User talk:Men's Rights EXTREMIST

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Faggot-ass BITCH[edit]

Cosmikdebris is a faggot-ass BITCH. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Now now, don't be jealous. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 03:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
You seem really dumb MRE.Petey Plane (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Men's Rights EXTREMIST!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Protip: Try arguing instead of insulting. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 03:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I can do both. It's not like a bit that has to be 1 or 0. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
True. But perhaps insulting people won't put them in the best mind to argue? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 03:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
If they're issuing blocks, they're probably not in much of a mood to argue anyway. So at that point, there's nothing left to do but insult them. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Mm. I tried to remove your block, for reason "An MRA (probably), but not a troll. I think.", but it appears to have expired. If you're blocked again, feel free to email someone. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Weird-ass adoption article[edit]

What were you thinking? We don't need that kind of tripe. the content didn't even match the article title. Stuffing a couple of random refs in there doesn't make it worth keeping. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I mean, we could call it Christianity, adoption, and foster care if that would work better. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Even that doesn't much cover it, because it centres on a very narrow section of Christianity. The content might be better put in the articles of the subjects it mentioned. Queexchthonic murmurings

Given he's not sysop, I don't think he can access the text of the deleted page.

FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 17:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

(Note to self) It's ironic that a lot of conservative evangelicals are opposed to welfare to impoverished families, yet will happily accept the government's money when they become foster parents of those kids who were taken away from their families for not being adequately fed, clothed, sheltered, etc. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Domestic Violence[edit]

See Talk:Domestic violence regarding most recent edit. --Read-Write (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


I've removed your autopatrolled status, largely because of this recent edit:

