User talk:Research psychologist

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Research psychologist! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Welcome to the wiki! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Welcome to the official strideing echinoid of the internets! Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 19:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

just a note

Your edits aren't bad, but we like using humour and strikeouts to get the point across rational ghey (message) 13:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. You may want to read up on what a RationalWiki article is. It may be very helpful. Either way, though, I have enjoyed the bulk of your edits. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 01:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

To the talkpage!

Your comments are requested at Talk:Eugenics regarding your edit warring with me. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 20:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Take your fucking edit wars to the talkpage, or go the fuck away! Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 20:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. If you can talk in edit comments, you can talk on the talk pages - David Gerard (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the addition of eugenics to the mission stuff on the front page: It would be worth discussing before editing that. We certainly do tackle that issue, but whether or not it's a stated goal is not so clear. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 14:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Metapedia

Please stop liveblogging your butthurt on our article. Take a few days to cool off, at least. ħuman 03:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Is that your guise for supporting metapedia? That's a rather pathetic cover. Research psychologist (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Listen asshole

Strutting around making poorly-constructed edits full of errors and then accusing people of "supporting Metapedia" isn't going to make you any fucking friends. So why not knock it off--or simply fuck off entirely, you stupid little concern troll. P-Foster (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha! I never expected your temper to be so short! Research psychologist (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

P-Foster has a very-short temper, but you would royally fuck me off if you implied I supported racists too. So yeah, I second it. - π 05:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You have a hair-trigger temper too? Stop supporting racists, Pi. Research psychologist (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You are so boring. - π 05:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Since my name cropped up for some reason...Mr. Racist-but-no-longer-Metapedian(?), Pi's point here seems to be that you wrote the slanderous crap on Metapedia yourself, and in light of your slanderous crapfest on the article here, it's not quite as valid anymore.

Now we know. Anyway, please stop editing here if you're going to insist on incoherent and/or racist trolling writing. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 06:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha! 'slanderous crap', 'incoherent'! Man, ALL of you guys here have got short fuses. Research psychologist (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

lol ppl responded negatively i win ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 06:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, not everyone who edits Metapedia is necessarily racist. By the way, is racism even a bad thing, necessarily? If a certain race, or other classification of people, is statistically more likely to have certain characteristics, then one can legitimately make certain decisions based on that information. E.g., car insurance companies already commit age discrimination and gender discrimination, so why shouldn't they commit race discrimination too? So, being called racist is not necessarily such an insult.

Also, though, even if it is an insult, what good does it do to yell at someone for making the insult (aside from the pleasure of venting rage)? There are a few possible outcomes: (1) If you're dealing with a troll, you will have fed the troll, or (2) If you're dealing with someone who is just being a jerk to you, but is otherwise a reasonable person who is not a jerk, you've added fuel to the fire rather than calming the situation, which makes it more likely he's going to continue being an asshole, or (3) [Fill in your third possibility here, so that I'm not presenting a false dichotomy but at worst a false trichotomy]. So therefore, it makes more sense to kill with kindness, because it defuses both the trolls and the normally-reasonable-but-sometimes-jerky types, which perhaps comprise most of humanity. Tisane (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I like you

You seem to piss them off. And I love the 'ha HA' routine. Keep it up. 86.40.219.73 (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

On behalf of "them", I agree and think everyone should listen to everything John Marcus ever says about anything. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 10:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Marcus. I didn't see your message until just now. I'm sorry though, but I have limited free time (unlike most of the editors here), and I can't spend it laughing at the absurd behaviors of the people here. Research psychologist (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)