# User talk:Mei II

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

## It disturbs me...

That you know more about UK politics than I do. I suppose that's what I get for dropping History. Bastard drug Hoover!

You should make that "cupid stuck up sucker" just an idea. ħuman 08:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Mei is useful, but is Mei not a Brit? Not that I've ever actually thought about it. SJ Debaser 11:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure she's not, but I haven't any proof. Bastard drug Hoover! 11:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Mei's location is ambiguous, much like Captain Nemo and electrons. Mei (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
So the uncertainty of Mei's position and the uncertainty of Mei's velocity is greater than or equal to ħ? Your velocity must be pretty certain. Bastard drug Hoover! 08:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The uncertainty of Mei's position and velocity depend on these critical factors
• ħ (obviously)
• ultimate kerning (u) - for example, letters against numbers. I won't bore you with the specifics
• methodology (m)
• area-specific variables (a) - these variables do not include area
• nuclear gravity (n) - very simple
These factors must be multiplied in that order to get the uncertainty. Mei (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I added them and got me, not Mei! ħuman 03:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
If they are next to each other they are multiplied, aren't they? I had to make this joke because of the line on the h. It was there, staring at me, and I knew what to do. Mei (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Good point. When I multiplied them I got 42, though. So I tried adding. ħuman 04:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
It is lucky your name doesn't have repeating letters. If it was Phantom Hoover I would have had to make him into Ph2anto3m ver. Which does not make sense. Mei (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
It also sounds rather explosive. ħuman 04:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
When I typed it, I thought 'that looks convincing as a chemical'. I still like it, and I would like to see it become as popular as the other chemicals. Mei (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Or at least as popular as the other white meat. ħuman 06:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, we know a rough area where we have a better than 0.5 chance of finding an electron. Can you give us the same odds? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
There is an equal chance of finding Mei at any place across the surface of the world. This chance does get lower when you increase the altitude. Mei (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there a chance of finding Mei underground? Or behind me... Bastard drug Hoover! 07:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
It is unlikely to find Mei underground. Mei (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Crap. Corry (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

## w

Why do people start sections on your talkpage with "w" as the title? Is it a secret code? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I can never think of good titles, so I often put stuff like blank spaces in the title field. I eventually discovered that if I make the title the letter w, it appears as ==w== in the actual code, and I like that because it is the text version of a Cat Smile. Or very close at least. Mei (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
OIC, carry on. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
You might not want to do it multiple times, though: it mucks up the sectioning. Bastard drug Hoover! 07:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Mei always adds another "w" from what I've seen to avoid that Schenectady, NY. ħuman 08:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Schenectady? Bastard drug Hoover! 11:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

## Curious Psy

Now that you have shown yourself to be not only useful, but a person of refined tastes too, Psy is curious about what other anime/manga tickles Mei's fancy? --PsyGremlinSnakk! 10:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The other white meat. ħuman 11:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Belgian tourists? --PsyGremlin話しなさい 11:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
And the Swiss. Never forget to toast - or roast - the Swiss. ħuman 11:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Silly boy. You're supposed to fondle the Swiss. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 11:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
In their little shorts? With a big horn? Or just to get a numbered account to hide my cash? ħuman 12:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Is Mei one of those anime fans with which TV Tropes seethes? Bastard drug Hoover! 12:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Gasp! Retract that scurrilous comment Sir. Did I not just say she be a lady of refined tastes. --PsyGremlinSprich! 12:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, a duel at dawn over the honour of a young lady. Just let me get persecuted by the mathematical establishment, become a radical republican and change my name to "Galois" first. Bastard drug Hoover! 13:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget my leather shorts :( ħuman 13:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
My answer to this might be long and confusing so I need a few minutes to think about it. I am really tempted to make it an update for CLoM, since as always I have no ideas right now. Mei always does this to me. Why does Mei do this to me? Mei (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Why does Mei do this to Psy? *Psy waits in suspenders --PsyGremlinSprich! 12:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not actually watch that much anime.
Things I like - Azumanga Daioh, Bokurano, Haruhi-chan, Lucky Star
Things I might like possibly - FLCL, Haruhi
Things I did not like despite thinking I would - Fullmetal Alchemist
Thing I am in the middle of right now and might like - Candy Boy, Higurashi Mei (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Good choices, at least the ones I recognize. Strangely, for an animation student, I don't watch much anime, although I like manga a lot. --Kels (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Which ones did you recognize? Do you have any recommendations? I can always use good stories. Mei (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Mei is indeed a lady of taste. Agree with all of your likes, to which I could add K-on, Manabi Straight, Minami-ke, Hidamari Sketch, Moyashimon for comedies. On the more serious side - Gunslinger Girl, Kino's Travels, Aria, Black lagoon, Dennou Coil, anything by Ghibli, anything by Satoshi Kon, anything by Makoto Shinkai... erm... and a few others, but I won't bore you. (Most of the series are also available in manga, of course) --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 14:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

## Be useful!

i don't understand. i can't troll you because i guess you made of our mods so happy that theres actually a rule against it. yet you remove an innocent comment expressing my opinion of an issue from the saloon bar board. why the fuck do people like you so much? i just want to know. how the fuck it "mei useful"?

