User talk:Hamilton/Archive1

Sysop[edit]

manual. Тy^JFBAA 20:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

DnD[edit]

Edition? Тy^ILAB 01:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

3.5 mostly, but my group is quite happy to acquire from any system we like, so we've taken from 3, 4, Hero System, Call of Cthulhu, and we also sometimes just rewrite/eliminate the rules we don't like.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

3.5 and 1. Both extensively house ruled. Good times. Тy^ILAB 01:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't play anymore?--Logic and Empricism (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No players :< Тy^ILAB 01:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ouch. Where you at? I know a few local game shops organize weekly games.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ty is misfortunate enough to reside in Louisiana.

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleting stuff[edit]

Dirk Steel is an annoying little prick but you shouldn't just delete. In fact, you're best of ignoring him. That's what the rest of us do. Innocent Bystander (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

He made three edits, I meant to delete two of them (being irrelevant to what I said, but what else is new), and ended up deleting all three and figured no one who mattered would care.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Black holes[edit]

Be careful, a guy in our physics club's girlfriend broke up with him because he believed in black holes instead of Jesus. I am not kidding. Evil fascist^{oh noez} 22:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"Black holes, not Jesus," is incidentally my favorite pitch for atheism.

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It's 1am here, I think I'm missing some hilarious reference to something or other.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Something Andy Schlafly said a while ago. Believing in black holes stops people reading the bible. Sophie^Wilder 19:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

-Rereads user page- Oh, I got what's going on now. Forgot I put that on my page. Ah the things I do when I'm on a webcomic bender.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Popper essay[edit]

Replied to it. Apologies in advance for slow replies -- I am still stuck on my POS Kindle browser for now. :( Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Please sign[edit]

Hi. Do you think you could remember to sign talk page entries using four tildes like this: ~~~~ or by clicking on the sign button: , on the toolbar above the edit panel. (I see this has been mentioned on your page before.) Thanks.--Bob ^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 20:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikis[edit]

Hi, I just replied on my talk page. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 05:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I cheated and hit the 'watch this page' button. --Logic and Empricism (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Really this is[edit]

your fault for not having the time money and drive to go to college right away. Had you just done that none of this silliness would be happening and you'd instead get to deal with the myriad of other problems!--Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 17:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me?--Logic and Empricism (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

i'm making barely awake jokes at you.--Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 19:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I got the reference. It seemed more like you were trying to insult me.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be more clear in real life, its harder to do fake negative online -.- --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 19:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

<sarcasm>No, I think this is just you not trying nearly hard enough to not come across like an idiot</sarcasm>--Logic and Empricism (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I am well known to be guilty of being lazy. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 22:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

And the horse you rode in on.[edit]

You're a miserable little prick. Please stay away from me and I will endeavor to give you the same consideration. Durk Titanium (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You make it far too obvious that you're a sock of a vandal binned user.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

One thing.[edit]

From what I understand, many if not most of the weapons used in the post-Columbine era of mass shootings were legally obtained. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 04:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Occasionaluse[edit]

Is not Marcus. Sophie^Wilder 20:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

He's just stupid enough to claim to be and post like him? Got it.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Who the fuck do you think you are? Occasionaluse (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Who the fuck do I think I am?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

SVG[edit]

SVG is a scalable vector graphics image. It allows you to create art that is readily scalable, and is particuarly good for line art. On the other hand, you don't seem particularly invested in this and it will probably inflame the mission arguments, so I guess I won't worry about it. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 14:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm only not invested in it because I'm mostly using the math essays I'm working on to study before a math placement test. But that does actually seem like something worth using/getting familiar with.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Trigonometric function[edit]

Trigonometric function is in danger. a few days ago you said to leave it up for a few days so you could fiddle with it and then make it a redirect. It is now a few days later. Sophie^Wilder 19:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I deleted it. Its content now lives here in your user space. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't have a chance to get to it, but thanks.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Conservative?[edit]

I'm curious, why do you think you're conservative? ProudTory (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

you see, theres this amazing thing called a sliding scale. --^Mikal 00:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no. You see there was this guy named "Edmund Burke" who basically created the Conservative movement. I'm in it. You aren't.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Burke. Why do you think I am not a conservative? You're Andrew Sullivan all over. Like a false flag account or something. ProudTory (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I know fairly little about Mr. Sullivan outside of the rationalwiki article on him. Regardless: You are not a conservative. I'm a conservative and you are an idiot.

