User talk:ListenerX/Archive4

Obama and fascism

Hey, in your article Obama and fascism, someone put a citation needed tag on your statement. "Obama is the least corporate-funded presidential candidate to make an appearance in quite a while." I know it's been about a year and a half since you wrote that, but is there any chance you'd be able to find a citation for it? Thunderkatz^Ho! 23:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I had read that Obama's campaign raised an unusually large proportion of its funding in the form of small-scale donations from individuals, to the point that the opposition were calling for the campaign to be investigated. I unfortunately forget where I read it. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not fully cognizant of the interpretation, but would this indicate what you're stating (assuming corporations only contribute through PAC's)? Thunderkatz^Ho! 05:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, although McCain is not a good comparison there, due to Obama's declining public campaign funding. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Questions regarding your run for board member of the RationalWiki Foundation

Congratulations on your nomination to appear on the ballot for board member. I've created a section with questions for you. RationalWiki_talk:2010_board_of_trustees_election/Election_booth#Questions_for_the_candidates ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

cocksucker

fuck u --Huba huba hot chick (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries, Listener. I gave him the mandatory minimum of 5 years. Syndrome (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

A pity; he might have made for some light entertainment if he had not insisted on vandalizing mainspace. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Why can't vandals here actually be funny? EternalCritic (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

In other words, why can't Bohdan come back? Blue (is useful) 05:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I never really saw his vandalism to be perfectly frank. Never really looked for it though. EternalCritic (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC²) No doubt because most of them do not have two brain cells to rub together. The only exception to that rule I have seen here is MarcusCicero, who (according to him, anyway) delights in being able to run in circles around the lot of us, and uses vandalism in a similar way to how Mao used guerrilla fighters. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting parallel. Somewhere I remember him saying he was writing a novel and attacking RW was a way for him to relieve "creative tension." He never did much vandalism, though. He was more often a troll. Blue (pester) 05:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

MarcusCicero was even a troll even back when i was more active. EternalCritic (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The vandalism he did do was aimed at getting us to block him, which is where the guerrilla fighter parallel comes in. He has kept to his no-trolling pledge for a remarkably long time now, which probably means that either he has built up a critical head of steam or he is still trolling us via a sock, of which he claims to have several. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless Lumenos is his sock, which is unlikely, I'd say he's moved on from trolling. He hasn'd edited much recently. Blue (pester) 06:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Lumenos is not nearly angry or vituperative enough to be a MarcusCicero sock. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you, Sir. But I'm not sure MC is angry, just without "normal" empathy. Might I add that Lumenos is not angry or vituperative at all, actually quite passionate in eir desire to help you know trooth, thus eir criticisms or otherwise uncomfortable opinions must be branded with the "concern troll" label. ~ Lumenos (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

warning

you fucking pedophile bastard, child rapist, all the children you have raped are now preparing for revenge, be careful --HiHoHeHe (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I see you have learned to spell since last we met. Next comes capitalization and proper punctuation; sanity can wait until after. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

'Dead' userbox

I don't know how I feel about that. It looks a bit like it's meant to be a joke (although I'm sure it's not). Me, The First (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The unfortunate flipside of the presence of our contingent of "chill-the-f***-outers." I have taken some steps to prevent non-serious misuse of the user box. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Finally

Someone aside from me with more than half a brain. Nice to meet you Listener X, our views align on many things, aside from religion as I myself am an atheist. Keep up the good work anyway. --92.3.5.19 (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Triumphalism

I'm not interested in debating the merits of the redirect with you. I am interested in pointing out that Nebuchadnezzar has, in his short time here, put most of us to shame in terms of his work in creating quality, relevant articles and prolly deserves a shade more respect than a unilateral deletion. P-Foster (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Had the redirect been something he put any effort into, certainly I would have brought it up on the talk-page first. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Obamacare

Thanks for improving the article on Obamacare, it needed an American to write that. I'm not Jesus (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Dionysios

I don't understand how you can be so Apollonian. Dionysios, he's the god for me! Wild orgiastic dancing, drowning in an ocean of wine. Apollo, what does he do? Oh, the sun. Yeah, the blinding sun. But to Dionysios belongs the night, and her children... (Although I do like Swinburne's lines, "And is not even Apollo, with hair and harpstring of gold / A bitter god to follow, a beautiful god to behold?" --Maratrean (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

In my tradition, the Sun is a lady, and the God of madness and the God of wisdom are one and the same. But as far as Greek mythology goes, remember: without drink some of us might not be having as much fun, but without the Sun we would all be dead. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Scientist

Out of curiosity, what kind of scientist are you? Тy^Talk. 16:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to be non-specific about that for privacy reasons; my particular field is a very small one. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Ok.Тy^Talk. 16:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The answer is "psuedo". Occasionaluse (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not very small... Unfortunately. Quaru^{diet pill - You can't explain that!} 17:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I am beginning to regret even hanging out that user box. Occasionaluse, I assure you I am not a pseudo-scientist; I could upload a scan of my doctoral diploma, if that would help any. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Never thought it would happen, but...

