User talk:Sprocket J Cogswell/Archive3

"Momentous or dramatic occasions"

What counts as a momentous/dramatic occasion where you feel inclined to use the fancy gif sig? THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER ^{Suffer! Bastard!} 22:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No set rules. Sometimes I feel like using it. Most times I don't. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sprocko

How've ya been? Ty^JFBAA 18:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Dude, you're back! I had resigned myself to the pale shadow of its former self that was RW without your caring iron fist. I would've said something on your talk page, but, you know, LQT. This is a momentous occasion indeed! Sprocket J Cogswell 18:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll get rid of it if there is some way to archive all the trolling conversation. The iron, yet caring fist will no longer be as omnipresent as the heady days of yore but I feel it has been long enough that I can get revenge return. Ty^JFBAA 18:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I bet you had your reasons, and am content not knowing them, now that you're back. I've got some kimchi right here that would go nicely with a cold platter of revenge, but you'll have to come get it yourself. It's the yellow house on the left; knock and come on in if you see a light in the hall. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Cog sci article

TBQH, I have lost interest in editing the general science or other informational articles that would largely duplicate those on Wikipedia outside of minor corrections. Again, the "crappy Wikipedia" problem rears its head. The comments on the talk page seem to be largely accurate -- embodied cognition is not a mainstream approach to cog sci. That said, I think it is useful to remind us that it's not all always about the brain ("We are our brains" seems to have unfortunately become a popular dictum). The specific research program launched by Lakoff et al runs a little bit too far with this idea, though, as was pointed out on the talk page. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

One missional reason to mention the embodied stuff is that it sheds light on erroneous features of earlier philosophy, or so I thought. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Almost everything that Lakoff says in that paragraph is true, but misleading. It is a huge straw man to attribute these positions to some vague entity called "Western Philosophy." There have been debunkers of that sort of idealism around since the Greek skeptics. In more modern times, philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment (most prominently David Hume and Adam Smith) were opponents of the idea that reason was king. (I recall one of the grandaddies of cognitivism, Jerry Fodor, saying something along the line that Hume was the first cognitive scientist.) So we didn't need Lakoff to come along and tell us this, although he has been adding nails to the coffin. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

E-mail

I have sent you an e-mail. No response is required, but it might be worth your while to read it. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Wahey.^{an iron, yet caring fist} 17:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Good work

Have a cookie ^{an iron, yet caring fist} 14:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

For demonstrating exemplary goatery in the line of duty, Tyrannis has awarded you a used pre-owned! and slightly stale cookie. Ewwwwwww. Cockroaches ate half of it.

MMNOM THANKS DUDE My immune system can use the practice. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

a kind of horn you probably never heard of

I make this fedora look good

You won't stump me that easily. What is it, a C-melody saxophone? A stritch? A manzello? A straight alto? A soprillo? One of thole horizontal fleugelhorns? I'm dying to know. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 20:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Still can't see the damn image. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 20:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a mystery to me, and the guy who sold me the horn wasn't 100% for certain. It's in B flat, more or less modern tuning, and says "Courtois" on the bell, along with some Frenchy verbiage. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't see the image, but Antoine Courtois is an instrument manufacturer in the Buffet group. Their specialties are the fugelhorn, the saxhorn, the trumpet, and the trombone, so I would guess it's one of the former two. - Grant (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Was that the case a hundred years ago? It's also got a "H.& A. SELMER, INC. SOLE US AGENTS NEW YORK" stamp under the Courtois quatre-vingt-huit rue des Marais St Martin, Paris stuff. So far yours is the warmest guess. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it an orphicleide? From what I can tell, that's the only other non-standard instrument Courtois manufactured. Of course, it doesn't help that even their standard instruments were designed to look quite different from the norm (including a trumpet that sounds like a horn, among other things). Of course, if I could see the picture it would likely be easier... - Grant (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen or heard an ophicleide, although our band director in high school used to wonder if some of us were trying to sound like one. That's the horn that looks a bit like a saxophone with a brass mouthpiece, I think. Nebuchadnezzar came pretty close on Fr. Vivian's talk page, so that might give you an idea, until the image shows up at your end. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, could be mistaken for a euphonium, eh? I suppose it's not a saxhorn or a baritone horn? - Grant (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not a baritone horn. The bore is too conical for that. I call it the funnel of love, and other things less flattering. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, bore too conical to be a baritone... How about a cornet?

