User talk:LANCBUser/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 28 October 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

Welcome

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, LANCBUser! 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!

Hello, and welcome to RationalWiki. Please pull up a cubicle and enjoy your stay. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad to be here. Long time fan and reader; I now feel confident enough to contribute. --Castaigne (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Removing talk page posts

Don't do this. Thanks. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 02:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed it?

Oh shit, I totally did. I'm sorry about that. That was completely unintentional. --Castaigne (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I kinda figured. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 03:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

How badly did it hurt...

... when you fell off of that horse? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 03:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Bwah? Oh God, what did I fuck up now? --Castaigne (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing. I thought you were Hildred Castaigne. So sorry for the mix-up. I guess it is a pretty common name... PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 03:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, you have found the right person indeed! My apologies; I thought you were referring to a moral "high horse" and indeed I have been brought often to a low state by unfounded presumption...that incident with my horse occurred long in the past and I have since forgotten it. The pains are long absent, though it was a severe blow at the time...strange. I had not thought anyone recalled that. You are perhaps a friend of my cousin?

(Sorry. Coffee ingestion at the start of my 'day' not yet complete.) --Castaigne (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

TERF

What is? ħuman 03:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I looked it up. "Acronym for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. That group of feminists that claims that trans women aren’t really women, as biological determinism is only a fallacy when used against them, not when they use it against others." Sounds like a term anyone should be embarrassed to know, let alone type in public. ħuman 04:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No seriously, though

please don't spark more fights, it isnt going to help us. I really dont care which side is right in this, beyond the fact some people tried a putsch of some form which is the wrong way to have fixed issues. We really dont need people throwing more attacks at people then there already are, so please chill?--Miekal 20:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I will do what I please, as I please, how I please. If you think that I am operating incorrectly, you are certainly free to demand that I be banned permanently from RW. --Castaigne (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sysop

The fact I am mking you a sysop is unrelated to anything you or anyone else may have said in the ongoing kerfuffle, about which I know only a little and care even less. But I'm leaving for a bike ride and then have to clean my crib for dinner guests, and you may find yourself needing to unblock yourself at some point. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I thank you for your consideration and support, but I would very much prefer that the sysop mantle be removed from me. I have no interest in holding any position of authority, small as it may be. --Castaigne (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Substantiation required

My misogynistic comments you claim I made - what were they? Substantiate or withdraw and fuck off. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh my dear Ace, my substantiations and evidence will be forthcoming. It may take time, because I am very busy at work right now, but you are very, very, VERY much on my mind. Hopefully my weekend of the 4th will be free enough to deal with you. And I will be proved correct. --Castaigne (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

So nothing? Fucker. Come on you worthless shit. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It's the weekend of the 4th!

Oh my dear Ace, my substantiations and evidence will be forthcoming. It may take time, because I am very busy at work right now, but you are very, very, VERY much on my mind. Hopefully my weekend of the 4th will be free enough to deal with you. And I will be proved correct.

Waiting with great anticipation...Aceⁱ⁹ 20:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Gonna have to keep waiting. I am, no lie, involved in IRL shit till possibly March 15th. No worries, though; I haven't forgotten. --Castaigne (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sealion?

I was trying to figure out which of these definitions you might be referring to. Landmartian (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The webcomic Wondermark may offer a clue. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The sea lion has a point. Landmartian (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the sea lion does NOT have a point. Please understand why sealioning is bad. --Castaigne (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

What's the difference, if any, between a sea lion, as described there, and a troll? Landmartian (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Sealioning is a specific trolling technique.--TiaC (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I was about to create the redirect, but it's already there. Landmartian (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

What's the difference? None, of course. Which was my point. It's merely a troll tactic.

Trolling sealioning rape "reasonable discussionist" is my accurate assessment.--Castaigne (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If that were true, wouldn't people quietly think to themselves "It's best not to feed the troll"? Maybe that's what they're doing. Landmartian (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Trolling is a art, sometimes a stealthy one. Not everyone recognizes trolling, and the "be nice, stamp out troll starvation" faction is well represented on this wiki. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Besides which, sometimes the troll's aim(particularly a sealioning troll) is to make you look uninterested in defending your position, not for their own entertainment, but to make a point about yourself or your movement. Ikanreed (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, and then they may say "(crickets)" or something if no one engages. But that'll usually be the end of it. They can't go around forever saying "No one engaged with me in this discussion" because no one will respond to that either. They can claim victory, but it feels like a lonely and hollow victory if no one seems to care about the declaration of winning by default. Landmartian (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't presume to know what other people would think. I know what -I- would do - fuck with the troll and then go after them IRL if they annoyed me enough. It's not a good idea to presume what others would do. --Castaigne (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Troll identification is all about presumption, though, except that it works in the other direction. Instead of looking at motives and figuring out what actions would likely result, one looks at actions and figures out possible motives. Landmartian (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I -have- looked at your actions. I have determined your motives from your actions. Now shut up and stop sea-lioning on my page. Further comments from you will be removed. --Castaigne (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This is your pro-forma notice that "List of minor cranks" is on the chopping block.

Nothing personal. I still think you're swell. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I killed it for you. --Castaigne (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Minor cranks

So, taking a list that was deleted because people were concerned about the wiki hosting potentially slanderous characterizations of living people and moving it to your user page, still identifying them with a potentially slanderous term, doesn't really solve the problem. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Considering the page can't even be found unless you specifically go looking for it, and that since it is on my user page as personal opinion, I don't see a legal issue. I would also consider the appellation of 'crank' as slander to be legally specious and any attempt to use it a SLAPP suit, since it's provable with all of these moronic cockslaps.