For demonstrating exemplary goatery in the line of duty, Blue has awarded you a used pre-owned! and slightly stale cookie. Ewwwwwww. Cockroaches ate half of it.

You've been doing some very nice article rescuing. Blue (pester) 21:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The Venus Project

Thanks for clearing up the Venus Project page for me, I just saw it and felt it needed to have more information. the way you structured it gives better terminology. thanks alot!(PS: it would be great to talk to you in the future to help with a thesis i'm writing to break down the woo in Zeitgeist: Addendum, if you would like to help!)HKJGN (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Why my page was deleted

Why my page "Gravitation Demystified" was deletd for the alleged selfpromotion while I tried to promote Einstein (and I'm not him) whose theory is still worth of being promoted (why don't you think so?) JimJast (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur with DeltaStar's reply on the talk-page. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wisconsin

Thanks, better and more accurate. P-Foster (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey

If you're renaming [[:category:dead guys]] to [[:category:stiffs]], please allow my bot to finish the job. You don't have to do all of those tedious edits. Blue (pester) 04:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I will finish it; it gives me an excuse to do some other copyedits. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If you really want to. Or I can just type a few words into command prompt and the bot will. Blue (is useful) 04:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Exhausted

That could be a great/horrible meme to popularize. Corry (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be a good Parthian shot for a retiring Conservapedia editor, if there were any intelligent ones left to make that Wiki interesting. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Do Parthians even happen anymore? Maybe everything isn't immediately oversighted with TK gone, but I don't know. Corry (talk) 05:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, TK was the last editor there with enough of a brain to string two words together; the only hope is now that TK's reign of terror is over, non-lackeys will not be immediately thrown to the outer darkness. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you need a hug.

so here you go :) Rationalize (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, i was confused. but you can still have one anyone anyway!. sry Rationalize (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Howard Zinn

Nice work on the Zinn article. I wanted to expand it more, but my copy of the book is currently a hundred-something miles away in my parents' basement and it's been a long time since I read it. Been thinking of doing a Naomi Klein/shock doctrine page too considering how much that's been coming up recently. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on LX. Don't ever let your guard down. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

? Тy^Talk. 18:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

While LX has more than his fair share of excellent contributions to this wiki, he's a religious zealot stuck smack dab in the middle of the red scare. Think "RobSmith", but Wiccan. Occasionally, his contributions are just crazy talk. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You're all right, ya know...

Actually, it's really nice to have you around. That is all. ħuman 02:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Тy^Talk. 02:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Fuck, even I'm glad he's around and think he's alright. And I fuckin' hate the guy. P-Foster (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What prompted this vote of confidence? ListenerX^TalkerX 04:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, must have been something I read? That, and years of history... ħuman 05:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

PS, it has nothing to do with your new secretariat. PPS, congrats, and thanks. ħuman 05:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thank you for the vote of confidence. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not always an asshole, lol. ħuman 06:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Santorum and Langston Hughes

Interesting. P-Foster (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not very surprised; even Santorum would not be stupid enough as to use that knowingly (although our politicians do have the capacity to surprise sometimes). What I cannot figure out is what was so inaccurate about my edit to the WIGO in question. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not that it was inaccurate, it was a wordy and clumsy attempt to inject your own spin on what was a pretty straightforward thing. P-Foster (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The primary reason I changed it was that the previous wording implied that Santorum knew about Hughes's use of the phrase, which the article did not say he did. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Then why not just add " 's campaign" after the word "Santorum"? See what I did there? Also, you seem to be really invested in hedging the idea that "let America be America again" is a direct Hughes reference. Are you aware of the phrase being used before Hughes wrote it? P-Foster (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

