User talk:Hipocrite/Archive3

This is an archive page, last updated 28 September 2013. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<IE>, <1>, <2>, <4>, <6>, <5>

, (new)(back)

Explain the problem

with this edit.[1] Mikemikev (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hiding revisions/reverting talk page posts.

Try to be a little less heavy-handed. Yeah, that stuff was nasty, but let the user decide what he/she wants to deal with on their own page. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 14:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I was actually stopping by to say thank you for stepping in. I did feel that WeAreEqual was out of line, but I don't like acting on my own; it was nice to get a consensus. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Pit bull

You may not like what the site has to say, but I did include a second source that points out the same thing: The study dogsbites.org quotes that is heavily used in that section ignored the actual findings of the study, namely that the breed ban did not reduce the numbers of attacks. You can hate the first link all you like, but stop removing that fact please. -GeekMasterFlash

Banning guns dosen't lower shootings. Guns still shoot. Hipocrite (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

At as self-proclaimed rationalist we need to review it in the context of reality. Pit bulls are dangerous, I don't deny that, but there is also a clear overhyping of the issue and rampant pseudo-science around it, for example: the above quote mining. -GMF

Show me quote mining in your own words by showing me a quote and showing me the source. Also, do you have a pecuniary conflict of interest here? Hipocrite (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No. I do not have any conflict of interest, and in fact I think you will find I agree with you that a Pit Bull is demonstrably more lethal when it attacks than most other dogs. However, if I see obviously flawed data I will point it out and not allow it be unchallenged. Dogs in general can be dangerous. As I said in the talk page, my own misunderstanding of the term resulted in confusion. I thought a "scientist" pulling details from dubious sources like civilian press releases was an example of mining. I admit that was wrong. However, I am pretty adamant that a press release will result not only in sample bias but misidentification. I have linked to studies that demonstrate both in the talk page. So, lets aside our obvious dislike of each other's style and work the article into a far more skeptical one, please?

To clarify the points that needed to be made:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19302402 : There is high correlation between vicious dog attacks and the general shittiness of the owners.

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Delise%20Research%20&%20Investigation%20Methodology.pdf : More of the same, but more publically accessable, plus this has solid refutation reference #13 (http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf)

Basically spelling out how what ref #13 states is incorrect, almost entirely.

Quote: "The CDC has published a statement that the single-vector approach in "Breeds of Dogs" does not "identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is NOT APPROPRIATE for policy-making decisions related to the topic."

Reference #12 ( http://www.avma.org/avmacollections/canine_behavior/javma_217_6_836.pdf) is also dismantled: "An often-asked question is what breed or breeds of dogs are most dangerous? This inquiry can be prompted by a serious injury inflicted by a specific dog, or it may be the result of media-driven portrayals of a specific breed as dangerous. This ignores the true scope of the problem and will not result in a responsible approach to protecting a communities citizens." ref - http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Delise%20Research%20&%20Investigation%20Methodology.pdf

There was no mention before my edits of the hype and psuedoscience surrounding Pit Bulls, such as the assissine belief they have locking jaws, or they have the most bite force of any dog. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2423399/) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull#Locking_jaws_myth)

There is a clear history of (wrong) public panics over dog breeds since the 1800's. Including hounddogs at one point. (http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/publications/230603563_Pit%20Bull%20Placebo.pdf) Any article that plans to objectively look at the issue of Pit Bulls should mention this is not a new phenomena and quite likely is an example of the same hysteria.

We need to keep in mind that any study that includes press releases as part of the methodology is inheriantly flawed due to sample bias. (http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/2008%20Media%20Bias_1.pdf)

Also, dogs typically labeled Pit Bulls display a higher than average docility: http://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/

Now, I apologise if my edits were scatterbrained but if we are gonna call ourselves skeptics we can not simply ignore this body of evidence OR leave it out of the article. So please, I'd welcome your help in making these points clearer. Geekmasterflash (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No attempt at parody

I found Ginsburg's comments on Roe v. Wade to be constitutionally unprincipled and politically motivated. Either the decision of the majority is indeed based on the constitution or it isn't. The political consequences of the decision are an interesting subject, but have no relevance when it comes to evaluating how sound it was. I don't expect you to necessarily agree with my views, but please don't throw around baseless accusations. I would be happy to dicuss this subject with your further without comments such as the ones you put on the edit summary. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If you are merely a parodist at Conservapedia, then I'll block you here forever to help your case - just email me. If you're not, note that the policies of this site do not include disparaging judges because we disagree with their judicial philosophy. Hipocrite (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can see Antonin Scalia is an entire article existing solely for the purpose of disparaging a judge. The funny thing is that I actually find some of the criticism in said article to be warranted. Scalia's use of the substantive due process doctrine in McDonald v. Chicago (see second footnote) was highly unprincipled. I don't see why is ok to criticize Scalia but not Ginsburg. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Get the fuck off my talk page. You know where to discuss articles. Revert me again and I'll use my awesome admin powers the way you would over at your home wiki. Hipocrite (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It's kind of a shame that our conservation reached this point as I wasn't trying to be confrontational or anything. One thing I should apologize for is using the rollback to undo your edits. I was looking at Help:Etiquette to see if there was something wrong with my Ginsbrug edits, and on the way I found out that rollback is only to be used in cases of blatant vandalism. Until now I genuinely thought that its sole purpose was to provide a quick way for reverting edits, and I'm sorry for my misuse of it. I'm going to discuss Ginsburg on the relevant talk page, and I'm hoping that this scuffle will not prevent us from engaging with each other in a more cordial manner in the future. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

