User talk:Jazzman831/Archive1

Someone will be along shortly with a nice welcome template I am sure, in the mean time let me offer my personal welcome... tmtoulouse ^beset 18:41, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

I would use a template, but that would mean admitting that tmtoulouse is psychic. So instead, welcome to RationalWiki. Hope you stay around for a while. Thunderkatz^Ho! 18:43, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Holy cow you guys are quick! Thanks for the welcome. JazzMan 18:43, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Jazzman831! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Welcome! You are #831. I am #2. Do not ask who is #1. You are #831. DogP 18:51, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

1. 831, got it. That means only 830 more people to kill before I am Jazzman1!! MWUHAHAHAHA! JazzMan 18:56, 5 September 2007 (CDT) <-- Hrm, maybe I should have called myself Jazzman-831 -- then I would have been waaay above #1 JazzMan 18:56, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

A dull roar? But I just bought a brand-new roar sharpener! --Kels 18:51, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Man, don't you guys have anything better to do? Posting at this rate, two days are going to fly by! (And not nearly enough homework will get done...) JazzMan 18:56, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Aw man, I missed the welcoming bandwagon. I hate it when that happens :P Anyway, hope you'll stay active longer than just those two days! And I hope (against all hope) that you'll stay alive over there once your block expires. --Sid 21:13, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Actually, Sid, you were the first to welcome me. Before I was even a member! As for editing at either place, we'll see what shakes out, I guess. JazzMan 22:31, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Good job

surviving a block to go back to CP! You're just as much of a masochist as I am. -αmεσ (!) 18:55, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, as long as it isn't pushed in my face, I'm pretty good at ignoring the stuff I don't agree with. I enjoy writing articles, and some of the outrageous comments (from editors, sysops, and trolls alike) keep me entertained. But I fear my masochism tolerance isn't quite as high as yours seems to be; when it's not fun anymore I'm outta there :) JazzMan 19:00, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

I enjoy their comments, and enjoy writing articles as well. I have decided to write here and just read over there. It helps me sleep better at night :). tmtoulouse ^beset 19:37, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Welcome, Jazzy! Enjoy the site, pull up a goat, etc, etc. If you ever feel like writing a co-essay... ask someone other than me.--Offeep 21:27, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Ha ha alright then. By the way, this edit made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I had never thought of myself as a major contributor until I saw some of the comments over here. JazzMan 22:15, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Wandalism

I won't vandalize CP either, never have. As you well know, it's pointless. CP is bad enough without wandals "helping" it along.
But you're history over there. Welcome here. CЯacke® 20:40, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the welcome. I never really understood from the start the point of vandalism, but some people think it's fun, I guess. I hope to be able to post on CP again someday, though. We'll see how things turn out :-/ JazzMan 20:44, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

I just noticed the edit comment. Priceless. JazzMan 20:52, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Same here. Heck, I've never even had an account, because the thought of helping them, even as little as adding to their membership numbers, is repellant to me. Although TK has banned my IP a couple of times, not really sure why. --Kels 20:45, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Meh, I'm "half" conservative (though using their definition of conservative, it's a pretty small half), so it's not nearly as repellant to me. Granted, I only joined because someone from school sent me the link and they looked pretty radical. I was curious if they would block me for making harmless, factual edits. Turns out (with one small exception where I think I accidentally got mixed up with the (in)famous Stevecarlson) I was actually surprised at how easy it was if you don't rock the boat. Then I found out I enjoy making little edits to chemistry articles and such. It made my expensive education seem useful! JazzMan 20:52, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

The vast majority of vandalism RW is accused of was simply adding consensus, sourced, factual information into controversial articles. tmtoulouse ^beset 20:53, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I admit, I've been indocrinated from the "other side" so I don't actually know how much vandalism comes from here. However, sometimes people (from here or otherwise) go over the edge trying to get the "right" information in. Granted, I had a two-week long conversation to try and insert a 66 word definition, but sometimes it seems that people are only trying to get CP to agree to something they will never agree to. And it's those kind of things where I just say "meh" and move on to other efforts. In the long run CP will be hurt by holding too tight onto their definition of reason, but if that's what they want to do, who am I to stop them? Maybe it's the libertarian in me :) JazzMan 21:02, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

If they were to embrace their bias whole heartedly and openingly I would have a whole lot less to say about it. But Andy likes to pretend that there is no bias at CP. He preens around talking about how CP is a trustworthy encyclopedia free of all bias because it has a "constitution" and should be held up as the example for how a wiki can develop with out an inherent bias. Its the rank hypocrisies that lead me to basically pull a POINT. tmtoulouse ^beset 21:33, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

welcome, welcome... I used to edit at Conservapedia. They eventually block everyone or cause them to leave. CP is a dying site. and it's their own fault. a lot of it is caused by their mistreating serious editors such as yourself... Refugee^{talk page} 21:31, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

I used to think they're paranoid blocking of everyone who wasn't in the Trusted Inner Circle was by sheer stupidity, but I'm now convinced it's necessary. If they were somehow to become as big and popular as Wikipedia, they'd NEVER be able to keep the iron control over all articles they have now, and inside of a few months, CP would be WP. --Gulik 00:54, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Larry Craig?