But since I'm in a conciliatory mood today, I'll just change it to a list of fuckwads and assweasels. Unless you consider that "slanderous" as well? --Castaigne (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Dude, not to be pedantic, but "Okay." isn't a yes or no. Doesn't give me a lot of guidance there. --Castaigne (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no authority to tell you yes or no. I have raised my concerns, and you will address them in the way you see fit. Enjoy the day! Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Lord, man. I know you have no authority here; just tell me if it's cool with you or not and I'll do whatever you like. --Castaigne (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's less than entirely reasonable, if that's what you mean. My suggestion is to just list them as people who are involved with crank ideas. In my heart, I sympathize with calling them both cranks and assweasels, but my mind tells me that's unreasonable. Ikanreed (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

EC You have all the authority here. It's your page, you have agency and a sense of the right thing to do. I wouldn't do it, myself, but, given you know very little of what kind of guy I am, I also wouldn't put much stock in what I would or wouldn't do. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

All right, I won't belabor it. If you get a complaint, let me know and I'll bop it over to my sandbox. --Castaigne (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

We have terrible hobbies

You read Free Republic for fun, I read genocidal radfems. What is wrong with us. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 12:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have an addiction to reading about the nutballs. Can't keep away from it. Some people would even say that I revel in glee with all the schadenfreude I get from it. This is probably indicative of a flaw in my character.

Reading your talk page, I have to admit I like the cut of your jib. --Castaigne (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Moonraker

Given that I just completed watching all of the canonical Bond movies, in order, your comment made me grin. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

While I have a decided love for the Craig reboot, I am of the opinion that Moore has two films which I feel showcase his best qualities. Those would be Live & Let Die and Moonraker. Moore gets raked over the coals for his humor, but those two movies just... --Castaigne (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you re: Craig, am partial to Brosnan (I think he set the stage for the new depth that Craig brought to the role), but Moore has a special place in my heart because 1. he was my first Bond and 2. Live and Let Die is ah-mazing (especially if you happen to be a student of post-colonial Caribbean revolutionary politics....) Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Bond is a lot like Dr. Who in that regard (and many others) - you never get over your first one. ħuman 01:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a very good point and I have to agree. My first Bond was Moore, come to remember, and while there are those who more rigorously follow the book model, I am a softie in the manner. --Castaigne (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

A very important e-mail

...you know the drill. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Seen yours and Nutty's. Will reply shortly. --Castaigne (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

People still use e-mails in this hypermodern age? O_o 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, they're only using them ironically.--TiaC (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Answer

"If something is 100% factually correct, how can it be completely misleading and biased?" Because being 100% factually correct is not equivalent with: "I have 100% of the facts" "If Ryulong were writing Gamergate up as "misleading and biased", the only way this can be done is by committing sins of omission and disincluding information prejudicial to Ryulong's viewpoint. If it's 100% factually correct, that cannot be happpening, as nothing has been omitted and nothing has been disincluded. --Castaigne" I'd say this section that he inserted, " their conspiracy theories on how they think game developer and frequent Gamergate target Brianna Wu is transgender" is not only misleading and biased, but false as well since it implies Brianna is not transgender. To your point of view, has he included sources saying that Brianna is transgender? No. That covers your "discluding information prejudicial to Ryulong's viewpoint." Sins of omission are the most common way on lying in all media forms. 67.42.179.115 (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

1) If 100% of the facts are not there, then feel free to edit the page and don't bitch about it.

2) I see no sources or statements from Brianna Wu herself about being transgender. What sources do you have that she has identified herself as transgender? Or are you outing her, which I think is fairly reprehensible to do, but hey, if you have sources outing her, please give them to me.

I ask for these because Brianna Wu hasn't identified herself as such, and so therefore I do not know for a fact that she is transgender. Although I don't really see what fucking difference it makes, since she identifies as a woman.

3) Don't respond to my talk page again. You don't have an account? I don't need some random BoN fucking about on my page. MAN THE FUCK UP and get an account. I have taken your "reply" and posted it where I should. Further replies without an account will be deleted. --Castaigne (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

1) I can't edit it. It is locked. The talk page is locked. I don't like making accounts.

2) Do you need a source from George Washington where he claims to be a male? Sources don't work like that. The sources say Brianna Wu is transgender. Brianna Wu has not denied being transgender. Is there some rule here where someone must self-identify their gender/trans status before it can be included in the article? The article calls Brianna Wu a "financially vulnerable women" - did she claim that? If not, then by your standards it shouldn't be in there.

Of course, people can and will lie about themselves. It is human nature.

3) Whoops, didn't see this until I got here. Next time you don't want to talk to someone try putting it at the front - or just not responding. In any event, I see nowhere else where I can edit to talk about this. 67.42.181.10 (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll be kind. If you register an account, you can edit the damn page. It is locked against non-registered users. Now, register or shut up. Your choice. --Castaigne (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sysop

I assumed you already had this. Here is your mop. Tielec01 (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, but I firmly and permanently decline the position of Sysop or any other positions of authority. --Castaigne (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sysop is a position of authority? --Miekal 07:08, 20 February 2015

Anything that has the slightest bit of responsibility or power, if you prefer. Don't want it. --Castaigne (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, you can remove your sysop status of you like. It's useful to have, but obviously your call. Tielec01 (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You can remove your sysop flag yourself using Special:UserRights/Castaigne.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

But can he do that without at the same time momentarily accepting said position of responsibility? Editing user rights is a sysop privilege after all. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

And thus my fiendishly clever plan is laid bare. Tielec01 (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I can remove it or you (or someone else) can remove it. If I remove it, I will become cranky and I will hold a grudge. --Castaigne (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Done (again). It turns out I was the one to remove sysop rights the last time you were given them as well... - Grant (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. --Castaigne (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. - Grant (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)