E-mail.

I am inside your inbox, giving you a message. Listening to Ella Fitzgerald sing "Baby, if I'm the bottom, you're the top" is very different after reading Dan Savage's column.. 14:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to moderate you.

I agree with you that the article is problematic. And the bolding move was kinda funny. You've made your point, now let the community weigh in on the deletion question. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 15:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem. The bolding move was extremely funny. Hipocrite (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're getting rid of a bunch of trash...

Do this when you're done. Thanks. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 16:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Rgr. Hipocrite (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's step back from the keyboard.

I know he can be hard to deal with and says contentious/poorly-thought out things, but resorting to a Godwin and vaping edits will only escalate the situation. Just ignore him, if you can. Hugs and kisses, PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 19:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest you review the history of who is following who around, and what kind of response time our aspie fuck has on anyone doing anything to his shitarticle. Hipocrite (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Look at my cool sig. Hipo^crite 20:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Except I forgot to change the colors to reflect the colors of Hipo and those of crite. Hipo^crite 20:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if I could have rotating colors. Hipo^crite 20:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm coming to you in the hopes that I'll be dealing with the grown-up in the room. Going the other way will only end in tears. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 20:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm switching to this sig which BLEEDS awesome. Hipo^crite 20:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

BLEEDING. Hipo^crite 20:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'll lose some options.

Hipo^crite 20:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If you don't make that into a template, it means you're worse than Hitler. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 20:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I did that now. Hipo^crite 20:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Or now? Hipo^crite 20:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

HOWBOW NOW? Hipo^crite 20:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Let beats drop. Hipo^crite 20:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Big Blocks

You've dropped some big blocks on IPs and a named user. Better to use the vandal bin and keep your mop and bucket at the ready. Thanks. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 16:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you'll soon be running the greatest and best racial realist and user harassment site on the ENTIRE INTERNET. Hipo^crite 16:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Your assessment is not realistic. What we have seen is that vanishingly few named users ever endure a block of a day or so, and then return and bother people again. On the other hand, we have had multiple people spam an angry or foolish comment, and then return after a short block to begin dialog. They're still usually useless, but not always. So when you ban a named user for three months, you essentially stand no chance of doing the site more good than if you'd banned them for three hours, but you are risking losing helpful feedback.

Set aside your understandable impulse to wield power and scourge away the stupid, and consider what is best for the end result.--^talk

I'm not sure how to set up the wager with you, but however you want it set up, I will be you more than you are comfortable losing that none of the accounts PowderSmokeAndLeather unblocked would every provide any value to this site, regardless of how long they were blocked for. However, I can promise you that I will not be providing said value whilst they are roaming around free to harass contributors here. Hipo^crite 21:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's take a look at your offer, before you storm off in pique.

You are publicly offering to bet some unspecified but uncomfortably large amount of money that neither of two accounts will make any useful edits, and further swearing that if they do so, you will also quit editing yourself. You have angrily blocked one of these people for several months for - let's see, making two or three questionable edits to an article and asking some well-sourced (if thoughtless and ignorant) questions.

Do you then realize that you are providing a public and very obvious way for either of these two editors to laughingly fuck with you? If I had been callow enough to just accept your bet, with a user we both trusted holding on to the money in the meantime ($200, say), then JohnnyRacist could, with almost no effort, cause you to lose a sum of money and probably quit editing articles whose outcome is clearly important to you. Because you are angry, you are unthinkingly trying to put a knife in the hand of someone you dislike.

The bar should be higher for a three-month block than JohnnyRacist's venal sins, don't you think? And even if it's not, do you think you've maybe lost perspective when you make public, wild wagers of money and your own departure in order to back up your righteous scourging block?--^talk

Ceteris paribus, fucker. Hipo^crite 14:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It only counts as a bon mot if it displays at least some tiny shred of insight. Otherwise it's just charming crudity, and Ace and Nutty already have that market cornered.--^talk 15:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright

Is it copyright if I put it in quotes like this?

"<copyvio removed>" JohnnyFrostbite (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You do not have permission to use my works in any form. Hipo^crite 17:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The question is whether I require your permission to use your works in any form. JohnnyFrostbite (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)