Hey Jazz, did you actually talk to RobS, or did he hallucinate this after snorting Joe McCarthy's ashes? --Kels 12:08, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Was just about to ask the same thing... --Sid 12:19, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

At first I thought RobS meant you were taping his foot trying to give him a signal, I was very confused. Jrssr5 13:01, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

I'm going to decline a comment until I know what Rob's "final answer" is. JazzMan 14:10, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

And now I know... JazzMan 18:25, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

OH. MY. GOD. *just read the block story* I can only shake my head. --Sid 18:40, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Oh, and I won't tinker in your userspace, but it should be "Rob Almighty" (missing "l") and "September 6th: I'm officially done with Conservapedia forever" (wrong month). No biggies, just minor things I noticed while cruising through. --Sid 18:42, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Hm, feel like I should say some more. I certainly feel sorry that you got perma-banhammered. However, especially given the timing (with your userspace article) and Rob working even against Andy, it's fairly clear that RobS simply wanted you to be gone just because (they should turn that into a rule and just get rid of all the deco shit like 90/10: "If I don't like you, I will ban you. The end."), so it really was just a matter of time, I think. Maybe Andy will actually do something - you definitely were one of CP's driving forces for a good while, that should count as something... --Sid 18:49, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Exactly. I considered not saying anything after he commuted my block, but I knew he would just hound me once I got back on the site. I truely did want to get back on, but not if I had to be under watch of anyone but Rob. It would be nice if Andy overruled Rob, but I'm not holding my breath. (I also did get some "no" votes... at least one by DanH, which is interesting considering I've never had any contact with him). JazzMan 19:02, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Mh, I completely understand how you feel (regarding the desire to go back to CP, but not with a watchman who would most likely x-ray your every contrib to look for the first best ban reason). And you getting "No" votes from people you never interacted with is certainly interesting. It may be that he had been following your progress silently, but I think it's either a "Yeah, uh, whatever, I trust your judgment, Rob, no stop distracting me" or an "It's strategically sound to stay on the good side of the paranoid guy." case. --Sid 19:42, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Regarding your edit and edit summary: Read the last line before the TOC in your block story - I had posted a corrected version above (and didn't really make clear that that was the corrected version). :P --Sid 19:45, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Heh heh ok that makes a lot more sense now! JazzMan 20:24, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Jazzman?

Are you really into Jazz, or is that just a funky name? I play a bit of experimental Blues myself The Anti-Conservapedia 18:43, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Actually the name came before the love of music. So... yes and no. What kind of experimental blues? I'm starting to get into experimental jazz, and I love blues, but I don't think I've ever heard of experimental blues before. JazzMan 19:04, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Speaking of blues, have either of you ever heard of Jonny Lang? I saw him in concert the other day, and all I can say is "damn."--Offeep 20:09, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

The name kind of rings a bell. I don't really have a good grip on blues music. I love almost anything I hear, so I buy a lot of compilations. It's great for breadth and overall musicality; not so great for familiarizing myself with specific artists. JazzMan 01:36, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Experimental Blues (The way I play it anyway) Is playing a random line, then responding through song. Pretty much what the Black African Slaves would have done back in the day The Anti-Conservapedia 05:22, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

That sounds really interesting. Do you know of any artists I could find that do that kind of thing? I know a "Blues Lounge" CD from the Putumayo record label (awesome for world music and some really neat music) and some of the songs are slave hollers or chain gang hollers which have been put to modern mild house-ish music. I really love some of the more gritty blues, especially the stuff that barely got out of the Delta. JazzMan 01:36, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Well I thought the name came from the african-american slang - jazz: sexual intercourse. I'm sure I read/heard many years ago (probably BBC Radio 4) that most of the terms for black music which was latched onto by whitey, were actually slang for sexual/bodily functions, e.g. rag-time for menstruation. This was their way of having a laugh at their opressors, rather like parody articles at CP. Maybe we should do an article on it. (apologies for an non-PC terminology) Genghis Khant 05:42, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

I've heard a lot of jazz/blues history, but I've never heard anything about that before. Of course, it probably has to do with racism in one way or another. Either this is a racist rumor designed to denegrate blacks (it's not very likely, but possible; especially if this "knowledge" started coming out in the 50's or early 60's) or, more likely, people are afraid to talk about it because they are afraid of being called racist. This isn't really related, but I saw a movie/doccumentary last night called "The Aristocats", about the famous dirty joke of the same name. In it, some comedians were speculating on the future of the joke, and a couple of them postulated that the next "taboo" to be added would be race, since scatalogical humor and sexual humor aren't nearly as "dirty" as they used to be. JazzMan 01:36, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

