User talk:Reverend Black Percy/Archive3

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 28 September 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)


Hello and welcome back to the Cold War! If my memory is correct, you mentioned somewhere that you figured out how to unblock yourself if another sysop blocks you. I have been forgetting to tell you I have learned how to do the same. I'm glad I did not have to learn that during the heat of battle the hard way. Don't you love it when atomic weaponry can be tested via computer simulations?

I was out patrolling the streets of Gotham the Recent Changes feed today and ran into a vandal. The claim that I never blocked anyone which I made in the on-going Chicken Coop case remains true. All I did was giving a stern warning and (s)he stopped, at least for the time being. Nerd (talk) 02:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

That's great! You are clearly growing into your role as the protector which Gotham deserves a responsible editor. Vandals always spam single-file to hide their numbers. And getting blocked in the heat of battle meaning; getting blocked as you get jumped by an abrasive muppet isn't much fun, I have to say. All the best you big, beautiful, healthy baby boy you, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of learning how to unblock oneself, I think I did so in a timely manner. I have just received a threat from presumably an associate of Typhoon, at least in this instance. What do you think I should do? Nerd (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Like I posted to your page. Don't feed the troll buddy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Reverend! Nerd (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure if a week-long block is the best strategy, since Typhoon has not been active for a few days now. We need something that changes her behavior. Nerd (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see the question raised by me here. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Good point! Nerd (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, that was quite ethical of you to emphasize the voting options and conventions right at the beginning so people know. Well done! The good guys will win! Nerd (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Paul Dirac[edit]

Thank you for your help editing that article. I have, however, one objection. I put the sentence concerning his textbook back to more or less its original spot. I wanted to mark the position where in the near future, I will provide a quick discussion on Dirac's delta function distribution, a page that is currently being considered for deletion. It is in that book that Dirac gave the first proper definition for this entity. Unfortunately, or rather, fortunately, the theory if distributions, of which Dirac's eponymous object is a very common example, is a delicate topic in modern mathematics. (Some call it modern calculus, even.) Those anti-intellectuals remain unable to twist it for their own use. Nerd (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Sweet; we'll leave it there for now, then! And thanks for the compliments. As usual, you did the bulk of the work, and I just did some minor formatting fixes. Regardless, it's always more fun to contribute when people are atleast trying to make friends. All the best, your pal Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe not forever. Maybe not for long. But for now...[edit]

...galactic justice has prevailed once more. Goat bless. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Another hearty blow dealt to injustice! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Rachel Carson[edit]

Howdy! You learned that from a university course, eh? Please include citation. That would be great. Also, the word 'considered' is repeated. Please consider rephrasing. Nerd (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I let the sentence stand since you'd added it in original without citation. I merely rephrased it, and added a shrug as agreement in the edit notice (in regards to if the sentence you added and I rephrased should stay at all). I'm a bit tired so I didn't notice that word repeated - my bad. And yeah, it could be rephrased once more I suppose. I just tried to improve the original phrasing. We'll clear it out for now and re-add it as something better than either your original and my rephrase. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Please get some rest. I added it as a commentary, something that does not necessarily requires a citation. But yours seems to be more factual. You wrote that some people (who?) consider it to have launched the movement. You also noted in the edit summary that you learned that from a university course. So I got really excited and requested a citation; that would make the whole argument more respectable. But there is no need to hurry. The war fought over the face that launched a thousand experts for hire rages on today. Nice try, Helen of Argos!— Unsigned, by: Nerd / talk / contribs
So I had a look through my general biology textbook. Unfortunately, while it did mention Rachel Carson and her magnnum opus, it did not contain what we were looking for. We need to look elsewhere. Nerd (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
These are the droids you're looking forWikipedia. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Even though we should not just reference Wikipedia, we can still use its sources. And I found just what I needed. You beat me this time. Well done! Having read this new resource, a PBS news article, I find those allegations and criticisms against Carson as laughable as ever. Nerd (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You've been nominated for the election![edit]

See above. :)-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up buddy! Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline here; if you accept, you may wish to campaign. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 01:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Fuzzy! Now, the other thing with nominations is when you're nominated, you have to accept or decline, when you get nominated it's up to you if you accept or decline. Now, I care about RationalWiki, don't kid yourself, when I say I care about RationalWiki it's going to be up to me if I accept or decline. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


Instead of reverting, please try bringing up your complaints on the talkpage. Especially since your entire coop case was about how reverting instead of talking is bad. You wouldn't want to look like a hypocrite, right? Typhoon (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

♫ Hush little sysoprevokee, don't say a word, ♫
♫ Percy's not the one acting like a turd ♫ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Come Now[edit]

You aren't able to take a bit of fun pointed at you, are you?
Might want to change that name to "Revered Black Percy, Who Shall Not Be Mocked!" :D --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course I can; my point was that Typhoon apparently couldn't stand the simple title "Typhoon, I saved you a seat". Apparently that was too offensive. So in the spirit of mocking people who lack humor, I changed it back. And she changed it back. And so, we danced. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Hers was funnier. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Of course, my description of you was funnier still. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Very well, since you apparently have no sense of humor. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Gave me five minutes to reply there, huh? Anyways, I agree with you. What's snark for the goose is snark for the gander. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, 5 minutes is adequate when you are obviously editing on the board according to Recent Changes. I am...amused you would thing otherwise. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I would never thing otherwise. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Sanders and Canova[edit]

I doubt that bit is relevant. In that subsection, we discuss criticisms against Sanders on foreign policy. Canova's strange ideas, other than his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, do not belong there, or anywhere else in the article, except for perhaps a note at the end. In addition, putting Canova's ideas there brings to mind the association fallacy. What do you think? Nerd (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

You might wish to create an article on Canova himself... another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@Nerd You could be right... I don't know really. I've stayed far away from the Bernie/Hillary articles so far, and I intend to continue doing so. But since Canova doesn't have an article, and since atleast I view the main mission of this wiki to cover crankery like project blue beam, and not be such a political quagmire (think the election plus iran/palestine), I thought it might be interesting to note. But again, I could be wrong. I'm not going to change my soft, relative neutrality on Sanders/Hillary into any type of hard stance. But I mean, if you think there's good reason for it, I won't stop you from reverting my edit - I officially state here and now that it can't be considered edit warring for you to undo that one specific edit of mine. I just think that the more we can tie anything and everything we cover here into the crank world of stuff like anti-gmo, conspiracies and aliens, the better... But I'm no hardballer on any of this. Maybe it just becomes a smear with it in? Maybe it's whitewash to keep it out? I dunno. Crankery is interesting is my whole stance. But again, you're free to use your judgement. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@Hamabost Having an article on Canova would solve the whole problem. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@LH: That is a great suggestion.
@RBP: With your permission, I will take the liberty to restore my edit. It appears we have reached a mutual agreement, as is pretty much always the case. Beautiful! Nerd (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
On a personal level, I think you're both good people, and I hope I've earned a similar appraisal from you. That being said, what matters to me personally is my thus far unbroken but also continued distance from the Sanders/Hillary articles. It has been, is, and will remain the truth that I'm near both of those articles to learn (in the sense that I'm near them at all), not to impose my view upon them (hard to do anyways due to my unformed and largely casual view on both candidates). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
You have the right to choose whether or not to participate in political discussions. Personally, I do not have a deep interest in politics; it is just a topic I sometimes dabble into. My real interest lies in mathematics and physics. Still, it will be a while before we can build up those pages while keeping in mind our mission here at RW. Oppenheimer, we need your help building the RW school of physics! Nerd (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

