User talk:Ryulong

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>

, (new)

You're nominated!

You've got the chance for another shot at becoming a mod (a modshot?) in the upcoming by-election. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Since you're the expert

Can you please take a look at RationalWiki:Chicken_coop#User_using_the_Japanese_word_for_.22pedophile.22_as_their_username. According to a Google search, "shouniaisha" is Japanese for "pedophile". Can you please confirm if this is true? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Pedantry

Ryūlóng, I am going to make a point-by-point reply to you here in the hopes that we can address each and every problem.

• Firstly, I don't know in what sense you mean 'quibble'. If it is in regard to 'an argument about a trivial matter', then I would agree with you in one context, but disagree with you in another. The 'other' context is one in which this website claims to be a repository of information. It is, in effect, a kind of encyclopaedia. A rational argument often includes empirical data and, by changing a correct title to an incorrect title, you appear to have left rational thinking behind. If someone changed the President of the USA, in an article, to the President of Texas, would you feel that is accurate? What if many people used the title 'President of Texas'? Would that make it any more accurate?
• Relevancy to you is not necessarily relevancy to others. By the same token, what is irrelevant to you, may not be irrelevant to others.
• I like the way you call me a pedant, just after you (rather pedantically) exaggerate my intent to be accurate by quoting the full style of the British monarch. To be clear: this is not what I had done.
• If it were common practice for people to stick their heads in fires, would you follow suit? It is, after all, what everyone else does. Many people use derogatory terms to describe gay people. Should we follow suit?
• Your objection to using a more accurate term seems, in itself, to be pedantic. If it is 'trivial', as you have suggested, then why bother changing it back to a less correct form?
• The biggest problem that exists with the term 'Queen of England' is that it reinforces another highly inaccurate habit that is also common - particularly, it has to be said, in the USA. That is the insistence of referring to the United Kingdom as 'England'. While the Elisabeth II is the monarch of England, she is only that by virtue of her being the British monarch. By the same token, England is indeed the largest constituent part of the UK, and the sovereign parliament is located there. However, we don't refer to the USA as 'Washington' or 'DC', despite the fact that the seat of political power being situated in Washington DC. Nor should we refer to the UK as 'England'.

When all is said and done, this website is intended to be a source of information. How good do we want that source to be? Do we want it to contain inaccuracies merely because "everyone else does it"?

It seems to me that the idea of disseminating information infers a certain penchant for pedantry.

My case for now rests, M'lud. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ryu is no longer active here. Why are you addressing him in this venue? Hipocrite (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Whatever happened to you?

I miss you. A lot of people from the glory days of RW are gone now, it's sad. — Ɖøn Ĵuan ^Harass 22:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I just know this person for writing a ton of crap on GamerGate. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

You appeared after the Great Flame War of mid 2015, which was an unpleasant shitfest all around. Ol' @David Gerard himself called me a concern troll at one point, stating that I had "came out of nowhere to stir shit up", which admittedly I do/did tend to do. I used to go on long breaks between sporadic bursts of editing, in fact, the last month has seen more editing from me than at any other prior period of my history here on RW combined. Just check the old Coop archives if you're really all that interested. Ryulong himself was a bit short-tempered, which caused a lot of drama here. Apparently he just raged quit after all this shit happened. — Ɖøn Ĵuan ^Harass 23:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Man, I don't know if you are joking about "glory" days. Looks like a lot of drama... And resulting fun for moderators. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

They were certainly no "glory" days. Rylong was a seriously toxic personality, and I am still disappointed that a number of people came to his defence when his actions were clearly not defensible, seemingly just because he was on "their team". First thing I did when considering returning to this site is check if he's still active. While he made some good contributions, overal him editing here wasn't good for the site, and I don't think it was good for him, either.

That said, I hope he is doing well in life and that he has learned a thing or two in the last four years. Martin (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)