User talk:Newton/Archive2

Nominations

RationalWiki's official resident intestinal parasite is Ken!

Waiting for Godot....

So, Didi, when is this RobertTurkel guy going to make with teh edits? Signed, Gogo...PFoster 14:22, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Mr. RobertTurkel told me to tell you he won't come this evening but surely tomorrow. A boy 14:34, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Maybe he's like Lucky, and just carries Coservatizzo's stool. Thunderkatz^Ho! 14:35, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

No, I mind the goats for Mr. RobertTurkel. A boy 14:41, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Given the existence as uttered forth in the pubic works of Robert Turkel of a personal God Quaquaquaqua with white beard outside time without extension who from the heights of divine aphasia loves us dearly with some exceptions for reasons unknown... No! Not the tennis racket again! Oh, the beard, the flames... who took my hat? Unlucky

Waiting, Also, For Answers

Have you given up fighting my winningness on the "arguments" you've made? If so, surely you concede my correctness, which means that leaving up the falsified statements on conservapedia constitutes conservative deceit!-αmεσ (!) 16:07, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

I see you're changing your article. Exciting business!-αmεσ (!) 14:19, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

TK is in ur article killing ur rankings

Tk's moving your Theory of eEvolution page again. You might want to tell him why this is a bad idea. He seems determined to make every page be Title Caps rather than the way Wiki software likes it. He's got a big job of mangling your search rankings ahead of him... there are a few thousand pages done correctly that he wants to mess up. --Shagie 18:13, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Shagie, the theory of evolution is currently ranked 27 by google and 5 by yahoo. The Google ranking only dropped a tiny bit and cannot be fairly attributed to TK in retrospect. I don't know what you are referring to as far "the way Wiki software like it" as you were rather vague. By the way, how do you like the picture of Hitler and Stalin that I added to the theory of evolution article at Conservapedia today? Do you like the choice of pictures or do you have a better choice of pictures I could use in regards to Hitler and Stalin? Newton 15:19, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

I can't imagine why you ask us things like this other than a misguided attempt at validation, or perhaps to be a jerk and rub in our faces what a closed-minded jerk you are. Which one is it, or is there a third way? And will I ever get a reply to my ironclad arguments? You know, Ames' Arguments are like Ames' Love: hard and fast.<sm>name the quote, win a goat.</sm>-αmεσ (!) 15:22, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Very clever - because the logical outcome of a scientific understanding of the origin and development of life on Earth is Hitler and Stalin. Priceless. Why not include something in the Christianity article on Schlafly's blog about all of the Africans, Asians, Native Americans, Jews, Muslims and others killed in crusades, slave societies and colonies because they wouldn't accept a particular interpreatation of the big invisible man in the sky theory? PFoster 15:28, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Godwin's Law

tmtoulouse ^annoy 15:30, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

AmesG, I am a former evolutionist. So much for my alleged closedmindedness. Newton 15:31, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Then you should be able to address all the evidence at The incontrovertible evidence of common descent. tmtoulouse ^annoy 15:32, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Conservative - it is wonderfully liberating to wake up one day and realise that you are, in fact, nothing more than a monkey. Any other attempts to explain life are devoid of logic, and defy the simple and direct obviousness of the fact that like as a rat is to a mouse, you are about as monkey as can be. Speaking for myself, I am proud to be a fun:monkey. Now, off you go and look at monkeys. Monkey monkey munkey. Doggedpersistance 15:41, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

tmtoulouse, I think you should rename your article. By the way, how are its google rankings? Newton 15:43, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Argumentum ad Google ranking. Ha, I could come to like you I think. tmtoulouse ^annoy 15:45, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

P.S. it ranks number1 biatch!. tmtoulouse ^annoy 15:46, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

