User talk:Stabby the Misanthrope/Archive2

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 15 April 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, (new)(back)

Hi there[edit]

[: --e|m|c [TALK] 16:14, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Fruitcake! --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 16:16, 16 February 2008 (EST)
I never knew the plural of "afikoman" was "afikomen". --e|m|c [TALK] 16:19, 16 February 2008 (EST)
Yes. Do you know any good afikowomen? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 16:20, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Indent Nazi[edit]

RA: there's a reason I dont indent beyond 4 - I can't see it properly on my screen! It just streams down one word /line @ rh edge. SusanMiouw 18:41, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Are you editing via cell phone? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:47, 16 February 2008 (EST)
pda/cell yup! SusanMiouw 18:53, 16 February 2008 (EST)
STBY!  :-) --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:04, 16 February 2008 (EST)
Susan wrote our friggin' help files and several navigation templates on that tinkertoy. A nine pixel by twelve pixel screen. Full 28-key keyboard. 16 colors. Oh, and a 1.2Kb/s innertube connection! humanUser talk:Human 19:07, 16 February 2008 (EST)

mIRC "slap"[edit]

Click on tools/script editor

Then popups. This was hard for me, and took me a while to break, and I think I had to hack around, but, when you see:

this crap:

.Ping:/ctcp $$1 ping
.Time:/ctcp $$1 time
.Version:/ctcp $$1 version
DCC
.Send:/dcc send $$1

Below it you see:

.Send:/dcc send $$1
.Chat:/dcc chat $$1
-
cheese:/me covers $$1 with a nice bit of cheese.  Yummy!
.Cod:/me sends $$1 to the Cape and Islands for a jolly holiday!
.2by4:/me slaps $$1 upside the head with a clue by four.
.purple:/me pwns $$1 with bright purple text.
.goat:/me thinks $$1 ate all the goat pizza again!

Well, no you won't cause I typed that in. I am not impressed by the mIRC wetware, this should have been easier. But that's what I wound up with. You'll have to bang it on the head with a trout to get it to work. hth, but I doubt it. humanUser talk:Human 22:19, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Signature[edit]

How do I get my signature to do like yours? {{subst:nosubst|User:Kip the Dip/sig}} 06:58, Feb. 17, 2008

I just answered on your talk page. And I hadn't even realized you had asked me yet when I did. ^_^ --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:13, 17 February 2008 (EST)
Thanks! -- Kip teh DipTalk 07:16, Feb. 17, 2008
Your welcome. Anything for an old familiar face! --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:17, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Okay, I'm going to leave.[edit]

When I came here, I thought this was a place to share your opinions and use reason to support them, applying logical arguments, debate, and the such. When you said there were a lot of militant atheist, I thought, "Well, of course. This is their thing." Now that I've browsed around, I see that this is an atheistic site, and a person that believes in an ancient holy book is not wanted here. (Especially not a future preacher!) I've always planned to one day be one of those religious apologetics, but I can't do it here and now because I'm not smart enough yet. : ( If I want to try to defend my beliefs, I'll just end up looking like a fool and embarrass myself. I might come back after I finish college and have more knowledge under my belt. See you at Uncyclopedia. -- Kip teh DipTalk 12:10, Feb. 17, 2008