Sorry. We kind of frown on telling people to be sodomized with inventive implements. It is a bit too personal. Mei (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why people like me. I don't like me very much. Mei (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
We like you because you're smarter and funnier and more creative than most of us. And the whole "nobody loves me everybody hates me I'm gonna eat some worms" thing is really boring and not really endearing. Find a way to get over it or get used to the idea that you'll end up putting some therapist's kids through college...P-Foster (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I get my brain medicine from the national 'elf. :p Mei (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
OTOH this does explain why everyone likes PFoster. ^_____^ Mei (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
yea i think someone thinks ur a guy and has a crush on you or something
Attention all Trollz, Hackerz, Oldfagz, and Newfags at this unhealthy forum: I have found this new wiki that's actually more fun to vandalize than Wikiepedia: it be called Rational Wiki. Vandalizing it is fucking hilarious and you will have about ten mods there debating whether or not u r a good person. However, no one is 2 fuck with mod "Mei" because he is useful, he is the ultimate, he is the only wikifag on the planet that I think is actually human. Violate this and I will share ur email address with now less than 100 opt in spammers. Shyenne <3
just though you might like to see that. what did you do for her to make her so happy? — Unsigned, by: 66.90.73.223 / talk / contribs
I'm touched. But really I don't know what I've done to deserve that. Mei (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

## Atlas Shrugged

I have also heard people (well, one person anyway) make fun of Part 2, Chapter 1, Section 1, in which Dr. Ferris writes, "Thought is a primitive suspicion. Reason is an irrational idea." It seems like Rand is just creating a straw man that she can bash. However, I have actually met a lot of people in Boulder, Colorado who agree with that sentiment, so it's really not all that farfetched. Tisane (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

1. You know people who agreed specifically with that statement? I think Rand considers it an approximation of the view that thought (and human experience) is subjective, but in rephrasing it she butchers the argument completely. I doubt there are people who think that reason is unreasonable.
2. Regardless of whether there are people who take that view, Rand's implication seems to be that this viewpoint is representative of her opposition in general. This is self-evidently illogical.
3. Since you are a libertarian, what is your view of Atlas Shrugged? Mei (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

True, I haven't met anyone who made the exact arguments that Rand puts in Dr. Ferris' mouth. But I have met people who think that reason ("left-brained stuff," which is probably not even a physiologically correct term) is to be viewed with suspicion, and that we receive information from other sources, such as intuition or from some sort of spiritual realm, that are more reliable. I would compare it to the sentiments expressed by some of the people in QualiaSoup's Openmindedness video. They accuse one of being closed-minded for refusing to believe in spiritual stuff (e.g. reincarnation) without evidence, while they themselves are skeptical of science. Granted, I am kinda skeptical of some science too (see my article on antidepressants), and I think QualiaSoup overstates his case in other videos when he says that scientists are skeptical and base their conclusions on solid evidence. Actually, I think scientists are as capable of being ego-driven, and of perpetrating fraud, or making mistakes, or twisting the data, as anyone; and often, they have incentives to do so. Sometimes the system prevents them from doing so, and sometimes it doesn't.

I have somewhat of a perfectionist and stubborn/independent personality, so I identify with certain characters in Rand's novels, such as Dominique Francon and Howard Roark. And I think entrepreneurs have been stifled by taxation and regulation, to the detriment of society. But, Rand didn't seem to examine anarcho-capitalism very thoroughly, and her views on certain issues such as intellectual property were simply wrong. The idea of seceding from the rest of society is appealing, and I think Rand is correct that the reason the statists would want to prevent that from happening is that they couldn't handle the brain drain of productive individuals leaving to join a freer society. Since we don't have a force field to protect a secessionist community from the government, I think the independence of secessionists will need to be secured through an effective private sector means of defense, probably in the form of a capability for retaliatory force. And I just noticed that I compulsively wikified this whole thing. Tisane (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am going to answer this in a long post, in a few hours time, because of tiredness. Mei (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I was just kidding around with the disparaging campaign template saying "meh" and whatnot. My intention was to be witty and fit into the community norm of biting sarcasm that's used for the heck of it, but I wasn't sure whether it was taken seriously or not. Anyway, at the time I also wondered why you put "Mei is useful" but upon further reflection it occurred to me that being regarded as useful is quite important in this world. People value a "nice guy" or a "good person" to the extent that those traits cause that person to be useful to what they're trying to accomplish. In some cases, one can be a total dickhead in most respects and still be useful, and the usefulness suffices to get people to hand over a bunch of money. Likewise, one can be a morally upright and kind person and still be viewed as useless and therefore be despised and get mistreated. In fact, kindness can be taken for weakness and cause people to respect the person less rather than more. Tisane (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Is by far the most interesting and fun userpage to read here. I love it! LimpWrist (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :3 I do not know really what it's for, but it is fun to do. Also, we have new features arriving - hold onto your hats. Mei (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

## deleted "Pharaoh" ‎ (Off mission)

Hey Mei--not to start a stink, but there doesn't seem to have been any discussion about this on the talk page. I haven't looked @ the article, and I trust your judgment, but we should sorta follow the rules. P-Foster (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh hi. Yeah I was unsure about that. I deleted it because it basically defined the word, and that seems pretty far out from what pages normally do. I'm going to resurrect it in a sec, and we can vote/discuss. Mei (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

## Manga

Know any good ones you can recommend? Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 03:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read exactly one manga and you probably would not like it. Psygremlin probably knows lots about manga, though. Mei (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

## question

How do you know Shyenne? — Unsigned, by: 64.255.180.66 / talk / contribs

I am trying to write an answer, but it is difficult to make it not sound like a song. I think it's in one of my archives. Mei (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
See link [1] Mei (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Wha, she can ban people? How did she ban 82.198.250.2 for an hour? You ARE nice! So wait, she was useful hear? I'm all confused cause the thread you show'd me said she was a vandal but I look at what she done and it looks like she was helpful? Is there more than 1 SRQ Girl?
It's possible. She was helpful for a bit, but then she left IIRC. Mei (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I havent seen her much at all anywhere in a while I think she hurt her self really good and went to the hosp last I saw her she was posting about screwing up in a basket toss. I hope shes ok.— Unsigned, by: 67.159.36.22 / talk / contribs
Oh dear. I hope she is ok. I suppose we have a good chance of hearing news since so many of her affiliates turn up here. Mei (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