Interesting sidenote, but I learned the difference between the euphonium and the baritone horn because one of my old wind ensemble conductors always mixed the two up. - Grant (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I sometimes use cornet fingerings on it, not counting the fourth valve (same as 1-3, but with its own slide so it's in tune) but it's pitched the same as a euph or straight trombone. One of the most likely guesses is tenor-baritone saxhorn, but I'm happy to let the mystery be. I really don't know. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and here I thought you knew and were looking for a specific answer! Saxhorn certainly seems likely, since it's pitched like a euphonium. Every manufacturer makes their instruments differently, and the interchangeability of instruments within certain families can lead to some interesting guessing games. - Grant (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You guys are mostly grownups, and I would never play that kind of "guess what I've got in my pocket" games with you all. ;-) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Finally, I can see the goddamn thing. My money is on saxhorn. Fourth one down on this page seems pretty similar. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 21:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm guessing a tenor saxhorn as well based on the image. - Grant (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Autopatrol

Hey thanks for the extra...device I wanna say? I don't that I'm exactly to qualified to use it, this wiki-business is a new thing to me. --Journeyman Studios (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you've had to prove your humanity with a CAPTCHA before saving your edits lately, but autopatrolled status makes that slight annoyance go away. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh thanks, those turing tests are annoying. --Journeyman Studios (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

What the hell?

Why do you keep changing this article back to support this stupid conspiracy? Are you the guy with the "reliable sources" you just so happen not to be able to name or source in your article whatsoever? Have you ever considered that they might just be totally wrong or mistaken?

You know what, more classified documents'll be revealed in 2017, so maybe there's a small chance what comes out'll contradict every other Johnson tape, IDF paper, and US military record released so far. But until then, let's go with what's actually sourced rather than what you have no way of actually proving. ^{— Unsigned, by: *Asterisk* / talk / contribs}

Keep it at Talk:USS Liberty incident and off my talk page. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Calling foul

Trolling... aparently adding facts to the "Rational Wiki" page is trolling?

According to the Newcomers guide:

Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

• Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
• Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
• Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
• Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

This isn't really the case I think... rather you've found a public place in which you and your like minded individuals can post things you are passionate about regardless of facts.

I provided facts from established sources. Is the truth just that hard for you and yours to take?

I know I will never change your mind... However, I do feel it relevant to add a little bit of truth to an overly one sided wiki. ^{— Unsigned, by: Brown patriot92 / talk / contribs}

You're entitled to your views, of course. Further discussion of your recent edits will be better at Talk:Myths and facts about immigration to the United States. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Another weird horn

EmbedVideo received the bad id "d-HgqDI0424#t=160" for the service "youtube".

Dig what Billy Eckstein picks up around 2:30 -- folks in the comments say it's a valve trombone but built to look like a sax. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 20:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure I saw something like that while web-surfing a couple or three weeks ago. Now lost in the mist, but I will keep looking. Here is another unusual one, with the "Johnson mute" installed. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It might be a Normaphone. idk Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Infowars

Touché, but let's please refrain ad hominems. I'm still improving my English. ^{— Unsigned, by: JonCGerald / talk / contribs} 07:47, 13 July 2014‎ (UTC)

I see what you said. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism today