It saddens me to see you go so soon. Well, I hope to see you again here. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 16:37, 17 February 2008 (EST)
A shame for you to give up so easily. I'm afraid believers in "ancient holy books" have a hard time here if they haven't really sorted out why they believe in the first place. Most non-believers here have given a lot of thought to why they don't believe and are present here because it matters to them, so I guess you could describe them as militant. If you've already decided you want to be a preacher then there is probably little chance of anyone here persuading you that there are more important things you could do with your life. You will live your life on the charity of people trying to assuage their own guilt. Ever thought of being a doctor, or a biochemist, or an intermediate technologist? You could have the chance to actually improve the lives of millions of people by helping them overcome disease, finding a cure for AIDS or malaria, or being able to produce clean water or cheap renewable energy for deprived people in the developing world. And yet you want to be a preacher, probably sitting in a comfortable house in suburban USA, standing up and frightening poorly educated people into giving you money. If you want people to see the value of your beliefs it will not be by hectoring them that they are all sinners, it will be by doing something worthwhile with your life and then showing them that you did it because your were filled with love for all your brothers and sisters. Believing in an ancient text without questioning where it came from and how it has been manipulated by other men demonstrates a singular credulity, the quality of a follower not a leader. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 17:16, 17 February 2008 (EST)
Buddy christ.jpg
And Genghis wins today's "Most Bigoted Statement of the Day Award"! Congratulations! A fine showing! --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 17:21, 17 February 2008 (EST)
Genghis, you know that is... harsh. Would it really kill you to just think of preachers as therapists with an interesting story? Kip, if you're still here, I'm sorry I missed this whole turn of events. There should have been no reason for you to feel ostracized at RationalWiki. If you really want to help people and believe that as a preacher you will be able to really do so, then that is fine for you. My only small word of advice would be to guard yourself against self-idealization as "crusader for morality" - although to be fair, that can happen to almost anyone. I also hope you feel able to return to RationalWiki after sorting out whatever issues you're having with your own beliefs. UchihaKATON! 17:26, 17 February 2008 (EST)
Huh, Genghis. Just for your last sentence, (at least in some confessions) aspiring priests really study hard those matters, and don't believe it's only brainwashing. It's not that they wake up one day and start preaching about things they know nothing about. Editor at RWwas rooting for HD DVD 17:35, 17 February 2008 (EST)
AK, that seems like a cheap riposte and one that really lowers my estimation of you. I have no quibbles with those like yourself who have given a great deal of thought to their beliefs and understand the context and history of religious texts. However, being a believer does not preclude one from making a real contribution to the world. I partook in Voluntary Service as a student and in my current work visit some of the poorest places on the planet. Places where poor uneducated people are virtually coerced into giving some of their meagre earnings to support a so called preacher who invariably has one of the best houses in the village. Travel through rural Alabama and you see conditions that are on par with many places in West Africa, yet there are always grand churches. You may think that a preacher provides spiritual comfort but my wife's work as a counsellor with people who have suffered bereavement or been affected by eating disorders and cancer have shown me that social structures are often more important. I work with people of many different faiths and ethnic backgrounds and treat them all the same. With so much wrong in the world, I get irked by those who decide to seek a position of authority in religion or politics and tell others how to live their life while sponging off the efforts of the majority. It is a sad day when a young person decides to be a preacher with all the other possibilities out there, especially when they admit they are not smart enough to argue their case.
To the others who have commented, I have no doubt that many priests study the bible and learn about the history of the texts. However, my concern was that someone has comitted themselves to this path without really knowing what they are following. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 18:06, 17 February 2008 (EST)
Genghis, the implication of what you say is that priests are leeches who contribute nothing to society. This is not only an unfounded and incorrect generalization, it also greatly disparages the thousands of clergy who have devoted their lives to helping the less fortunate everywhere in the world, often at considerable cost to their own physical and material well-being. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 18:57, 17 February 2008 (EST)
Come on, AK, venality and corruption are fairly consistent features of the priest class in every civilization in recorded history. For every Helander, there's a Pardoner or a Summoner. Genghis wasn't shooting that wide of the mark. --Robledo 19:32, 17 February 2008 (EST)
They're not scotsmen! --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
"Every civilization in recorded history"? That's a pretty bold claim, Robledo. I expect you have some sources readily available to back it up? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 20:19, 17 February 2008 (EST)

RA - Apologies for messing up your talk page. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 18:14, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Apology reluctantly accepted. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:37, 17 February 2008 (EST)

The Bible (or Torah or Koran) is a wonderful book on how people get along and a set of guides of 'this is a reasonably good way to survive in a group of people in ancient Mesopotamian, Nile, and Roman regions'. Keeping Kosher is superb at keeping yourself healthy 4000 years ago and demonstrating your faith in YHWH today. That faith offers significant support for people and guidelines on how to live today. There are other systems of belief too that serve just as well. The problem occurs when someone says "I am right, everyone must do as I say and those who don't are going to suffer in eternal torment (or equivalent, reincarnated as worms also serves)." When that belief structure collides with those who don't like being told what to do by anyone, much less someone book written a few thousand ago... and that belief structure is being used in conjunction with the scientific beliefs of a few thousand years ago over what our own eyes and mind can see runs counter to the physical world around us... well, then you have the militant atheists who assume that all belief structures are detrimental to human society. And since I've been on a Heinlein kick recently... these quotes might help you understand the libertarian take on religion...