In general, your posts don't reflect RW's mindset that women and men should be treated as equals, and you don't appear to have sound basis for your attempts to differentiate the two. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 20:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought the slut edit was a good one, because it's important to note the word "slut" is used in more than one way. Guys will sometimes say "I dumped my girlfriend because she was a slut" (i.e. she cheated on him) but at other times, a chaste girl will say "Make sure your mother doesn't find those screenshots from our Skype chat, or she might think I'm a slut" meaning she doesn't want to seem trashy because of the poses she was striking.
Well, okay, the added text probably could have used further polishing, but the concept set forth is still valid and important. The word "camwhore" captures it perfectly: women who don't even necessarily sleep with lots of guys, but whose style of attention whoring isn't very classy.
With regard to equality, women have been put on a pedestal for so long that any attempt to depedestalize them comes off as misogynistic/sexist/chauvinistic/etc. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
[EC] See, that addition is less unacceptable. One particularly problematic addition from the old one was "Rather than having sex with many men in a classy way, the slut chooses to be trashy." FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 20:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Just wondering, do you ever see any behavior by women that makes you think, "Wow, that's trashy"? Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
[EC] No. No it isn't valid. It read exactly like sour grapes from someone with an unrealistic idea of how women behave in the real world. It's exactly the sort of ridiculous delusion that makes discourse in the manosphere laughable. Pedestals don't enter into it. Queexchthonic murmurings 20:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, real-word experience with women tends to dispel illusions and drive men TOWARD the manosphere as they go in search of answers for why they were treated the way they were. A lot of feminists too could be believably accused of having a "sour grapes" attitude toward men. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
No, and no. It's their inability to address their own flaws that drives them to the manosphere, because it offers them the comforting lie that the problem lies not with them but with women. Feminist sour grapes towards men is mostly an invention of the manosphere, for example; as an attempt to explain away how the manosphere's dire warnings about how feminists are going to be very sorry real soon aren't taken seriously. It's not a believable accusation. Queexchthonic murmurings 21:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Certain parts of the manosphere also stress self-improvement, such as lifting weights (to increase confidence); stopping envy, self-denigration, and other unhelpful mental habits; etc. Red Pillers blame women for a lot of problems, but they don't stop there; there's usually an action component as well for making the best of a bad situation. The Men's Rights Movement, on the other hand, focuses on political change (rather than self-improvement) and therefore can easily fall into the trap of feel-good slacktivism, in which they feel like they've accomplished something significant just by complaining on social media.
Actually, I wouldn't say that there's a lot of sour grapes among Red Pillers. A common pattern is that a beta guy gets rejected by young women (who go for alphas); then gets together with an older woman and gets badly mistreated (which leads him to the Red Pill movement in search of answers); and then learns how to become more alpha so he can get with the younger women. The MGTOW crowd, I don't quite understand, because they could get what they want in the mate market but apparently don't realize it.
"beta guy gets rejected by young women (who go for alphas)" Citation needed because by saying a group does x, not only a single opposing example makes the claim false, but even the generic assertion needs to be substantiated and it sounds to me just like prejudice.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
As for feminist sour grapes.. I don't quite understand the mentality of the hardcore feminists (and I don't recall seeing anyone in the manosphere try to explain their mentality either, perhaps because they think they're too far gone to be worth pursuing as romantic partners), but I think some feminist-influenced women follow the usual path of wasting their youthful years, not being able to attract a good guy for a committed relationship because of their attitudes, having failed relationships, and then having to blame the guys for that. That seems like a kind of sour grapes. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
[EC] With regard to equality, women have been put on a pedestal for so long that any attempt to depedestalize them comes off as misogynistic
I think that's unrealistic; women continue to face relatively disproportionate rates of sexual violence, domestic abuse, pay reductions, gender-based harassment at work, etc. If they are on a pedestal, said pedestal is highly "slanted": most of the time, women do worse than men, even if sometimes they're at a competetive advantage. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Women also get cut slack. For example (see page 3 of this document), in the prison system, points are assigned based on a prisoners characteristics; the more points you have, the higher security institution you get sent to. A man with 30 points will go to a high security facility, while a woman with 30 points will go to a low security facility, because it's recognized that being a woman makes her statistically less dangerous.
When you tally the benefits of being a woman against the benefits of being a man, I'm not sure either sex has a net advantage. Successful men probably do as well as attractive women, but there are a lot of unsuccessful men and a lot of unattractive women. As for the pay gap, that doesn't take into account some important activity that isn't recorded in economic statistics, namely women's trading companionship and sex for a comfortable life in the domestic sphere. An attractive young woman can immediately rise to a high standard of living by marrying the right guy. An attractive young man usually can't do that; he has to work his way up to the top in the work world. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Why would you bother with tallying it though? Who wins the persecution contest doesn't determine whether either group enjoys some form of privilege. (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I thought the need for the privileged classes to allow preferential treatment of the underprivileged classes, in order to restore equality and justice, was central to debates on gender relations, race relations, etc. The premise, then, that women are underprivileged relative to men is quite relevant to whether the conclusion (i.e. that men should accept being taken down a few pegs in order to place them on a level playing field with women) is correct. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm more about taking disadvantaged groups up a peg, not taking anyone down. The way to fix white privilege in prison sentencing, for example, isn't by throwing white people in jail more indiscriminately but by throwing black people in jail less indiscriminately. (talk) 00:40, 8 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
You're talking about situations that aren't zero-sum games. Other situations ARE zero-sum games. For example, in a divorce situation, giving the wife alimony takes away money from the husband. It's intended to address what would otherwise be a perceived inequity.
If there's an over-correction, though, then it can end up hurting everyone because people will simply opt-out of high-risk situations. For example, suppose a law is passed saying that a wife gets to totally bankrupt her husband and seize 100% of his income for the rest of his life through alimony, if she decides to break up the marriage. Most men will simply not get married, if they think there's a significant chance she'll do that. Then good women will miss out on the benefits of marriage. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't think one's marital status should entitle oneself to any additional rights. Which isn't to say that none of those benefits should exist, but rather they should be available to unmarried people too.
But to get back to your specific example, why not have the government pay the alimony and grant it to both genders when applicable? (talk) 01:08, 8 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
One could make the same argument about child support. Under our current system, where the wife generally gets the kids and child support when the family breaks up, the dad has an incentive to try to keep the marriage together (both because he wants to continue living with them, and because he doesn't want to have to pay a bunch of money to support kids he can no longer live with, being raised by a mother he also doesn't get to have a marriage with anymore) while the mother doesn't. So in that sense, it's kind of a high-risk situation for the dad.
If child support is paid by the government, then suddenly neither partner has a financial incentive to keep the marriage together, although the issue still remains that they can't both live with their kids 100% of the time if they split up. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

(reset) Perhaps there are non-financial reasons for keeping a marriage going - and where do cohabiting couples and other cooperative relationships fit into the discussion?