As you seem to be invested in the idea that once Hughes had used the phrase, no one else could possibly think of it. My view is that the phrase does not exactly qualify for a patent, and that it is not unreasonable to posit that Santorum, or one of his staffers, came up with it independently. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that's as unreasonable as going through a four-year college degree (as you gotta figure any major campaign advisor would have) and coming up with "Call me Ishmael" or "The Horror, the Horror" "independently." P-Foster (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I went through nine years and three degrees, taking several more English classes than I was required to, and the only poem of Hughes's I ever encountered was "A Dream Deferred." I only read Heart of Darkness very recently, not for a class, and in any event, "The horror! The horror!" is not a good example of a strikingly unique phrase. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

CP on liberals

Thanks for your additions. I was actually going to ask people for input, but haven't got around to it for some reason. By the way, you removed my statement that Germany was far from a welfare state. Are you saying that Germany was basically a welfare state? I think Hitler's economic policies should be gone into more, but they're not very straightforward. DickTurpis (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It was definitely a welfare-state (the Kraft durch Freude program is one example), but, as we have seen, the welfare was restricted to ethnic Germans who did not hold heretical political opinions. They, like the Soviets, made sure that the people that the leaders liked were taken care of; and had they succeeded in killing all the people they wanted to kill, that would have been the entire population of Germany. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure a government run leisure/propaganda organization makes a welfare state, though I guess that could be a small part of one. The amount of government payments to people out of work is much more relevant, or New Deal-like projects. I know there were some of these under Hitler (autobahns could be an example, or could be standard infrastructure improvements, depending), but I was unaware it qualified as a welfare state. I'll see if I can look into it some more. DickTurpis (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. The book Three New Deals is a good read on this. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The modern German welfare state with its large number of benefits and social programs was mostly constructed during the late sixties and seventies. I don't know if essential features like universal health care, retirement funds/social security and unemployment insurance would constitute a "welfare state" according to American standards. Even if so, the first two were established by Bismarck during the 1880s, and the last one in 1927. Hitler didn't repeal them, but building or expanding a welfare state was definitely not on his list of priorities. KdF was also not really intended for the benefit of the people or just a select group of party loyalists, but part of a general mobilization programme in that it was intended to improve the overall efficiency of the workforce by offering recreation to all. Röstigraben (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Why you don't want folks to learn how the real science works?

Just curious. Though I should thank you for taking the burden off my back (that my social instincts located there). I'm really gratefull. You must know how the real science works, the real question is why don't you want others to learn too. Because you are a scientist yourself? And you think we should stick together instead of introducing lay people into our dirty secrets? I would write only about cosmologists, and they don't deserve your protection (I hope you are not one), doing what they do. Do you think Feynman's rant is enough and they don't need any more humiliation? Just curious about your reasons. JimJast (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps the reason you haven't got anywhere with your theories is that they are wrong? You seem to think that everyone else is mad and you are the only sane one - it is possible that you have this around the wrong way. Damo^Hi 09:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

James Taggart

While it's a talent he underuses, he's shown to be quite gifted at making money, albeit, not as adept as Dagny but that goes without saying. I got the impression that the reason Francisco was able to pilot the speedboat while Jim couldn't was a matter of self-belief. Jim was too self-conscious and too nervous to pilot it. Francisco didn't care what other people thought about him, he just though about driving the boat which is why he was able to do it. Jim's most obvious nod to self-loathing is when he doesn't understand why the waitress he takes back to his apartment is telling him that he's a great man. So deep is his resentment of great people that he himself doesn't want to be great. If anything he's afraid of it. That's my take on it anyway. I'm interested to know what you have to say on the subject as I always find your posts thought-provoking. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I read him as a grifter who is adept at exploiting family and political connections, but is useless when "real-world" problems crop up, e.g., when he says "Oh, you'll do something!" to Rearden. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh he's useless when confronted with reality obviously but more out of laziness and weakness rather than a lack of talent as I see it. I'm not saying I'm a fan of the guy, I found him to be a despicable character from beginning to end. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sysop

Can I have sysop rights? --Liberal Warrior (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Nutty Roux (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? --Liberal Warrior (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Because you only signed up 4 days ago. And because you smell like soup. Nutty Roux (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Asking for sysop pretty much guarantees you'll not be one anytime soon. P-Foster (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, asking to be a sysop disqualifies you from becoming one, at least for a while. Damo^Hi 04:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Careful with votes

Careful reverting strike (<s>) tags. RobSmith himself struck his vote here - changing it to "Nay" here.--Danielfolsom (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Thank you for the correction. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Try

try what? Тy^Talk. 02:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing pointless dreck from a serious discussion. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

FAVOR?