  • The profession of shaman has many advantages. It offers high status with a safe livelihood free of work in the dreary, sweaty sense. In most societies it offers legal privileges and immunities not granted to other men. But it is hard to see how a man who has been given a mandate from on High to spread tidings of joy to all mankind can be seriously interested in taking up a collection to pay his salary; it causes one to suspect that the shaman is on the moral level of any other con man. But it is a lovely work if you can stomach it
  • When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, 'This you may not read, this you may not see, this you are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything--you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.
  • The nice thing about citing god as an authority is that you can prove anything you set out to prove.

And what really scares many of us here...

  • It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics

And so, I offer you this.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. -- Buddha

Words to live by no matter what you are reading. --Shagie 23:28, 17 February 2008 (EST)

I would like to say that I differentiate between a preacher and other relgious workers. By defining themselves as "preachers" individuals set themselves up as an authority. I do not dispute the good work that many religious people have put in often at cost to themselves. My parents-in-law were missionaries in South America but were not preachers. It's depends on where you keep your bible; do you hold it in your hand and wave it as you go forth and let others do the hard work or do you keep it in your backpack while you take up the shovel in your own hands? Those that take the latter approach, generally are the ones who are more successful. Our own parish priest was a former inner city worker running soup kitchens and hostels, however, he provided hot soup and a clean bed first and without conditions. He is now in Bangladesh helping the rural poor where they have a particular problem with arsenic contaminated water. If those above who have criticised my words can get past my disgust for the leeches then they can see that I actually give credit to those whose faith helps others. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 02:41, 18 February 2008 (EST)

A preacher is a person who preaches. That still covers a whole lot of people, and is often used as a synonnym for an ordinary priest or minister. If you actually mean to say "I don't like clergy who exploit their position financially or socially without contributing o society", that's of course a different matter which I don't have a problem agreeing with - but that distinction was not present in your first statements. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 03:03, 18 February 2008 (EST)"
"If you want people to see the value of your beliefs it will not be by hectoring them that they are all sinners, it will be by doing something worthwhile with your life and then showing them that you did it because your were filled with love for all your brothers and sisters." Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 03:49, 18 February 2008 (EST)
Doxa en hupsistos Theo, Kai epi ge eirene, En anthropos eudokia! is not limited to a particular class (anthropos is all people - not just men, or a paticular ethnicity or belief) and eudokia[1] is good wishes, delight, benevolence (not 'having personal things' or 'using up the worlds resources' or 'lording it over your neighbor'). Likewise En arche en o Logos, kai o Logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en o Logos. -- logos[2] is better translated as "reason" than "word" (it is the root of "logic" or "-ology" and is that stuff of the universe (in greek philosophy) which guides all things and separates man from animals (the understanding of words). In the beginning was the rational aspect of the universe, and that reason was God and God was Reason. God (if there is one), gave humankind a mind, and the curiosity of how the universe works. To stifle this is counter to that very first and most basic part of the Gospel of John - that understanding of the universe leads to a reverence of the beauty of Reason. It is disappointing to see people refusing to use that most important part of God's gifts to humanity or alternatively, it is disappointing to see people refusing to use that adaptation that allows us to ask 'why' and 'how' for the first on this planet and instead either sit around hoping that the world will end soon or working to that end being sooner than later... and that is probably a sentence that would make my English teacher cry. --Shagie 04:29, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Stay, Kip?[edit]

Hey Kip, forgive me if I misunderestimate the issue (I'm kind of an absentee sysop lately), but I think there's definitely a place for you. I'm not an atheist either (more agnostic), for one: I don't think you have to be an atheist to like it here, you just have to have some dedication to the idea of rationalism and moderation in human affairs. And I think there are many religious people who can sign onto that ideal, and I expect you're one of them. Please don't feel pressured to conform; I'd like different people to find their home happily here, and your perspective would be appreciated, whether or not it's representative of the dominating group on the site. My schpiel.-αmεσ (tinker) 23:48, 17 February 2008 (EST)