First Contribution[edit]

You made your first contribution on May 19, 2015. Nerd (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nerd! :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Now; where's my endorsement, you handsome devil? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
My supercomputer is still busy calculating how my endorsing you will affect my plan for world domination peace. Nerd (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Gallery of the Dumb[edit]

Hello, Reverend! I uploaded the photo of an advertisement from that unapologetic crank as promised. Along the way, I learned a lot of interesting new things. They certainly made the uploading process very smooth. Conveniently, we are allowed to reuse any files that have already been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons with the right copyright notice, provided no file on RationalWiki has the same name. I took advantage of this fact in a few pages just to use the newly acquired skills. The results look great in my opinion. Please take a look at at the science that is not stamp collecting, the original GG, and this page, where I found a better portrait of God himself. Nerd (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


LOL "deluxe nut pole items". High five, brother. Leuders (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Argument from ignorance[edit]

Hey, I were reading the article on this topic and I found this part confusing: "a premise is false because it has not been proven true." I found that confusing because, if someone makes a theory, don't they have to prove it? For example, the illuminati. There is absolutely no evidence of it existing, only testimonies of not reliable sources and Easter eggs in media where people think that an eye in a cartoon is some form of brainwashing. Would that be a fallacy to assume that the illuminati is false considering it hasn't been proven (no evidence)? I hope this makes sense what I'm trying to say :P. I'm still learning of how to be a skeptic and the explanation of this part of the fallacy would help me on my journey :)--WMS (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi WMS! Good hearing from you, buddy! It's always nice when we talk, I think. Th hug.gif
To your question! The fact of the matter is as such: this apparent conflict is the result of a collision between two different applications of logic, which are not apparent until a person confronts this "problem" (as you now have). The issue is what one of my logic textbooks refers to as the difference between "Philosophical logic" and "Symbolic logic". So, what's the difference? Well, symbolic logic - so to speak - exists only on paper. Symbolic logic is about symbols and how they interact with eachother, nothing else. The rule you quoted, "a premise is false because it has not been proven true", is essentially Modus tollensWikipedia if understood in terms of symbolic logic. If P being true will cause Q, we atleast know that if Q isn't caused, P can't have been caused, atleast not yet. Q may be caused by other things too, but we know that if Q is uncaused (as of yet), then nothing has caused it (yet). And anything that would have caused it if true can't be true (yet, atleast).
Even if this seems confusing, the point is that modus tollens is a rule of symbolic logic, which in turn is a world of true and false, and symbols interacting. Symbolic logic is a model of itself, not a model of the real world, so to speak. It's like a board game you invented - the rules only need to be internally consistent. This is why symbolic logic, for instance, doesn't process suggestions like "What if you're dyslexic and you see different symbols than there are on the chalkboard?" and so on. Symbolic logic is made in such a way that computers can understand it - and I don't mean advanced AI can understand it, but computers today can. It's that "simple" (or should I say, "analog").
Philosophical logic is something a bit else, however. Philosophical logic is about trying to model the world in a logically consistent way. It deals with issues such as argument, meaning, truth, identity, existence, predication, necessity, randomness (called "flukes"), reasonable doubt, rationality, odds and so on. It tries to model the world as best it can.
When logic is being explained to students, e.g. (to pick something at random) this entry-level logical fallacy called Denying the antecedentWikipedia, you will see there are two "types" of explanation given. One purely symbol based, and one using Queen Elisabeth as an example. However, the use of Queen Elisabeth here is actually confusing, because the example does not deal with philosophical logic, but with symbolic logic. This is why anything could be used here instead of Queen Elisabeth, really, but they picked Queen Elisabeth because logicians like to approximate philosophical logic because the intention is that this will help students understand. (Which helps at first, but confuses later - and that's where you are now). What you have to understand is that that this fallacy works the same regardless of it, instead of Queen Elisabeth, said something like;

  • Premise 1: If the twerking walrus king is a boastful time traveler, then he is legally blonde.
  • Premise 2: The twerking walrus king is not a boastful time traveler
  • Conclusion: Therefore, the twerking walrus king is not legally blonde.

To many students, this would seem utterly confusing. What, a walrus, time travel - what is this nonsense? But the point is that P implies Q and that not-P thus implies not-Q! Nothing more, nothing less. Queen elisabeth, a walrus, or just P - we've still said the same thing in symbolic logic. We're not talking philosophical logic here. Symbolic logic is "If [symbol] [operator], then what?". Philosophical logic would be more like, "What reason is there to accept the premise that walruses can twerk, never mind be kings? Is time travel possible? How is "blonde" truly defined in the law?" And so on. I hope this helps you see the difference in the types of questions asked.
To go back to what I said about symbolic logic being like a board game you invent - it only has to be internally consistent. Like, if a rule is "Only the knight may move two squares", then a necessity is for your game to - obviously - have both a Knight and squares. Thus, using philosophical logic there would be all like "What reason do I have to accept the premise that players can't leave the board? How can I trust that the rules given are in fact the right rules?" and so on. Clearly, you will see that this becomes an utter misapplication of logic. It's not wrong per se (there are no "wrong" questions), it's just (clearly) different from reasoning inside the ruleset of the game - which would go more like "Every player gets to roll the dice before it's your turn again. Every player hasn't rolled the dice yet. Thus, it's not your turn yet". One could perhaps say that symbolic logic produces mainly answers, while philosophical logic produces mainly questions.
Which brings me back to your original question. The argument from ignorance, as you can hear, involves one very important word: ignorance. Ignorance is a property of a mind. Clearly, an actual real-life mind is not something that is defined in symbolic logic. We're talking about the real world here, and that's philosophical logic. That's why we can say that "a premise is false because it has not been proven true" - because it is rational and sound logic to not accept premises that you lack information about yet (the idea being that, it's always better to reserve judgement unless specific proof is given).
This is because in philosophical logic, i.e. the discussion about reality, we know about things like falsifiability and the burden of proof, and things like occam's razor and cognitive biases. And these - by extension - belong to science (skepticism being a component of the philosophy of science, which in turn is the groundwork for actual science...). And science is an attempted model of the real world, so it's an outgrowth of philosophical logic - not of symbolic logic (per se). That's why it's a rational idea not to accept premises without proof - because in philosophical logic, we generally use Justified True Belief as our gold standard for what is actually knowledge, e.g. what one can say to actually know. And anything not Justified (the "J" in "JTB") is in other words unproven.
In symbolic logic however, as in a board game, the point isn't to "doubt the rules", the point is to forget the rest of the world and just work from the rules given. The terms differ a bit, but as you can see LogicWikipedia, the main point is that logic is something that is applied in different scenarios. It is not something divine, but it is man-made. As Christopher Hitchens so skillfully puts it, "Logic is mankind's attempt at making sense". Anyways, the collision is like this: in symbolic logic, you can't ever say something is false because it's not true (assuming you allow for other states than true or false, e.g. in fuzzy logic). In philosophical logic, we work in the other direction (see "falsifiability" above): the question isn't what might be true; the question is what do we have reason to accept as justified true belief? Thus... that sentence. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Ps. This answer is a mess. If it's the least bit unclear, which I think it is - give me a day to retool it. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


