User talk:Sam/Archive II

Shrub

Bush and shrub are somewhat synonyms-some comedians referred to Bush as "Shrub". It's about as common as "Dubya" (a play on the Texan pronunciation of "W").--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh duh, that makes sense. I hear "Dubya" all the time but for some reason I never hear "Shrub." I remember when I was in elementary school I would see "W" stickers on cars in support of Bush and I would wonder why my parents disliked it so much. For whatever reason I thought it stood for "Women," as in women's rights. Still remember my mom enlightening me about it. Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If anything, Dubya would be against women's rights! I still hear Shrub on occasion, but I guess you could say Dubya is the more popular of the two.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"Wassup"

Tch, you're so minimalist when welcoming users—all you have to say is "wassup". Personally, I don't consider it a proper welcome unless you've dropped at least three or four useless templates on the page :-) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Are my "wassups"

a problem

for you,

bro? You have been reported to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Cease your unlawful actions or you will be greeted by some variation of "wassup" on your talkpage!

-- Sam ^Tally-ho! 03:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll have you know that I'm sternly shaking my finger at you right now. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Who needs real life stern finger shaking when you can just make a finger shaking template! Sam ^Tally-ho! 03:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That could work... Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sternly shaking my finger at you right now.

Voilà. A masterpiece just waiting to catch on. It may need a bit of a spruce up but it'll revolutionize the way we scorn each other around here. Sam ^Tally-ho! 04:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

PROTIP

Your signature is still set as {{User:Socal212/sig}} in your preferences. Blue (is useful) 04:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, thank you. Sam ^Tally-ho! 04:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"what did I do?"

I think you edit conflicted with Pibot (and Dumpling and Nebs) - you basically undid the archiving, + their comments. Try again, and it should work (if you're quick). Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 06:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Success! Thank you! Sam ^Tally-ho! 06:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Just so long as I don't have to pay $1.50. I need to win some Zimbabwean dollars off of Psygremlin... Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 06:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I had a teacher a couple years back who paid like $6 for two Z$trillion notes. Sam ^Tally-ho! 07:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Zimbabwe can deflate its money supply by selling trillion-dollar notes as novelties to tourists? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That might just work... Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 22:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Politics

Is eliminating the electoral college really a liberal perspective? More strikingly, isn't democratizing the appointment of SCotUS judges more of a right wing thing? It would give corporations more control over them; look how the right eliminated the lower judges who supported protections for same sex couples.

On an aside: ". . . military intervention as a last resort . . ." Well, if violence was not your last resort, then you failed to resort to enough of it. :-) --Bertrc (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow, I haven't read Schlock Mercenary in ages, need to catch up. Ty^{Bother me} 20:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not eliminating the Electoral College is a liberal perspective but I don't really like the indirect system it creates. I think the popular vote is good enough to elect the president in modern America. I think the main reason I don't like the way Supreme Court justices are chosen is because it makes it easy for crappy justices to sit on the bench for very long periods of time. I system I would like more might be just giving a justice, say, a five year term and then put them up for a vote of confidence or something. If America votes them down, then the president replaces him or her with a new justice (still being confirmed by the Senate and all that). I guess you have a pretty good point about corporate influence, but I still don't really like the current system (all the more reason to overturn that God-awful Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling). Sam ^Tally-ho! 20:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

With regards to the electoral colege, I kind of like the slight impediment to mob rule. However, I really advise against having direct elections of SCotUS. Even aside from the "money talks" aspect -- as evidenced by the lower judges who were removed -- We do have indirect elections (We elect both the nominator and the approvers) And in case of an emergency, there is a recall option via the legislature. Also, I think that you will find that the general definition of a "crappy judge" held by most people is "A judge that doesn't agree with me." Are your "crappy judges" really crappy, or do you just disagree with them? Imagine how many people think the same thing about the judges you do agree with. The mob mentality would make this apparent quite quickly. Additionally, even with proper campaign finance laws, look at how much time our elected officials spend preparing for re-election; I like having one branch that actually spends time learning its job, rather than politics. --Bertrc (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe the threshold for being a crappy justice is one who disagrees with me on more than 45% of the issues (I'd have to look up the number to be more precise). But yeah, it's hard to find any good way of dealing with the appointment of Supreme Court justices. Sam ^Tally-ho! 04:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