I'm not even sure experimental Blues is even a recognised genre! Its just something me and my brother play from time to time. I'm a big Jools Holland fan though. The Anti-Conservapedia 06:52, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Just to add the scat refs, er, "rock and roll" means, well, naughty stuff human^{be in} 22:58, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

essay

Save it in the "Essay:" space (ie, article title starts "Essay:") and run with it, dude. You don't have to edit every day to be a valued member. OCD is just a, um, feature, oops, bug, no a feature of most of us. You can still join in even if you aren't clinically diagnosable! human^{be in} 02:42, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Nah, it's nothing with you guys. I just can't find the motivation or energy to do much more than grammatical and spelling changes, something with which RW needs little help! Who knew senior year in a tough major was going to be killer, eh? JazzMan 11:14, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Ah, grammar and spelling. Can we call you for cleanup after Tmtoulouse or Icewedge write articles/sections? Anyway, best of luck with school, and I still hope you manage to drop by once in a while, if only for the goats. human^{be in} 20:20, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Parthian shot

“”Rational political discourse does not include raising money by vandalising another's work. You have only put yourself below the people you hate so much. If it's come to the point at which you believe calm discussion will not convince your opponent, then why not just live and let live, eh? Seems CP took the higher ground in this case, which puts you... where, exactly?

Well, apparently you aren't clear on the reality of this story.

Let me school you.

This was an inside joke, among friends. (We are all friends, here)

The person who "bought" the "Samwell" account sems to have done so to enjoy the privilege of blocking Assfly. Among others. Was "vandalism" committed? I think not. More, a "suicide" on the part of the sock puppet! Odds, are, the bidder who won the "auction", would have gladly paid "X" dollars to keep RW on line, under any circumstances.

Also, the chances are, whoever that RW user was, they'd have gladly coughed up money to help the cause anyway! This was just a fun way to pay into the kitty.

Apparently, looking at the logs, all "damage" was undone within minutes.

Do you understand that one of the reasons RW exists is to have fun?

You protesteth too much, IMHO. human^{be in} 00:44, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Fun to the detriment of the goals of another organization? I don't believe I'm unclear on anything. JazzMan 01:44, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Oooh, another organization? Whose goals are... Christ the carpenter, do I have to spell it out? YEC, pro-American no matter what the USA might do wrong, once in a while? Sorry, maybe your "retirement" might be a good idea? Sorry to lose ya... seriously. Because your "reason" for going away is frickin silly. It all went down over fifteen minutes last night. You still did not address my POV that it was not vandalism. human^{be in} 01:50, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

And absolutely, the stated mission of our site is refute the idiocy that groups like CP create and propagate. We refute for a reason, we refute in the hopes that it will one day be a great detriment to not only CP but any other organization that promotes their insanity. Whether its the Society for Homeopathy or Institute for Creation Research or Schlafly's homeschool project. So yes detriment is good. Now we maybe divided here about how best to go about being a detriment to CP, but most of us are in agreement that we should be. But as Human has pointed out, there was no lasting damage to CP beyond feeding the paranoid delusions and Christ complex of its founder, and that I can live with. Schlafly is one mental breakdown away from hanging himself from the crucifix anyway. CP has fired its own shots at our website as well, a thick skin is needed on the Internet. I personally feel that anyone that spends much time over at CP helping it out in any shape or form is doing a tremendous disservice to humanity, and is certainly not going to be appreciated by even the CP loyal crowd. Its a losing battle on all fronts. But to each their own, I stand firmly behind this site and each and everyone of its memebers, even if they like to go replace articles at CP with "IcEwEdGe PwNs!11!1!!" every now and then. tmtoulouse ^beset 02:01, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

That's not my reason for leaving. As I know you know (Human, anyway), this has been a progression; last night's incident was simply the last wheel finally turning in my head. Even if you didn't vandalise (or whatever silly euphemism you want to call it), I simply do not think at this time that contributing to RationalWiki is something I want to do. I just don't find it fun, which as you rightly point out, is one of the reasons that RW exists at all.

As for your claim that last night's actions were not vandalism, that's just semantics. You didn't do any permanent "physical" damage (which, really, what vandalism is permanent anyway? Spraypaint can be painted over, scratch marks can be buffed out), but you acted with express purpose to denegrate another organization. You have used the incident to hurt their credibility (whether or not it actually has any is irrelevant; the purpose was to do harm) and you have only upped the level of paranoia over there. Disagreeing with someone is simply not a good enough excuse to spend so much effort trying to disrupt them. Many a truely evil act has been committed using that logic; thankfully we are only in cyberspace.