^u^ I am kindly asking for you to block me. Please and Thank You?
-Reason: Should be studying for Finals. But no. Having no sleep medication,clinical insomnia, and boredom--I end up on RW coding on my profile. --Dumpling (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

For what period of time do you wish to be blocked? ListenerX^TalkerX 20:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A good...28 hours. Just to be safe.--Dumpling (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Cratship

I see that you have been away for the last 3-4 days. I imagine you are taking a wiki break after all the unpleasantness (fair enough). In any case I have nominated you for the new crat position just in case you miss the nomination date, which I believe expires on the 17th. Although I don't really agree with much of what you say, I think you would make a good crat in the new system. --Damo^Hi 08:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I lost Internet connectivity the day following my last post and have only just recently regained it, after a long series of negotiations with our friendly ILEC. I know nothing, as yet, of this "new system" of which you speak, but thank you for the vote of confidence. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah well actually, so much drama has happened lately that it will take you weeks of reading to catch up. Basically it looks as if the election I spoke of has been cancelled so ... --Damo^Hi 03:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I gathered as much. I see from WIGO:RW that the crisis has even hit the Board of Trustees (Armondikov's resignation). ListenerX^TalkerX 04:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Tornadoes

Glad to hear you're alright after all that severe weather. I live a few miles south of the epicenter of it all, but my workplace (in Fridley) had a tree knocked over into the parking lot and my yard got covered in debris. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 14:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I was in Northeast during one of the heavier bouts of rain, but that was the extent of my involvement with the storm. ListenerX^TalkerX 15:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

E-mail

I have sent you an important e-mail. Please do read it and respond, as it pertains to official RationalWiki Foundation business. Thank you. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 15:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirect versus deletion

Shouldn't you be leaving redirects at all those articles you merged into CP vs WP? For people who bookmarked them, linked to them, and potential wiki-links to them? September Storm (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There are probably not too many links into those pages; it would be better to edit those links to point to the main page. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to do that then? Leaving redirects makes more sense (to sections). September Storm (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I just did. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

CP and WP differences

Thanks for all the work on that. P-Foster (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I figured if there was anyone who could deal with a Chavez apologist, it would be you. Тy^Talk. 03:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What we have there is actually a troll, as evidenced by his remark accusing us of being just like Conservapedia, not to mention the Liberapedia link. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

He is apparently from Commupedia or something. Thanks again though. Тy^Talk. 03:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead

Why did you delete Category:Dead guys? I liked pretending to be dead. Kirk Johnson (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It was an entirely useless category. You can also look at the talk page of the category for the deletion discussion. Blue (is useful) 17:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thanks for Wiki-formatting my essay for me. I was actually going to do it myself, but you beat me too it. I wrote it when I was travelling and didn't have Internet access, so I just wrote it up in MS Word. And then when I got back, I was lazy so I just PDFed it and linked to the PDF. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Beer

I heard of the beer drought, I am deeply sorry for the suffering on all Minnesotans. :c HollowWorld (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? ListenerX^TalkerX 05:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Booznarok. HollowWorld (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A public service announcement

REDSREDSREDS!!!!

P-Foster_{The Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.} 16:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

ListenerX^TalkerX 18:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

historical-critical hermeneutics

I liked "no shit" better...--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with "no shit" is, it presupposes that the creationists are right about their interpretation of the Bible, but that sort of literalism has very little historical basis. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

But I don't know what historical-critical hermeneutics means...--User:Brxbrx/sig 10:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a method of studying the Bible that examines the real-life origins of the text, used in most mainline Protestant churches today. It does not suppose the Bible to be "rubbish," but also allows for the truth of carbon dating. ListenerX^TalkerX 14:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Look at it

right|thumb|200px ^{— Unsigned, by: Liberal Warrior / talk / contribs}

3 month block

Not that I disagree, but shouldn't the guy be brought to the coop to avoid cries of fascism and such? -- Nx / talk 10:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I say "cross that bridge when it needs to be crossed and not a second before!" The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 10:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Writing style

Are you a writer (fiction, techinical, whatever). you really do have a clean writing style. Just a "better way" to say most things.En attendant Godot 16:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I do some technical writing at work, though not nearly as much as I did when I was at school. As far as fiction writing is concerned, I am strictly an amateur; I could never quite grasp all those sophisticated literary concepts, such as the necessity of portraying all one's characters as "flawed," not to mention that I have a fondness for "high concept" plots, which does not endear one to the literary establishment. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Didn't worry if you would be successful or not, just wondered if you wrote a lot, and enjoyed it. :-) success is almost always a sell out. ;-) I have an acquaintance from CU's biology dept who, in the early 90's put himself through gradschool by writing women's romance novels. 184 pages, at about 4 grand a book if they took it, and it took him 2 days to write that drivel. En attendant Godot 19:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sacrifices