...has erected their nut pole on my Talk page. It has something to do with someone upset that we don't have an article saying a skull is from aliens. Leuders (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Albert Einstein[edit]

I still find it hard to believe that the section on his religious beliefs seems to have been copied verbatim from (an older version of) the corresponding Wikipedia article. Whoever did that did not even bother to remove the reference numbers therefrom. Shameful! By the way, Isaac Newton's page is essentially complete. I am really proud of it. Even though I did not create that page, I added more content to it than any other person. Cheers! Nerd (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You're free to edit it. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I did, one month after I created my account, as you can verify for yourself. I am responsible for massively expanding the section concerning his scientific contributions. I could add more, but I need to first finish Newton's page. Nerd (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Quantum Mechanics[edit]

About that unsupported statement on the superposition of quantum states, I removed it. It sounded quite bizarre to me. If you know enough about the mathematics behind quantum mechanics, then superposition is quite natural, and, in some sense, obvious. Nerd (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I was going to remove it too, but I couldn't bother to find it in all that text while editing from my phone. Glad you removed it. Superposition is a property of any quanta and I cannot imagine, nor have ever heard it suggested, that it will somehow ever be considered not to exist. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it is a property of all quantum mechanical systems, not just quanta. In Newtonian mechanics, forces are represented as vectors in real space. The net force on a body is simply the vector sum, or superposition, of all forces acting on that body. In quantum mechanics, the state of a system can be represented as a vector in Hilbert space. Again, superposition naturally follows. Even though Richard Feynman (or Niels Bohr) prudently pointed out that no one really understands quantum mechanics, one needs to take the courage, as J. Robert Oppenheimer did, to close one's mind when a suggestion is both unsubstantiated and far-fetched. Nerd (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You are an enabler.[edit]

You are contributing to the bloat on this wiki. You are misusing your authority. You have lent aid and comfort to some really dodgy editors. I know you're a big cheese around here, but as far I can tell, your judgement is lacking in most areas. Plutoniumboss (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Troll I saved you the trouble. Plutoniumboss (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Dearest Uraniumchief!
  • Who/what am I "enabling", in which sense and to which extent?
  • I'm "contributing to the bloat" on this wiki? In which sense and to which extent?
  • I'm "misusing my authority" - in which sense and to which extent?
  • I've "lent aid and comfort" to some "really dodgy editors"? Who, when and in what sense?
  • "Big cheese", you say?
  • My judgement is "lacking in most areas"? Not just "up to 50%" of my areas are lacking in judgement, but above 50% of them are in fact lacking it? Which areas, in which sense and to which degree?
Toupée Touché, my boy! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Good post!--JorisEnter (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Gold, Jerry! Listen, if you revert my hard work one more time (that makes three), we're going to have a problem. Plutoniumboss (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
And get some reading glasses, grandpa. Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Said the guy who thinks he can win an Internet argument by definition. Nerd (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
You're both out of your tree. And not in a fun way. Plutoniumboss (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

A useful tip when trying to be funny[edit]

Make sure your sentence actually parses as grammatical English - David Gerard (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Me fail english? That's unpossible! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
It also helps if, in the process, you don't completely mischaracterise the texts in question, as you did - David Gerard (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Surely you're not accusing me of having done that on purpose? I'm glad you caught the difference, whatever it was! Well done. I'd appreciate some credit for working on the article with you generally, too. If you have that in you, old chap. A good atmosphere for making contributions and all that. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Tuchman's Law[edit]

Basically, it means that whenever someone writes something down any numbers involved (for example, the casualties in a certain battle) will be distorted, and likely inflated. Wikipedia has a small section on it, too.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Quick Question[edit]

Since you, with approval from a moderator, have permanently banned Roricon, shall I nuke his/her talk page? Nerd (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. But rational minds think alike, eh? Nerd (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


It was you who wrote Uraniumchief. My bad! Sorry, mate! Nerd (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem buddy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I can't even Plutoniumboss (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Then don't. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Not all[edit]

Drafted. I'm probably not going to be too useful at writing this one. Zero (talk - contributions) 18:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Even if it bombs, it's good of you to give it an honest shot. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me[edit]

I'm planning on voting for you, but it will be strongly effected depending on your answer to the following

The only good red is a ____ red? TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I hope that whomever you vote for, you feel that it's the best under the circumstance and that your vote matters. That being said, I'll try your "riddle"... I mean, the only one I've heard before is variants on "Better dead than red", all Liberty Prime (which is, of course, a throwback to the Cold War and so on). I'm suspecting it's something less obvious, but I'm out of ideas. I'm forced to guess that the blank is "dead"...? I never was any good at riddles. I hope my reply has been of any use whatsoever. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Aye lad gon vote for ye. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Just so you know[edit]

Somebody is a bit butthurt.--JorisEnter (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry. While his butt is quite hurt, mine is remarkably soothed, so soothed in fact that in a sense I think we balance out. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Also Joris, I hope you will take (or maybe already took) the time to read my entire point-by-point rebuttal of the WHO document in question? Can't wait to hear your thoughts on the Ayurveda talkpage! All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)



You won.-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The world pins no medals on you because of what you know, but it may crown you with glory for what you do. – Unknown

Leuders (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I like this. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 20:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much, you guys! I'm equal parts stoked and terrified. With any luck, destructive interference between said two extremes of mind will leave me cozily indifferent instead. That is a joke, by the way. And Jokes aside; from the bottom of my heart, I want you all to know I'll be trying my darndest to make things not-worse around here. Th hug.gif Maybe I'll even manage to make things slightly better! (Come now, let a man dream...) All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep up the good work! Fight for truth, justice and the rational way and earn your rightful place on Valhalla. Nerd271 (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks buddy! I probably won't reach Valhalla, but I may be able to repay my "debt to society"... I ever tell you about the time, way back, when I was a crank? Bet your monocle just dropped. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Good heavens! I'm glad I maintain a habit of not eating or drinking in front of a flashy machine, such as the one I am using right now. My monocle is not broken. Phew! I have no idea about your violent past. Mine is crazy, but is not necessarily at that level. Some of my early edits looked more like vandalism because of the toxic level of snark and sarcasm. Back in the day, some of my teachers and classmates said I behaved like a cranky old man. Some months ago, I posted a video of an ostrich chasing a couple of bikers on the WIGO page instead of the actual video link I wanted. Many thanks to Owlman for fixing that. :-) Nerd271 (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
"Some months ago, I posted a video of an ostrich chasing a couple of bikers on the WIGO page instead of the actual like I wanted." Oh, Nerd... Have I told you that I hold you very dear to me? Th hug.gif Oh, and by the way — and it is with a heavy fucking heart I say this — but back in the day, I actually convinced my dad to let me participate in the Alex Jones moneybomb. I shit. You not. (If you ever wonder where my endless motivation to come here and spread the light of reason and skepticism comes from, now you know part of it). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
A rational convert, you definitely are. Nerd271 (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I try. The benefit of it all is, once you've been fooled that badly, you essentially start a life's journey to learn how that could ever have happened in the first place (and to help others avoid the pitfalls). Thus... Here I am. And trust me, it humbles me a lot when I force myself to mentally face the music and think about my prior beliefs. I may wail on cranks, but I've been one too — which makes me never forget that they can (and should, and need to) be helped with skepticism. Though, I have a lot less nostalgia for the actual woo-pushers. "Off with their heads!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Th hug.gif Th hug.gif Th hug.gif-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I just got all the hugs. Next come the lizard kisses. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