I have said before that I strongly believe in the philosophy of "live and let live". Disagree with someone? They won't listen to your reasonable arguents? Fuck 'em then; they only have themselves to blame. If they really are as bad and as crazy as you say, just let them die out on their own. I simply can not stand behind a group that exists explicitly to cause harm to anther group of opposing ideology. That you think this type of reasoning is "frickin silly" is one of the reasons I don't have fun at Rational Wiki.

I received a kind email from a RW editor and I'm glad I did; otherwise I might think that you guys are only nice to people when they are doing precisely what you want them to. So with that, I bid you good day (er, night, morning, whatever it is). JazzMan 02:23, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

All of the people, all of the time and all that. Live and let live only works when an opposing ideology will abide by the same rules. CP and what they stand for will not play by that rule. Ignore them and they gain power, and when they gain power they shove their stone age, whack job and dangerous belief system down the throats of everyone. Shall we just let the anti-vaccination people have their way? What about the aids deniers? These people are not "harmless", check out the massive measle out break in England right now. Tyranny, theocracy and fundamentalist ideology are kept at bay by people willing to directly engage them and "harm" their cause. You are only free to "live and let live" because people are out their making sure the Schlafly's of the world stay relegated to the fringes of society. I have no problem with you not enjoying RW or wanting to edit here, go in peace, and perhaps it would best to let you go in silence. But I feel compelled to reiterate to myself, and others who may come across this, why silence and "ignoring the problem" is not a solution. tmtoulouse ^beset 02:33, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I think JazzMan has a point that's worth looking at. If RW is to live up to its mission statement and help dispense with the garbage tossed into impressionable minds by the CP-style crowd under the guise of "education," credibility is something that plays a key role. To that end, I don't think much is gained by the site sanctioning vandalism or pseudo-vandal activity (call it whatever you want), as was done in the Samwell incident via an auction that at least appeared to be site-sponsored, and which was then celebrated as such. If someone's about to go into a homeopath's office, we're supposed to be the guy outside the office saying, "Hey, you might want to rethink that decision. Look at this pile of evidence." But if the prospective "patient" just sees the "rational" guy TP-ing the office while wearing a clown mask and no pants, is he really going to put a lot of weight into the "rational" POV? This is especially important since the homeopath is slandering the mainstream view at the same time, and those who don't know better could think, "well, they're both just smearing each other, there's a lively debate, maybe both sides have merit" when that's NOT the case.

I'm all for fun, and for keeping an eye on CP and its ilk (I think that WIGO@CP is both hilarious and provides a good watchdog service, for instance) and obviously individual editors are responsible for their own actions, have free will, and can do whatever they wish, even if it's some pwnage. But if we are to attract and keep editors who are interested in the serious aspects as laid out in the mission statement, credibility would help, and credibility would be boosted by at least minimizing the "official" site-sponsored forays into rule-breaking at other places. I'm not at all saying that the ridiculous people at CP shouldn't be outed as the complete wackjobs that they are (hell, that's why we're all here), and I admit, I laughed--hard--when I saw the Samwell Incident. I just think we need to be very careful about how RW sanctions off-site "fun" and the effects it has on how people see this place. Just my $0.02.--Bayes^update 03:13, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I love the debate. Nothing better, to my mind... human^{be in} 03:46, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I very much agree with Bayes on this. I'm very uneasy about RW publicly condoning actions designed to disrupt other sites. --Bob^{'s your uncle} 05:18, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Same here, honestly. I've never participated in wandalizing over there (it's way more fun over here, where the "victims" have a sense of humour about it), and I've never to my memory encouraged anyone to (including this incident). I honestly don't think it's worth it. On the other hand, I'd barely call this wandalism, since the only way you'd even know it happened was to obsessively watch the "Recent Changes" over there (I admit nothing! Nothing!!), it didn't actually affect any article at all, and was cleaned up in literally a few minutes. I'd call it more a big signpost saying "haha, look who you trusted" than anything. I doubt it's really worth crowing about, since it's not much of an accomplishment (I didn't have any paranthetical comments for this sentence, so here you go). Dunno if it's worth leaving the wiki over, though. That seems equally silly, since there are loads of people here who don't do that stuff, and there's lots here that has little, if anything, to do with CP or wandalism at all.