I demand flesh and I demand ale, upon my altar, on this very day. Do as I command, or I shall strike you down! The God Odin (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

One porterhouse steak and one pint of Newcastle coming right up, sir. Should I put that on your tab? ListenerX^TalkerX 22:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you think

of Snorri Sturluson's Campbell-esque take on your religion?--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Some people think Snorri was a "traitor" who portrayed the Gods as comic figures in order to open them to mockery. I hold with the more mainstream view, that he was trying to revive the old forms of Icelandic poetry and retold the myths as faithfully as he could under the circumstances. Some Hellenistic influences did creep in, though, particularly since he was making the Gods out to be Trojan heroic figures. ListenerX^TalkerX 14:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

By Campbell-esque I meant the view of mythology as romanticized history (like, Snorri seemed to think gods were kings, deified in poetry). But I am fully willing to accept the possibility that I wrongly interpreted his Wikipedia page.--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I only know him as the fellow who came up with the "monomyth;" but if he did promote the "romanticized-history" view, he was not the first to do so. I think there is some validity to the idea of deified kings, but that it is far from being the full picture; with regard to Norse mythology, I seem to recall that the Gods were originally faceless natural forces and it was largely Roman influence that gave them their concrete forms. ListenerX^TalkerX 15:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

So where does that put your divinities in Asatru (I'm not sticking the proper accents in there)? Or have I completely failed to comprehend your religion? Also, is Helheim it's own place or is it a part of Niflheim? thx--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Asatru/Odinism, like its historical counterpart, is not an orthodoxy, so beliefs can vary widely. The Gods can be regarded as anything from Jungian archetypes to personifications of nature to symbols of national inspiration. Hel can be taken as a hall in a realm of mist, or as a metaphor for a grave that is soon overgrown by weeds and forgotten because its occupant did not win fame and glory in his lifetime. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Do me a favour

Look, I know that you're both smarter than me and far more knowledgeable than me. And I respect that. But you have an incredibly annoying habit of twisting things to grind your anti-Red axe, and it can get pretty annoying. This last edit of yours is a case in point--I was talking about the human costs of war, specifically the question of dead civilians. You can find cases of the Reds doing horrible things to civilians in the name of the class war, you're right. You can also find horrible cases of things being done to civilians on the other side in the name of "freedom" as defined by the west. My post had nothing whatsoever to do with Reds, pinkos, or what-have-you, and everything to do with my position on the tragedy of modern war, and my inability to see anything heroic about a human activity that has killed many, many more civilians than soldiers in the last century. But you saw it as a chance to score cheap political points.

I don't know what your politics are, because in all my years of reading you here, I've never seen you post any sort of positive political vision, I've only seen you attack that with which you disagree. That's a shame, 'cause, like I said, you're a smart guy and could probably come up with something smarter than "I hate the Reds and here's why."

So look, I get it, you hate the Reds, the Reds are bad, the Reds were horrible, the Reds had it all wrong, I get it. Like David Byrne sang, "Say something once, why say it again?" Enjoy the day..... B♭maj7 RATZINGER RATZINGER RATZINGER 13:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Good post, but don't even hope that LX will stop griding his anti-Red ax. He's an old dog. Reds are everywhere. Gödel's incompleteness theorems, too. He gets wet just seeing the words. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Look, I know that you're both smarter than me and far more knowledgeable than me... Huh?

This last edit of yours is a case in point... I am very sorry that I went and upset you so much, but I think you might have misread my post, so here we go in more detail.

Your post seemed to be in reply to my earlier post, in which I was trying, by metaphor, to make light of the fact that the doctrinaire opponents of war — the ones who cry "Peace, peace!" when there is no peace — have for the most part only been able to form and voice their views because the soldiers in their country's army did not accept them. To quote Garrison Keillor:

“”I said, "Eunice, if I am fortunate enough to be called to serve in Vietnam, I will carry out my mission, which is to preserve the freedoms of you and your dope-smoking pinko pals."

Viewing the "class war" in the same light, the broader left-wing movement could only continue with its more successful operations so long as the fighting folk in the unions and elsewhere, and those who provided them moral support, paid no heed to the New Left's ongoing deconstructions of the proverbial "double, double, double beat of the thundering drum," and hence did not feel questioning pangs about going out to do battle for their class.