It'd be extremely helpful to get your email, old chap, in order to do all that boarding business. :) Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeedy. For the time being, how can I e-mail (or generally contact) you? I ask for the simple reason that I don't want to transact private contact information via talkpage. All the best bud, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Two options: One, register your email in your preferences. (It's private unless you respond to the email that somebody says.) Two, email *me* (Special:EmailUser/FuzzyCatPotato) and then we can set up communications. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot old timer. I just tossed you an initial e-mail. You may reply "Yes" or "No" to the question here (and/or reply "Yes" via acting on the suggestion); in case your reply is "No", I'll send you a follow-up question. I'll be setting up my e-mail for the foundation tomorrow, you see. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

User rights for a moderator change?[edit]

What are you talking about? I shouldn't even be able to do that if I knew how. The only thing I was fucking with, but don't think I saved a change, was moderator protected pages. Objective (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to this, that's all. Could you enlighten me on what was going on in said user rights change to DG's account? Thanks in advance, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Pointless add of autopatrolled to DG. Technically, you don't need autopatrolled Sysop and above, but didn't know that at the time. Also, at the time of that, I was pretty drunk. Objective (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Should you edit while drunk? I think not. Better edit while high :-P another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
@Objective Well, I'd be booking you for one count of EUI ("Editing Under the Influence"), but the whole board is currently under investigation for multiple counts of the same charge. Case dismissed. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
@Laurogeita "We have an article for people like you!!!" Jokes aside, since my daily medicine regimen centers around a fairly high dose of literal amphetamineWikipedia salts (accept no substitute!Wikipedia), I'd wager that technically, I always edit high. Aaand awaaay I gooooo! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Mustard seeds[edit]

I know about the parable of the mustard seeds, I just don't think that it's that loony. (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I can agree with that. As far as all the loony Jesus parables go, the mustard seed one isn't exactly at the top of the list. I'll give it a rephrasing. Also, have you read our article on evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ? You should! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ken Ham[edit]

Thanks for improving the Ken Ham article. At the moment Conservapedia's article ranks higher than ours. Can we get ours higher with a bit of work? Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the kudos! I'm actually glad our Ken Ham article is relatively low on Google right now (heh), because it's bad when Bronze (or worse) articles get too much outside attention. If we grow the article to Silver or Gold quality however, the clicks will come, because then it will be a comprehensive source on Ham and so on. Right now it's bare bones, even after my "sorting" in it... Thanks, anyways. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm a former/current alcoholic myself[edit]

Thus, your comment about your opiate use drew my attention. Do you think opiates would be less deadly in the aggregate if doctors could still just prescribe them like candy? Not the most politically correct viewpoint, but wanted to get your thoughts. If people could get the drugs easily, they won't be going out to the street. Objective (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a very tough question to answer, obviously. What I do believe in is harm reduction, for starters. Seen this video? (If not, watch it. If you have, watch it again.) Something along the lines of that video is a major piece of the puzzle here, in my opinion. I'd love to honor your question with a much more in-depth reply, but I'm just this moment off to bed for the evening. I'll dignify your question tomorrow, however. Take care of yourself, buddy. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and watch this video, too. And if you've already seen it — please re-watch it. From a former opiate addict to a current alcoholic, it's one of the truest ones out there. I do tear up watching it every time; in a good way. And its strong scientific basis hardly makes it less powerful. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, dude. 1st time I've seen that video. I am in total agreement with the harm reduction model, and believe drugs, even hard drugs, done in moderation should be permissible. I also believe there is only a war on some drugs (whenever I get a chance to make the Big Pharma article not a sycophantic apology page I will). All of this said, I believe the Reagan-Bush drug war did accomplish its stated goal by lowering casual illegal drug use to an all time low in 1993. However, this war came at a cost. Homicides were at a local high (no pun intended) during the Bush 1 administration and the lowering of drug use was not sustained past 1993. Objective (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

No problems buddy, I hope you enjoyed both clips. And yeah, the comorbidities (which resulted in a certain level of drug seeking behaviour) resulting from my until-recently undiagnosed adult ADHD couldn't be curtailed until I was prescribed the right medicine for my condition (a fairly high dose of amphetamine, it turns out). Psychopharmacology is a complex issue, and two things are certain — firstly, nobody (neither society nor the individual) is helped by young people getting thrown in jail for non-violent drug offenses, and secondly, if the options stand between people being properly medicated and people medicating themselves, the choice should be perfectly clear (and it's not one where morals factor in; this is about curing large mammals). By the way, have you seen the documentary film Breaking the TabooWikipedia yet? If not, do so (Vimeo link here). It features a ton of world leaders, including Bill Clinton! Like most US presidents, he seems to have gotten more chill since leaving office (hehe). All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

'Unwelcome' and 'meh' templates[edit]

Hello amigo, on DiamondDisc1's talk page you said that there are 'meh' and 'unwelcome' templates for vandals. Do you know of anyone with those templates, and if you do, would you be able to direct me to the page? I'm curious how they look. Anyhow, thank you in advance and papa bless :) (I saw that you like h3h3 :3)--WMS (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

{{Unwelcome}} and {{Meh}}.--JorisEnter (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Joris :)--WMS (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


The guy came in a few days ago and has spent his time making mostly useless edits, as well as creating pages on Eminem and Hardwell which (as you might have guessed) were pretty crappy. Apparently he had a breakdown after I deleted the Eminem page for the second time. Dunno what the hell he thinks he's doing but he's on a bit of a forced break right now.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

What was the content of the Eminem page(s)? I assume it wasn't good? A well-written article would be missional in my opinion. That being said however, I also do not know what this character thinks he's up to. I gave him a reality check, regardless. All the best champ, keep at it Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have facebook or skype so you could learn me how to edit? — Unsigned, by: GreatPerson / talk / contribs

No problem buddy, we'll do it all your talk page (so keep the discussion there). I think there's someone you ought to apologize to first, however. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Flight ceiling Su-25[edit]

Dear conspiracy loon, feel free to defend your claims regarding the flight ceiling of an Su-25 in a venue where you can not abuse your sysop powers to lock an article with your nutjob claims: — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Goof(s) of the day![edit]

Haaaah!-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

And haaaah!-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
SRY for the goofs dued! *SHRIEKING COUGH* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Th hug.gif-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Article V of the Nordic Nerdy Alliance Treaty[edit]

Since JG (not John Gribbin, my favorite science writer) has attacked both of us for reverting what was obvious vandalism, I invite you to help me write this essay. If you agree, please put your name next to mine. Your background in philosophy and logic could prove decisive. Nerd271 (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