Summary: Doing it was petty, silly at best. Celebrating it is dumb. Leaving over it is overreacting. The end. --Kels 12:47, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

What does "site sponsored" mean in relationship to RW though? Who is the person that decides when something is official sponsorship, and when something is just and RW users doing it on their own? We have gone out of our way to blur the lines of ownership and responsibility, when your user base is considered the boss of the site, then is everything a user tries to do sponsored by RW? I am certainly not pushing for wandalism and have not been an advocate for it at all. I prefer much different approaches. At the same time, I believe there is a qualifiable difference between spray painting and TPing, and blanking a wiki page. Conflating real world vandalism, or even more hardcore internet stuff like DNS or hacking, with blocking a user on a wiki for 30 seconds seems to really miss something. I do not believe that it is an effective means of fighting people like CP or their message. You have to realize a lot of us had a direct established relationship with these people over a period of time and it was not pleasant. The samwell blocking and other wandalism is a more of an interpersonal tit for tat between a given RW editor and a given CP editor. I don't see how RW officially condones wandalism, every aspect of the Samwell incident took place between individual users, from the initial inception to the "auction", to the act, to the reporting on the act. I suppose since the user base is in charge here that it could be conceived as officially sanctioned but that seems like semantics to me. tmtoulouse ^beset 13:04, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

If the Samwell thing counts as an official RationalWiki thing, then TONS of cases of abuse against us are also official CP affairs (like CP sysops infiltrating RW1 and Karajou harassing people on Wikipedia with FBI threats). I'd say that even if it counts, we're still way above CP.

But that's not really the point. There is no hive mind. RW doesn't have a consciousness, it only has the goals we officially set into stone, and "Make socks to go on a silly banning spree" isn't one of said goals. What single people do is their business. I always found it to be silly to treat a site as some sort of entity (like Andy claiming that Wikipedia has a liberal agenda or whatever, and like some sysops claiming that registering at RW automatically makes you a troll). There are only people who contribute to a site, but that doesn't mean that we meet every night in a secret back room to plot our next steps to enslave mankind or whatever.

I'm totally with Kels and TMT here. It was silly (even though I can sympathize to a certain degree - many core RW1 members have been exposed to bullshit and occasional harassment/taunts for, like, MONTHS), I wouldn't exactly use it to celebrate RW, but it's still the act of individuals. Many core members here openly oppose silly wandalism, and we are as much RW as the socking guys. --Sid 13:23, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

OK. How about we make it official policy that we don't condone or encourage activities designed to disrupt the functioning of other sites? Obviously individuals can do what they like, but I think a site policy of this type would be good.--Bob^{'s your uncle} 13:29, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Propose it over at RationalWiki talk:Community Standards. 24.141.169.255 13:32, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Done.--Bob^{'s your uncle} 13:39, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Yes we haven't even begun to discuss the things CP has aimed at us. You want to talk about potential damage to a project? I think filing a false FBI claim and then threating to file a false DMCA claim against a site rank a little higher than what Samwell did. Or maybe when a CP sysops e-mailed the president of my university to bitch about me? Or when another sysops threatened to get a user here fired from their job because they know their boss. Thats some serious hardcore stuff, thats tapping into the real world lives of wiki editors and trying to fuck with them. Thats trying to use bullying tactics to get a site shut down completely.

But of course we are the bad guys. Since we allow people to comment about us and our tactics, and we respond to them and attempt to engage the ideas, our little foibles will be the only really out their to be seen while CPs vicious personal attacks against RW editors and the site are excused? 24.141.169.255 13:31, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

That makes me think for a moment. Yes, the Samwell thing was dumb, but to call it anything more than a prank is, let's face it, blowing things way out of proportion. But that raises the question. Has there ever been any "assault" on CP by anyone, whether RW-connected or not (and seriously, there's a lot of not) that has been any more serious than a college prank? Joke articles, joke names, talking about the FBI, attempting to insert actual science into science articles, arguing, occasional spoofing or running socks, it's all kids' stuff. Honestly, I'm pretty underwhelmed by the seriousness of these crimes. --Kels 15:44, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I think the worst that happened to CP (on a project level) was the accidental Denial Of Service attack that happened when tons of popular blogs linked to CP, which at the time didn't have the bandwidth to withstand the demand (a.k.a. "Slashdot Effect"). --Sid 16:14, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I agree with the sentiment expressed here that these activities are incredibly minor in the grand scheme of things, rising at most to the level of silliness and resulting in a 30-second-or-less inconvenience. And if what I'm hearing about some activities of the CP people is true, then they have committed far, far more serious and outrageous real-world acts, and I'm not trying to excuse them. My concern is how this looks--if an "impartial" outsider comes here and gets a message of "Ha ha, look who we PwNeD today! We made them press a revert button!11!! Now check out our refutation of pseudoscience X." they probably won't be terribly impressed.--Bayes^update 16:34, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

So in a round about way I think we have all basically expressed the same sentiments, I think we are all in agreement with each other. Yay for consensus. And you know what, the fact that we let this conversation take place, the fact that we reached a consensus and that we are acting on it in a pro-active way seems to suggest to me that we are not so far below the people we hate.......but all of the people all of the time are a fickle lot....... tmtoulouse ^beset 16:39, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Okay, what?