And even without "incontrovertible," it still ranks 11th. Pwnage! Thunderkatz^Ho! 15:51, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

tmtoulouse, CreationWiki (which is not a very high volume website in terms of internet traffic seems to have a better Google ranking for common descent which is likely the most popular search term (perhaps you should ask your Search engine optimization experts about the title). Your "incontrovertible evidence" doesn't seem to be creating a Darwinist revival at least not on the internet. Well, not surprising I can't think of any atheist revivals in history which won a lot of converts to atheism. Newton 15:53, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Are these the same experts that told you the number of "out links" in your references effects your google ranking? Its cool though, I like the title but thanks for your concern. Care to actually address the evidence? My personal favorites are the endogenous retro virus and of course the chromosome fusion. But the pseudogenes are pretty damn powerful too. tmtoulouse ^annoy 15:56, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

So let's see...using Ken's flawless reasoning that because Hitler and Stalin believed in evolution that therefore evolution is the root of evil, I can reasonably look at the child sexual abuse scandals in Boston and the residential school scandals in Canada, all perpetrated by priests, and conclude with impeccable logic that Christianity is the religion of child abuse. --Kels 17:06, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Light-emitting idiot.

Sasquach? hahaha! Potato!

Rational! Commentary habits alert backgrounds Matisse?

But! Whoever; the marquis 47 my globule.

House! House! Idiot millennium hand and house!

Grumbles something about Wittgenstein and leaves. tmtoulouse ^annoy 17:45, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Still no answer from Ken

Your redone theory of evolution "article" fails to address any of the comments I've made, and its section on the "social effects" are still wholly egregious. Your commentary on my talk page didn't make much sense either. Can you explain what made you recant as an "evolutionist," by the way? Just for curiosity's sake?

Also, it's not really all about rankings, Ken. Your evolution "article" continues to read at a 3d grade level, replete with spelling & grammar errors, and style that would make the Baby Jesus cry. I assure you that its high ranking is due to the degree that it is laughed at, and nothing more.

Another question: why don't you think evolution can be "shoehorned" into Genesis? -αmεσ (!) 16:49, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Heliocopter.^{— Unsigned, by: some ip guy / talk / contribs}

What's funny is that the previous comment makes more sense than your normal arguments, Ken.-αmεσ (!) 17:19, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Atheism and Charity

Newton, I hope you'll forgive me - as I understand it you Christians are good at that sort of thing - for posting this on your talk page, but I am unable to post on Conservapedia. It's about the claim on the atheism page over there, that atheists give less to charity than do people who believe in a god. Does the definition of "charity" used for the study include donations directly to churches or church-based charitable initiatives? Because it strikes me that giving money to put a new roof on the church (a charitable donation), to fund missions to spread church doctrine in other parts of the world (also considered charity) or to brand humanitarian aid as a Christian/Jewish/Muslim gift and thus reinforcing and increasing a religion's image in the eyes of needy people worldwide - all activities that are designed, to a varying degree to benefit the church - should not be counted when comparing atheistic versus god-believing charitable donations.

Thanks for your time. PFoster 17:56, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

"No answer", came the swift reply. Keep ^{garlic for vampires} 18:43, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

PFoster, I believe you are wasting my time. The article in question delves into the Christian church vs. non-church giving. The article states: "Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics." In addition, see what ABC reports: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2 16:47, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

All About Science God

Just dropping by to congratulate you! I almost fell for the funny trick you pulled in the ToE article. For a second, I thought that you had actually included two non-anti-evo links! But the third one ("Theory of Evolution") is just the same as the second one ("Top Evidences Against the Theory of Evolution"), and the first one is a GREAT trick. Seriously, kudos.

I first thought that a site like "darwins-theory-of-evolution.com" might be some sort of okay resource. When the link turned out to be a part of "AllAboutScience.org", I still thought that it might be okay. Then I hit the "About us" link and stumbled over "Contact Information: AllAboutGOD.com", and then I noticed that they are also behind "AllAboutCreation.org".