On the second thought, I changed it to a draft, where anyone (with the autopatrolled status) can edit as if it was a main space article, as Herr Fuzzy Cat Potato has suggested. Feel free to join. Nerd271 (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm bored[edit]

Let's talk about random stuff.-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


And now, here's sports. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
heehee.-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


Breaking news! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Th hug.gif----⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


We go now, to the finance segment of the show. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
..-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
"Now I'm rich ah ah ah ah..." Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I wanna be a billionaire so fricking bad, buy all of the things I never had...-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yesterday's Weather[edit]

We go now to our ravishing weather girl, Carol Krabit. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
'Kay.-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
"...high in 1990's..." ^^ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Your Fortune[edit]

Last but not least, this week's astrology report. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Astrology doesn't really work.-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
"He got inside you! Sorry! :)" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I know you wanted to know…[edit]

Adjust your views accordingly. Never be wrong on the RationalWiki ever again, always have the True Opinion™ ready at hand. This also helps to determine if an article is wrong, despite good sources. If PZ thinks otherwise, it is objectively wrong. Never allow anyone to say otherwise. Cheers :) ~ Aneris 17:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh no. Your weakness! He's identified a pundit you tend to agree with. Better throw up your hands and embrace childish causes. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course I don't, and I don't know whether Percy is a member of the horde. I don't think he is. But he could improve his standing on the RW by adhering to what PZ Myers says. Joining the horde could help, too, to stay informed. Hint: if he wants to join fully, he should be bringing a sexist/racist/misogynist confession story (and promising to do better), which helps to get through the hazing. ~ Aneris 18:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Wait... Horde? Are you telling me there is an alliance? Where do night-elves fit in? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Horde is the self-styled name (for real) of PZ Myers' commentariat, and by extension Freethought Blogs. ~ Aneris 07:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
But I wanted to be an night-elf/orc shaman. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Matrix HiFi[edit]

Where do you think it fits better? As a quote near Double-blind testing? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Dunno. But not inserted like an ad, that's fer true. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Clinton WIGO[edit]

I did not realize you edited my WIGO post. Your change was incorrect. The meetings were meetings she conducted while she was Secretary of State. My sentence is grammatically correct. --Ymir (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

My bad! All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

What's up with your archiving edit summaries?[edit]

Is there any reason for your jocular edit summaries when archiving? Are they intended to create bemusement? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Matrix HiFi[edit]

Where do you think it fits better? As a quote near Double-blind testing? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Dunno. But not inserted like an ad, that's fer true. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

A small suggestion[edit]

Now that you're a Board member, I think it'd be appropriate for you to say so at the top of your user page, along with maybe a disclaimer that what you say on-site isn't necessarily the official position of the Foundation. I also suggest, once DavidGerard gives you your fancy Foundation email address, linking that on your userpage, with an open invitation for questions.

(I mean, that's what I did. Though odds are you won't actually get questions. I had mine up for three years and I don't recall anybody ever asking me anything. It's more about letting people know you're open to questions in the first place.) Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Calling the Kettle WHITE[edit]

Percy, I am calling you out. I've got evidence of your deceit and bullshit you've been sending me via email. Come up and let us talk about your little threats you have been making. Reverend White Jackson (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, this should be rich. Aside from the obvious fact that I don't have your e-mail adress, nor you mine, and the fact that I've been keeping close tabs on exactly which people I've been e-mailing blood-curling death threats to (just my mother, for now)... You mind getting to the specifics here already, if there are any? By the way, I love how your title here is a play on an expression entirely signifying that you yourself are in the wrong here. I've yet to hear of a smart confrontation starting with the whisteblower clapping their hands together, standing up and loudly declaring "That's it! I'm calling the kettle X!". What are you, some kind of super genius? How am I supposed to compete with that!? Also, "come up"? You do realise we're on the internet, right? I'll probably remain seated throughout, and there's nothing you can do about it. In fact, maybe I won't. I may or may not be doing a nude handstand while editing this very reply. Think about it. Think about the effects of gravity. Do you have any idea what gravity does to a human body? Use a mirror and find out, if you have the literal balls for it (or just ask your dad like I did — tell him Percy says hi btw). Now, scurry on back to your fun-time g-force denialist buddies, joy-boy. This conversation is over. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Nude handstand? Get those images out of my head! another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

the haggard's law thing[edit]

I've put the source links in the talk page, tell me if you think that is enough. Arawn Emrys (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Great sources, thank you! Next time, just add them to the article you're editing right away, saving everyone the trouble of having to ask you for sources. Thanks anyways! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, been a busy and emotionally draining week, was not ignoring your note[edit]

I just returned to RW last night. Got my first week of continuous alcohol sobriety in a while under my belt (not through AA).

I haven't followed up on the legal issue since I've returned. I hope everything turned out okay. Some of my apparent frustration, for lack of a better word, was I know people can sue anybody for anything and as a friend I was and am more interested in cooling things down rather than proving who's right or wrong, especially since anti semitism allegations were thrown around. That being said, the individual in question (I don't even remember the chap's name), in my opinion, has no understanding of mathematics at all, and that is very tragic. He sounds like a frustrated college freshman. Anyways, I hope things have cooled down. Objective (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Great work staying dry! Big kudos, buddy. I've cut down as well, much thanks to getting the right medicine and being open about my consumption to people I care about (as worrying it was for them to hear initially, now they're grateful).
Regarding that turbulent old geezer? He seems to be picking up speed, in fact. Hilarity naturally ensued, and will continue doing so, until he gets back on his meds and decides to dedicate the autumn years of his life to doing something other than being a nuisance on the web. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

On the first day of Christmas my angel brought to me...[edit]

this. Nerd271 (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Facepalm Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Women's magazines and the manosphere[edit]

Doesn't it seem like women's magazines are very similar to manosphere sites, except with the sexes reversed? They talk about how to dress to attract a guy to make an approach, how to get a guy to fall in love and commit (maybe by using 24 tantalizing sex moves to thrill him in bed), etc. They also analyze male psychology and how women can use it to their advantage. And they have articles with horror stories about how men have mistreated women, and how women can protect themselves (both through individual and group efforts).

The only difference is that the manosphere sites will go more over the top with their rhetoric sometimes about women being just a series of holes for their pleasure. Yet sometimes, to the extent that they talk that way, it's to encourage a mentality that will get guys to act in a way that will attract the girls they want. The guys who act like they have no use for a girl other than as a series of holes, are often the guys who have lots of girls offering themselves up to them to be used as a series of holes. If lots of hot girls wanted to have sex with guys who would sit and watch romcoms with them all day and write mushy poems, then manosphere sites would be encouraging more romantic attitudes that would get men in the proper frame of mind to behave in those ways.

As soon as attractive women stop rewarding jerks with sex, then more men will learn to stop being jerks; but in a society where women can have their fun with the jerks during their teens and twenties and then finally settle down with the nice guy when they hit their 30s, why shouldn't they prefer the jerks when they're younger? It's exciting to them. A lot of guys say that they were perfectly happy staying nice guys, and only started acting more like jerks in an attempt to get sex. They even resent that women have basically forced them to act that way if they want to get laid. See for example You did this to me or Why It’s Impossible For Men To Be Authentic, the latter of which laments that a guy can't even be honest to his girlfriend or ladyfriend about his feelings for her without getting rejected as too needy.