Chief among these deconstructions is the extensive examination of the role of war heroes in "nationalist narratives," which, if you will recall, you provided as one reason to be opposed to the idea of war heroism. By contrast, the other reason — the question of dead civilians — is, as you point out, not related to "Reds, pinkos, or what-have-you" except perhaps by association.

I don't know what your politics are, because... I deliberately avoid the Positive Political Visions in favor of assessing what is best in a particular situation. The more concrete a political program, the more useless it becomes when the situation changes. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

And that was an explanatory note? Damo^Hi 08:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

More like the Apology to the original post's Augsburg Confession. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That was prolly the right thing to do.

Yup. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 00:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

What The Greasy Poop Is Going On?

Capitalist Running Dog,

I get that Maratrean is a pain in the behindus. I get that Ace dances to the beat of His Own Drum. Watching them pulling each other's hair is kinda fun. I understand the goat thing and the slapdash approach to roolz'n'shit. I rather like the laid back approach to running things. It's cool. But I just undid a three month block what Ace laid on Sprocket (yeah I know Sprocket can undo his own blocks) because it seemed excessive and unfunneh. Does all this seem a little over the top to you? Am I missing some RW-esque point? Is it worth giving a shit about? Why does my next door neighbour look at me funny when I hang the laundry out in a thong? MtD^{Pinko Scum} 06:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You fucking idiot, I blocked Sprocket, commenting on him boning his wife with his greasy fish-stick because he blocked himself, commenting on going to bed with his wife. So when he logged in and tried to edit he'd get the message and laugh. Then you come along and undo. You fucking chocolate drop. Ace^{of Spades} 06:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Then reblock him, cock-fag. MtD^{Pinko Scum} 06:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Cock-fag? Ace^{of Spades} 06:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, cock-fag. Doo-doo head seemed excessive. MtD^{Pinko Scum} 06:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

We have always had epic fights around here; you just have to get used to it. Chalk it down to the old cabal being comprised almost completely of people who went to Conservapedia to pick a fight, and several of our old-time editors being known to have a fondness for drinking. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Fairy nuff. As you were! MtD^{Pinko Scum} 06:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

ASSHOLE!

NOW JUST WAIT ONE MOTHERFUCKING MINUTE YOU ASSHOLE! YOU WERE OKAY WITH THE FIRST POLL!--Yuppie (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

C4LM DOWN. L1ST3N3RX 1S ON3 OF OUR F4VOR1T3 US3RS. Blue (pester) 03:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Huh? ListenerX^TalkerX 17:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

On the talk page for Crundy, you criticized me for making a poll, but was accepting of the former poll. ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.62.109.225 / talk / contribs}

You really need to learn to stop reading so much into people's talk-page posts. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

My cats say hi. They've decided to move in and sleep on lap and keyboard. i love the image. En attendant Godot 17:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I nominated you for moderator

I nominated you for moderator--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that you've accepted. Speech! Speech!--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I am writing one up now. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll totally vote for you if you drop my name--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Err... In light of my non-existant popularity here, perhaps you shouldn't tell people that I'm voting for you? I suggest putting that yourname thing instead. ;) --User:Brxbrx/sig 05:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not really courting the fickle vote, but the use of the "myName" span is a good idea. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Native Americans

There were numerous concerted efforts to wipe out native populations. The two examples that come to mind are the attempts to starve Native Americans out by eradicating buffalo and the notorious smallpox blankets.--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The smallpox-blanket tactic was not applied very widely, but working the Indians half to death was (especially among the Spaniards) and the only ones exempt from the "assimilation" policies were the "Five Civilized Tribes." ListenerX^TalkerX 05:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Nagry

I wish goonie was here. Ace^ace 06:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You went and deleted it.