## I don't understand....

There are a lot of things about you that I just don't understand, but could you please explain the 'capt.' thing to me? Thanks! Keegscee (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

<capture></capture> FTW. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh. I suppose that's kind of useful. Keegscee (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought saying Capt would make sense because it is like 'capped' but also short for 'capture'. It was also short and not obtrusive, which is why I liked it. My latest capture was also very important because it helped me archive evidence of Jinxmchue [2] Mei (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Personally I think 'Major Mei' has a better ring to it. --PsyGremlinSermā! 10:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a song about that. It alleges I visit space, but fails to provide any convincing evidence. Mei (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

## "Neat"

Neat neat neat. SJ Debaser 12:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That *is* neat. Vaguely reminds me of ..... [3] Mei (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Intriguing arrangement of sound. The playing of this through my speakers has prompted my housemate to walk into my room and say, "what the fuck are you listening to?" SJ Debaser 12:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Now look... if you're going to be posting Damned vids, at least play the classics. --PsyGremlinSprich! 12:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of turning Mei's talkpage into grotty punk club where people shoot up whilst fornicating in the corner, how's this for a Damned classic? SJ Debaser 12:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Meh, we'll have her pogo'ing and feeling suicidal before the night is out. Now... on the subject of goth classics...ta-dah! --PsyGremlinSnakk! 12:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Superjosh! If you are using speakers you must listen to this [4] Quickly! Mei (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
My housemate returned during that song. Luckily he's a trainee paramedic, quickly turned off the music and injecting me with a shot of adrenaline to revive me after ingesting a rather large amount of sleeping pills. SJ Debaser 14:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I can't tell if you mean it made you sleepy or suicidal. This is a puzzler and no mistake. Mei (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

## Some thoughts about absolute truth

I think you were making interesting point. However, I do not necessarily agree... I asked some questions from one of my teachers, who helped to bring some clarity into absolute truths.

It is logical to say that "there is no absolute truth except for the statement, 'there is no absolute truth.'" However, making an absolute negative statement is difficult, because you would have to have absolute knowledge of everything in the universe in order to say that something absolutely doesn't exist. — Part of a larger comment by: Earthland / talk

First off I have to point out that I don't believe 'there is no absolute truth' is an absolute statement. You can't refute me by arguing against something similar to what I believe. When I state that there is no absolute truth, I mean that nothing can be proved beyond any doubt, because there is no objective standard of proof. I do not try to prove this statement, as it is a negative, so it does not fall into the category of statements that it criticizes. — Part of a larger comment by: Mei II / talk 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, your comment expressed a relatively newer view of human logic and knowledge. Most people do believe and most people throughout history have believed that we can see the world around us and think and know about it. Almost everybody in the world right now agrees, and that's how we all live our lives. In the last three hundred years, though, some philosophers have said that maybe we can't; maybe we only think we know. Immanuel Kant went so far as to say that objects outside ourselves exist only because we think they do. — Part of a larger comment by: Earthland / talk

My view isn't as new as you think. Even in my limited knowledge, I know of classical philosophers who drew attention to the frailty of our view on the world.
But despite that, how old it is and how many people believe in it are irrelevant. I agree that many (probably not 'almost everybody') people think that they can identify absolute truths. They are idiots. — Part of a larger comment by: Mei II / talk 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Intellectual anarchists don't believe in any absolutes, but they don't build bridges out of cardboard. You have limits to your disbelief in any truth. If I was to lock you in a closet and not giveyou food or water for days, we all know that you would scream and beg for food and water. If I told you, "I'm not sure that you or food really exist, and even if they do, I can't be sure that you really need to eat or drink," you won't feel any better and won't stop demanding food and drink. You may use philosophy that says that you can't know that I exist, but if I hit you in the face with a log, we all know that you would acknowledge it as true. — Part of a larger comment by: Earthland / talk

Just because I reject the idea of absolute truths doesn't mean I reject the idea of provisional truths. Like everyone in the world, I accept, tolerate and experiment with different 'tiers' of proof, but this doesn't prevent me from stating the absolute truth is impossible.
About your log thing - I have frequent dreams in which I experience pain. You used that example as an extreme of something I would have to accept as a proven reality beyond all reasonable doubt, and it still doesn't work. — Part of a larger comment by: Mei II / talk 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

By stating that there are no absolute truths, you are playing games. But you only play games as long as the consequences are small.

Morality is rather similar. If a person says there is no right or wrong, it's often times (and many people, like Aldous Huxley, admit this) because they don't want right and wrong to apply to them completely. But, if you tell me there is no right or wrong, and then I punch you and steal your wallet, we all know that you will believe that it is wrong. — Part of a larger comment by: Earthland / talk

I can easily express an opinion on right and wrong without claiming to be absolutely correct. There is a whole movement based on this.
The motives behind an argument are not relevant. Especially not when they're made up. You expect me to believe Aldous Huxley is quoted as saying 'I don't believe in right and wrong, because I don't want right and wrong to apply to me'? — Part of a larger comment by: Mei II / talk 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Appeal to consequences, you said? What about reductio ad absurdum? Here's a quote from a logic textbook:

"Consists in proving that if you accept a certain proposition as a premise, that premise necessarily leads to a conclusion which is "absurd," i.e., one which everyone knows is false, and therefore the premise cannot be accepted. It is not fallacious to argue that 'If p were true, then q would be true. But q is not true, for it is absurd. Therefore p is not true.' One of the two premises of this argument may be false - it may be false that q follows p, or that q is absurd - but there is no formal or material fallacy in the argument."