It's due to this thread: [1]. It will probably stop when the thread dies --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thanks for the context. It seems to have cooled off a bit already, but I guess we will see. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I found when I used to edit Wikipedia that generally when there is vandalism on a Feminist article from more than one IP or user then there is a correlating Reddit or 4chan thread encouraging it. This seems like it was just one person with a proxy from reading through it. Should die down soon --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

My user page vandalized less than an hour after becoming a sysop. Heh. That's a new record for me being attacked by the trolls. Thanos6 (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's probably good practice for using the sysop tools --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm having to restrain my inner Palpatine and not burst out shouting "POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!" ;) Thanos6 (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hahaha, I'm really surprised it's lasted this long. They generally get bored by now --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I remember one incredibly persistent troll from a board I used to hang out at (it just recently went under). This person spent a full eight hours posting troll/spam topics so that all the real topics would get pushed about ten pages or so back. The scary thing is, it wasn't just the same topic copy-and-pasted; each one was completely different, suggesting way too much time spent coming up with everything. Another user and I had to bump every single other topic to kick the troll topics to the back. (That was actually what got he and I our moderator positions; it was right around Christmas and most of the usual staff weren't around to fix the problem the normal way, so an admin gave us both an instant promotion when he saw our work.) Thanos6 (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh really? That sounds frustrating, things like this take up so much time. It seems that it's the Feminist articles in particular that he has a problem with, I imagine they will work their way through them and then start on womens autobiographies. This website moves at a slower pace than Wikipedia so him doing this is going to take weeks of dedication (in which the majority of us can still edit as we have autoconfirmed accounts) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

[ec] Good, good... feel your testiness, let it flow through you...

Probably better to block IP's than to use the vandal brake on them. Vandial binning is permanent unless someone notices and paroles the IP, which could cause collateral inconvenience later on. Or so I've been led to believe. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, really? I'm sorry, I must have misread the sysop page; I thought vandal binning was the "chiding of first resort."Thanos6 (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries, there could easily be differing opinions. I believe you're right, it's the first resort for named accounts. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Is 'vandalism today' a weekly, monthly, or annual publication? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully annual --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure. I may have spied a copy on the table, the time George Clooney's character picked up "Living Without Intestines" to leaf through while waiting to see his boss in that movie with Zeta-Jones. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take "why we should be able to turn off IP editing for an hour or so" for a hundred, Alex. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 14:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

RE:Minor edits

I done as you asked, sir. --Daniiieeeel (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Battle-axe

"Battle-axe" is a term used for wives who are horribly mean and controlling. We don't present any evidence that Melanie Phillips fits that description, and even if we did, since it's only a term applied to one gender, it's problematic, and probably doesn't belong on RW. Rand0 (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I did not intend to rollback your undoing of my edit, only to undo it. I wasn't trying to imply vandalism or the like on your part. Rand0 (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I have copied your first comment to Talk:Melanie Phillips and replied there. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hello again its me the LBJ vandal/troll... I just thought I would pop in to say hi cause its been a long time since I trolled here...so...hi... ^{— Unsigned, by: 81.132.181.222 / talk / contribs} 17:39, 24 July 2014‎ (UTC)

That's nice. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

June Tabor

Your mention of June Tabor reminded me how much I enjoy non-Americans (non-merkins?) performing something from these-here states. Maybe, it's narcissistic, but there's something cool, too, about Hugh Laurie's American accent. All-in-all, it's just fun to see how elements of the culture/tradition I know get translated into (slightly different) other cultures/traditions. MarmotHead (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Martin Simpson--her one time musical partner, and, I believe husband, is, AFAIC, the premiere living interpreter of American and British folk music on the steel-string acoustic guitar, and, bar none, the best slide guitar player I've ever heard. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 20:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Cool! That should make him a good mind-opener for me and slide guitar. My bias against it has more to do with unfair generalizing from childhood experiences with "Hee Haw". MarmotHead (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

A well-played slide guitar is a joy to hear. Commercial happynoise such as Hee Haw, not so much. I am still fond of listening to recordings of Tabor and Prior, in the configuration called Silly Sisters, for example their take on Purcell's 17th century catch, "Cakes and Ale".