:-D You are much more generrous than I. I'm not even sure I give them 10%! --Bertrc (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Dude

Long time no see! Тy^talk 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I know, about five months or so now. How's everything over here? Sam ^Tally-ho! 19:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh some drama, some editing going on, all that stuff. Тy^talk 19:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Just as I left it. Sam ^Tally-ho! 19:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

He lives! Peter ^{Urist for Mod!} 03:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Wigo

Nice catch and WiGO! Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 03:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Sam ^Tally-ho! 03:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

PB&J

I eat my PB&Js open-faced. Don't discriminate against those of us who eat PB&Js open faced! :< Add an option to the poll for it! --Andy Franklinson (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

What the hell kind of abomination is that?? :P But the poll's how you spread the peanut butter and jelly, not how you eat it! Sam ^Tally-ho! 20:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but the choices clearly only apply to those who eat a normal PB&J. --Andy Franklinson (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

How so? Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Look at the choices! How do they apply to those of us who eat PB&Js open faced?! --Andy Franklinson (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

By open faced you mean not putting the two slices of bread together, right? Sam ^Tally-ho! 20:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I mean like this. Clearly, you put the peanut butter and jam on the same slice and there is no "other slice." I demand you remove this discrimination from your userpage! --Andy Franklinson (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so you choose to limit your spreading options by eating only a single slice of bread. How...how downright eccentric that is. I do, however, support equal rights for even the most bizarre of PB&J eaters and shall accommodate you in the poll. My sincerest apologies for all the grief and hardship I may have caused. Sam ^Tally-ho! 21:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! --Andy Franklinson (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

But I eat peanut butter and honey! Тy^{Not updated with a witty slogan this week} 21:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? Honey? Sam ^Tally-ho! 22:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Carrots with a PB&J? Abomination. Fresh fruit is the proper accompaniment for such sandwiches. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, it wasn't my picture. I just googled it, and that's what came up. --Andy Franklinson (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

A glass of milk goes well too. Sam ^Tally-ho! 00:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"That article gave me cancer"

[1] Osaka Sun (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Dude

For demonstrating exemplary goatery in the line of duty, Tyrannis has awarded you some beer. Look it has a goat on the label!

You're welcome, world. Sam ^Tally-ho! 06:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

How about...

...instead of continually adding the annoying Wikipedia-style tag to the ZAMM article, you actually tell us what you don't like about it? VOX^HUMANA 05:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.

I couldn't figure out how to format that bit. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Sam ^Tally-ho! 04:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sup?

What can I do for you?

Download (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a freshly baked batch of chocolate chip cookies. Sam ^Tally-ho! 01:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit hard to do over the internet. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 11:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It is if you lack creativity. Why just the other day I sent my friend on the other side of the country a batch of snickerdoodles through a Facebook post. He said they were still warm when he received them. Sam ^Tally-ho! 17:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Achive

Hi, can you achive my talk page for me, I am not sure how to do it. Thanks. Forests (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Reverts

Outta curiosity what's the best step to take if an edit gets reverted? I'm very confused, no explanation given as to the objection to my edit. Do people just do that? I left an edit summary so it was kinda rude... Tyc (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It happens a lot, especially to the newbies. A lot of the time people won't explain why they revert, but it's often because there's usually a general tone and overall opinion of a subject that most people like to preserve and if your edit happens to go against that then it could be reverted. If you really believe your version was better than I suggest you bring it up on the talk page and begin a dialogue about it. Sam ^Tally-ho! 21:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)