available conversation into a chance to do so. If anything, you are certainly poor at thinking about strategy. Did railroading that conversation to the point where it had to be hived off and moved to another space gain you any support? Did it change any minds? Does acting that way convince your real-world friends and family that your arguments are worth consideration? It certainly hasn't convinced me to even bother reading your arguments beyond the first sentence, where their irrelevance to the ongoing conversation reveals itself and causes my eyes to glaze over. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

But in Dirk Steel's world it's always about him. Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You both conveniently ignore the title of the whole thread http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki_talk:All_things_in_moderation#Motion_for_a_two-week_block_of_Dirk_Steele.2C_his_IPs_and_his_obvious_sockpuppets

I can honestly say I have never used any different IPs or sockpuppets. You really think I do not have a right to defend myself when faced with this shit? Really? Dirk Steele (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey bro

I just wanted you to know that I've been monitoring your situation and I'm not pleased with how you've been treated. I have some dirt on some RWF board members and might be able to leverage it against the hivemind. Just hang in there. You're doing the right thing. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. But I am my own beast. I know the psychology of in-group out-group conflict. I am the 'new kid' in school. The new employee who must prove his 'worth' before acceptance by the moronic mass. I understand the games that people like Hamilton and TheoryofPractice like to play. Yeh it is the 'hivemind' we fight against. As always it is part of the human 'condition' that new thoughts are deemed 'insane'. But I don't give a flying... I only support individual rebellion and I distrust 'revolutions' which only replace one hivemind with another groupthink. But thanks.. I see you have been blocked. Ha! Dirk Steele (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHA. "Dirt on some RWF board members"? What good would that do? The Board doesn't get involved in community processes. And unless it's something truly earth-shattering, like Trent's been spending donation money on a Hawaiian vacation, "dirt on some board members" is a pretty weak threat. What could it be, I wonder? Does Tmtoulouse keep a lopsided beard? ListenerX once get a traffic ticket? Does Human prefer self-checkout over manned cashier stations? Does WaitingforGodot unironically like the Twilight series? Does Nutty Roux sometimes crack his knuckles just to annoy people? Ooh, the scandal! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, Mr. Steele... "The Hivemind". and, - wait for it- the scandal. Percival^{Aldridge Grainger} 20:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Does WaitingforGodot unironically like the Twilight series?-- dear god, if that is true, boot the women out of office! Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm wracking my mind for possible scandals. The worst I can come up with is that maybe Nutty Roux wears tacky holiday-themed ties at Board meetings. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't concern you...or should it??? Occasionaluse (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am a frequent participant in the after-meeting orgies. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I just came back from the doctor; you might want to go get yourself tested. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 22:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Six people isn't what I'd call an "orgy" or are you inviting like mod staff too?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I just want the best for all involved, and I expect this to be resolved quickly and privately, given the stakes for some members. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want to bring this up before year's end but the subject has been broached: I am still owed by the foundation for three 55 gallon drums of Astroglide™. Please remit in the usual fashion. That is all. 23:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Maybe Rationalwiki has a Google group like Conservapedia... did. Man of Perspective 04:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's the Facebook grope...I dunno about google though. 04:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I've heard about Facebook pokes but not Facebook gropes. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Um shouldn't this entire page be troll templated ? Naca (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Naca - fuck off trolling on my page will ya? Ta. Dirk Steele (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

My Velociraptors are in wait.

Told you so.

I may be able to sympathise with you a bit more than the others; a year ago, I was similar to you in the sense I'd make a lot of edits and complain a lot in the saloon bar. I got a few blocks and, with a little time taken off voluntarily to cool off and increased maturity, within a couple months I was able to get back on track and am now at least tolerated. Don't believe me? Check my talk page. Also, FYI, I'm autistic. Just take my advice and it should work out well. Otherwise, you know, raptors. Do what you will. Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 19:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Essays

Please don't edit other people's essays, even for commentary. Either use the talk page or write your own essay if you wish to do so. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 01:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes sorry. I didn't realise the etiquette here. Trouble is Hamilton is touting his essay on every thread I comment on so I wanted to respond. No-one will read the talk page anyway so I will not bother. --Dirk Steele (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Once. I used it once.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well Hamilton mate - if you really want to debate or argue against anti-psychiatry you should at least mention David Cooper - the guy who invented the term! Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-psychiatry first and then you may be able to start to write a coherent essay and critique the ideas instead of just bashing Hubbard. Otherwise you sound like the Anonymous pimple-ridden schoolboy you are. Dirk Steele (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Since I was responding to common arguments, the guy who invented the term is irrelevant. Also, since I only mentioned Scientology once, I don't know why you think I was bashing Scientology. That, plus your interesting habit of repeating their argument, I have this suspicion that you're in their organization.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope. I am a Discordian, grade 7, specialising in Chaos Magick and Taoism. I only know of Hubbard via his relationship with Jack Parsons and Frater Perdurabo. Of which you have little idea and are unlikely to ever comprehend. Dirk Steele (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you really trolling on my talk page? Dirk Steele (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Although I appear to have been unblocked, I find that when I attempt to edit anything but my talk page I am still prevented from doing so. Something to do with my IP address. Is this what happens here? Oh well.. time to sleep I suppose and perchance to dream. What some do not recognise is that because some of us have to sleep and fuckin work, our time on RW is very limited. A nine hour block lasts a lot longer than just nine hours. Ok nighty nighty... sweet nightmares everyone. Dirk Steele (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