Ms. Tabor came to a small but well known coffee house near my neck of the woods one time in the nineties, I think. That time she was accompanied by a fiddler/violist, who gave us a few Playford dance tunes (again with the 17th C. stuff) while she was giving her voice a moment's rest. She acknowledged then that she tended to go for songs with doleful themes, or "love gone wrong" as she put it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Metaphorically speaking

Wouldn't free rein and free reign mean the same thing?--"Shut up, Brx." 16:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

As an idiom, "free rein" is loosely based on the idea that if you let go of the reins holding something or someone (say a horse), it's free to do as it wants. Free "reign," on the other hand, seems to imply something about the succession of a monarchy, but I'm not sure how it could be construed to mean the same thing as free "rein." - Grant (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

[ec] That's not how they are used. Being able to toss your head and go where you please is not equivalent, not even close, to ruling a kingdom or an empire. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Now "free rain" ... oh, wait a minute, this isn't the joke department. MarmotHead (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you're allowed free reign over a kingdom, wouldn't it be similar to the freedom of letting the reins go? I think "free" is the important word here.--"Shut up, Brx." 16:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

So much depends on the difference between free beer and free speech. A reigning monarch seldom has anyone to rein him in. That's another place ("reining in") the homophony is beset with trap and snare. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There have historically been a few exceptions (e.g. the Sejm of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth), but Sprocket is on the money there. I believe you would have to stretch the meaning of "reign" too much to make the idiom work, even by the lax standards of the English language. - Grant (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, someone writing "free reign" is usually someone trying to use fancier language than they know how. It makes an impression, but not the one they probably want. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Generally true, although the English language has a habit of folding common mistakes into its syntax fairly readily. If enough people start using "free reign," it might end up becoming an idiom in its own right. It also occurs to me that "free rein" might not actually be an idiom, since its meaning is fairly obvious. I suppose "free reign" would be if it eventually gained that meaning. Perhaps I now look like a fool! Ah well. - Grant (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

In my view, "free rein" is an idiom in the way "unshackled halter" isn't. People use one to mean something metaphoric, while the other would be a simple description of the condition of a piece of tack.

The faint sound you hear is a single tear making its laborious, seemingly randomly directed way down my cheek. I fear that you could be correct, that we are seeing a shift in the language, and future generations may never realize what has been lost. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

True. I suppose it depends on how literally you take the definition of "idiom." It would make sense that metaphors of that kind would be idioms, however.

I had an interesting discussion with one of my lab colleagues about the benefits and drawbacks of the linguistic flexibility within English. I took the position that well-structured languages with central regulatory bodies were preferable, while he took the position that the flexibility of the English language was preferable. I'm still undecided on that point myself, as he did bring up some interesting points. Even with the influence of regulatory bodies, languages inevitably grow and mutate, and it often ends up that regional dialects supplant any central bodies regardless. I've met folks from Paris who find my French (Québécois) entirely incomprehensible. Regulatory bodies such as l'Académie française start to falter once a language becomes multinational. - Grant (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Artfully presented ambiguity is fun stuff, and I'd hate to have to do without it. An accomplished writer or speaker has ways of keeping the ambiguities where they belong, though. With a suitably alert audience, code-switching is also fun.

I may have told the story before, about how a housemate and I went on a road trip to Montreal and the Gaspé. He was a Michigander, but had refined his French au pair taking care of a couple of kids in Paris. Somewhere in the Quebecois boondocks we stopped at a convenience store for one thing and another. He started up a conversation with the proprietor (about beer and cider, what else) and I kept quiet, sort of following most of it. On the way back to the car he confided that he could hardly understand the guy's thick accent.

