You know the green/red text on the contributions part, is that some kind of like/dislike system
- It's marking how many characters (letters, numbers) were added or removed in the edit.KrytenKoro (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay but idk how? Jakester499
- For the love of all that is holy in the world, sign your posts! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
...he grew up with this deviant theology, although he doesn't hold with with it himself—the doctrine that Jesus was a supernatural vessel for the Gatekeeper is inner doctrine, but he considers the idea that the Sermon on the Mount was delivered by a sockpuppet for the Sleeper in the Pyramid to be somewhere between implausible and hilarious.
Who said that or did you just coin it Either way you bring up a good point :-) Jakester499 (talk) (Does anyone else think Chris Christie is the lawyer from Stephen King's Thinner 19:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC))
Goals, clubs, etc.
- Or just use your user page, which will leave less page clutter--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
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. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
So i'm going to leave this here, and I reccomend you read all of the links involving what Rationalwiki is before posting more threads or making any more plans for the website.
- Got it.— Unsigned, by: Jakester499 / talk / contribs
Your persistent herding of pseudoscientists into the UFOlogy cat
I've given you Mike Bara, as a freebie, OK? Let that be enough. You really cannot have Hoagland and Brandenburg. Study their writings and reconsider, please. Okay, I will.--Jakester499 (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Ithaca8 (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Accepted and Solved (?)
Wrong it's actually Lois Griffin Turanga Leele and Marge Simpson are alien demons from the planet Kepler442b
I see now that I had an extra letter left over and unused when working out my proposed answer... Good anagram. Cheers. --OneEyedJack (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC) You are correct--Jakester499 (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Alex Jones ELI5
My position that Alex Jones does not believe the things he says can be traced directly to a simple analysis of Alex Jones's potential reasons for making these outrageous claims.
Why does every other person who makes outrageous claims as part of their profession do it? Charlatans, fakirs, hucksters, faith healers, psychics, televangelists, professional bigfoot hunters, tabloids, TMZ, homeopathic quacks, spiritualists, cold readers, etc.; they all make these outrageous claims for money. Why should Jones be any different? He does this for a living, he's not even hiding that he does it for a living. Alex Jones is perfectly capable of being lucid when its in his best interest but whenever its in his best interest to talk like a crazy person that's exactly what he does. When Ron Paul used to come on his show he'd make these great big changes in the way he communicates. He stopped with the outrageous crazy talk and tried to make his inferences as subtle as possible to keep his message on point but not so blatant as to cause an allergic reaction in his guest. Real live mentally ill people do not have that kind of control; they lack the ability to turn it on and off whenever it is convenient.
Through the use of Occam's Razor, it is simply that Alex Jones is more likely to be motivated by money than delusion because he is clearly heavily profiting from making these claims. For example, when you go to the grocery store and see a tabloid that makes a claim like, "MADONNA ELOPES WITH THE ALLIGATOR MAN OF LOUISIANA" or "ALIENS ABDUCT J-LO'S BABY" you don't automatically think that any of it is true. You think to yourself, "wow, who would believe such a thing?" If you bother to think for a second about the reasons for writing such a thing, it becomes very apparent that the reason for writing and publishing that article is so that people will give them money in exchange for their publication. Alex Jones makes his money off of advertising and he makes A LOT OF MONEY. That translates into all the reasons an ethically bankrupt person could ever have to lie. Lying to obtain profit is sadly a pretty popular pastime.
Furthermore, due to the heavy conflagration of outrageous and unbelievable claims made by Alex Jones over the years it strikes me as less and less likely that Alex Jones could ever believe every one of these outrageously unlikely things that he claims to be true. They are not only unlikely individually but in combination with each other they become a conflagration of stretches of the imagination. Combined with the fact that Alex Jones does not allow any rational dissenting discussion of these conspiracy theories on his radio show, it becomes apparent that Alex Jones is engaging in an intelligent effort to shape his narrative to jam in as much intrigue as possible. A truly crazy person would listen to a well reasoned argument and then respond with their own crazy arguments; not only that, but the things they said would often be entirely self contradictory in obvious ways because they do not have the cognitive facilities to keep it all straight. They have the certainty of the mad on their side. Alex Jones on the other hand doesn't allow criticism or intelligent discussions to be had at all in any way and when he is criticized in public he flies into a screaming fit of self promotion that are conveniently timed so that he does not have to defend his positions in an open format. Alex Jones is only crazy for money. Pelican (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Because of your edits to and the wiki,
wizard Sysop has been added to your user rights. Feel free to let your newfound ᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ course through your veins. Once the high wears off, see RationalWiki:Sysop guide for more information. If you have questions, bleat ask away.
Note that you have a history of somewhat spammy edits. Sysop can be easily removed, but, contingent on good behavior, I hope it helps you in making your substantive edits! 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 03:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Stop it, half this crap is nothing of the sort. The "alt-right" is a specific thing, not just any random crap that happens to be far-right. And adding LessWrong to it is being too inane to be allowed tools - David Gerard (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate the fact that you have created new categories, but as DG said, don't add them to pages where they don't belong. Not everything is "alt-right".--JorisEnter (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)