Like I said, kudos. I guess you will be able to deceive many homeschoolers that way! :)

(And don't bother giving your usual "Sid, feel free to rebut what I wrote" or "Sid, see this candid quote" stuff - you should use the time for more constructive things. I'm not playing your game, I'm not here to "discuss" with you about evolution. Others are more suited and willing for that. I just cruised by to share the Lulz.) --Sid 07:19, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Sid, I may be mistaken but the two external links to the same site was not my error I believe. I originally put 5-6 external links and now there are 3 (I trimmed the duplicate). By the way, the article is currently getting 700 hits a day I believe which is a recent uptick. Perhaps the Hitler/Stalin pics with the accompanying text has increased interest. Newton 16:39, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

I admit I didn't check the history when I wrote the initial post. Going through the history shows you adding both links within a time frame of three minutes, though. (first and second). Not that I really care who added them in the first place (which is why I didn't bother to check the history in the first place). *shrugs* --Sid 17:04, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Dude, it shocks me that you continue to think that the article is well-written. Even if we assume that the sentiment (science sucks, god rulz) was correct, the writing is still at a 6th grade level. I would be happy to volunteer to write a section about real science for you, and tell you how to clean up your other work. Currently, it's just an embarrassment. The Hitler pictures probably only brought more people laughing at its moronic claims.-αmεσ (!) 16:46, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

He doesn't care about quality, don't you get it its about the page views man! Thats all that matters the page views! Newton has some stiff competition and has no time for your "science." tmtoulouse ^annoy 16:48, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Oh, don't worry. The uptick in pageviews was just me. I needed a little laugh thoughout the last few days--and I found it! Sterile^{blah, blah, blah} 16:49, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

AmesG, when you compose material that people actually want to read get back to me. Perhaps, if you read William Strunk's Elements of Style it would help. However, improving your writing style would likely be the equivalent of putting silk stockings on a swine given the content of your material. Newton 16:56, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Projection, maybe? --Kels 16:58, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Newton. Dude. Seriously. That article is a train wreck. At the very least, it needs a complete reorganization of the material, although it would probably be better to ditch it entirely and start afresh. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:00, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

I don't think its projection, no, he honestly believes that people are reading his page and learning from it. Newton has a very very bad case of Didactic megalomania. tmtoulouse ^annoy 17:01, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

tmtoulouse, thanks for the psychobabble. Tell me when you get a PHD in psychobabble so I can take your armchair psychology a little more seriously. Newton 17:04, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Bet you don't say the same to Andy concerning his armchair psychology! Genghis Khant 17:13, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Dude, no need to get defensive just because you don't understand. --Kels 17:07, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Ha! Lets not start arguing via credentials now, I think you will find 90 percent of the people at CP who have credentials worth discussion are now RW members. tmtoulouse ^annoy 17:09, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Out of curiosity, what level are you at now? I only managed to get through two years of university-level psych before financial troubles did me in. Thought it was great stuff, though. --Kels 17:11, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

I have completed the equivalence of a masters and have been accepted as a Ph.D. candidate, I have got like 2 more courses to take, my comprehensive examination, and of course my thesis. tmtoulouse ^annoy 17:15, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Anyway newton

Figured out how to address any of the evidence at The incontrovertible evidence of common descent yet? Some might think you can't, but I am sure you can. tmtoulouse ^annoy 17:13, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

tmtoulouse, the title of the article tells me that the person or persons who created the article are not exactly rocket scientists. Why would you create an article with a title that the search engines will not exactly be enamored of? You are merely voices that faintly cry out in the internet wilderness. Secondly, most of the material at the article has been addressed at CP so the touted incontrovertibleness is merely the cry of your carnival barkers here than any real evidence. Newton 17:33, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Because I am not under the mistaken and deeply strange delusion that google ranking some how has anything to do with the quality of the argument. Once more you have failed to address the evidence. This is what almost a dozen times? Oh well, incontrovertible indeed. tmtoulouse ^annoy 17:39, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Honestly, I don't know why you bother. From everything I've seen of Ken, both in CP and on the other boards he's spammed in the past, he never concerns himself with things like evidence, experiments, and the actual nuts-and-bolts of scientific research. All you'll ever get out of him are sound bites, mined quotes and blind populism. --Kels 17:45, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