Where I live now, one can occasionally find francophone Rhode Islanders being made gentle fun of for saying things like, "Marie, throw me down the stairs my sweater!" It is well-known that in Woonsocket they park their cars side by each. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

My cousin is just learning English now (both are francophones), and listening to her talk in either English or French is quite the experience. While I've had the benefit of being exposed to Québécois through my family, my formal education was Parisian. My mix of dialects gets me some funny looks sometimes, though I'm told I'm more Québécois than Parisian. Of course, my French has fallen into disuse these days now that I'm in a mostly uni-lingual area. - Grant (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Propagandized Chemtrail Thread

A site that purports to favor science and reasoning yet promotes unfactual statements while censoring attempts to rectify errors, is nothing more than a troll site full of globalist propaganda where truth and facts have no place at the table. You are therefore an ebarrassment to the movement of reason and science; a corrupted house of deception, collapsed upon itself with no intellectual merit. Your doublespeak, twisting, turning, and wrenching to sell a mindless pro-NWO narrative is as impressively '1984' as it is disturbing. ^{— Unsigned, by: 170.97.167.69 / talk / contribs} 18:21, 5 August 2014‎ (UTC)

That's nice. Talk:Chemtrails is where this belongs, not here. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Except that the comment was directed to you as the censoring party, not to the discussion forum at large. ^{— Unsigned, by: 170.97.167.69 / talk / contribs} 18:56, 5 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Imagine how special I feel about that. Talk:Chemtrails is where this belongs, not here. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Merciful Atheism

I am not aware of "all" of the objectives of this site, but to promote evolution and other sciences is an important and valuable goal, But there is a virulent anti-Christian ethic and it does not criticize Islam for sharing the same beliefs. Because of this, this site I think is going in the wrong direction towards occultist worship of all things anti-Christian, rather than promoting secular arguments against injustices practiced by all religions including Christianity, Also the Creationists are winning because occultist and liberal elements in this website are alienating the American people. My IQ is above 130 so I can only provide truth and reason for Rational-Wiki. ^{— Unsigned, by: SecularConservative / talk / contribs} 14:58, 9 August 2014‎ (UTC)

That's nice that your IQ is above average, but I still like new topics to be posted at the end of the page. I see very little worshipfulness here at RationalWiki. The bar would be a better place to find people interested in discussing that. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

On your New Deal protection

I did use my words. In fact, I wrote the entire section that you removed. If you don't believe me, look the text up on the internet. It's not there anywhere, because I wrote it. The Honest Intellectual (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"Use your words" is what one says to a two-year-old who needs to know that discussion gets better results than does throwing a tantrum. In this case, it seemed like an appropriate thing to say to you, after your display of edit-warring. You should also use your reading comprehension skills, particularly regarding the repeated suggestions that you use the article's talk page. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Move it to the talk page if you want a discussion about it, given your semi-unorthodox views on the New Deal I assure you that you will receive some sort of response. Seeing as your edit changed the tone of the current article on the New Deal it is preferable that it should discussed first, and give the large amount of information you posted it probably will be discussed. Alsto003 (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Alex

"The" Honest Intellectual's writing could use tightening up. Quadrupling the size of a RationalWiki mainspace article is unlikely to persuade anybody of anything, especially if it starts out saying something like "One of the purposes of 'Rational Wiki' is to provide a platform for constructive dialogue and debate, so I will use this section to debunk the myths presented above."

Arguing about article content is not what the main space is for. RationalWiki has debate pages and forum pages for that, as well as the talk page behind each article. A recurring theme seems to be emerging here: use the talk page before trying to change the tone of an 8,000 character RW article by adding 25,000 characters to it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd recommend that you utilise your own reading comprehension skills: I did use the talk page. But apparently everyone who's interested is too narrow-minded to tolerate an opposing viewpoint that would dare challenge their own worldview. Should I apologise for the economic illiteracy and historical ignorance of others? No. It was a good, fully-sourced edit, and removing it just shows either that you don't know the recent history of the page or that you're too ignorant to accept someone challenging the economic fallacies surrounding Big Daddy FDR. The Honest Intellectual (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The recent history of that page, its talk page, and your own contributions are all transparently available. You will need to do a better job of defending your addition at Talk:New Deal than you did up until the 29th of July. The only one who seemed to take an interest was Reckless Noise Symphony, who has a lot of other stuff on his plate, and may not be swift to respond. Rob Smith (who signs as nobs) has a history of posting agenda-driven non sequiturs, so I've taken to ignoring whatever sarcastic trolling he posts, as he did on that talk page.