Arguing from adverse consequences is indeed fallacious, but that is just not liking the consequences. This question is about common sense and how we all live. Again, you live according to the older, common-sense understanding of logic, but you follow the newer foundation of logic when it suits you. But either we can know the world or we can't. Either things exist whether we think about them or not, or we make them exist. These two principles are contradictory. — Part of a larger comment by: Earthland / talk

1. No they're not. I can, as I said above, accept provisional truths despite rejecting the idea of absolute truth. This is an extremely simple concept, Earthland.
2. Your argument was not reductio ad absurdum, it was a shockingly transparent argument from adverse consequences. You said '[not believing in absolute truth] is also a completely non-practicable way of living'. This does not elaborate my argument into an absurd form, it only says 'it would be inconvenient if this was true'.
3. 'common sense' is just a nicer way of saying 'I can't prove anything but you have to agree with me anyway' — Part of a larger comment by: Mei II / talk 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: science uses and is built upon the older understanding of reality and knowledge. We can't have a law of gravity if gravity doesn't necessarily exist. We've seen it happen enough that we accept it as a law. I'll bet you don't challenge the law of gravity by walking off of cliffs, right? — Part of a larger comment by: Earthland / talk

There was a point in the timeline of the big bang where gravity was 'created'. So basically, my provisional acceptance of gravity would have been sensible, whereas your proposed stance of taking it as an absolute fact is clearly wrong. (I can't find a neat link to cite the timeline of the big bang, but I'm fairly sure this is an accepted scientific observation) Science is actually based on the recognition of the limitations of our viewpoint, and this is its strength. Gravity is a perfect example. One day the bizarre nature of gravity will be the inspiration for a dazzling new conception of the universe, which will be as alien to us as relativity would have been to Newton. If we accepted things as absolute truth based on your standard, we would never reach that point. — Part of a larger comment by: Mei II / talk 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

All in all, you have adopted a system of thought that cannot be proven and cannot be disproven, but one that you know, on a basic level, does not work in life and that you don't always use.

--Earthland (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I do always reject absolute truths, actually. I know how they can creep up on you. And actually it works very well in real life, because accepting my fallibility makes me stronger. Pretensions toward absolute truth, on the other hand, are deeply destructive and unscientific. There is no standard of proof to prove something absolutely - if you say something is absolutely true all you are saying is 'I want to believe this'. Worse, it usually implies 'and you have to as well'. Mei (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

### 'I'd like my comment to stay in one part, thank you.'

No.

Holding conversations in this form is a long accepted practice on wikis. In situations where people post large comments that tackle many different subjects, they are necessary and extremely useful. Your comment above, for example, could not have been replied to without using very long quotes, which is just incredibly messy and amounts to the same thing anyway. I invented a template specifically so that the separated parts of your comment would still be evident as your work at one given time, which avoids the mess you get at wikipedia when people used to do this.

I'm going to reply to your actual reply in a few minutes. Mei (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Holding conversations in this form is a long accepted practice on wikis.Stop bullshitting rules, Mei. If you wish to comment on a larger comment, you leave his comment unaltered, and then you use some sort of PJR style quoting device (like I did) to reference what bit of his comment you are responding to. Altering people's talkpage comments like that is
1. rude
2. confusing
So don't do it. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 20:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

### second exchange

Aren't the sentences "I don't believe 'there is no absolute truth' is an absolute statement" and "I do always reject absolute truths, actually." self-contradictory? Provisional truths are also absolute truths. I am sitting behind my computer and this state is provisional, however, the fact that at certain time I sat here is absolute and it can never change. I do not believe that you're an expert of physics, however,what aboutt he statement "2 + 2 = 4"? Isn't it absolute? Oh yes, maths can be "strange" and "illogical" in many senses, but it does not refute the absolutness of "2 + 2 = 4". — Part of a larger comment by: Earthland / talk

• No, those sentences are not contradictory. How could 'X is not an absolute statement' possibly contradict 'I don't believe in absolute statements'? Seriously, Earthland.
• 'Provisional truths are also absolute truths.' Gibberish. Why should I bother talking to you if you're going to put forward things like this as logical arguments? Like all absolutists, when you have no argument left you are reduced to babbling whatever comes into your head.
• 'the fact that at certain time I sat here is absolute and it can never change' - Sure, because we all know human memory is infallible, right?
• 'what aboutt he statement "2 + 2 = 4"? Isn't it absolute?' - What method would you use to prove that 2 + 2 = 4? And before you reply, please try to really actually think about the question, rather than just saying something like "are you saying 2 + 2 isn't 4?!" — Part of a larger comment by: Mei II / talk
The Principia Mathematica, Volume II, 1st edition, page 86. Professor Moriarty 19:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. I don't know anything about the notation on that page. Could you give me a brief guide? Mei (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't either. I was rather hoping that you'd just assume that I did and not ask any questions. I think it's a proof that 1+1=2 derived from a solid axiomatic foundation. Professor Moriarty 20:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry, it's still interesting. I can't really analyze it in-depths, since I can't actually read it, but I don't think axioms qualify as absolute even if they are very helpful. Mei (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but ultimately everything comes down to taking at least some statements on blind faith, even rationalism. Professor Moriarty 06:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This may be relevant. Apparently Bertrand Russell demonstrated that 1+1=2, so it must be true. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 15:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You may "experience" pain in dream, however, it does notchange the fact that if I hit you in the face with a log you will acknowledge it as true. — Part of a larger comment by: Earthland / talk