I know, its really childhood fancy, I cut my internet teeth debating creationism with brick walls like Ken. My first foray onto the usenet in like 5th grade was to out smart people like him. It just brings back memories, you know like the smell of cookies at grandma's house. tmtoulouse ^annoy 17:47, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

I guess I can identify. I used to argue (via BBS, back in tha day) with a YEC who fancied himself "reasonable". It was quite fun, because when the science was explained to him step-by-step, he'd see the sense of it, and concede many points, but then at some point he'd realize that he was agreeing with evolution and an old earth, and snap back to his original position. Lather, rinse, repeat. --Kels 17:55, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

I too can identify. The same thing happened with me and an evolutionist, except reversed. It was great when he agreed that evolution was incorrect, then you could hear his brain pop and fizzle and he would snap back to his original position. So its kind of the same. Bohdan 17:57, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Trust Bohdan to make a funny. Lulz from teh wandal! human^{be in} 19:33, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

tmtoulouse, "out smart"? Do you mean outsmart? It seems your self touted intellectual prowess does not extend into the realm of literary achievement. Newton 17:51, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Tmtoulouse just perverted the English language! I demand he block himself! Bohdan

Want me to block him? I KNOW how!! How about 31 gruesome seconds to reflect on his abysmal misuse of the spacebar? Consider it done! human^{be in} 19:33, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Ouch

Even the CP sysops didn't want your "parody" article...thats gotta hurt. tmtoulouse ^annoy 17:22, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Please tell me you're joking, Conservative. What sites did you send that link to? I'm genuinely interested... --Sid 17:24, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Sid, by now you must know that I keep such things close to the vest. :) Anyways, I have gotten some positive feedback from readers but please feel free to continue to disparage. It's not like a lot of people read RationalWiki. Newton 17:36, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

The lurkers support me in p-mail! tmtoulouse ^annoy 17:42, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

The p-ers support me in lurkmail! Godspeed!!! human^{be in} 18:15, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Somewhat serious question

Are you here only to troll and spam links? If you have really zero issues in actually doing anything above that level of discourse I am not sure why you are here. Kels is right, if do not find a way to engage this site on some level other than troll I am not really inclined to give you free reign. You won't be blocked but I won't have you cluttering up random talk pages like our main page with your bait. Keep it to user talk pages unless you are specifically addressing content. tmtoulouse ^annoy 17:56, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Tmtoulouse attempts to hide atheists' uncharitableness and shows hypocrisy!

When I arrive here I got the following message from Tmtoulouse: "But it might be tough, since you can't block, delete and lock out your opposition. It will be good for you though if you do decide and stay a while." How ironic a message since tmtoulouse just erased my message to the main page talk page regarding the cheapness of agnostics and atheists as a whole when it comes to charitable giving as given by two notable sources.[1] Newton 17:57, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

What made you think the main page talk was the logical place to discuss that? human^{be in} 18:17, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Often the cat that yelps the loudest is the one who gets hit by the shoe! Newton 17:58, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Isn't that usually the cat that gets neutered first? Although I imagine TK's already working on that. XD --Kels 18:02, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

TK is a veterinarian? Bohdan

Yes, he was Ed Meese's vet. tmtoulouse ^annoy 18:05, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Oh my god, do you hit your cats? You're worse than I imagined.-αmεσ (!) 18:04, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Though the analogy of Kens troll bait to a wailing cat is intriguing. tmtoulouse ^annoy 18:06, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Also, Ken, let's talk about charity. The root of charity is compassion. How compassionate are you to people who are different from you? Say, to Muslims? Or gays and lesbians? Do they know you as an accepting guy who's nice to talk to? I bet they do!-αmεσ (!) 18:11, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Am I the only on who doesn't get the cat reference? is the shoe a shoe of justice? *confused*--TheThinkingMan 18:26, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

More evidence that EVIL IS A FOOT! --Kels 18:52, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Many Things

Ken, several things.