try now. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes works now. Many thanks. Dirk Steele (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Your forum

Please stay in it. According to ATIM moderators are "allowed to take actions to curb destructive conduct or discourse and those actions should not be undone by anyone else." Lacking any better tool at present, moving your posts to your forum is my chosen action. However if you continue to revert I will have to block you, albeit temporarily. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 05:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are talking about me on that thread shouldn't I be able to respond without you deleting my defence? Dirk Steele (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not deleting them, I am moving them. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 05:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Same thing really. By moving my defence to another forum you are effectively censoring. Ok if you all want to talk about me behind my back and do not allow me to answer my critics... well I have to accept RW policy then. Since I will only get another block if I protest. Dirk Steele (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're nice I might put a note at the bottom of the page to your protestations, but that's the best you're going to get. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 05:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I see your problem here, I have the definition to hand: censureship. Easily mistaken for censorship by the affected crank. The truthers beat me to it, but I'm not ashamed of that. JzG (talk)

IP editing

Hey Dirk, you know that you don't have to edit as a BON. All you have to do, is ask on your talkpage to be unblocked and I'm sure some antifa will come and unblock you. You should be able to edit your own talk page. CheersTh. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 19:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Was not able to do that. My IP address was blocked for 3 months by some shyster named Damo. Dirk Steele (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I gave you a break

I won't ban you, but please find something more constructive to do than harass Token Conservative. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 07:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

A turd you called me? You want me to bow down and kiss your arse? Swingers Unite! Captain oh my Captain... ha! Dirk Steele (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

If he sticks to harassing me and leaves the rest of the site alone, what's the issue?--Token Conservative (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Me and Hamilton are intellectual adversaries - that is all! I am clever and he is stupid! ;-). What is wrong with a bit of banter? Dirk Steele (talk) 07:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Binned

I vandal binned you for repetitive reversions. When you were reverted for adding yourself to mainspace articles here, you should have either stopped immediately, or gone to the talk page. Instead, you repeated your vandalism. This is not acceptable, and must stop. Hipocrite (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Repetitive? How many? 2? or more? Ha! Is not Obama responsible for a cult?? I see the (pre-printed) flags wave and supporters shout pre prepared slogans. Not much different from Hitler's media techniques? Is this not a valid view from across the pond? You disagree with my politics and then censor? You are the authority? Triumph of the Bill? Bah! --Dirk Steele (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the Obama addition. If that was all, I'd have ignored it. I'm discussing the addition of "*Dirk Steele and His Steelites (USA)," so yeah, you can go fuck yourself. Hipocrite (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Not those Steelites again.... when will they never cease? 81.101.244.221 (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Trying to think of a cult of personality in the US since JFK, coming up empty. Besides, JFK couldnt hold a candle to Chairman Mao in the cult department. Ted Kennedy had something like that going on in Massachusetts, even after the accident on the Dike Bridge road, but that was parochial, mostly involving blue-headed ladies, from what I hear. Elvis? Limbaugh? Beck? Colbert? Stewart? Not really. Obama doesn't even come close. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Sprocket: Televangelists and pastors. Billy Graham, Norman Van Peal, and maybe even more recent ones like Rick Warren or the Bakkers held vast sway before and after Kennedy. As for Obama, I remember thinking there was some talk of his charisma being above average in the 2008 election. I mean, after all, how many politicians have their speeches made into best-selling songs. Still, nothing on the order of Mao, Hitler, or even Huey Long. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 18:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Maoists, or Stalinists? They have nothing compared to the Steelites. Whoop whoop! 81.101.244.221 (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Dirk Steele and the Steelites. No only were we a very successful 1960s pop music group... we are still huge in Scandanavia. Dirk Steele (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Dirk Steeling the show

And your paranormal romantic thrillers are packed with a variety of immensely intriguing characters, making the high-stakes plotlines even more mesmerizing. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

"Steelites" sounds like the name of a terrible robot-born STD.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

A friend of mine recently killed himself; one of my first thoughts, upon hearing the news, was "Why did it have to be him, one of my favorite people?" Then today I checked Special:Contributions/Hipocrite and was disappointed to find that Hipocrite is still editing, prompting the thought, "Why couldn't it be that kind of person who kills himself instead? The world would be so much of a better place." But I guess he's too selfish, or else he sincerely thinks he's of net benefit to society.