Given that the average lifespan is now 70s-80s - a proportion of relationships will survive for many decades, and a proportion won't: fact of nature. (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

If I put a question mark after it that means I can say all kinds of offensive...[edit]

Guess again. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, too bad. I was in the mood for more absurd ranting, incel-style. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey, that was a pretty good essay. And I wasn't even finished with it yet. I was about to point out that wolves in the wild have to submit to the alpha wolf; therefore, their being free from humans' dominion doesn't really free them. Similarly, women who don't have a husband aren't free from men's rule; they still have to live under the rule of their father, or of a corporate boss (since the leadership of a company will almost always be male). It is women's fate to serve men in one capacity or another; they can't escape it.
Not only that, it's women's fate to be DEPENDENT ON men too. I know a woman who left her husband, then moved back in with her parents, got in an argument with her dad, and then left and went on welfare and started offering blowjobs for sale on the intimate encounters section of Craigslist. So she was still sucking dicks for money; the difference being that the prostitution was more explicit than it had been during marriage.
Other women reject a lifelong committed relationship of sucking one man's dick, and instead drunkenly suck fraternity guys' dicks all through college and then go to work (at a much lower quality of life when what their youthful looks could have gotten them in the marital mate market) in the corporate world helping the owner turn a profit so he can pay to support (and get his dick sucked by) his wife; and they think that's some kind of progress towards women's liberation. The bottom line is that sucking men's dicks is the most profitable line of business that reasonably attractive young women can get into, because (1) they lack many other marketable skills, and (2) they are the only ones who most heterosexual men want to hire for that job.
At the same time, men will tend to be the business owners because they always have the incentive that if they make a bunch of money and achieve some measure of social dominance, women will be attracted to them. Plus men have a greater tendency to be risk-takers than women, because our species is mildly polygynous. The bottom line is that everyone has to accept the gender role that nature has bestowed on them. Men are better-suited for leadership, while women are better-suited for serving and obeying them.
What we've seen happen is that the natural order has gotten disturbed as women, becoming breadwinners to support the family, have actually enabled their husbands to be weak, destroying their self-confidence, which makes them less attractive. Women have also slacked off on doing the stuff that boosts their husband's morale in his career, which reminds me, in that paragraph about what the ideal wife does, I should have mentioned that she also has his lunch ready for him to take to work in the morning. I have never had a girlfriend make that kind of gesture of support before, yet they would bitch if I didn't have the kind of prestigious, high-paying job they wanted me to have. If women want guys to play the masculine role of bringing home lots of bacon, they gotta perform the feminine role of doing whatever they can to show appreciation for and solidarity with that goal. Men in turn will support her role of making sandwiches by being the one who pays for the groceries and thanks for her a job well done. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
"I was about to point out that wolves in the wild have to submit to the alpha wolf;" This is actually a misconception about wolf behaviour. and no, it wasn't a good essay. It was total bollocks from the first sentence. Even worse than the dumbfuck word salad you just produced here. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I've gone through your entire comment and struck out every sentence that's plainly untrue. I suggest you meditate on just how utterly at odds with reality your world view is and hasten to an epiphany that will make your life more fulfilling and less like bad Gorean fanfiction. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
on top of that, some scientists are now saying that wolves and humans are different. What a world we live when you cant base relationship advice on a trip to the zoo. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
If you're gonna strike stuff out, by the way, you should have superscripts explaining how each item is incorrect. Otherwise, you're just bein' fuckin' lazy. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
'Tain't my job to dig you out of your own ignorance. Start from the truth that this whole 'natural order' with women below men is nonsense nad extrapolate from there. Queexchthonic murmurings 18:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I think you might enjoy posting here better. After all, dig this deathless prose. "These effete fags who don’t even lift clutch their pearls when Trump channels the spirit of his blood and soil White Warriors and speaks in the MASCULINE language of the Tribe Realtalk." Now that's a REAL MANSTER talking! --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
My man-crush for the author of Chateau Heartiste is of an intensity that transcends even heterosexuality itself. I was aware that the conception of the alpha wolf may not be literally true to reality, but it's just a metaphor. Certain animals do have dominance hierarchies, at any rate.
If you love Heartiste's prose and give him credit for his "masculine", then I understand how you have no barriers of style, good taste, equality. I mean you agree and are in love with cheap drivel like "These effete fags who don’t even lift clutch their pearls when Trump channels the spirit of his blood and soil White Warriors and speaks in the MASCULINE language of the Tribe Realtalk." or I hope is it just to poke RW's SJW ;). Antonymous