I was maybe being a little obtuse, but it was a legitimate comment. LowKey (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Please to keep the sniping out of mainspace; funspace is a perfect place for jokes like that. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You what? Mainspace as almost all sniping. LowKey (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait, you mean sniping not aimed elsewhere than RW, don't you? LowKey (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Mainspace is for addressing the public; your edit was addressing the community. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I know my intended audience better than you. Also, the rules HERE don't apply here, so when did WP rules become adopted? Also, if you had an issue with the namespace, why delete it without discussion (or indeed informative edit comment) rather than just move it? LowKey (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the page for being useless dreck, not for being in the wrong namespace. With regard to your intended audience, we were not exactly born yesterday. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Which circles back around to my initial post. May I then delete articles that I consider to be without merit? That should be fun! Also, if your reason was the merit of the article itself then why was your first response all about namespace? Sorry but you're not making a huge amount of sense there. Anyway, my intended audience was not just the community, but also those interested in the community (and not just the articles that it produces). I do agree that mainspace was not the best place for it, but I was not just doing it for fun but to make a point about how votes are run. LowKey (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

A slight misunderstanding on my part; I thought that your point had been made and deleted the redirect, but when you voiced your dismay at its deletion, I figured you could stick it in funspace along with the rest of the junk.

I would almost like to see you start deleting articles in this near-anarchy; perhaps we could then get two editors to agree on something in the Chicken Coop. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You make it even more tempting! I really would like to see RW grow up some, but I am not quite ready to fall on my sword for it. LowKey (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

a reminder...

You said you were gonna fix this up. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 00:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

And I am very sorry that I took nine entire minutes to do it, but I was a little busy at the time. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

My bad, I misread the history. Still, I'm not entirely sure if the article is really any more fixable than that. Once again, apologies. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 19:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back

You were missed. Ty^talk 00:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I am just back for one day; tomorrow it is back to the grindstone. Lucky I had a day off today, or I might have missed this big Community Standards vote.

It looks as though things have settled down some since I left. Hopefully when I come back again, the growing pains will have fully abated. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Enjoy your day off, and hopefully that will be the case. Cheers. Ty^talk 00:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

holy fuck

I was just reading Uncle Ho's talk page, which I was led to by the link someone posted at the coop over his block, and holy shit that guy has issues. I do not agree with your pro-capitalist views, but you are not a racist and actually a pretty cool guy. So fuck Uncle Ho, and good riddance to him.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street

Just some drunk nuts running riot. As you're probably aware, we had something similar in Britain quite recently, not to mention the Minor Strike of the eighties. Don't worry about it, once these attention-whoring hippies and psychotic rape apologists realise that their silly antics will have just about as much effect (and that's being generous) they'll go home and return to arguing that pot should be legalised or some such nonsense. As you've said before, when the big nasty capitalists can't be blamed in some way, they're remarkably quiet. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"Minor Strike of the eighties"; yes, you wouldn't expect for it to have much effect. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners%27_strike_(1984%E2%80%931985)#The_formal_end You were saying? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

My bad, I apologise. I didn't know you were dyslexic. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Check your premises Kavanagh, the above link depicts even the hideously liberal Wikipedia conceding to Thatcher's awesomeness. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Minor Strike =/= Miners' Strike. ;) Steven Kavanagh (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"Rape apologists"? ListenerX^TalkerX 04:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Freudian slip on my part, Steven. And yes ListenerX, apparently the whole ghastly affair has become a veritable play ground for such degenerates. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/protester_busted_in_tent_grope_QxAzp8mG8pULWA6cPzgnXL --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

One can always expect a few such wretches to show up in large semi-anarchic encampments; the more important question is, has the Occupy Wall Street leadership tried to defend the fellow, even in a mealy-mouthed or not easily quotable way? ListenerX^TalkerX 03:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately not. As TV tropes says, even evil has standards! --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Global climate change warming

Interestingly, the original term was "climatic change." This is the only history of this denialist meme I've found. Simply trivia, but I find it funny that the deniers can't even get their "jokes" straight. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

IP block

Not sure that was a spammer. The stuff looks genuine. Scream!! (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

In addition, please don't disable talk page editing unless the user is abusing it. This is especially important for IPs, where a block (particularly a long one) might affect innocent users. I've unblocked the IP, but feel free to reblock if they continue to spam. -- Nx / talk 20:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The BoN splattered the same content onto a template and a mainspace page, so I think it was spam, but I will refrain from disabling talk-page editing in the future. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Some spammers use their user page or talk page for spam, so in that case I'd lock the talk page. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 23:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Email

HihiLX I just emailed you regarding official board business relating to the upcoming election. 21:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

WIGO Clogs

Hello Listener,

I've noticed for a while now that your submissions to WIGO Clogs are very different from everyone else's (obviously, you're the only one who puts Truthout there, for one thing). And it seems like sometimes people agree with you and sometimes they don't, which makes sense, given that some of your opinions are outside the RW mainstream. I tend to wonder about your position, though. I always sort of think of you as the one who keeps the rest of us in check, to remind us that we chose to be "RationalWiki," not "LiberalWiki," for a reason, and I quite respect that. But honestly, sometimes I agree strongly with Truthout, and I feel a little insulted by lumping it together with, say, WND. Do you really think they're just as bad as those birthers? What's the reasoning behind this? Wehpudicabok (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It is important to remember that Truthout is not an ideological monolith — it aggregates articles from many sources, so any WIGO involving it is more properly of the individual article rather than the site. I like many of their articles myself, and put a few of them in WIGO:Blogs or WIGO:World. These are generally the ones where they go after the Religious Right (even though the emphasis is on "Right" and not "Religious") and the less paranoid civil-libertarian ones.