Further discussion about this should happen at Talk:New Deal. You will get better results if you keep it calm and focused. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

To expand on SJC's advice (without his permission or agreement), consider a slightly different approach. You may be right, but aggressive assertions of being right are not persuasive and, to folks like me, are actually dissuasive. MarmotHead (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying in a side conversation

I don't know how I come across, but if what I say ever can be perceived as a lack of respect for you, I'm full of shit. That said, I'll get back to respectfully disagreeing. MarmotHead (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries. If it matters, you're on my good list. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hovind

Did you know that he sued the RMF over something an editor inserted into his article here? Nutty Roux (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You have no basis for removing a talk page comment under the circumstances. Don't do it.

You said: "Then log in, so I know it's you covering the RMF's ass." Did you happen to see the complaint in his lawsuit? A copy of it is right here. One of the specific phrases he complains of is shown in the following screenshot of the complaint.

Were you aware that he sued the RMF over these words being inserted into the article about him? Nutty Roux (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Out of one side of your mouth you have proclaimed that you have a lot of skin in the RMF game. Out of another, possibly related hole, you have posted drunken rants, and claimed that having a big important day job excuses you from reading RW carefully, for comprehension.

Some day you may get over your mid-life testiness. I'm not so sure that your authoritarian leanings can be so easily overcome. If you expect another response, be sure to hold your breath. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Don't respond. It's ironic that you would mention comprehension when you reflexively rolled back an edit removing the very phrase that Hovind sued the RMF over. In response to direct questions about whether you were aware of the basis of the lawsuit, which you should have looked up if you were trying to comprehend the edit, you've removed my question from your page, called me a troll, collapsed the conversation more than once, told me to go away or the like, asked in what capacity I would dare question you, and now given an irrelevant personal insult. I have for a long time had no respect for you, so I don't care about the personal stuff. Any sensible person knows there's nothing authoritarian about correcting an obvious problem with an article or asking someone why he would do something as idiotic as you did.

I don't have any skin in the RMF game anymore, as I resigned from the board. effective last weekend. Am I allowed to care about someone who edits the site so frequently as you and ought to know better would act so irresponsibly and then apparently defend it, or at least obfuscate. I don't want to see the RMF getting sued. I take it you don't care about that. Insult me all you want, I'm not responsible for your bad judgment and cowardice. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

That's nice. You may find your answer here. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Other interested readers may find more context here Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Wow, Nutty Roux still thinks it's useful to come fanning flames on my talk page? That kind of language is dickish flame bait. Nutty, you can keep on pretending to be an asshole if you like, but it's unbecoming.

You finally noticed an instance of the word "fraudster" after it stood for nearly six months on the "pissed at us" page, and came, in the guise of a BoN whitewashing the page, to remove it. That's some outstanding diligence there, counselor. Better go combing the wiki for all the other places his tax chicanery is pointed out in unflattering terms.