A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment.

--Castaigne2 (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Already? Wow. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Christy0misty[edit]

Your article christy0misty has been nominated for deletion. You may comment on the linked debate page. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 05:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Userspace edits[edit]

Ask the owner before you edit their stuff; thanks, and thanks for self-reverting! Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 04:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I wanted to show what I had in mind without creating a new page that would have to be deleted. I wasn't sure how else to do that without breaching the principle of etiquette you mention. Oh, I guess I could've just tacked it on as a section to an already existing page. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Yep. Next time, do so. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 04:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


Use it! FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Fuck you[edit]

And your blatant sterotyping of black men. 'Legionwhat do you want from me 09:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Good post! I'm a year late but this is still true, Racist. Christopher (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
This user is still active, apparently. —Oh colors! (speak, speak) Look at what I've done 02:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
It's okay, the white race is gonna die out anyway due to its declining fertility rate, and then the only racists will be non-white racists (but those don't count, of course). Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Pretty sure declining white fertility rates are due to intermixing (if that's the right word), apart from having a stable economy in primarily-white countries. —Oh colors! (speak, speak) Look at what I've done 21:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
That still counts! Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so preoccupied with "white" race as race isn't a strict or even good definition for people these days. These fears of a "disappearing" majority have been present basically throughout U.S. history and if you study that history, it's ridiculous to think the majority is going to be a minority one day. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Race is objectively measurable! You can also determine how white you are by checking off items on this list. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Are you the same person under this user back in 2016 when you wrote this? Essay:Grand unified anti-feminist manifestoOh colors! (speak, speak) Look at what I've done 22:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Technically, whiteness of the skin isn't a single variable dominant/recessive gene chance, like height, but a multivariable one. In fact darker skin is a result of many dominant genes in one's DNA, which looks something like AaBBCcDD... —Evo and Meta (speak, speak) | Look at what I've done! 01:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

You are a disgusting pig! DanielleD (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Good post!Evo and Meta (speak, speak) | Look at what I've done! 01:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Plus [Clinton] smoked weed and enjoyed fucking white chicks -- and he was persecuted for it by Republicans, JUST LIKE A BLACK MAN WOULD'VE BEEN
—Men's Rights EXTREMIST

Boy, does this quote show what he's thinking. —Oh colors! (speak, speak) Look at what I've done 01:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