Here's hoping that becomes a meme.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, no need to be so personal? You were the one who didn't get the awesome joke about gays and endangered minorities earlier. And who doesn't know much about Andrew Sullivan, and who thinks he has read some Burke. I've read all of his correspondence. Do you really want to go down the Burke route with me? I'll quote the sublime and the beautiful until my farts start smelling of roses. ProudTory (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a fairly fundamental difference between reading a man, and following what he said. --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

In any case, ProudTory you can't be a conservative either. By definition a conservative has to be Christian, so a-priori we know that you aren't one. Calling yourself an atheist conservative is a contradiction in terms, a tautalogical impossibility. Obviously. Damo ^Hi 04:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hamilton, I don't dislike you but I'd be happier if you stopped going around telling everyone you're a conservative, the false flag operation has had its day and now you've been exposed. ProudTory (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That goes for you too PT. You have been falsely claiming that you are a conservative when by its definition that is impossible. Damo ^Hi 11:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Conservatism has nothing to do with religion, I'm deeply suspicious of the American right wing and feel that it isn't compatible with a conservative system. I don't want to micromanage people's lives. I'm more like a mild Libertarian. ProudTory (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You should stop going around demanding that others stop calling themselves conservative when you, by your very admission, are a fake. Frauds like you have no right to go around pointing the finger. Damo ^Hi 21:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

diets[edit]

Since I'm in a year long quest to lose between 52 adn 104 lbs, I'd be happy to help you write something. I've done more research on my own than any normal person should do, heh. but i'm also getting constant medical advice, and all teh "oh, have you tried teh lemon water diet" sighs. being fat is a bitch. heh. so many people have sooooo many stupid ass ideas ;-)Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 00:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You can see what I'm working on in my sandbox (listed in my userpage). Or are you referring to my fad diet?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh,no not the fad thing. though i'd love to put sommething together for free, along the line of this guy's 90 day "do something different each day" plan. cause it's fun. but no, i was meaning the diet page. lead words: porting size, portion size, portion size;-)

Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 00:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh sure. Like I said, right now I'm mostly working on the Low Carb diet. My suggested addition to the Fad Diet article was just stuff I found as a consequence of the research. Actually, that's not true at all, right now I'm working on calc homework, but as far as RW goes, you know where I'm at. Questions, comments, concerns, feel free to stick 'em in the talkpage. Not sure what I'll work on after this, but messing with the logic section would probably be a good supplement to the homework I have for my logic class--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do you pretend this site is neutral?[edit]

Do you really believe that? You're like somebody from the confederacy claiming that black people enjoy equal rights in their breakaway republic. QUISLING! ProudTory (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between what this site is, and what it is supposed to be. This site is a 501(c) nonprofit in the US, one of the requirements for that is no political bias/advocacy. So, while our article have a left/liberal bias, it shouldn't. --Token Conservative (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

So why am I being singled out for special treatment? Why aren't you going after the left/liberals for their bias? ProudTory (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yours irritates me. Something about you claiming to be a conservative frustrates me. I'm often frustrated watching my people make complete asses out of themselves. --Token Conservative (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You're not a conservative! You've no idea what it means. You're just one of these false flag types who hand wrings and whimpers and complains about how awful their ideological partners are. I have no doubt in my mind that you have no conservative principles whatsoever. ProudTory (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Whatever kid.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Why did you call me an asshole? ProudTory (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Because you are. Copperhead^Hisssssss 01:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Just because we are (in theory) ideological allies doesn't mean I like you.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just hurt by the level of hatred that you've directed towards me. I saw you as something of a younger brother, somebody I could tease lovingly. Yet you proceeded to punch me in the face and kick me in the testicles. Bad form. ProudTory (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This is more irritation then hatred.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The RWF's neutrality[edit]

The RWF can't do political lobbying itself, but it isn't going to be held liable for any advocacy that occurs on the wiki, and I believe this is due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Blue (is useful) 01:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Meh, close enough to what he was doing anyways.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You have been here long enough to know...[edit]

...don't fucking delete comments. Ace ⁱ⁹ 02:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, Rob is just trolling for a reaction by this point. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 02:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That's what Rob does, and he's been here longer than you or Hamilton. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 02:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If he keeps posting that bullshit, I'm going to keep deleting it.--Token Conservative (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

We do not delete comments - the community standards say as much therefore continuing to do so against the community standards. In other words - don't fucking do it. Ace ⁱ⁹ 02:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, we actually have community standards? News to me.--Token Conservative (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You see the big, bold welcome banner on the top of this page? Maybe you should read it. Ace ⁱ⁹ 02:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Fuck off.--Token Conservative (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Now you are familiar with the standards I trust you'll stop deleting Rob's comments. Thanks! Ace ⁱ⁹ 02:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