Impersonation? --Cheers, ♦ Ryan ♦ ♦ ^{ǂ wuz here ǂ} 00:57, 14 January 2008 (EST)

user:HelpJazz is not cp:user:HelpJazz. JazzMan 01:03, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Ok...............................................................--Cheers, ♦ Ryan ♦ ♦ ^{ǂ wuz here ǂ} 01:04, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Maybe I can get your attention?

Hey Jazzman, I'm sorry you left, but excited to see you back, even if it is for something that I'm not sure I understand... ...anyways, I thought I'd let you know that RW has publicly apologized for the Samwell incident, and definitely moved on. If you can trust us that we've moved on (.org), we'd love to have you back?-αmεσ (tinker) 01:02, 14 January 2008 (EST)

I appreciate it, and I'm flattered at the invitation. However, right now I'm only here because someone is trying to impersonate me. (Also, I'm having a hard enough time as it is editing at CP -- even though I have never done anything wrong, Andy still seems to think I'm a sock of one of you guys. I try to stay away from here to "prove myself", not that it's actually doing any good....) JazzMan 01:09, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Ah, I see. Well, good luck! Are you editing on CP then? I haven't looked at the site much for a while (short of WIGO) but I wish you luck. Also, your invite continues to stand.-αmεσ (tinker) 01:20, 14 January 2008 (EST)

I am, though I don't make it to WIGO other than when I fix something you guys point out :) Thanks again, JazzMan 01:23, 14 January 2008 (EST)

fuck you too

whine, whine? Do you have any kind of humanitarian sextant? Compass? No? Thought so, you miserable scumbag. --Hoji^die! 18:22, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Maybe instead of "come back when you've graduated high school" I should have said "come back when you are out of your terrible twos". Seriously, I've seen infants with more mature temper tantrums. JazzMan 18:24, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Then it should have fit right in with the rest of the edits at CP. tmtoulouse ^beset 18:49, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Unfortunately there is no way for me to respond to that without being sarcastic and making it sound like I agree with you, or saying something mean and being blocked by Susan. JazzMan 18:55, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Well wouldn't want you to get in trouble with the fascists so I will let you get back to lurking. tmtoulouse ^beset 18:58, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Actually I thought Hoji's rant was fairly temperate, considering KooKoo's bizarre and highly offensive assertions. human 19:02, 24 February 2008 (EST)

I've been blocked twice because because Hoji vandalized another website and then called me a scumbag. Who're the fascists again? JazzMan 19:04, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Well considering that the blocking/unblocking/blocking/unblocking was the product of individual efforts and not for the wiki or per wiki policy. And that the blocks did not significantly effect your ability to communicate here in a really meaningful way....compared to the fact that CP was using block lengths designed to remove any possible for of communication, that it was directly used to suppress and censor information and debate and that it was done via an official policy and for the wiki itself...but maybe its just equivocation. tmtoulouse ^beset 19:10, 24 February 2008 (EST)

So if I understand you are correctly, you are saying that only Hoji and Susan are fascists, and therefore it's alright. Got it. JazzMan 19:13, 24 February 2008 (EST)

This conversation is about to go badly downhill, inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler, and hurt feelings all around. Stop now. Step away from the keyboard. Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 19:14, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Now that is equivocation, I know you know more about fascism than that. tmtoulouse ^beset 19:16, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Well apparently I am a facist, according to Susan. JazzMan 19:18, 24 February 2008 (EST)

No you are just following orders from the fascists. Godwin's Law you win. tmtoulouse ^beset 19:20, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Oh I see, I'm a fascist because I don't think that profanity and death threats should be tolerated on a website? Or I'm a fascist because I'm not a complete socialist and actually agree with CP on some issues? I believe Godwin's Law you were the first one to mention both fascists and Nazis, so you are the actual winner. JazzMan 21:14, 24 February 2008 (EST)

The one who invokes Nazi's looses the debate. tmtoulouse ^beset 21:15, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Oh I see. I am the winner then! :) JazzMan 21:22, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Can't we just agree that we're all fascists?-αmεσ (tinker) 21:22, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Oh dear ...

