User talk:Idiot number 59
Welcome to RationalWiki, enjoy your stay! - David Gerard (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Who are numbers 1-58? --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 20:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Started with a heinzerisation by me There were no 1 - 56. 21:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
What are you doing here? rationalhi
- Having fun of course. Aren't everyone else doing the same thing, but just pretending to be up to something else? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
An Idiot's Love[edit]
- The local Idiot
- Whose love composed
- The lovely essense
- Of the love that he exposed.
- It was made to be known,
- That the Idiot did indeed,
- Love Susan so dearly,
- But did Susan accede?
- Alas, she did not,
- She did not give any favor,
- To the man who loved her
- As he cried with waver...
- "WHY?!" cried the Idiot,
- So solemnly sad.
- How could she not love
- A six toed man? That's too bad.
- Silently, he shuddered away
- Carrying out his love from his userpage.
- But deep within his heart, everyone knows,
- That his love is still there, it's just in a doze.
~SuperHamster Talk 05:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- A strange poem. I wish people wrote me more poems, but not such like you did. It doesn't qualify as a poem. You could learn something from my earlier works. --Idiot number 58 (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Chicken coop proceedings[edit]
A discussion about you has been started at RationalWiki:Chicken coop, regarding some of your behavior. If you wish to advocate for yourself you had best go there. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Sysop[edit]
Remember, power from the cabal to lord over the people is a goat-given right of Man. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 03:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Good to see you again![edit]
Blue (is useful) 22:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh! And why do you think I'll stay in this godless idiocracy? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Because you might just learn something about how pointless such statements as that are.Several ingredients (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- @Idiot59: I dunno; why wouldn't you stay in this godless idiocracy? We has goats! Blue (is useful) 12:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- You stay to reinforce your feeling of superiority. You need someone to despise and we fit the bill. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Assholes. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- You can haz sysop back, okay? Blue (pester) 19:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Honey, you've always seemed to be the most reasonable person out of all progressive ethicists here. Thank you. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- You can haz sysop back, okay? Blue (pester) 19:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Assholes. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- You stay to reinforce your feeling of superiority. You need someone to despise and we fit the bill. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- @Idiot59: I dunno; why wouldn't you stay in this godless idiocracy? We has goats! Blue (is useful) 12:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Because you might just learn something about how pointless such statements as that are.Several ingredients (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
You're on thin ice.[edit]
Ad hominem attacks are most unwelcome on this wiki, your actions here involve you telling someone to "go f*** themself" and calling someone a "stupid pig". Continuing to be disrespectful to other editors may result in a block without warning. I'm watching you.Several ingredients (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Continuing to be disrespectful to other edits may result in a block without warning. I'm watching you. May I point out that threats like this are as unwelcome as the Ad hominem themselves? Ace McfuckingAwesome 00:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you, Ace. The person doing the blocking would be the one breaching policy, not the one making insulting comments. Blue (pester) 01:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- And 59 is a sysop, so a block wouldn't be very effective anyway... Blue (is useful) 01:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- I can change that. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 01:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- And 59 is a sysop, so a block wouldn't be very effective anyway... Blue (is useful) 01:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you, Ace. The person doing the blocking would be the one breaching policy, not the one making insulting comments. Blue (pester) 01:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with being insulting, really - he's pretty rude, but not particularly disruptive. People as dumb as him deserve a little tolerance and leeway, and hopefully eventually a loving home where caretakers can wipe the pureed food off his chin and gently rock him to sleep..--talk 02:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hanlon's razor applies here. Still, if Idiot number 59 is just going to hang around to stir people up i.e be a troll, then s/he would deserve some kind of punishment.Several ingredients (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Stupid pig. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 10:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- 1. Let's not bring back that argument over something this trivial 2. Don't Feed The Fucking Troll 3. Whether or not 59 is a troll is up for debate. Blue (is useful) 11:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- You know what else applies? You being a grown-up and ignoring the troll rather than giving him the gratification of a debate on his talk page. Think McFly! -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 06:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm definitely not trying to feed the troll, I originally thought the user was some kind of unfunny editor with quirky properties. But, now that I know s/he's a troll I'll have the right impression.Several ingredients (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oh come on guys. I guess if you don't know the history then idiot #59 seems offensive but he's kept his Toretts pretty much under control recently and become a useful member of the community. Offensive, that's just his way. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. Did you know my name was originally FuckingVandal? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see what's inherently wrong with "FuckingVandal," but others do, apparently. I could give you FrackingVandal, but I'm a huge nerd, so that might resonate with me more than you. Blue (is useful) 08:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. Did you know my name was originally FuckingVandal? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oh come on guys. I guess if you don't know the history then idiot #59 seems offensive but he's kept his Toretts pretty much under control recently and become a useful member of the community. Offensive, that's just his way. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm definitely not trying to feed the troll, I originally thought the user was some kind of unfunny editor with quirky properties. But, now that I know s/he's a troll I'll have the right impression.Several ingredients (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hanlon's razor applies here. Still, if Idiot number 59 is just going to hang around to stir people up i.e be a troll, then s/he would deserve some kind of punishment.Several ingredients (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
"Fuck poser"[edit]
Why do I think you are now picturing Avril in some kind of porno? Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 19:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- As a devoted Catholic I never do such things. Avril is one of the few decent artist, whose music videos don't remind me of sex tapes. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Welcoming[edit]
Please stop saying you're chief admin or whatever when welcoming users. The welcome can be a very important thing, not to be taken as lightly as other "procedures" here. Blue (is useful) 00:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey[edit]
Did you died? --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)