User {{trolltop}} or the RobRail in future. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 03:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Because just deleting his comments is far far to obvious and easy--Token Conservative (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

we don't delete other users comments because you find them not to your liking. Ace ⁱ⁹ 03:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

What about stupid, insulting, and irrelevant? Can we delete comments then?--Token Conservative (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Ace ⁱ⁹ 03:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

So, I can go into your talkpage and pull a conversation completely off course by calling you a stupid miserable cunt, and you couldn't delete the comment if you wanted to? Do you not see the ENORMOUS FUCKING ISSUE?--Token Conservative (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The saloon bar is a community page not your personal talkpage so you don't get to decide what the community can or cannot read. Ace ⁱ⁹ 03:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

So, I can go into a saloon bar discussion you're in and pull a conversation completely off course by calling you a stupid miserable cunt, and you couldn't delete the comment if you wanted to? Do you not see the ENORMOUS FUCKING ISSUE?--Token Conservative (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, go right ahead. I'll just ignore you because I don't give a fuck what you say. Ace ⁱ⁹ 03:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You know what makes it really easy to ignore a troll? Deleting their comments.--Token Conservative (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah but we don't do that. You know what's even easier - being an adult. Ace ⁱ⁹ 03:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Then the entire business world must be run by children. Or have you never had a job where you get fired for being an insulting asshole?--Token Conservative (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I wasn't aware Rationlawiki was a business and that people could get fired from it. Ace ⁱ⁹ 03:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, if an adult ignores when someone is being an insulting cunt, then the entire business world must be run by children.--Token Conservative (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. Please don't delete comments on community pages. Ace ⁱ⁹ 03:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Other then "because it's the idiotic way of dealing with fucking trolls" you haven't given me a good reason. Or a bad reason. Or any reason.--Token Conservative (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Not responding to every single thing a troll writes is a good way to get them to stop. To be honest, Hamilton, you do have quite a tendency to respond to every single thing people like Rob post and it really doesn't end up doing you any favors in the end. Sam ^Tally-ho! 04:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

My responses were limited to telling him to fuck off.--Token Conservative (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Why? He's friendly, smart, and funny. I don't get the hate-Rob-meme. You do realize that once you dig in he's going to own you every time, right?

05:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, a fucking five year old should be able to figure out I'm kind of freaked out and was asking for series advice, not some dickbag to turn it into his personal fucking soapbox about some bullshit that doesn't even fucking happen!--Token Conservative (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I know you are. Take it easy. You got a lot of helpful advice and positive energy. He didn't dominate and people were pretty good about keeping focused on your issue. He's a black comic doing black comedy on a site that thrives on it. Step back and watch everyone else freak out if you really want a laugh. I think he's hilarious.

06:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

While Rob has his lucid moments, I do not find his derailings funny. Oh well; I've been accused before of having a defective sense of humor. If you can't restrain yourself from responding to his stuff, it seems to be effective to avoid addressing him directly. In other words, instead of "fuck off, Rob" one could say something like, "Rob, as usual, is drifting off topic, and could fuck off without anything of value being lost." Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

They could also avoid half a dozen people creating a bigger distraction than they can blame on Rob and say that privately to themselves.

20:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If you think 4ish people not being assholes is "a lot helpful advice and positive energy" you're insane.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Nutty, I agree that restraint (i.e. not saving a new change) is best, but you just said what amounts to "if they can't restrain themselves, then they could restrain themselves." IMO, the occasional {{fish}}-slap has its uses, considering the lurking audience. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow Hamilton. You had people giving multiple actionable ideas from the start. Even Rob made some helpful observations, including that ideas are fungible. He's right. A lot of people in that discussion were right. It's not always the most amazing idea in the world that makes someone say "Aha! That solves a real problem!" It wasn't until you started rejecting everything given by people who have a ton of collective experience doing exactly what they suggested that they realized you weren't approaching your question very earnestly. Look again. There's some good stuff in there. Sprocket, yeah of course that's what I saying. Nobody else is responsible for your behavior but you. I'm using "you" in the abstract sense. I have idea how you respond to Rob. I don't know from any lurkers. Anyhow, I'm done with this meta conversation. I made my points. 23:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

To know from lurkers, consider the differences between private conversation (e.g. email) and and publicly visible discussion. Ciao for now. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

FWW, my first response in using food stamps to capitalize a going business was made in good faith, and Token Conservative was extremely rude for someone asking for free advice. Maybe entepernuerial thinking is beneath over-educated, beougois attitudes and viewed and as the type of labor immigrants do. I work with people in need (and people with far more desparate circumstances than TC's); what Token Conservative really needs is encouragement and confidence, the rest is easy. But he's not on the road to solving any of his immidiate financial crisis or career development with attitudes such as he displayed toward people of good faith who took time out of their schedule to show concern and offer assistance. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 17:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about your entrepreneurial background and I'd like to. I'm on the verge of taking the plunge into founding a tech startup after mostly changing my career. Want to talk?

19:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure. You're at big advantage knowing basically what form of business ot take (Corp vs LLC vs Sole Proprietorship, including tax consequences); is it personal & marketing you need help with? or do you prefer to talking privately? E-mail me. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 20:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

So, I cann't even delete shit from my talk page? Fucking wonderful.--Token Conservative (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, not unless it's obviously vile trolling. And I'm the thinnest-skinned drama queen on the wiki, and I'm here to tell you -- this stuff doesn't even come close. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 22:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

What does the third bullet at RW:CS#Talk pages mean then? Peter ^mqzp 23:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone further up in this stream of bullshit implied that I can do what I want on my talkpage.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

How to email a RW user[edit]

Navigate to their userpage
Click "Email this user" on the sidebar, under "Toolbox"
????
Internet communication!

Blue (pester) 00:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

1.5: Check that you have set up your own email stuff at Special:Preferences. Peter ^mqzp 00:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, OK then. The more you know!--Token Conservative (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to RationalWiki[edit]

Enjoy. Ty^{Carnival time.} 20:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Help me out here, what am I looking for?--Token Conservative (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The user in question vandalized the wiki for hours using goatse. And still people voted to spare him. Ty^{Carnival time.} 21:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

So basically, the people on this site are all morons who don't understand that the Paradox of Tolerance is a bunch of bullshit?--Token Conservative (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

appologies[edit]

Wanted to appologize to you and weasel for yesterday. It's been bad here at work, and i thik i was trolling for a fight. Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 16:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we're talking about, so I'll assume I took no offense and tell you not to worry about it.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Why do you claim to be a conservative?[edit]

Only teenagers shout out about their politics and wear it as a badge of honour. You run around claiming to be a conservative, but I would argue that this is evidence of a deep psychological issue related to your lack of identity. I would deduce from your posts that you have an authoritarian father, lack empathy, and have no understanding of your identity. I would go further and suggest that you are a minority of some kind raised in a comfortable middle class and white area. Would I be correct in these deductions?

MARCUSCICERO Why do you not fuck off and die?--Token Conservative (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Trigger warning.[edit]

Read this and tell me what you think before you revert that edit. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 16:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Warning people "hey, there's talk about threats of assault, rape, and murder" seems to be pretty much the default everywhere but here. That one person doesn't like to use them is irrelevant.--Token Conservative (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes the default is wrong. Moreover, most trigger warnings precede graphic personal descriptions of heinous acts, not mentions of the facts that rape and violence exist in the world. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 16:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

So, you would be fine with leaving a TW if Ms. Sarkeesian came in herself and edited, but because a third party is doing it, its unnecessary? Brilliant!--Token Conservative (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No, by "personal" I meant "as told in a way in which is meant to reveal the subjective nature of an event." It doesn't matter who writes the narrative. More importantly, I would be okay with a "trigger warning" if there was something actually "triggering" in the passage. Please tell me which specific words or combinations of words in that section are bothersome for you. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 17:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. It reminds me of the time one of my teachers said "you can cover the whole world in leather or you can wear shoes" when he was suggesting I dress lighter instead of fighting for control of the air conditioning. Expecting people to put trigger warnings is basically expecting people to cover the entire world in leather for you. It seems very self centered. It's better to deal with the world. And this is coming from someone who has had massive problems with things of this nature. –Nazis are bad and I don't like them 17:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Math major![edit]

I high five you through the internet for being a fellow math major. Wehpudicabok (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but this is out of date. I've had a serious fall out with my college, and the place I'm moving to doesn't offer a math program.--Token Conservative (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. ;-) Dirk Steele (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

As am I. Hope you enjoy the new school at least. Wehpudicabok (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

"the place I'm moving to doesn't offer a math program." What decent university doesn't have a math department? Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 12:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Well first of all, fuck you; second of all, no one asked you your opinion on my academic life; and third of all its a private college that mainly deals with overseas military members looking for a degree in business or history to help advance their career.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 00:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Fun:Andy Schlafly page deletion poll[edit]