But if women want guys to behave like jerks, then it's questionable whether that's even jerky behavior. Likewise, if girls don't want a guy to be a nice guy, then is he really being nice by being that way? That's the paradox.

It's kinda like BDSM, where someone wants to be tied up and spanked: it's not wrong to do it if she's made it clear she wants it. Likewise, if hot women want guys to behave like sexist assholes, then why should guys not submit to this wish? Look at the kinds of guys that hot chicks typically get with, and judge for yourself what it is that they seem to want. Dr. Carson (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Men's magazines and women's magazines, to me, appear equally stupid. Both cater to insecure people; none offer therapy. And I've never heard of anyone bagging their love interest as the result of anything they read in one of those magazines. Like that's why people buy them? They'd run out of customers because everyone who reads the first issue ends up in healthy, meaningful long-term relationships!
People buy that crap — PUA voodoo or women's magazine nonsense alike — because people feel insecure and alone, even in relationships. The grass always looks greener on the other side. People who are single want to be with someone, people who are with someone worry they're with the wrong person. It's the human condition already. And for the record, what you refer to as those magazines, quote "analyzing [biological sex] psychology"? Men's and women's magazines aren't exactly peer-reviewed journals. And even at the highest standards of science, most of psychology is sadly just not true either. Thus, what you cite here is what we call pseudopsychology.
Your theory that MRAs, pick up-artists and anti-feminists speak of, quote "women being just a series of holes for their pleasure" because their intention is to, quote "encourage a mentality that will get guys to act in a way that will attract the girls they want" is not an explanation that I subscribe to at all, nor do I see how it even makes sense. To me, it sounds kind of like saying Osama told people to hijack planes in order just to encourage them to take the opportunity to travel and see the world.
You seem to be under the impression that the extreme opposites you bring up — specifically, "being an asshole to women" rather than "watching romcoms with them" — is highlighted by the PUAs because one of those options actually works on women or something. You seem to forget that women aren't the people buying the "advice" of the PUAs, it's men. The strategies are the product of the PUAs. They sell strategies that work on men, commercially. How they relate to women isn't really that relevant, just like with the "how guys think"-type lists in women's magazines. Guys don't exactly buy those same magazines to find out how they think. That's because they know there's nothing like that in there to begin with.
First of all, whether or not you see yourself as "sexually successful" is a product of your own psychology. Some people are happy lifelong masturbators, some have a fetisch for inanimate objects, some are asexual. Some aren't satied, even after bukkake. Secondly: sexually unsuccessful people (who wish they were sexually successful) see sexually successful people, and the hawt people who enable their success by having sexing with them, with jealousy. They see themselves as failures. A lot of negativity, in other words.
PUAs and women's magazines alike sell little unfalsifiable "strategies" not to sexually successful people, but to sexually unsuccessful people. Strategies which confirm the negative emotions inherent in feeling sexually unsuccessful. "Yes, those guys are assholes! And the women are sluts, too! Man, this fits so well." Studding that essential emotional confirmation ("Don't worry, you're not misogynist to hate women — they're the dicks") with a Life Hack-style list of little "tricks" (the main function of which are, in fact, simply giving yourself a confidence boostWikipedia) happens to sell. "You think you suck, and rightly so — but here's the salvation!".
When the techniques (seem to) work, it's because you put yourself out there to begin with (one must first have contact with another person in order to progress with them, obviously). When the techniques don't work, there's always more "little tricks" to try, since there's no particular point where the amount of "little strategies" you got going there in the background is too many, nor any way for you to really determine if you did your particular vague trick well enough (except for the woman liking you, of course! That proves it was all worthwhile.). All of this served with a constant supply of emotional pandering, which quickly turns ugly when the emotions being pandered to are horniness mixed with doubt, jealousy, worry, envy, and frustration.
The fact that you quote this guy makes me suspect (on no firm ground whatsoever) that maybe you're a little loveshy yourself, though I won't include that as an argument in this discussion. Now; the fact that you have to do things you don't want to sometimes is a fact of life. Conversely however, claiming that you were "made to do things" is purely a defense mechanism (possibly salted with the "buyer's remorse" of your own choices) — assuming we're actually talking about a non-coercive situation (like a robbery at gunpoint), you're never "forced" to do anything. That kind of thinking is designed to place blame on your love interest for the very existence of a "cost" side to the "benefit/cost analysis" (that goes along with everything in life, anyways!). As if there'd be much of an analysis left if the scales had one side. If the cost-benefit ratio of anything looks grim, don't do the thing. The problem solves itself.
Also, what you call a paradox is hardly one to begin with. The core problem here is that you — for some reason I can only ascribe to lack of experience — refer to men and women as two singular units; almost like two great individuals. In essence, you present this kindergarden understanding of the human psyche (no offense). Haven't you noticed how we don't understand ourselves nearly well enough, and naturally, how other people understand us even less? Newsflash: women are people. So are men. We all want different things — to different degrees, at different times, for different reasons. All liable to change without prior notice, without us even understanding why or how the change occured, or what it changed to. For man or woman alike — life itself can be a harsh mistress.
What I can agree with fully, however, is that the culture that both men- and women's magazines perpetuate, as do the pick-up artists (to a far greater degree), isn't helping anyone. I hope the video I linked helps nuance the problem. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


Is it possible for us to reach some consensus on expansion of this article. Talk:Neoliberalism#Repeated_Reverts --RussiaWatch (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please! And I think that should be possible to arrange. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You like to bring articles to bronze, silver, and gold..[edit]

So what about the CRISPR article or something? I saw on the to do list that creationists like to abuse it... Perhaps something like that could be added?-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I generally do that only when the articles are either;
  • Already good enough to warrant a brainstar (or an uprank of the current brainstar)
  • Close to meeting the requirements for the above, and I can work them to a passing grade
CRISPR is not close to being even bronze, and I don't think I could work it to a passing grade as it stands right now. I have thoughts of improving some articles closer to my own "area of expertise"; stuff like Ancient Egyptian race controversy, Evidence for the Exodus and Shakespeare authorship. Maybe Bongolian could? He's good at stuff like that, and he seems to like biology? All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

What race are you? (Invoking Poe's Law)[edit]

If you're white, then great! If you're not, then you're probably a yuuuuge corrupt $$$$Hillary supporter.-Donald J. Trump (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

If only anyone was a member of a race and the whole race concept wasn't just hallucinated up! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I follow the concept of trumpiness. My statements don't even have to sound true!-Donald J. Trump (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I am a member of the human race. Why can't I enter that in census forms? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Have you seen my user page? It clearly states my race is human.-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm actually going to play devil's advocate and state that the idea that race is a social construct is itself a social construct. The problem is that the concept of race comes with too much baggage to be able to discuss honestly. CorruptUser (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
What? If you're implying that genetic science somehow supports the concept of race, you're mistaken. People who had hoped to find support in genetic science for their pre-existing caveman belief — that apparent differences are actually predictive about people you don't personally know — were disappointed. They won't be able to progress further by suddenly flip-flopping and calling genetic science socially constructed. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The fact that most "races" are very ill defined fuzzy concepts to begin with should tell you something. For instance, what "race" is the majority of Turkey's population? What about Senegal? Is the "race" of most Senegalese the same or different from the majority of the population of Ethiopia? What about African Americans? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Science 1, racists 0.-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC) could I lose to science?-Donald J. Trump (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Lol.-Hillary R. Clinton (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"as a board member..."[edit]