Nice job missing the point. If I experience convincing pain in dreams that means that pain is not a reliable indicator of reality, which should have been entirely obvious from my previous comment. — Part of a larger comment by: Mei II / talk

My argument was indeed not reductio ad absurdum, it was yours. And common sense is about how we think at all, not just a "nicer way of saying ..." Even you should see that your answer was very childish and in most part you simply ignore what you could not answer. — Part of a larger comment by: Earthland / talk

Well allow me to be clearer. Appealing to 'common sense' implies that a given fact need not be proved by logic or empiricism because of a social agreement that it is correct. Such an idea is laughable and should rightly be dismissed as such. 'Common sense' is a veil for idiots and a tool of anti-intellectual thugs. More importantly, I have no obligation to accept an heuristic system just because you like it. — Part of a larger comment by: Mei / talk

Stating that there is no absolute proof will lead you sooner or later into self-contradictory. Stating that there is no absolute standard of proof is an absolute truth. — Part of a larger comment by: Earthland / talk

I have explained at least four times why that is not the case. If you're not prepared to read my comments, get lost. — Part of a larger comment by: Mei / talk

"if you say something is absolutely true all you are saying is 'I want to believe this'. Worse, it usually implies and you have to as well."

As I said, if a person says there is no right or wrong, it's often times because they don't want right and wrong to apply to them completely. Your sentence was, one again, self-contradictory - if there is no absolute truth and no absolute moral truth, then why should it be a problem if someone pushes his moral views upon someone else? Because if there is no moral truth, then how can you regard it as something worse than buying ice-cream anyway - aren't all decision morally equal? You can easily express your opinion that raping your children and killing your mother is wrong, but you can't claim it is absolute. You just believe it - and even worse - you say that other must also believe it. Why is it worse if there is no absolute standard of proving it is worse or that bad exists at all - well, I don't know. --Earthland (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• 'As I said, if a person says there is no right or wrong, it's often times because they don't want right and wrong to apply to them completely' - Yes, and I explained why that was crap the first time you said it. The motives are not relevant. The argument ('there is no absolute morality') is correct regardless of motive.
• 'if there is no absolute truth and no absolute moral truth, then why should it be a problem if someone pushes his moral views upon someone else?' - Firstly, I can, as I have explained several times, accept provisional truths without claiming they are absolute. Secondly, an act that affects someone else is inherently different to an act that affects only you. The former has a far lower standard of proof than the latter, which makes it much much less justifiable - and this is a judgement that can be made without making absolute statements about anything. The key issue here is that different proposed facts belong to different 'tiers' of 'evidential categorization'. There are no absolute truths, but that does not mean 'the sun has stopped burning' is as justifiable a statement as 'the rain has stopped'. They rely on different standards of proof, and those of higher standards can be compelling even though they are not absolute.
• 'well, I don't know' - Fair enough. Mei (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

### if I Mei may...

I don't want to get involved with this debate, but perhaps this can help with the discussion of absolute truth. Tetronian you're clueless 20:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That is interestingly confusing. Sort of like timecube except with things that make sense. Mei (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Most of that website is interestingly confusing. I do recommend reading various article from there, though - that's what I've been doing recently instead of studying. For example, the ones from here are pretty good. Tetronian you're clueless 22:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I saw that when you posted it in the Salon bar. I intend to read it, but at the moment I am surveying it and considering how to proceed, in much the same way I would survey a mountain. re the previous link: I don't know if the potential to change your mind is what makes a belief worthwhile -> it's more like what makes it 'healthy' I think. Worthwhile sounds a bit broad, like it means you should find those opinions enjoyable. Mei (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
It's actually very easy to read once you get into it, but I recommend ensuring that you have a large block of time ahead of you before you do; all of the articles reference at least one other article, so you'll end up reading many of them at once. Tetronian you're clueless 23:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I will do that. Mei (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

### Formatting update

@Earthland or anyone else who is effected - My comments will be in normal form from now on, possibly with the tq template. It would be helpful if you, Earthland, could keep your comments concise, or possibly make seperate comments about each facet of the issue that interests you. I may or may not edit my old comments to remove the form I used, but if I do I will need to actually change the text of my comments so that they make sense (probably by adding tqs). I cannot just revert to the state Earthland created in this edit [5], and neither should anyone else ftr. It makes everything even more confusing. This has been an announcement from Mei (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You know, you will actually have to do it, or I'm going to do the exact same thing again. --Earthland (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

## LOL

I appreciate this hahaha :) rational ghey (send a message) 21:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well now i'm confused. I got it from this edit comment just because it was random. Is it a meme or something? I can't see any abbreviations or anything. Mm. This is like one of those magic eye things. Mei (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
.. u made the same error the assfly did (On what is going on at CP?). I thought it was on purpose to mock him:P rational ghey (send a message) 22:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
It was on purpose. I'm not really mocking him, I just think the word looks nice. Human often says 'improved!' when he edits things. It is a good meme. Fun for all the family. Mei (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh ok. I swear it was on the latest at CP but now i cant find it.. :( rational ghey (send a message) 22:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I found it on talk:CP. [6] Mei (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
AH. that's my wikignoming for ya :P rational ghey (send a message) 22:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

## 2+2=4

Newton may have been the greatest scientist in history, but his notation was absolute shit- that's why we use Leibniz's notation for modern calculus. However, the proof posted above is pretty simple. He bases it off the identity property, which states that:

• There is a number 0 such that ${\displaystyle {\big (}a+0)=(0+a)=a}$
• There is a number 1 such that ${\displaystyle {\big (}a*1)=(1*a)=1a=a}$

He then runs through some permutations of this:
${\displaystyle {\big (}a=0),(0+0)=(0+0)=0}$
${\displaystyle {\big (}a=1),(1+0)=(0+1)=1}$
${\displaystyle {\big (}a=2),(2+0)=(0+2)=2}$.