1. I'm quite secure in my writing skills. No answer to your goading insults, I think, to use the legal maxim, res ipsa loquitor.
2. Again, you seem so confused on where and when popularity matters. When 99.9% of scientists say, "creationism is a lie," and many religious scholars say, "creationism is bad doctrine," their opinions don't matter. But when your website gets more hits from the interconnected series of tubes lovingly known as the internet, all of a sudden popularity matters! Pick a side, Ken, we're at war! And that leads me into my next comment...
3. ...have you LOOKED at the incoming traffic statistics? People aren't coming to you for scientific truth, they're coming to LAUGH. All of the coverage of Conservapedia has been mocking. Everyone who looks at your page thinks it's a joke. Those that don't are so disgusted that they throw up, or start wikis to respond to your ridiculousness, just laugh themselves silly. Seriously. Dissect your logic (this could be an LSAT question!). (1). I get lots of traffic to my article. (3). This traffic must be due to the veracity and popularity of my views! Find the missing "#2"! The obvious "missing link" is the assumption that all traffic is due to popularity of the viewpoints espoused on the viewed site. That's a heckuva assumption, and it turns out to not be true. Fail.
4. I don't need a #4.-αmεσ (!) 18:03, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

All of the coverage of Conservapedia has been mocking? AmesG, I don't believe you will ever be an accomplished barrister. You make it so easy for your opponents to show you to be errant: http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070306/26179_Conservapedia_Challenges_%27Anti-Christian%27_Wiki.htm Newton 18:16, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Cool. Have you noticed that (1) that article is not even original (it's basically quoting other articles) and (2) it has a glaring typo that got past its crack editorial staff? And, (3) ... (4) Get rich! Now, why don't you Godspeed... gently? human^{be in} 18:21, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

He's not wrong Ken. When i came across CP, I immediately sent it to a ton of friends. Now most of them too are regular visitors, socks and trolls from all over the world. I routinely come across refs to it on sites I stumble upon everywhere around the net, all of them very much enjoying the bullshit. You seem to have no idead how popular a humour destination your site has become far and wide across the net, and the only funny things in all of this is that you may yet push RW off the net due to our redundancy - there's really no better argument against extreme right-wingers than your very own site, and rarely do we ever makes jokes about you that are as funny as the original material. Doggedpersistance 18:20, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Dogger to the rescue! Also, I should have said all the coverage that matters. All the coverage that matters, that would account for your traffic, is mocking. But, congratulations, you found a neutral source. That one doesn't appear to be mocking or praising. But it's also in an obscure Christian newspaper. Amend my latest statement to replace "all" with "most." The point still holds. You can't win arguments, Ken, by poking holes in unnecessary parts of an argument. You have to attack the foundation.-αmεσ (!) 18:23, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Dogged if you and other RW people had a ton of friends I might expect a lot of traffic to RW's mainpage. So far that hasn't happened. Newton 18:26, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Ken, I check CP Recent Changes maybe 100 times a day, maybe more. Same here on RW. But I can see from my browser history that I haven't visited the CP Main Page itself in almost a week. I think that's probably 100% true of most of us here, and I'll bet it's the same for you here on RW. And, truth be told, although my mates DO enjoy raiding and reading CP, I'm the only one to have taken my obsession with you boobs to the extreme of being involved in TWO wikis - no-one else has joined or bothered much with RW. So, as usual, your point is totally invalid. Carry on! Doggedpersistance 18:40, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes, because popularity is the only measure of truth and goodness. Fine, Ken, I accept your reasoning. RationalWiki sucks. But by your logic, creationism is also a manifestly false explanation for the world's origins. Thanks. Apology accepted.-αmεσ (!) 18:28, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