'when I was only responding to Hoji, who was a wee bit more than inconsiderate himself' - I feel so sorry for you, and think you're totally justified in pettily trading like for like. Yeah. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Huh? That was not the issue at all. Hoji threw a temper tantrum on another site, then came here to harrass me when I blocked him there. Susan's neutral response was to block me for calling a spade a spade, and not Hoji, who was admittedly speaking in anger. Saying "fuck you too... scumbag" is a little more offensive than saying "you are throwing a temper tantrum", is it not? Of course, I wouldn't expect anyone here to see this, because I am the dreaded interloper (who, I repeat, was only brought here because HOJI took it upon himself to insult me here) so I MUST be wrong. JazzMan 19:11, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Ever heard of 'rising above it'? When you were a young child, and someone else was mean to you, were you encouraged to be mean back? What about if they told you that the service of your parents and relatives going back several generations were dishonorable/worthless/meaningless? Also, read the block log. You seem to have your facts wrong. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

I honestly wonder if you know what caused this whole debacle. He pettily slandered my family for cheap points in a debate. Not just my family, but the countless proud liberals who defend the freedoms you know and love, HelpJazz. --Hoji^die! 19:15, 24 February 2008 (EST)

I do know, and I'm honestly, truely sorry that you feel offended. I blocked you not because of your disagreement with Karajou, I absolutely disagree with that sort of abuse of blocking powers. I blocked you because of your incredibly foul language, threats against Karajou, and the fact that you replaced content of several pages. I don't think this was out of line and I'd do it again in a heart beat. JazzMan 21:21, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Wow...i'm so confused. I guess Hoji is being accused of running Siggy as a sock, even though anyone would be offended by KooKoo's bullshit. I have it on good authority that Siggy and Hoji are unrelated. At least, I think it's good authority.-- -PalMD ^{--It hurts when I do "this"} 19:20, 24 February 2008 (EST)

At least, Jazzman831, as Trent pointed out, you are still fully engaged here in this discussion about whether people behaved well or poorly or somewhere in between. Which I will be able to do at CP come 2013, thanks to your more lenient re-block after that nut went postal at CP the other day. Thank you, human PS, Hoji took a 20 minute timeout here to cool off. human 19:21, 24 February 2008 (EST)

I was Carlton, JCMadtac, Pirsquared, Conservator18, INHamendment, and 18principle. I was not CDexterHaven, SiggyF, or NavyMan. --Hoji^die! 19:23, 24 February 2008 (EST)

I didn't block anyone for being socks, because I have no real reason to know. I was doing it so fast that I got some usernames confused, and I thought Hoji was the same one who was posting the Obama pic, which would have been all kinds of ironic. I was wrong, and that was a separate user. JazzMan 21:23, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Self-Serving Ignorance

The little message on your User Page about CP having the higher ground in the realm of calm talk, reasonable discourse and a "live and let live" philosophy could only be the product of willful ignorance about the vitriolic rantings of such CP sysops as Karajou, RobS, Conservative, and the Grand Poobah himself, Andy - just before they ban someone permanently for disagreeing with them. I suspect you don't bellieve it yourself, but have painted yourself into a corner with rather despicable characters as bunkmates in your anti-knowledge, anti-truth little blog. PoorEd 08:29, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Thank you for your opinion, but that message was written in late September and was referring to specific incidents at the time. It wasn't meant to be generally true. JazzMan 14:55, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Also, you may want to read the sections above (particularly Parthian Shot) for a better idea of what I was talking about. JazzMan 14:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

That's an odd contention - that it was true in late September but not now... PoorEd 21:18, 26 February 2008 (EST)

The contention is that it related to specific events, and was not a general statement. It was true in September and is true now, as it was meant in September. JazzMan 23:34, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Wow, what? human 00:56, 27 February 2008 (EST)

I posted that a good month and a half before PoorEd joined (presuming he's not someone's sock, of course). It's not really relevant anymore, but seeing as how I only edit here when I get an email that says my user page has been changed, I don't really see the point in changing it. I stand by what I meant at the time, but PoorEd is incorrectly interpreting it. JazzMan 01:13, 27 February 2008 (EST)

I guess I just find it ironic that anyone from a site that bans anyone who openly expresses an opinion in disagreement with the prevailing view would suggest that anyone "live and let live". PoorEd 08:36, 27 February 2008 (EST)

It's not ironic, unless I'm the one doing the blocking or making site policy. That's guilt by association (which, incidentally, is the apparent proof of my fascism as well). I do neither, nor do I agree that it's fair (most of the time) to block users simply for disagreeing. JazzMan 16:05, 27 February 2008 (EST)

So you would argue that those in German society who turned a blind eye to the evils of the Nazi regime should feel no guilt? PoorEd 16:10, 27 February 2008 (EST)

You win Poe's law, but it's an unfair analogy anyway and you know it. You are starting with the premises that (a) the things the Conservapedia administration believe in are wrong and sometimes evil and (b) if something, anywhere, is wrong or evil, you should do something to stop it. I don't believe this is true, and I have already explained myself many times before, in September. I think an organization of volunteers has the right to govern itself any way it pleases. Nazi Germany was NOT a voluntary organization, and Jews were not blocked for choosing to dissent, they were killed for being born. So I don't believe it's fair or accurate to use that analogy. JazzMan 16:14, 27 February 2008 (EST)