That's okay. But I'm still considering leaving for the following reasons:
  1. This wiki doesn't appeal to me as much. It looks and feels too much like Wikipedia.
  2. Relgious skepticism doesn't bother me. I've read a great deal of atheist internet stuff. (infidels.org, Adrian Barnette, Normal Bob Smith, etc.) However, I've never interracted with such, and I fear constantly getting into arguments in the future.
  3. I'm not confortable around atheist or agnostics because I'm paranoid about offending them. ("Thank God" "God bless America" "Merry Christmas")
  4. I've only been here one day, and I've already created a stir. Any wonder they gave me to boot at Uncyclopedia?
Along with that, I'm not making religion or its followers look any better.
Number 4 only increases my reputation as a worthless nuisance. So thanks for your love, concern, and support, but please quit bickering on my behalf. (Also, sorry to Radioactive afikomen for giving him a new orange message box.) -- Kip teh DipTalk 08:59, Feb. 18, 2008

Edit count[edit]

Where was our conversation? Anyway, on my preferences it gives an edit count. Just over 500 myself (n00by), probably less than 600 hundred with my many socks. Could you check if the number of edits on your profile is the same as your manual count? Editor at RWSchumi on Ducati? 11:34, 19 February 2008 (EST)

Mine is. I came up with ~15,800+ manually, MP says about 15,995 now. humanUser talk:Human 12:30, 19 February 2008 (EST)
Huh. It says 2,338. I verified it against my manual count, and the manual count is, counting this post, exactly 2,399. That's odd... So, how late into the night/early into the morning was the wiki broken? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 12:59, 19 February 2008 (EST)
Liberal deceit again, sure. The wiki was repaired by Trent, check the last message-by-a-bunch-of-numbers (=Trent) on Linus talk page if you want the time. Editor at RWSchumi on Ducati? 13:05, 19 February 2008 (EST)

SusanG/RA[edit]

RA - I'm gonna vape that page, so if you wanna copy it you've got about 5 minutes. SusanPurrrrr 13:19, 22 February 2008 (EST)

I wonder, why did you make it in the first place? I read on some talk page that several editors rely on you to track their article creations, so they can brag about who has the bigger penis made more articles. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 13:26, 22 February 2008 (EST)

Biblical thingamyism[edit]

Wow, thanks for helping with the inlinks to the redirect! I was daunted by the list of articles I would have had to change! humanUser talk:Human 14:15, 22 February 2008 (EST)

Your welcome! --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:18, 22 February 2008 (EST)

Sockpuppet[edit]

I think you are a sockpuppet of Tmtoulouse. I will begin a new investigation. DoggedamesP 16:41, 22 February 2008 (EST)

No, he is my sock. It's me, it's me!
No, silly! I'm a sockpuppet of this guy. Or was it these guys? Maybe even this guy? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:44, 22 February 2008 (EST)

Apology[edit]

Again, I apologize for my (unintended) snooty remarks. I guess I was responding defensively to what seemed to be a casual dismissal of my point with your "I believe it's just called a "hypothesis" then". Neither of us need be so defensive. PoorEd 14:29, 25 February 2008 (EST)

It's all right. All is forgiven. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:34, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Punctuation[edit]

Nice! PoorEd 15:38, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Hi[edit]

You are a sysop? — Unsigned, by: 98.17.53.235 / talk / contribs

Yes. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:27, 3 March 2008 (EST)
Can you block me?
Never mind

Eh[edit]



THANKS

UchihaKATON! 01:34, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Your welcome!  : ) --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:35, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Productivity[edit]

Nah, just wandalising ;) Secret Squirrel 23:28, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I'll go to sleep now. Andy wants me up bright and early tomorrow to teach his homeschool class all about teh New World Order. Secret Squirrel 23:31, 5 March 2008 (EST)

His homeschool class actually exists? I thought it was a myth he cooked up to make himself feel important? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:55, 5 March 2008 (EST)
There's something about the term "homeschool class" that just doesn't parse somehow. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 03:58, 6 March 2008 (EST)
Andy sez to tell you folks that he really does have a "homeschool class" and you liberals are all a bunch of liberal liberals. Nyaaaaaah! So there! Secret Squirrel 06:57, 6 March 2008 (EST)
Damn. I feel like I got seriously "schooled" there. Maybe even "homeschooled." :-( --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 07:40, 6 March 2008 (EST)