Next you'll be telling me that Sun Tzu told you that pitching a hissy fit on my talk page would be part of an effective defense against a time-wasting suit filed pro se by some jailbird. Tell me more about how that's going for you... or better still, don't. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You ran your mouth commenting on the Hovind suit, like you run your mouth saying nothing of any great value or interest about everything else, so I assume you read the complaint and know which specific words he's suing over? You repeated one of them here. I find it odd that you keep wanting to make this about me rather than your own behavior in reflexively reverting. The lawsuits aren't something to be cavalier about. They could threaten the RMF's financial future. Show some respect. Stop trying to shield yourself from criticism by trying to make this about me and just admit that you screwed up. I wouldn't have pursued this if you weren't such a sniveling shit about it. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that Kent Hovind hasn't been convicted for tax fraud? Even Wikipedia seems to think he has.[2]--"Shut up, Brx." 18:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? You're also defending this cavalier disregard for the RMF. Hovind wasn't convicted of tax fraud. The government didn't even attempt to prosecute under any statute that uses that word. The colloquial term for some of the charges may be "fraud", but it (a) a legal term that has a specific meaning, and (b) what got the RMF sued. Wikipedia can get its own self sued if it wants. The RMF already has been. I don't care whether you agree with Hovind's claims. Know why? Because you're not a federal judge. That's why. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

There were some edits to a peripheral page that happened over the space of about three minutes, that ended in the "offending" text being removed and staying that way. Nutty stewed about it for an hour, then came to this user talk page to stir up something. Since then his language has escalated to vile trolling. Nutty, you are the one being a blowhard here. Your choice, to stop or continue. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that you continue trying to have the last word by adding snotty comments to your collapse template. Please stop. And your definition of "vile trolling" made me scratch my head. You're the one who made this deeply personal from the start. Here's the takeaway: don't do things that threaten the RMF. Like I said, I wouldn't have kept posting here if you were man enough to simply say "oh man, you're right; I should'nt have done that." Can you say that? Nutty Roux (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that you continue trying to have the last word Wait, what are you doing? Anyways, didn't you leave? You should try again. Harder this time.--"Shut up, Brx." 15:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

My god. Do you also just sit around refreshing recent changes? This is surreal. I'm getting openly trolled for making sure you trolls know they can't endanger the site. Wow. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That is exactly what is happening, yes.--"Shut up, Brx." 16:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

My 2 cents here is that, while Nutty can be a dick, he is absolutely right on this one and his being dickish about is stems from him not wanting to see the RMF sued and this site shut down as a result. While I know he can come off as a dick at times, this time I think it's out of general concern that what was being added was more harmful than we can imagine. If I were still a Trustee and more active, I would likely have done the exact same thing. And Brx, you are not helping this situation one bit. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in. The way I see it, as I've said above, the "problem" had been fixed before Nutty came here stirring the pot. It looked like some BoN had tried to whitewash the "pissed at us" page. When Nutty logged in to redo the whitewashing and I saw who it was, the context became clear, and I let it be. Some time later, he came to my talk page to make sure I knew how very very wrong I had been. If he were sincere about wanting to protect the wiki, he would have found and fixed the other instances where someone didn't call this particular spade an earth-moving implement. For a long time now, Nutty has given me reasons to consider him an unreliable narrator, and this is another instance of that. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow. You don't listen. You don't learn. Let me tune you in here, since you keep escalating your struggle to ascribe bad faith. There are reasons way over your head that I would not make a large project of intervening to correct content problems. Look up the safeharbor provision of the Communications Decency Act. If you need me to spell it out to you further, feel free to email me. It's not appropriate to talk about in public. And just to clue you in on a bit of elementary reasoning, one needn't go fix every other problem in the world before he can be credited with good faith for fixing this one. Now that you know what's what, why don't you go fix it? There's no excuse for protecting content like that. Whitewashing indeed. I sincerely hope this isn't how you actually view content here. Good god. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't assume the reasons are over my head. Not only are you ignorant of how old I am, which seems to be a big deal to you, but you have no clue about my work experience, the things I've waited to do until a suit was settled. Whitewashing for good reasons is still whitewashing, but for good reasons. Other than making a big noise about something that should have disappeared without further comment, what is your purpose on this page, anyway? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

I responded at Talk:Armenia. 96.255.60.23 (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)