Hi guys, are most of you actually conservative?? It's amazing that i've found another conservative (other than me) on rationalwiki!! Anyway, I just wanted to inform you guys about a poll that I started in order to delete the demeaning, mocking, idiotic page about Andy Schlafly, the well-known homeschool teacher/lawyer/conservative inspirationalist. Please participate in the discussion that is being conducted on the "Fun:Andy Schlafly" talk page, and my personal talk page. Many thanks ahead-a-time.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thing is, I'm a conservative. You are not. You're an idiot.--Token Conservative (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, then you're one liberal conservative!! Are you kidding me?? I'd be appalled if you're even a human!! How the heck can you call yourself conservative?? Who did you vote for?? I thank you for contributing to my poll already, but now that you have, be quiet. Let other people talk. <sarcasm>"conservative!!!!"</sarcasm> That's total bullfig!!--184.6.214.237 (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Nope, I'm a conservative. People like you and Andy give us a bad name.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What kind of conservative are you?[edit]

I actually don't converse with conservatives all to often (unless you count my friends who support Obama/the Democratic Party, whom I see as largely conservative in a number of ways...) I'm wondering if you don't mind if I try to start a dialogue on some of the popular concerns of our day: Where do you stand re: Marriage equality? Faith in education/public life? Reproductive freedom? Publicly-funded social Security/Medicare/Medicaid? Immigration? Pay equality? (I'm assuming you are a US-American). Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 23:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've explained several of those on my blog linked on the userpage (marriage, faith, pay equality). The basic answer is that I'm agnostic and don't see a single reason why religious law should be relevant in secular law, which is pretty much entirely what marriage equality and faith in education breaks down to. "Reproductive freedom" is something I'm not touching until you explain what you mean. For government social services, I think we need to raise the retirement age, and I would like some (largely minor) changes to unemployment, but otherwise I'm fine. My immigration position is a fairly long answer, but not in line with either US party.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. By "reproductive freedom," I mean the question of what restrictions, if any, should be in place regarding medical procedures/pharmaceutical products a woman may choose to undergo/use if she has, or believes she may have, an embryo or fetus embedded in her uterine wall, as well as restrictions on access to contraception, including making certain medications illegal or allowing private insurers to charge extra to cover those medications, or refuse to cover them at all. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 00:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Within the limits of your answer, no abortion after in the third trimester except for unusual circumstances, contraceptives should be completely covered by insurance at no additional expense, and I'm not aware of any serious issue regarding illegal medications, re: contraceptives.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

RE: the last bit, I was thinking about the possibility of legislation that would outlaw the sale of contraception. While I respect your right to define your politics as "conservative," I can't really see how the term is useful to you, as many, if not most self-identified conservatives would find it hard to make common cause with you on a number of core issues. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 01:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the majority of actual Libertarians (uncommon) tell vulgar Libertarians (common) to fuck themselves while struggling desperately to reclaim the term _{that they stole}, same thing I do. And generally I identify as a classical conservative or a classical republican. It's really only when I'm rebuking one of Andy's followers that I call myself a conservative with no qualifications.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't being a "classical conservative" imply a desire to respect social divides -- "knowing one's betters," as it were? Why a "classic conservative," as opposed to what I see -- a "classic liberal"? Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 01:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I do believe that in a fair setting (see: the veil of ignorance), some people will naturally tend towards the top through their own skills, and I am quite alright with that happening, and with a society that encourages that to happen. I explained it in my blog, but I see there being at least four sources of power: race/sex/whatever, money, aptitude, and skills. Race/sex/whatever is just culturally bound bullshit that pretends you can group people together and approximate an individual's aptitude and skills while ignoring the individual, and is therefor and illegitimate source of authority. Money (your parent's money) is also an illegitimate source of authority because it allows lazy and stupid people to prosper while hard working and skilled people do poorly (basically, Paris Hilton being rich). Aptitude is a person's natural talent for something (say math) is legitimate because the person still has to go out and practice that talent. Skills, like have practiced math, are legitimate also because it is something under your control.

So basically, I'm quite alright with saying people should know their betters, if the person is more powerful then them for a legitimate reason.

And the term "classical liberal" has been badly abused, because there was basically no real movement behind classical liberalism: it was basically anything that included some kind of social justice, concept of "rights", and a desire for a democracy/republic. That included more-or-less socially reactionary and eerily libertarian positions like Thomas Jefferson, and also incredibly liberal (for lack of a better term) and vaguely socialist positions like Thomas Paine, and everything in between. It wouldn't be accurate to say that there was a classical conservative movement, but it would be more accurate to say that classical conservatism was an actual movement then to say that classical liberalism was a movement.