My password vandal[edit]

User:My password is DIE vandalized the main page 5 minutes ago.Barbara Shack 13:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

I noticed. No worries, s/he/it has been blocked and the damage reverted. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 13:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Vandalism[edit]

RA, if you revert vandalism it is often better to use the rollback function as it removes the entry from the recent changes list. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 13:40, 7 March 2008 (EST)

I would've sworn I did do that. I guess not. Hm. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 13:42, 7 March 2008 (EST)
Only if you do it from a contribs list that you add "&bot=0" or some such to the end. As far as I know. The real advantage to rollback is it is one click, and removes all edits by the vandal. Disadvantage: does not allow an edit comment. humanUser talk:Human 13:42, 7 March 2008 (EST)
Thanks, Human. I was afraid I I did something wrong there. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 13:46, 7 March 2008 (EST)

I am more concerned that deleting the vandal's userpage (which was just as vulgar as his username) was out of line. Is it? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 13:46, 7 March 2008 (EST)

OK my eyes are not as good as they were (I just had an eye test this morning). Unfortunately the &bot=1 doesn't seem to work since Linus's last upgrade. Deleting the user page of someone who comes straight in either with obscenity or vandalism is acceptable IMHO. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 14:29, 7 March 2008 (EST)
What we have donein the past with offensive user names is renamed them something inoffensive. humanUser talk:Human 14:33, 7 March 2008 (EST)
Not an option for me; I'm not a Satanic paper-pusher bureaucrat.  : ) --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:55, 7 March 2008 (EST)
Ah, ok. Good point. humanUser talk:Human 15:17, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Unavailability[edit]

Knock out those classes, tests, papers, etc. and we'll see you when you get back: tanned, rested, and ready! Best of luck, skill, and goatspeed! humanUser talk:Human 01:56, 8 March 2008 (EST)

When come back, bring pie fruitcake. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 07:44, 8 March 2008 (EST)
Where pie? (naughty RA -can't give up your Ratwiki addiction?) Susanpurrrrr 16:58, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
Nobody's perfect.  : ) --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:00, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for the welcome[edit]

I don't think I fully understand how this site differs from Wikipedia, aside from the fact that in most articles, I sense a refreshing confidence to arrive at a conclusion from a given factual point. I've lurked here a bit, but I want to take some time and hopefully improve these articles to reflect facts accurately, just as I would on Wikipedia. Thanks again. TheRationalOne 20:41, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

You're welcome! I'm always happy to help newcomers! --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:01, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Re: This[edit]

Thanks for the reply! 81.105.28.52 09:20, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

You're welcome. I am always willing to help someone. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 12:54, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Being perfectly in between[edit]

Now you've made me curious. Why of course me? :-) --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 17:37, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Eh, uh... I had some vague, inarticulable idea of you as a moderating force in our internal politics. That sounded better in my head. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:53, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
That might be debatable. ;-) Politically, I tend towards the center, though, so you're probably not too far off the mark. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 18:04, 13 March 2008 (EDT) Annoying both sides of the political spectrum since 2002.

Stop[edit]

I don't know what your problem is, but stop stalking me on this wiki and stop changing my comments. TmtamesP 17:59, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

What are you whining about now? I haven't done anything. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:01, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

name[edit]

heh, your username, I guess you wouldnt really want to eat a radioactive afikomen --RyanB 05:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

But it leaves you with a healthy glow!  : ) --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:41, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
true, true :P --RyanB 05:41, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
And you might get super powers! --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:47, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

My userpage[edit]

Hi again. thanks for the redirect to my talk... I forgot (as usual) --RyanB 17:02, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

You're welcome.  : ) --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:23, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I sent you an email[edit]

I sent you an email. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 12:22, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

RA, I have made quite a few changes to my spreadsheet so the version you have is not as flexible. I have also added the wiki formatting so that it is a simple copy & paste job to put it in the article, only a complete masochist would want to format it by hand every time. I guess I should send you the updated version, but I'll add the bolding to sysop names first. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 04:31, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
Er, I guess I'm a masochist then?  : ) --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:36, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Ah, categories[edit]

Fun, aren't they? DogP 15:01, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

