User talk:Gomer

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

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Rationalize (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Gomer[edit]

How are ya doin? Wanna bajillion dollars?--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In fact, I believe I can make you rich! You see, all you need to do is get four people that you know to sign up to a wonderful scheme that I've just started. If you don't like that, maybe I can offer you a guaranteed $1000000000 from a bank account of a lost princess in Nigeria, if you'll just give me a small advance.
Thanks for the greeting. I've actually been signed up for a few months, and have edited irregularly. Something I did this evening attracted the attention of somebody and my Talk page appeared. I think I've arrived! — Unsigned, by: Gomer / talk / contribs
No problem. I've been here a few days, just got demoted yesterday. And hey, you're fired. Enjoy your stay.--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Gomer! This is Sgt. Carter! Get back to work, or I'll have you outta the marines faster than you can say Shazam! ТyTalk. 20:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Shite. It's going on for 11pm here in Germany. I call it lights out. Make sure I'm up at 5am giving it 20 edits before breakfast and getting ready for a hard day of DoSing CP. On second thoughts, don't bother.

Your mop, sir[edit]

Been around long enough and I hate red !s. Have a mop. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. OK, England expects.... Gomer (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


Take it to the talkpage. ThunderkatzHo! 21:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Booker[edit]

Wow, never knew that guy was such an all-around crank. The US probably has more quantity when it comes to denialist journalists, but the UK definitely competes in the batshit crazy department (Monckton, Booker, Delingpole). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much the unholy trinity there. Of the three, it's Booker that annoys me most. Delingpole is a joke and Monckton sabotages himself. Booker is "respectable", even though almost all of what he writes is wrong. He just relies on people not knowing anythign on the subject and then feeding prejudices. I've redlinked Richard North in the article. He comes onto my radar every so often. I don't know if he's a loon, or if I just disagree with him. I'll see if he's worth looking at. Gomer (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Monckton is taken much more seriously (at least, more than he should be) on this side of the pond, likely because his AIDS stuff and other crankery isn't as well known and he worked in the Thatcher administration (the British St. Ronnie!). The House climate hearings in 2010 were a comedy gold-mine, where it was a team of scientists on one side vs. the lone viscount on the denialist side with one of the Democratic reps putting "lord" in verbal dick quotes the whole time. I haven't seen any of Richard North's stuff. Though it reminds me that Jonathan Leake should also be in the Rogues Gallery. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
That's true. Leake is hard to follow online now because The Times has gone behind a paywall. As such, virtually noone goes there anymore. The comment areas are just empty, so I hear. He's a good target, and doesn't have a WP page to debunk his trash, so I'll look into it. Due to the paywall, I think his online influence is now small and I hope it stays that way. Gomer (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Have you seen James Delingpole's latest excretion? It manages to cram every PRATT and stereotype into as little time as possible. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Kooks list[edit]

I reverted your changes to List of internet kooks because it seems sort of pointless to take information away. Lulz and all, you know? EVDebs (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No real objections to reverting, but I'd just created a new Ted Holden page, so I thought I'd simplify the kooks page. The Ted entry is longer than many others, and the information is now available at the click of a link. Gomer (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Good additions[edit]

Good additions to the James Delingpole article!-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 13:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd been following Delingpole for some time, but the Horizon programme pushed me over the edge. At that point, your article wasn't enough. I had to extend your article. Gomer (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for the compliment. I was thinking that it's probably worth mentioning on that page that T-f33tz picked a con that was actually part of a larger con and was therefore in a totally unique situation and totally unrepresentative of con harassment policies but couldn't figure a way to work it in without seeming totally tacked on... think its worthwhile? — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 01:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a good point. It's just another indicator that TF was out of his depth. On the other hand, it adds a level of detail that just isn't present in the rest of the section. Since it's not the main point of the story, it is hard to include without - as you say - appearing tacked on.
I've added the information to the footnote. I think that's enough.Gomer (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


Don't believe Forum pages are included in the "don't delete" rule (the rule existed before the Forum namespace I believe). Scream!! (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. In my opinion, they should be included in the rule, because it's a discussion, just like in the talk pages. I'll bear it in mind though. Gomer (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)