Having defined 0,1, and 2, I'm guessing what he does next from here on out:

${\displaystyle {\big (}b=a+1),(a+1+0)=(0+a+1)=b}$

From here, he just substitutes 1 for a and 2 for b and gets

${\displaystyle {\big (}b=2),(a=1),(1+1+0)=(0+1+1)=(2+0)=(0+2)}$
${\displaystyle {\big (}1+0)+(0+1)=(0+2)=(2+0),}$
${\displaystyle {\big (}1)+(1)=(2)=(2)}$
${\displaystyle {\big (}1+1)=2}$
Hence, 1+1=2. QED. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 23:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Principia Mathematica; this one is the one by Bertram Russel and someone else. And this is the 86th page of the 2nd volume, as well. Professor Moriarty 07:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, using mathematical statements like "2+2=4" as relevant to the discussion examples of absolute truths is idiotic. While mathematics is the only field where a statement can be "absolutely true" and "proven", this is because all true statements are supposed to be logically derived from a set of axioms - which are accepted as true. "2+2=4" is true for some sets of axioms, but not for others. For example, 2+2 equals 0 in the ring Z4. And there are non-Euclidean geometries. --ZooGuard (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Hence my point above about needing to take some statements on faith. This really started because I was fed up with people acting as if 2+2=4 is the primitive statement upon which mathematics is based. Professor Moriarty 07:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Theemperor! That actually makes sense, although I am not sure if * means multiply or something else. I agree with both ZooGuard and Moriarty about axioms, and they both said it better than I would so I will just nod along for now. Mei (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The authors of the Principia Mathematica in question (i.e. the one which takes hundreds of pages to demonstrate that 1+1=2; I don't know if they say anything about 2+2) are Bertrand Russell (who had a famous teapot) and Alfred Whitehead. The story of Russell's quest to establish logical foundations for mathematics is told in the graphic novel Logicomix, which is well worth reading if you're interested in this sort of thing. alt (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Alt. I will look into it. Mei (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
"*" means "anagram of". Look it up. ħuman 01:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't explain anything ;_______; 'a' is not an anagram of 1. Mei (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
* in this case meant the multiplication symbol, because I don't know how to do the middot that's the "proper"symbol. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 01:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The dot product is overrated. Mei, see fifteensquared.com ħuman 01:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Theemperor. I guessed it was multiplied. @human - Where is that link supposed to go? I get a vulture site. Mei (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
http://fifteensquared.net/ oops, sorry, wrong dot product. ħuman 02:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

## Hello

Just wanted to say hi, as we're normally 2 time-zones that pass in the night... or something. Normal service will now be resumed. --PsyGremlinSermā! 23:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Shygremlin. Mei (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

## Message for Mei

 “”Life... is just a series of peaks and troughs. And you don't know whether you're in a trough until you're climbing out, or on a peak until you're coming down. And that's it, you know, you never know what's round the corner.

And since I like it - [7]

Mei (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

## Some final thoughts

Well, I see you enjoy being arrogant to me, and strangely I don't really think that you should not be arrogant to me, although it's not the nicest thing you could do and in this particular debate it is unfair as well, but let it be so.

In most part you didn't understand me correctly. I said that provisional truths are also absolute truths. By that I meant that you may not take something, such like gravity, as an absolute truth in sense that it has always existed and will exist always, however, at this moment you have to absolutely accept it, just like you absolutely can not ignore it. Or perhaps you can?

By common sense I did not mean "everybody believes in Santa, so let's assume he exists". Common sense refers to how we think at all. I mentioned it earlier.

I said that "Stating that there is no absolute standard of proof is an absolute truth" and you replied "I have explained at least four times why that is not the case". To be honest, you actually haven't. One "absolute truth" is that there is no absolute truth expect the statement itself, the lack of any absolute standard of proof - ooh, that is already the second absolute truth. As I said, making an absolute negative statement is difficult, because you would have to have absolute knowledge of everything in the universe in order to say that something absolutely doesn't exist. There might be a way how to prove that what you're experiencing is not a dream or a simulation - there might.

My favorite was, of course this one:

"Aren't the sentences "I don't believe 'there is no absolute truth' is an absolute statement" and "I do always reject absolute truths, actually." self-contradictory?"

"No, those sentences are not contradictory. How could 'X is not an absolute statement' possibly contradict 'I don't believe in absolute statements'? Seriously, Earthland. "

The statement X was not just any statement, it was the statement that "I don't believe 'there is no absolute truth' is an absolute statement". You basically said that "I do believe in some absolute truths, but I always reject the existence of them"

Similarly, I said that science uses and is built upon the older understanding of reality and knowledge - that we can see the world around us and think and know about it. Almost everyone troughout the history and almost all people nowadays share this view. If we can see the world around us and know about it, absolute truths are quick to come - but relativist is someone who is an anti-intellectual by definition.

Looking at our conversation, I believe the issue is not so much absolute truth as absolute skepticism. Your attempt to be an absolute skeptic fails. By an absolute skeptic I mean someone who is equally in doubt of everything. No one is equally in doubt of everything. The way doubt actually works is that we doubt one thing that we are less sure about because of another thing that we are more sure about. And you attempt to be an absolute skeptic - because if there is no absolute truth, then you should, if you only were intellectually honest, regard the statements "the sun has stopped burning" as just as justifiable as the statement "the rain has stopped". Because if it all is just a dream, you can't know that the rain has stopped any more than that the sun has stopped burning.