A friendly neighborhood PSA. Remember, Don't Feed the Troll Thunderkatz^Ho! 18:34, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Who's feeding? We're poking him with sticks. --Kels 18:39, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

I have two words for you Ken - Shiny Shiny. Doggedpersistance 18:45, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Pillow Fort

Ken just did the RationalWiki equivalent of running into a pillow fort, pulling down the sheet, and peering out from under it at us with one eye.-αmεσ (!) 18:42, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Line-by-line on Ken's "article"

Would anyone be interested in starting a side-by-side critique of Ken's "article"? Seeing as it's a long piece of BS, but long nonetheless, it might take a while.-αmεσ (!) 18:50, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

You don't have copyright permission. You as a potential lawyer should know that. Newton 18:54, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Fuckin hell. As a lawyer I know that it's released generally under GDFL. Also, the fair use exception to copyright states that satire, parody, etc., is legitimate use even if you somehow had a copyright.-αmεσ (!) 18:55, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

And surely someone in possession of the truth should welcome the scrutiny anyhow.--MountainTiger 18:58, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

The whore of wading through all that muck.......but it might be worth it.....just nauseating to do so. And Ken, your an idiot. tmtoulouse ^annoy 19:00, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Do you mean ToE at CP? My opinion is it would be a waste of time. It's not well enough written or presented to be worth the bytes to mirror it, and it's not influential enough to be worth refuting. human^{be in} 19:30, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Copyright infringement

I posted a note about what I believe is copyright infringement. The note is here: Essay Talk:Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution. Newton 19:05, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

As I noted above, shouldn't you welcome this usage? After all, if you have confidence in what you say, why wouldn't you want to release your works for the purposes of skeptical scrutiny?--MountainTiger 19:07, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Go ahead and sue. Good luck finding a lawyer.-αmεσ (!) 19:10, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Schlafly plays one on TV, he could fake it... tmtoulouse ^annoy 19:15, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

4-13 Nimmer on Copyright § 13.05(A)(1)(b) discusses the "fair use" doctrine, and how copying for purposes of criticism entails a productive use that takes the copying outside of the scope of copyright. Of course, it's a mixed question of law and fact, so it's arguable, but you don't have very much wiggle room. And this would be even if your "work" wasn't released under GDFL... which it is.-αmεσ (!) 19:26, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Newton, tell Schlafly to e-mail me at touloutm@mcmaster.ca if wants to "revoke" our use of his material. TK was bragging that he was going to do just that, but I guess chickened out in the end. Maybe you can put some back bone into him. tmtoulouse ^annoy 19:32, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm always astonished at how the sysops on CP have such an abysmal understanding of their copyright policy, even the guy who wrote it. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 20:55, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

I can't believe it

You've done the impossible. You've made me actually miss HeartofGold as resident disagree-er. At least he could make (quasi) intelligent arguments. Thunderkatz^Ho! 19:24, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

When he wasn't calling people drug dealers HG was a decent guy.--MountainTiger 19:25, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

I liked HG a lot. Fun times.-αmεσ (!) 19:26, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Why'd he quit, anyway? He was doing pretty well, up until he cracked up and started ranting bout the Liberal Swarm.... --67.102.192.7 20:52, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Honestly, that last little burst, he was pretty damn nasty really. I'm not clamoring to have him back, although he was a lot more lucid than Ken usually is. --Kels 20:54, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

O-O-O

"Adolf Hitler was a firm believer in and preacher of evolutionism" — and he got pwned. His survival fell to his unfitness to lead a civilized country. Andrew Schlafly is a big Clash! fan, too, but that doesn't mean the Clash! are right wing loonies. human^{be in} 19:38, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

I strongly suspect Hitler also believed that 2 + 2 = 4, but that doesn't necessarily mean that teaching arithmetic will cause fascism and genocide. --67.102.192.7 20:54, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Hitler was also a man. Oh my. I think I'll go kill myself with guilt.-αmεσ (!) 21:14, 20 August 2007 (CDT)