However, I think Truthout in general can correctly be classified as a clog site, as it functions as a magnet for cranks and shysters, many of them there mostly to promote their own books — their book-selling business is not quite as hucksterish as WND's, but it follows the same pattern of columns written to promote books. Ideologically speaking, you have at least four strains:

• Howard Zinn was a big-shot at Truthout before he died, and a fair number of their columnists, including the in-house group, generally follow his theory of a warmonger/industrialist/corporate conspiracy to subvert American democracy.
• Then you have the religious-left people, who instead of believing that Jesus is returning tomorrow afternoon believe that the Revolution is starting tomorrow afternoon, and consequently wet their pants with excitement whenever two people get together to wave picket signs.
• The civil-libertarian crew, some of whom are convinced that the Obama administration is going to announce the formation of the American Dictatorship next Friday.
• And then you have Giroux, who is a formative culture unto himself. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Truth-out does produce a lot of clog material, but I can't get through half the columns without falling asleep. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Those are some good points. I do get pretty suspicious of anyone shouting about how horrible it'll be if we don't take care of one particular pet peeve of theirs (with the exception of the climate). Wehpudicabok (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Wanna drink mead with Odin at Asgard?

Your ticket to Valhalla is through moderatorship--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem of Evil

Ha! Great comeback. :-D May I pop it below my response to Waiting for Godot, though? (Ugh, is there any way to avoid entering these stupid Captcha words each time I save?) --Bertrc (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You can avoid Captcha by having Autopatrolled rights. Which I just gave you. Hooray for the Most Trusted Bertrac! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I DON'T NEED A SOURCE I'LL JUST READ LISTENERX'S MIND

Take subject—any subject—and you're amazingly informed about it. Hail ListenerX, a god among ignorant insects! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

serious question on your religion

if it comes off snarky, it's not meant to be. So does your religion have a god (or gods, or goddesses) and if it does, then how can you say your religion isn't focused on trying to figure out what that god wants? GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 04:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I was not being snarky; I was pointing out your overgeneralization of a largely Abrahamic concept to all religions. As for me, I am a hard polytheist, and in my tradition, if you want something of one of the Gods, you make a sacrifice (or send up a prayer); you do not waste valuable time wondering what you can do today to serve your deities more perfectly. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's not an abrahamic view, it's a view derived from some 15 years of formal study. It's why we have temples and pyramids; potlaches and sundances; rituals and sacrifices and dances and honoring ceremonies, meditations and prayers. "what do i need to do to please my god, so she grants my wish; gives us a good harvest; heals my child; finds favor with my war, etc. I know of no culture (well, of cultures that have gods) that do not wonder how best to please the gods so they can get what they want. As you said "you make a sacrifice" meaning you are trying to give something of value of yourself to the gods (on teh assumption that this is what the gods want). Maybe they don't want sacrifice. Maybe they do. but you are trying to figure that out as a believer. this is my point. GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 06:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I thought you were referring to the concept of obedience to God's will.

However, even with that definition corrected, it is still too narrow a statement of purpose. In many traditions, such as the New Age variety, major aims are to become "enlightened" or "one with the divine" (by ingesting dope, for example) rather than to find out what the divine wants. My religion has a moral component, but the morals provided are not to be kept to please the Gods or anything like that.

Also, cults often serve as a focus of national pride or unity; perversions of this idea include how the KKK used Protestantism, and how a number of people in my tradition attempt to use it as a focus of racial unity. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This is probably just me fretting, but...

We either have a troll, or someone at risk for suicide. If the latter, there's no way I'm capable of "talking them down." What I'm saying is, I may need back up for this, and you're the only other regular currently around :-| Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What we have is, I suspect, a riff on teenage existential angst. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Based on 2 edits? I wouldn't get overly alarmed. I'm here too anyway. --Damo^Hi 05:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)