You can see this in our conversation. When I suggested to you, "If I hit you in the face with a log, we all know that you would acknowledge the pain as real," you replied "But I often experience pain in dreams, and that isn't real." The whole force of you objection to my statement about the log was that you are sure that you have perceived pain in dreams and sure that this perception was mistaken.

So you don't doubt all things equally after all. You doubt your perceptions while awake because you are not in doubt about your judgment that your perceptions in dreams are in error. How do you know that your perceptions in dreams are in error? If you say "But I don't know - I doubt that too", then your objection to my statement about hitting you in the face with the log has no logical force.

You kind of ignored what I said about the morality. Let me explain it to you. Virtue requires the exercise of judgment. The virtue of courage, for example, isn't just about suppressing fear, but about suppressing it at the right times and for the right reasons. If a fireman dashed into a burning house to save the pencil sharpener, we wouldn't call him courageous, but rash and witless.

In the same way, the virtue of toleration isn't just about putting up with bad things, but putting up with certain bad things in certain ways for the right reasons. If someone thought we should tolerate rape and murder, we wouldn't call him tolerant, but foolish and wicked. Do you see the paradox?

In order to know which bad things to tolerate, we must judge well about goods and evils. Liberalism, unfortunately, denies this. It redefines tolerance as suspension of judgment about goods and evils. Here enters a second paradox, because it is literally impossible to suspend all judgment about goods and evils. For example, there is no morally neutral way to define marriage. Laws that conceive it as monogamous put polygamy at a disadvantage; laws that conceive it as polygamous put monogamy at a disadvantage; and laws that attempt to be open to both monogamy and polygamy conceive it, in effect, as polygamous.

The way so-called liberal tolerance actually works is that it condemns the moral judgments of non-liberals, but enforces its own moral judgments by pretending that they are not judgments. You can see it in your own comment. You wrote that "If you say something is absolutely true all you are saying is 'I want to believe this'. Worse, it usually implies and you have to as well."

You seem to imply that it is somehow bad to push my views upon someone else. You were judgmental. --Earthland (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me guess, this is all about an abortion argument? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, being a door-to-door ideology salesman is inherently obnoxious, which is a species of bad. Hope that helps, and good luck with that "humanity" thing! - David Gerard (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
How did I guess? Perhaps because the only thing Earthland does is to log into RW day in day out and bore the bollocks off everyone with his "abortion is murder mmkay" arguments. Tell you what Earthland, if everyone on RW agrees with you and says that abortion is murder and is a bad thing, will you consider it a job well done and then fuck off and never come back? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought he'd been quiet for too long. A whole fortnight without his pearls of wisdom scattered before the liberal swine that we are. He can't help himself from condemning someone for failing to believe as he does. There is only one absolute truth in his eyes - Earthland is always right. Here endeth the first chapter. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Your comments only reveal how highly anti-intellectual you people are and how low you can be. Please, try to think. Mei's good at it. You are definitely not. --Earthland (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Explain this to me; You put forward tired PRATT arguments over and over, and because we don't give in and say "fuck it, I give in", we're anti-intellectual? Someone round here is closed minded, can you guess who? I just don't understand what your objective is here. You will never ever convince people here using the arguments you do. Why not go somewhere else where you might score some brownie points with whoever the fuck you're trying to impress instead of preaching to the atheists? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, look at you, guys. This section has nothing to do with abortion at all, but since you didn't actually read it, you obviously can't know it. However, it didn't stop you from writing that comment above, which is kind of childish. You have failed to refute a single argument, and can come up only with cheap demagogy. This might interest you. Or perhaps not. Not to mention that vast majority of your comments are not even about arguments at all, but something else involved, for example me & my personality, but that is demagogy. You're not good at pretending that you are capable of actual and honest rational discussion. --Earthland (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry EL, clearly no-one here is even close to being as massively intellectual as you are. Perhaps you should stop talking to us idiots and find another site where the people are a lot smarter and will understand you. Off you go. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 11:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Your childish comments that never address the actual issues reveal that it is impossible to talk to you indeed. Fortunately, you are not the only person here. --Earthland (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that you don't give a shit about the argument itself, you just want to argue with people? Spot the troll. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about? Learn to read - read and think at the same time. It's useful. Please, make an attempt to actually understand what I'm saying. --Earthland (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(UD)EL's modus operandi is to make claims that are extreme and controversial like The way so-called liberal tolerance actually works is that it condemns the moral judgments of non-liberals, but enforces its own moral judgments by pretending that they are not judgments. and then complain that we fail to see the absolute truth in his assertions. This is how he trolls. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh and EL, I'm not debating the topic with you because there isn't any point. Besides, abortion is great! How else would I get my daily starter of crunchy shrimp without a quick visit to the back of the clinic? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be a discussion between Earthland and Mei. It's probably not going to make much sense out of its original context, and perhaps it's something better answered by Mei. --ConcernedResident businessman for the ladies 12:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm bored of EL's troll comments anyway. I'm going elsewhere on the wiki. Hey EL, did you know there are articles here which aren't about abortion? Use the search box on the left and you'll see. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
From reading EL's GG - but relativist is someone who is an anti-intellectual by definition.. In one sweeping statement EL condemns a huge part or modern philosophy as anti-intellectual. Take as a quick example
 “” the dichotomy between absolute equals perfect and relative equals imperfect has been superseded in all fields of scientific thought, where it is generally recognized that there is no absolute truth but nevertheless that there are objectively valid laws and principles. —Eric Fromm
Now,I have no problem with someone disagreeing with an intellectual giant like Eric Fromm but call calling him "anti-intellectual' is just plain wrong. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Earthland has got it upside-down as usual - people who view the world in terms of absolutes of truth & falsity, morality & immorality, are much more likely to be anti-intellectual than those who are interested in our interpretations of these concepts and how we arrive at them. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 17:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Earthland should probably hang around smarter people than us who take things more seriously. Earthland, you really should consider http://lesswrong.com/ - David Gerard (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You're a cruel bastard, David. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I seriously wonder how they would react over there. One thing is for sure, though: they sure as hell wouldn't crack jokes about it. Tetronian you're clueless 20:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