I'd also add that CC was built around the idea that social justice and change are good, and even necessary, but that these changes must happen slowly so that society has a chance to adapt, so you can avoid social collapse (see: French Revolution)--Token Conservative (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Gatekeeping[edit]

On a somewhat related tangent, what makes you constantly tell other people "you are not conservative", as in the section above and many other places you have played that same line? Why should you be the arbiter of such a thing? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If you consider Edmund Burke the founder of conservatism in a political sense (which the majority of people do), and that the person who founded a movement to be the only person who can define what the movement is (which I do), then the modern GOP is definitely not conservative. --Token Conservative (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe that works for you, but the definition in your head isn't the same as one in common usage. The GOP doesn't particularly associate itself with Burke, so benchmarking them against Burke serves no purpose other than pedantic No-True-Scotsmaning. Wèàšèìòìď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

One caveat[edit]

Is there a chance you can set up a page (or make a section in RationalWiki:Duplicate articles) to document what laws got cut, just so we're sure nothing of note is lost (ie. Arken's Law being redirected to Godwin's Law, but we don't mention in that article that it's a corollary specifically using the 1984 card). Osaka Sun (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I just posted the updated version of Godwin's Law, and I included a section "Other versions" that includes Arken and Gore, and a few corollaries. When I get done I'll take care of that though, don't worry.--Token Conservative (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

And why do you assume he would lose?[edit]

(Moving this conversation here, as it's not really CP-relevant). Because the GOP is a factional mess that won't elect another president until it eliminates the nutjob wing to which it seems to be beholden but which forces candidates to advocate for positions that guarantee that they won't get elected. That's why I assume he would lose. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 13:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, we're speaking past each other. I meant "if he wins the primary, Andy will say he is a great Republican" not "if he gets in the primary, Andy will say he is a great Republican". And if Christie wins the primary, I doubt very much if he would lose the general election.--Token Conservative (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that if Christie wins the primary, Andy will anoint him as a True Conservative (TM). That's exactly what he did with Romney -- check the history of CPs article on Mitt. From RINO to conservative within days (hours?) of having the nomination in the bag. And, exactly as he did with Romney if (I still say WHEN--why do you think he can beat Hilary when half his party still wants to hang him in effigy. Or jst skip the effigy part...) the big man loses the general election, he'll be a RINO who didn't do enough to focus on Andy's pet, voter-alienating issues. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 15:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a strong trend which would favor a Republican winning in 2016, and while the party heads are being a bunch of morons right now, the actual party members are largely unchanged. And some of the things he said in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Sandy are hilarious and would endear him with others in the Atlantic Seaboard. Since this is my fantasy, I'm allowed to say that he would choose Chuck Hagel as VP candidate, which would win him more points with Democrats and swing voters, and get him support in the Midwest.--Token Conservative (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The idea of Hagel being VP amuses me a lot for some reason--^Mikal_lakiM 18:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's because you do or do not like him.--Token Conservative (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I dislike most Politicians, its more that somebody from nowhere like nebraska being backup president. --^Mikal_lakiM 19:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, Hagel would be great in the position. Man is hilarious.--Token Conservative (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

so, gender studies portal?[edit]

so like you mentioned about wanting to write more on feminist and/or gender studies topics. WARNING, I have studied this stuff (up to upper division courses) and I take a deep personal involvement (intersection of atheism and feminism is one of my things, and sorely needed in my own SSA) but I'm not a powerhouse... though I think that's something everybody has to square with on this website; we have relatively few scientists writing our science articles, for example. So where should we start? Should there be a project page? Who else do you think can help? A big difference between writing about science vs woo/spiritualism and feminist thought vs patriarchal status quo is that... well... it's kind of like our society is still in the dark ages. Not as bad as it used to be, but the dominant way of thinking, down to raising our kids, is pretty sexist (and racist, and classist, and ist in general...) Especially boys. It's sort of like if everybody was raised as a creationist and there wasn't access to a science class or an alternate model until college, and it was optional/not even an elective that only hippies took. So I expect to see lots of resistance from at least a few wiki members who don't really understand the topic at large because they never have had to think about it at all because you don't need it to navigate a sexist society as it stands now. So where to start? ±KnightOfTL;DR^{sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic} 18:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing on-mission about gender studies.

19:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There are definitely a lot of crackpot medical, biological, and other (pseudo)scientific ideas used to justify oppression of women. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely true, but unrelated to whether gender studies bears any resemblance to any of the elements of our mission. It's certainly worth discussing how religions, the right, the left, whoever, have historically disenfranchised women. I fail to see how things like the history of homosexuality, lgbt issues, and sexuality in general have anything to do with what we're supposed to be doing, which frankly we're not doing quite enough of: core stuff is a little dusty. As close as gender studies gets is looking at things like political and sociology around women's issues vis a vis mission focuses. Gender studies as a general proposition doesn't do that.

19:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you go delete funspace and WIGO:CP before you whine about things being off-mission because you personally don't understand how they relate? If every topic needed your fucking permission to be on RationalWiki, it would be called NuttyWiki. So piss off. :) ±

KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 19:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Right. Well, not one single word you said was responsive. I was sort of expecting that. RW has become a haven for exactly what we criticize in others: facile analysis, non responsive nanny nanny boo boo, and tu quoques. How about you just be ready to actually argue your superior position, since you've studied gender studies so very much, before you spend too much time writing off-mission material. I personally understand enough about the subject from having taken a number of classes myself to know a portal dedicated to it is something I'd push to have deleted. :)

20:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that these issues Nutty mentions (history of homosexuality, lgbt issues, and sexuality in general etc) are less to do with RationalWiki and make us more LiberalWiki. Ace ⁱ⁹ 20:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You also noticed that they were issues nutty mentioned and not issues that I mentioned. Way to make a straw man to address instead of the topic at hand! Of course we'd relate it to the mission. But as far as I'm concerned, it's not Nutty's, Ace's, or anybody else's responsibility to fucking veto what goes onto the wiki. This is not your wiki. This is everybody's wiki. If you don't like it, go implement Nite Mode.±

KnightOfTL;DR^{lavishly loquacious} 21:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

No ones vetoing anything, Knight. Getting into an apoplectic rage over comments and opinions won't get us anywhere. Ace ⁱ⁹ 21:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Well then what was the fucking point of stepping into the conversation in the first place. "I don't think this should go on the wiki," basically is the point you and Nutty are making, my answer is "OK, no one fucking cares what you think." So why on earth are you continuing trying to argue that it shouldn't be on the wiki and then saying that you aren't... trying to keep a thing off the wiki? You make no goddamned sense. It really doesn't matter how rageful you think I am, that does not disqualify that you still are displaying the stupid attitude that everybody on the wiki is entitled to care about your opinion. This was not even a question aimed at you, can you kindly quit trashing this thread and wait until Hamilton comes back so I can hear what he actually asked me about earlier yesterday? As in, a conversation that does not actually need you, or Nutty's input? Shockingly, not every conversation is improved by your presence. Knock it off. ±

KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 21:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Please calm down, I am worried that you'll give yourself skin failure. No one is making any definitive calls about what should or shouldn't be on the wiki, merely expressing an opinion about the the direction that should be taken on certain issues. This is everyones wiki, not Knights wiki. We are all allowed to express an opinion, OK? Ace ⁱ⁹ 21:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You're acting like a little kid, and even putting words into Ace's mouth. We have a mission. If you don't like it, start your own wiki. It's all of our responsibilities to look out for the site. You said as much while apparently trying to say something else. I guess if this is your approach I'll just repeat that you may not want to get too far into things. Ho hum. For someone with such advanced knowledge of the subject, you've got nerve talking about straw men when you're not touching the merits.– I'll just nominate off mission stuff for deletion; no need for night mode. Ace is mentioning those things because they're traditionally part of gender studies, as I mentioned. If you can relate gender studies material to the mission, it's not going to be in gender studies articles and we certainly don't need a portal.

21:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

For fuck's sake you two, I was trying to ask Hamilton about something he mentioned to me yesterday and now you are surprised I am mad at you wen you insert yourself into discussions that don't concern you, you were never a part of, nobody asked you to be part of, can both of you please GO AWAY SO I CAN TRY AND TALK TO THE GUY? I am trying to ask a person about something IN A CONVERSATION WE HAD YESTERDAY THAT INCLUDED NEITHER OF YOU. Why the fuck do you think it's your business? Sure, you can express your opinion but you don't have to keep fucking expressing it over and over again when somebody is like 'ok fine nobody asked you' as if yelling it over and over again will get you more and more listened to. PLEASE go away. . I am trying to ask a person something, and now you are using the fact that I am mad that you fucking stick your dicks everywhere where they are not needed as a way to devalue and shoot down the question I AM NOT EVEN AIMING AT YOU. Fuck. Off. I should not have to fucking battle both Ace and Nutty EVERY SINGLE TIME I try and make a post about women's issues in a wiki THAT OVERWHELMINGLY SEEMS TO NOT INCLUDE WOMEN. I WONDER WHY WE THINK IT'S SO HARD TO STICK AROUND.±

KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 23:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I have been pretty scarce recently so I don't know where you get this idea that I am sticking my nose in constantly. 'Battling" me? Jeez man, I am sorry that you view someone having a different opinion to you as "battling" but that is your cross to bear. Ace ⁱ⁹ 23:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't even recall ever interacting with you except briefly about the Twitter account, if that was you. It's not like it's personal or that I'm following you around. I just don't like your idea. I also don't understand much of what you've said here or why you're so worked up. I interject pretty infrequently precisely because disagreeing with people on this site seems to always entail a pointless meta-conversation. *shrug* Have fun.

03:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

My talkpage has never been so popular. I have to go soon, so, I'll get back to this tomorrow, maybe monday. In the meantime, keep productive conversation going, and if anything unproductive is happening, go away.--Token Conservative (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, not at all surprised at the direction this has taken now that I'm actually reading it. Since I'm apparently the impetuous for this, my idea wasn't to talk about things like the history of homosexuality, or whatever, but instead focus on expanding our articles on sex, gender, and sex/gender based discrimination, and maybe include some articles proving that discrimination is happening. --Token Conservative (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point as much a knight. Sexuality and gender aren't on mission. Sexual discrimination isn't on mission except to the extent it relates to the right wing, fundies, etc. Why is this difficult or are you sticking your fingers in your ears like Knight?

Putting up a project page wasn't a great idea.

14:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

So, this wiki, despite its explicitly stated mission statement, exists to refute right wing ideas? Are you a moron?--Token Conservative (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently I'm not reaching you. That was an example, and one I think is apropos of the circumstances, since it's right wing political and religious elements that oppress women, right wing and crank elements that promote men's rights, etc. If this is difficult for you to grasp, or you just want to continue swearing at me and calling me names, you're really not getting it.

15:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Low Carb[edit]

I've asked a long-time user with an advanced degree in chemistry to look at CarbShark's arguments/edits. Should take the discussion to a better plane. Hugs and Kisses.... Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 03:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Nutrition =! Chemistry.--Token Conservative (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

No shit. But right now the conversation over there seems to be that the guy posts a bunch of stuff with refs and arguments that are way beyond my expertise, and you telling him he's full of shit. I figure a guy whose job it is to read scientific journal articles can only help. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 16:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

A doctor or a biologist would be able to read and understand the references. --Token Conservative (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that we got one of those. Anyway, dude has had his say. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 17:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

With all the articles on biology we have, you would think we would.--Token Conservative (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please show me...[edit]

...precisely which edit on that page qualifies as "trolling." If you are unable to do so, please do not use the trollbox there. What you may be looking for is the "disagrees with me" box, or the "I don't like you box." We don't have any of those. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 15:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

How about a "You clearly didn't bother to read the first fucking sentence of the goddamn page" box? Do we have that?--Token Conservative (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Fresh out. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 15:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Still claiming to be a conservative, yeah?[edit]

I believe I've studied your motivations before. Your tub thumping declarations of supposed conservatism is quite laughable, and utterly rejectionable. I, for one, do not really believe you hold any real conservative beliefs, mainly because it just seems awkward when you announce your political 'convictions'. I would suggest that what you are is somebody from an ethnic minority but who grew up in relative privilege. Since you cannot help but feel guilt for this fact, you over-compensate by defending the entrenched interests of crony capitalists, the wealthy, and make excuses for the excesses of American conservatism, which is essentially just a gigantic racket for the enrichment of a tiny corporate-political elite.

MARCUSCICERO

You're an idiot.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

See, when you say tub thumping, I think of that song. Does that mean that Hamilton sings about his conservatism in a British accent? Heavy Metal Jesus (\m/ \m/) 23:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Since my Conservativism is highly inspired by Disraeli and Burke (in theory), I do, in fact use a British accent when I talk about it sometimes.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hamilton. Please stop referring to yourself (loudly) as a conservative. Everybody just feels awkward when you do. Its like when an obviously closeted gay yammers on about how sexy he finds women to be. Everybody just feels awkward. Everybody is aware of the elephant in the room. Know what I'm saying?