You want to make upgrading a top priority? Let's find a time to talk about that, and what can be done, okay? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Let is indeed! We should prolly call some kind of general meeting anyhow, get an overview of things? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
So... do you have any idea how that is done? Is this an appropriate venue to discuss this? So many basic questions. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Jackson The Accuser[edit]

Percy, stop bullshiting. You know and I know that you've been sending me messages on here about the stupidest things possible. "This conversion is over" Who the fuck says that besides people who think they can be tough on the Internet, which I am sure isn't physically possible. The title "Calling the kettle WHITE" was more directed to you than me, seeing as you accuse others of terrible posts when the majority of yours are more akin to a nine year child bashing a keyboard over his face, or a sixty year old man trying to be cool with the crowd, with him proudly proclaiming "I Love the World Wide Web!" You did the same to me as well, meaning you fell for my conspicuous trap like a dumbass. Percy, or who ever you are in real life, please stop with the messages of passive aggressive posts to me and others. People ask why the Wiki has fallen from grace. What would I tell them? Probably because shitposters like you made that way.Reverend White Jackson (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Full disclosure here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Just proving my point, bro. This conversion is over. (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Another BoN? I have no idea if you're replying to me or to, for the record. Shrug. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

why did you delete these true facts about Holding?[edit]

Everything I asserted about Holding in my comments which you recently deleted, were true facts, not opinions. Why are you censoring publicly known factually verified truths about Holding? And your failure to email about it makes me suspicious that you don't really care whether my facts about Holding are true, you seem more interested in helping present a rather one-sided view of Holding regardless. Feel free to email me, I'll provide you proof of every single thing I alleged. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Who is Holding? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Dude, I haven't deleted anything (for some reason). I just moved your rant from the article, where it didn't belong, to the talk page, where it may belong. Enjoy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Importance of facts[edit]

Greetings. I recently saw a statement not supported by any logical argument or fact on the "Antifeminism" article: "[Talking about radical feminists]However, such examples are extreme minorities within feminism (comparable to TERFs or lesbian separatists), as any investigation of feminism should show." So let's ignore the fact that this statement is essentially without meaning; "Should show". Does it show? Apparently how things are isn't important, only how they ought to be.

So yeah, that aside, it's obvious that the statement: "such examples are extreme minorities within feminism... as any investigation of feminism should show." needs a citation. Or are you as (I presume) a rationalist positing that such things can just be asserted as fact without any proof/reasoning?

Also, your most enlightened comment to me: "Are you so fucking retarded you don't get that TERFs are a minority movement?" I don't know what TERF is. It's totally unimportant because it has nothing to do with the message of the statement, ie. that extreme feminists are a minority, "as any investigation of feminism should show." You must either presume that I'm some far-right Stormfronter (I'm quite liberal/left-wing), or you're purposefully trying to divert attention from the issue and censor rational/logical thinking. I hope to hear from you soon so we can correct our misunderstandings and inch closert to the truth.

Thanks for your time.— Unsigned, by: factsareimportant / talk / contribs

Are you suggesting yet another “social justice” article is complete bollocks? What a surprise! Percy knows by now that contemporary mainstream feminism is intersectional, and he has learned that this is connected to the postmodernist Critical Race Theory movement. Its co-founders wrote: “As the reader will see, critical race theory builds on the insights of two previous movements, critical legal studies and radical feminism, to both of which it owes a large debt.” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2006).
fnordAmanda Marcotte, also a prominent speaker at atheist-skeptic conferences and an important opinion leader to the social justice atheist crowd wrote: “[…] In the 60s and 70s, there were radical feminists who were distinguishing themselves from liberal feminists. Radical feminists agreed with liberal feminists that we should change the laws to recognize women’s equality, but they also believed that we needed to change the culture. It was not enough to pass the ERA or legalize abortion, they believed, but we should also talk about cultural issues, such as misogyny, objectification, rape, and domestic violence. In other words, what was once “radical” feminism is now mainstream feminism.”
fnord The article is otherwise comically contradictory and typical motte-and-bailey material. It asserts that people who consider themselves feminists should be regarded as such, and then it declares feminists and feminist-groups-by-acronym (e.g. TERF) as non-feminists. — but what can you expect? ~ Aneris 04:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

You have been getting the board emails, right?[edit]

Right? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe I said at some point "please notify me on my talkpage when e-mails have been sent; I rarely look in that inbox spontaneously" (read: I will now check those e-mails). Y'know, ADHD. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd recommend doing email forwarding or POP/IMAP. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
And apologies! FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
No worries. I spend literally 8 hours a day checking RW (life well spent); I should be able to fit checking that dang inbox into my routine. That being said however, if you ever need me to check that inbox with any urgency, drop me a talkpage note and it will be done within the hour (unless I'm asleep). All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Julian Assange[edit]

Why does Assange hate Hillary? I thought he was a liberal. It seems very weird to me that he would be helping Donald Trump or Russia, especially since Russia is ten times less democratic than we are at our worse and Assange's purpose is strengthening democracy through transparency. I know this isn't the reference desk, but you reverted my edit so I thought you probably know what you're talking about. -- (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. The article provides a good explanation. Sorry for bothering you. -- (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Well... It kind of is a reference desk, this whole place. You're welcome to ask anytime. I'm glad if our article was able to shed some light on what you were wondering, anyhow. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Revert?! Seriously?[edit]

Dude, why would you move a quote about free will from the "free will" section into the "absence of God section"?! And why leave the "Absence of God" section essentially empty (except for a quote that has nothing to do with the "absence of God" argument)? I know we are not wikipedia, but we should at least try to edit a change we disagree with, instead of blindly doing a wholesale revert. You didn't even fill in an edit comment! Well, at least you didn't hunt me down and revert everything I had recently done, like the last guy. :-)

Separately, regarding the edit which might have irked you into reverting my entire set of changes, I started a section in the talk page. --Bertrc (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If you took the issue up on the relevant talkpage (like one should; appreciated), why lambast me over it on my talk page as well? Furthermore, you cannot provide an edit summary for rollbacks. Yet, you rush to the conclusion that no (impossible to add) edit summary was given by me just in order to spite you. Oy vey. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Are you using Yiddish? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
"He's going meshuggah!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Oy Gevalt! another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Aw, Bubelah, I didn't mean to be a shlemiel. Didn't you see my smiley? I wasn't lambasting; I was poking! I'm really sorry if you took offense. I brought up the serious aspect on the talk page of the article. I had assumed you were just rushing for some reason or had been distracted, so you didn't discriminate on the changes and instead blindly reverted. I (thought I) was tweaking you playfully, here, for your haste. --Bertrc (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Not fair use[edit]

Weaseloid is currently correct. Contact Explosm at, they've granted us copyright permissions before. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 12:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