His mother probably never showed him any love. DanielleD (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Dang. You didn't have to go that far. Oh, wait, he's gone further. —Evo and Meta (speak, speak) | Look at what I've done! 02:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I get the feeling in real life he's like the guy I went to prom with junior year of high school. I wasn't even going to go to junior prom because I broke up with my boyfriend, but I could tell this one nerdy guy that had no friends had a crush on me but was too shy to say anything, so to be nice I asked him if he wanted to go with me. I was a popular girl, and people thought I did that to get back at my ex, but I really did it just to be nice. DanielleD (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
You mean like your ex? —Evo and Meta (speak, speak) | Look at what I've done! 02:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm saying he's probably a loner with no friends who doesn't have the courage to actually ask a girl out... So instead of actually advancing with a woman like a real man, he acts like a sexist douchebag anonymously online. The boy I took to prom wasn't a bad person, but he used to act like he didn't like me (although never being mean about it) and would literally turn red and act nervous whenever he saw me before I asked him out. I think I had a positive impact on him though, we ended up becoming friends. DanielleD (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
omg just like in the movies! So all this user needs is a bit of friendship... —Evo and Meta (speak, speak) | Look at what I've done! 03:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Troll Bongolian (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
What are the sins one would have to have done for which 'being nice to MRE' is a suitable 'balancing out act' for? (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I'm just trying to be an optimist. I read on the internet that most trolls don't act like that away from their computer, and everything on the internet is true. That and I'm trying to insult his manliness, because he's obviously suffering from erectile dysfunction or short man syndrome. DanielleD (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
...the Dickwad theory? —Evo and Meta (speak, speak) | Look at what I've done! 15:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
If you haven't read it already, you might want to read The Guardian's article by Lindy West who confronted her troll. She notes that it's not prescriptive, i.e., she doesn't necessarily recommend trying it yourself.[1] She also talked about it on radio, which is available as a podcast.[2] Bongolian (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not entirely clear on this article. Did she confront him IRL? That's never a good idea. —Evo and Meta (speak, speak) | Look at what I've done! 18:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
It was not IRL but by email. Nonetheless the author stated that she wasn't advising people to do what she did. Bongolian (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Does MRE's girlfriend prefer its air pump to him? (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Dang. —Evo and Meta (speak, speak) | Look at what I've done! 01:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

(reset) Unfamiliar with this (usage of) last term (as a BritEnglish user). The 'its' is intentional. (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Your user page[edit]

You have reverted to a piece of racist, sexist out of date 'up yours.'

Do you really think this will endear you to RW users or make them go for maximum snark?

Why not ask the fanficcery to write you some nice Mark Sukey stories around you to make you feel good instead? (Avoid the ones who go in for 'Hurt/Comfort' and 'Suffering beautifully.') (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

MRE is blocked for the moment. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocking me for 3.14 months is not going to save you from demographic collapse[edit]

All the industrialized nations, including South Korea, are going to die out because of feminism, and the world is going to end up looking like that opening scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey before the monolith came.

Or to paraphase Scarface, "You know something? You can block me anywhere. Here, there, this, that. It don't matter. There's nothing you can do to me that the feminists haven't done."

And guess what? The collapse of civilization is going to bring down feminism too. It's going to destroy the patriarchy and the matriarchy, till there's nothing left. That thundering sound you hear in the background, that keeps getting louder, is just the approaching hoofbeats of the four horsewomen of the feminocalypse. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh woe is us. Let me go and find the world's smallest violin to play for Western Civilization. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
THE BARBARIANS ARE COMING! Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus to block me[edit]

According to Return of Kings, "there is no such thing as consensus . . . . So, when you approach that cute girl in front a bunch of guys, they will have a variety of very different reactions. Some simply won’t care. Others, yes, may be white knights, simmering and incensed at your temerity. But others still will be would-be players who are secretly impressed. So the idea that really frightens you—that this whole mass of people will turn against you just for approaching, is inaccurate."

I'm sure there are probably a lot of would-be players here who thought, "Daaaaaamn that Men's Rights EXTREMIST was really gutsy to make a move like that in public." Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

We don't need consensus to block you for 3.14 months. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Bahahahaha! Just looked up why you got blocked. Bro you know you rules of the internet. R30. 2d4chanfag (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
One can annoy some of the RW (or any wiki) users all of the time, and 'many of the wikians' much of the time (and sometimes the boundary between 'being provocative to make you think' and 'being deliberately annoying' is very thin) - but if one deliberately annoys too many of the people too much of the time then one will face the consequences. (talk) 09:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I should be respected, not blocked, for making a cold approach. It was, after all, the Saloon Bar. Why do women hang out at bars, if not to get hit on by men? Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)