But really, it's not all that mysterious. The reason I liked my friend was that he was different from most people; he was unable/unwilling to conform, and therefore was capable of being an agent of progress. Those same characteristics led to persecution, misery and despair, potent suicidogenic factors.

Hipocrite, on the other hand, is one of those who likes to play the griefer against dissidents. Perhaps it's fun, but it's really not all that sporting — it's more akin to bullfighting than bull riding. The opponent has no reasonable chance of winning because he's in the minority, a disadvantageous position to be in on a rough-consensus-based mobocracy, especially one whose users are typically more interested in pushing the viewpoints they already have than considering new information with an open mind. Perhaps it's time to advance to the next difficulty level, Hipocrite, rather than hanging out on the bunny slope the rest of your life?

Of course, arguably anyone who edits here deserves what he gets; we all know RW pages don't get a very high pagerank, unless they're on "crufty" (aka "non-notable" by Wikipedia standards, and therefore not well-covered elsewhere — "non-notable" by the way is really just a dysphemism for "obscure"; it's another majoritarian concept) topics, so RW is even more of a frivolous MMORPG than Wikipedia. It's fun to look up topics of interest, with the thought in one's mind, "Just for shits and giggles, let's see what the RWians have to say about x," but then of course one gets tempted to try to improve the article. Then one runs into opposition and, out of habit forgetting that this is supposed to be just a fun diversion, starts taking the matter way too seriously.

There probably should be a wiki somewhere for those who are sincerely in search of the truth and don't mind relying solely on logic and evidence instead of employing fallacious arguments and gaming the system. I'm not sure how popular such a wiki would be, though. Wikis like RW, CP, Metapedia, etc. seem to be what the people want, when they're not hanging out on WP. Dmitri Szasztakovich (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That's some sublime, next-level trolling there. My congratulations. Tielec01 (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Psychology

Please go to a mental hospital and tell us that mental illness is made up. –Meine Ehere heißt Toleranz (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 16:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Or no further than this very page. Seriously, it looks like one crazy person talkin to himself for 30 pages. It did give us one goddamn funny post, so it can't be entirely bad. --Ray's Super Fun Hellhole! ^{g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉} 05:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Meine Ehere: Have you ever followed your own advice and spent much time at a mental hospital? In my perception, most people in mental hospitals seem to be less inhibited and less conventional than the norm, rather than showing obvious signs of any sort of psychosis. Were it not for the fact that the mental hospital populations have been deluged with people there for manifesting "mood disorders" rather than psychotics, mental hospitals would probably look a lot different. Often, people attempt suicide or something, their suicidal mood subsides before or after they reach the hospital, and they spend most of their time there in a relatively stable state.

It's sort of like how prisons seem, to an observer, not to be comprised too heavily of hardcore violent people, either because there are a lot of nonviolent offenders there or because the violent ones are under control in that environment, or both. A murderer watching TV doesn't look that much different from anyone else. Of course, if you want to look at their presentence investigation reports, you might get a different impression. But those have to be taken with a grain of salt because they are, as Justice Antonin Scalia noted in U.S. v. Booker, "bureaucratically prepared" and "hearsay-riddled". Something similar might be true of psychological reports, which are prepared by people who have bought into the psychological profession as it is presently constituted and who are preparing summaries of observations and interviews whose veracity is usually not subject by confirmation by any objective evidence such as audio-visual recordings.

Even the psychotics often seem not all that abnormal when they're on their meds; and even when they're not, they often aren't psychotic about everything. In my experience, most of them can typically hold lucid conversations on topics unrelated to what they're delusional about. Some of them are even pretty smart. As a perusal of RationalWiki's articles or one of Michael Shermer's books would reveal, delusions are pretty common even among "normal," functional people. The human mind just happens to be very fallible when it comes to epistemology. Dmitri Szasztakovich (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, sincerely.

Thanks, Dirk Steele. Please keep fighting the system. You really help myself and others. We need you. I need you. Don't give up, EVER. If you give up, then you'll be undoing any of the good you've done, and sending the opposite message. You are an individual who actually follows his mind and his heart rather than accepting the views around him mindlessly. You have the power to change the world. The world always needs changing and improving. Please do everything you can to change it. Spread your ideas far and wide. Those who are different need acceptance AS THEY ARE, not pathologization. Bumpy Toad (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be an overstatement to say that if he gave up, he'd be undoing the good he did. He simply wouldn't be adding to it anymore, and some of the good he did would decay. Dmitri Szasztakovich (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)