How is it not fair use? Have they contacted us about removing it? We could cite the source even more clearly in the article, also. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Unless we criticize or defend the cartoon in-article, using it as supplementary in-article material doesn't quite fit "Fair Use" -- at least, in a strict interpretation, which is the safer one legally. (Besides, asking doesn't hurt! It takes all of 3 minutes!) FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 12:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
So change the thumbnail text to something transformative? And I agree on asking — and since it takes all of 3 minutes, you mind doing it? ADHD. Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


Must think of something fun...-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

What the heck was that about you blocking tons of people for infinite time? Something about your userpage? EUI, buddy? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Whhaaaaattttt??? I'm noooootttt ediitttiiiinnnggg unnnnduuuurr the infllluuuuenceee....-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Smoke a shot of LSD, or do a line of heroine. You're way too sober! another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
You're all doped up on pot! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I know a way to get high and it doesn't involve drugs. I'm going to go troll a racist fundamentalist! In real life!-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't ya get ya head whacked please Th hug.gif. 'd be a shame ter lose ya. another (((zionist))) conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm back! Racist fundamentalist is unfortunately someone I can't avoid. :-(-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
That person from before? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Man, that sucks. But on the other hand, it sharpens the mind. another (((zionist))) conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@RBP Yup ;(-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Did another successful troll! :)-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
What? You did him? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

WTF?! No!-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

So what did you mean by "did another successful troll"? I literally don't get what you meant. Heh Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
He hid under a bridge and successfully collected the troll toll, d'uh. How could you not know that? ;-) Th hug.gif What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 16:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Percy is getting upset! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Why are you speaking of yourself in third person? Also, why are you upset? What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 18:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Answer to #1: Because this is the reference. Answer to #2: Becasue I can't understand what the hell you fine people are going on about. DiamondDisc1 claims he/she "did" a person, you claim they're under a bridge... Percy is getting suspicious! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

F*** it!-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

What did I tell you?[edit]

I leave for less than a day, and Laurogeita is already edit warring over the Israel article! He is emboldened now that he knows the community won't punish him for his violations. PB (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Christ almighty man. Like I said in my "no" vote. All you had to do was make a case for them being disruptive. I had no reason to believe or disbelieve that from your vaguely articulated "He's this already banned user" thing. Chill out. No one is going to die because our Israel article isn't perfect. If there's edit warring, you maybe should have made that the focus of your coop. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
"The community won't punish him for his violations" — you write almost as if I hadn't reverted him? Which is what I did. So don't worry, PB — please rest assured that nobody is missing any edit wars in the recent changes feed. We're all paying perfectly vigilant attention to any such disputes. If he's edit warring, all you need to do is consider the age-old tactical advice (often attributed to Napoleon); never interrupt your opponent while he is making a mistake. If so, just let the man gather up a hefty edit war in his contributions log. Then you'll have ripe soil to coop him later. Learn to bide your time, friend. (And to not participate in the same evils, of course, lest you risk getting cooped as well!) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I try my best not to edit war. Percy (or was it someone else?) reverted one of my edits asking for sources, I hope my paltry association of websites gives at least some plausibility to some claims. I fear some other claims would also look better with sources, but I am only human. I would greatly welcome it if you, Pbfreespace could provide sources, preferably those that aren't suspect of being more agenda driven than fact driven. Overall our coverage on the issue - as far as I have been able to see - suffers from too little facts (with ironclad sources) and too much opinion. There are other topics on which we espouse controversial opinions with much better basis in fact and there are articles in which we simply state the truth and have the facts on our side without any need to dictate opinions. What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 21:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I would literally appreciate it if you could just step back from the Israel/Palestine articles for a week or two. Seriously dude, take some space. Show me what my good will is getting me here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. Let's keep it out of recent changes. What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 21:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
By that, I sincerely hope you don't mean "time to start ninja editing those exact pages". Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
What's ninja editing? And sorry in advance for what I gather to be a stupid question Th hug.gif What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 22:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Laurogeita Hamabost can't ninja-edit, he isn't in the ninja user group.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC) 16:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

"Old timer"[edit]

I went to a local museum last year and there was display of Sony Walkmen. Cue wails of anguish as I saw things I remember being the new shiny latest thing in a fucking museum. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 21:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

And the worst part was when you got on my talk page just now, and I reminded you that the year 1987 was (about three and a half months shy of) 30 years ago. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The worst bit is realising that Nevermind, Screamadelica and Out of Time were released half my life ago. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 21:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey, 1991 is halfway through your life? For me, that same year marked the bang of the starting gun. You might be the first person on here who I haven't been calling "old timer" improperly. Great albums, btw. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I still have my old Walkman. Does that mean I belong in a museum? Don't answer. Leuders (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Wow, sorry I missed this thread. I started my career in 1991; Nevermind was something my students listened to. My walkman died before that, but I still have the cassettes--does that count? Jagulard (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

We're putting you in a home[edit]

Here's a support group for ancient technology that insists that they aren't irrelevant. Their affirmation song is titled "Useful to boot". I'll see you in the upcoming meeting of the human equivalent to this soon enough, buddy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
On my 25th birthday I watched Top of the Pops (UK chart show/national institution) and everybody on it was younger than me... except for Genesis. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 22:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Which year was that, if you don't mind me asking? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
2016 minus half my life. 1991. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 22:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah. Math never was my strong side (I'm an adult who counts on his fingers). The fact is, if it wasn't for calculators, I'd basically be legally retarded. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
For me, math was/is never hard, basically an easy A in school.-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Paradoxially, I never had trouble with programming or with symbolic logic. Always had trouble with maths. (Read: I never had a good maths teacher, and I didn't get my ADHD diagnosis until I was halfway to 25. You can imagine if I ever got the help with maths I would have sorely needed in time.) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it's just arithmetic that's the problem. Me too, when it got down to matricesWikipedia and Long divisionWikipedia. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 08:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I wanted to drop by and say thank you very much for the warm welcome. Even though I've been lurking on this wiki for a good bit, it is also the first I have ever made an account for. So, many thanks for dispelling some of my nervousness right out the gate! Deadwingwut? 15:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey buddy! No, thank you! Nothing to worry about here, friend. I'm glad to hear that you've been taking the time to lurk and read our content, and I'm now especially happy to hear that you've (finally) decided on signing yourself up for an account. Now — don't be afraid to make mistakes, never hesitate to ask (when in doubt, always talkpage), and help us keep making this a better place for everyone. Th hug.gif All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you 2[edit]

I used the online tool to delete the EXIF and re-uploaded but saw the EXIF still there (maybe because I re-used the old file name?) Anyway, the file is better deleted. It was a one-joke use, so no loss. OK, just look into the NeuralyzerWikipedia and we're done here. Leuders (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Aah, the Neuralyzer. For when you need to instantly take people from Phoenix Wright to Patrick Star without their consent. (You're welcome, for the record Th hug.gif) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm God[edit]

Do you really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really want that section unindented? Yeah, it says "humans have no right to question," but I always hear this argument as "Humans have know ability to understand" which would truly be a sub-argument of mysterious ways. I feel like the princess and the pea. --Bertrc (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hah, I can see that you do. And yes, I would prefer it to be unindented. All the variant theodicies share headline size, and that's the best approach. Many of them will overlap anyway, so one should take care not to treat them as undercategories of each other too hastily. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)