That would be Godwin's law. That said, you have the ability to contest blocks, unblock people and the ip ranges they are from (I've seen several blocks removed for users in the past but not the ip ranges associated with them). Do you believe that all of the administration (be it paid or volunteer) not share any responsibility for the way the site is run? --Shagie 16:17, 27 February 2008 (EST)

PoorEd's analogy actually works in your favour; a) Individual, dissenting Germans didn't have the power to act against the regime or stop being part of the society. b) He didn't mention that the position in question is voluntary (a priviledge, actually). This section needs more information on the background, though. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 16:25, 27 February 2008 (EST)

I didn't bring up the subject of fascism, Jizzman did. I merely turned it into an analogy that I hoped he would find enlightening. The fact that he can voluntarily leave the site at any time, but chooses to partipate in an endeavor designed to demonize anyone the leaders of the site disagree with, makes him more guilty than somone who never had that choice. He is as guilty by association as someone marching in a fascist parade (which does not make him a fascist - this is an analogy). PoorEd 16:39, 27 February 2008 (EST)

I'm afraid it was I who brought up the 'Fascist' - I based it on his willing membership of a Fascist Website. Susan^{The Earth Moved} 16:43, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Jizzman? Seriously? I think I'm done bothering to converse with you, PoorEd. I was hoping for an intelligent, rational discussion, and yet again I am let down. JazzMan 16:46, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Jazzman, if you want intelligent, rational discussion why are you posting here? You know better. I suggest you go to cp if you want rational discussion. DoggedamesP 17:03, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Damn you Bohdan, you've made me wet myself! You can be so funny at times. Genghis ^Marauding 17:06, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Strange as it may seem, nobody has ever picked a fight with me on CP, nor has anyone called me names or compared me to a Nazi. :/ JazzMan 17:10, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Well, among sheep "SHEEP" isn't an insult. Susan^{The Earth Moved} 17:15, 27 February 2008 (EST)

More examples of the excellent discourse of RationalWiki. And you wonder why you keep getting kicked out of CP? ;-) JazzMan 17:21, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Chickens and eggs, Jazzman. Possibly even an infinite recursion! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:26, 27 February 2008 (EST)

You drank the kool-aid, and behave like a good little worker bee at CP. Here you are clearly at least mildly antagonistic towards our users and our site........so why is any of this a surprise? tmtoulouse ^beset 17:29, 27 February 2008 (EST)

LOL toulouse. Get off your high horse. Try to be a little open-minded. DoggedamesP 17:40, 27 February 2008 (EST)

I do hope you realize, jazzman, that jizz and jazz have the same origin, and the same original meaning. I just couldn't help my irrepressibly liberal sense of humor. Sorry. PoorEd 17:36, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Oh! Well, it's totally less insulting then. Thanks for the clear up; I feel much better now. JazzMan 17:37, 27 February 2008 (EST)

That's the spirit! Now you're showing some spunk, PoorEd 17:39, 27 February 2008 (EST)

I sense the seeds of disaster in this conversation... human 18:00, 27 February 2008 (EST)

You're always spewing such nonsense. PoorEd 18:04, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Ha, another johnny-come-lately. Genghis ^Marauding 18:09, 27 February 2008 (EST)

A chance to show

Go and fix that abomination of an article named "Wikipedia police". Delete it, or fix its citations so that what it states agrees with what is published rather than supposition or move it into Andy's essay space so that people can understand that this is the rantings of a madman rather than something an encyclopedia would publish. Alternatively, you can continue to approve of the contents of the article and the website through your inaction. --Shagie 16:55, 27 February 2008 (EST)

I can not move or delete a page, nor will I be able to convince a sysop to do so. Even if I could, I'm under no obligation to do what you want me to do. JazzMan 17:08, 27 February 2008 (EST)

You could also go in and fix the content. Alternatively, do you believe that what is written in that article by Andy is an accurate representation of reality? --Shagie 17:14, 27 February 2008 (EST)

I don't care. This all started because PoorEd objected to "live and let live". I don't care if Andy writes an article about Wikipedia police, and I'm not going to sacrifice my account just to correct it. JazzMan 17:19, 27 February 2008 (EST)

OK then how about fixing up the Logical Fallacy page. It's in dire need of a rewrite. Genghis ^Marauding 17:23, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Looks like I'm ahead of you there. [1][2] JazzMan 17:33, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Is there a point at which Andy would write something that you don't agree with that you would stand up for it? PJR, CPAdmin, Iduan, Robert (and even kind of Ed) have taken stances on things contrary to what Andy has written at one time or another. Or are you the type that will just revert pages back to the last version and block the person who did it and thus give tacit approval of the material that you've reintroduced? --Shagie 17:30, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Look at my contributions. I only block people for vandalizing and I never revert someone simply for disagreeing with Andy. JazzMan 17:34, 27 February 2008 (EST)