### More importantly

Where's Mei? -- Nx / talk 16:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Nx. "What happened to Mei" is, by far, the most important question of all. Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 16:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Another victim of Atlas Shrugged! - David Gerard (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
My God—you don't think she's turned into an objectivist, do you?! Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we can pay her to provide us with usefulness. Certainly we do not deserve it for free, in fact we barely deserve to beaten to death with broom handles. --ConcernedResident candlestick for the ladies 22:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, what up with that? I clicked on Contributions to figure out what EL was referring to above and the last one was on Mei 2! That's more than 7! ħuman 22:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Mei has the right idea staying away from EL's assault on Mei's talkpage. Right on Mei. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but Mei has also stayed away from the CLoM, which is not good. Tetronian you're clueless 20:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

My hypothesis is that Mei has found another site at which to be useful, and decided that, for the time being at least, it was in more need of her usefulness than this place. Punky Your mental puke relief 21:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This is probably true. We are well-stocked on usefulness, but we could always use more. Tetronian you're clueless 21:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but there are websites in more need of usefulness than us. Websites that have a void of usefulness that only someone like Mei cn fill. I'm sure she'll return (eventually). The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 21:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I hope so. CLoM was one of my main sources of procrastination for a while. Tetronian you're clueless 21:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I know how you feel. For a while, it was the first thing I'd read when I'd first log in. Even before I'd read recent changes. The Goonie Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 21:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

## What happened to Mei?

We need more things to read in the Cunning Log of Mei! Wherever you have gone off to, please return soon. Please! We need you back!!!! Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 03:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't beg, it only makes you look desperate. Mei, where are you, Mei? Write poetry to her instead. ħuman 07:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

## Whither Mei?

I have not seen any Mei for ages. Perhaps there was a glitch in probability and she ended up in space? Bastard drug Hoover! 14:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to be grim, but I read an article a few years ago about people on the internet dying and their internet friends never finding out. Hopefully that's not the case.... Keegscee (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC):
So why would you even say that? WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Because I'm a glass half empty kind of guy. Keegscee (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Boy, would that be weird. I caught the end of an episode of My Name Is Earl the other day when a fella with numerous internet friends passed on and Earl and that woman that hangs around with him messaged all of them and they had a funeral for him.
Which brings me back to my original point: how weird. SJ Debaser 14:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that's particularly likely; given her last edit, it seems more like a personal decision. MARCVS ANTONIVS 14:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Mei is very much like a cat. They go outside one day and don't come back for weeks. You think they must be dead, or have found a new home, and then one day they just wander back in like nothing's happened. I'm sure we'll have the usefullness back soon. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about it, users dying off without anyone ever finding out isn't unprecedented and certainly not unusual, but it is still the exceptional minority as far explanations for disappearances go (though you'd think these talk page edits would get some attention if email notifications are on?). But if Mei is like any other self-respecting RW user, they'll still be around as either a BON or sock account. postate 15:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
So Crundy's basically saying Mei is going to wander in and drop a dead bird on our collective laps, to show she loves us. I'm sure she'll be back, post exams or something. It's not like she had a fight and was LANCB. or maybe she was TerryK's sock and he got tired of flirting with us? (ug, I feel dirty just thinking about that last bit.) --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

## Lists

On lists.--talk 04:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, AD, but I think she's gone, which is most unfortunate IMO. AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 04:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I doubt it. In my experience, very few people stop reading their talk page at intervals, even if they don't reply.--talk 01:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully you are right. Mei was one of my absolute favorite users. The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 03:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Isn't Mei some flavour of student? In some places, exams stretch into mid-June, and even if not...it's summer! Who wants to hang around on the internet with you lot when there's outdoors things to do? Oh, wait... --Kels (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The one's who get flu at cheerleading camp will hang out on the internet so long as there's a cell phone around. Mei was my absolute favorite user seconded by Goonie. He (she apparently?) gave me a second chance when I didn't really deserve it. So did Goonie. That's why I don't troll anymore here. I hope you read this Mei. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Same here. Mei is one of the most intellectually interesting and amusing people in RWland. I hope she's still lurking, or at least enjoying whatever it is she's doing. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 23:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
She was RW's cheerleader. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
And resident masochist - judging by her willingness to read Atlas Shrugged in order to save us from the pain. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 23:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

## Why Mei was useful

Mei was useful because she made this site smile, and made Gooniepunk and his goon squad laugh and chuckle. Punky Your mental puke relief 06:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

## Thought of you when I saw this

Atlas Shrugged Trailer Junggai (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Mei now "edits" as Me, the first. ТyTalk. 19:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

## Autechre?

Love that group. Currently, I have their song See on See, but I have listened to a good deal of their earlier works (Further was the song that I liked the most).--Lefty (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

## Are You There?

--Delibirda (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably not. 16:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)