>_< --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:05, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
Keep up the good work! --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:05, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
>_< --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:13, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you. I shall certainly try, though seeing how long it takes karajou to catch my latest handiwork is quite fun. My record is over an hour with User:Apage, when I vandalised Al Gore. But still refuting CP is even more fun than ruining Al Gore. Angband 15:37, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Care to Explain, Redux...[edit]

"Would you care to explain the rationale behind these opinions, now?" Wow - that's an almost-Ed-Poor-worthy attitude itself. Maybe let's dial it back a little? Peace. PFoster 18:09, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I thought it was Ed Poor for a second! MarcusCicero 18:10, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Rationalwiki:Active users[edit]

You do realise that every time you update this page you increase your edit count/averages and therefore have to make another edit to reflect the changes, ad infinitum? Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 19:06, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

If he has n edits and changes an edit counter that marks n-1 to raise it by 2, does it count as lying? NightFlareSpeak, mortal 19:11, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
Keep in mind that RA is a "personal edit count" junkie. He may have been infected by a carrier in the early days of WP. The reality is that edit counts carry no connotation of quality or quantity. Trent posted the non-materialist neuroscience article in one edit, as I recall. I remember watching DPBSmith building an article at CP literally a half-sentence at a time. 40 edits later, a paragraph with two refs. And then there's me - (tens of) thousands of edits on RW, but no discernible contributions to the site whatsoever. humanUser talk:Human 19:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
I was never around for the "early days of Wikipedia". And I'm OCD; whaddya' want? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:08, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
P.S. Must you all talk about me behind your backs?  : ) --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:08, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
I didn't say you were - I implied you caught it off a carrier, a typhoid Mary, if you will. humanUser talk:Human 22:00, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
P.S. We're not all doing it, just some of us. And, yes, we must. And, "recent changes" is not exactly behind your back. Especially when it's your talk page we're recently changing... :P humanUser talk:Human 22:00, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
A Typhoid Mary? Oh, dear... Am I contagious?! SHOULD I TELL MY DOCTOR?! OH, GOD! I DON'T WANNA DIE! --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
Not RA's back, your own backs... Rational Ed5 or 6 edits 14:42, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Susan, Bob etc.[edit]

I didn't drive her away. Bob was the one who came to me reeking of passive aggression. Grow up. MarcusCicero 07:00, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Extra Special Invite to Community Standards[edit]

Dearest Radioactive one,

I put some suggestions on RationalWiki talk:Community Standards to help progress the conversation in a new direction. I view it as a community wide discussion, not arbitration for a specific case. Please comment there. Sterilexx 18:00, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Hyperterritorialism[edit]

How about "isotopic cracker"? Rational Ed5 or 6 edits 08:10, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Hm. Yes, yes, I think I shall. Cower before the almighty Radioactive afikomen, ruler of the Four Names; Nuclear matzah, Atomic communion wafer, and Isotope cracker! --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:58, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
We are not worthy, oh Mighty Unleavened One Who Doth Glow in the Dark. Rational Ed5 or 6 edits 15:34, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
Do not mock me child, for I doth glow with magnanimosity; that I would be as a light unto the dark, an eternal nightlight for all children who doth fear the dark. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:43, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
Shouldn't they rather fear the radioactivity...? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:45, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
Nay! It is a healthy glow! --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:48, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
I glow weary of the torment, can there be no peace? Rational Ed5 or 6 edits 16:10, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
Hey, I was gonna add "unleavened"! (But I got logged out and had to click a few screens to get back). What about "isotropic cackler"? And "isotonic cancer"? humanUser talk:Human 16:11, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
You snooze, you lose! Rational Ed5 or 6 edits 16:14, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
Ah, but where is the cracker/communion wafer/matzah/afikomen in those names? Hm... now that I think about it, I am missing "pie crust". --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 16:19, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
"Unstable carbohydrate nuclei" ought to cover it... humanUser talk:Human 16:43, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

thanks[edit]

thanks for the welcome I've not done this before and sorry if i mess up--Warty 07:04, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

You're welcome, and it's all right—you'll learn quickly. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 07:16, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Firefly[edit]

RA, be aware that your deceitful anti-Firefly vandalism will not be accepted on this site. I expect to see valuable contributions from you in the future. Please consider submitting a writing plan, or I may have to review your edits. Goatspeed! Dictator.gif --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 06:13, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

I can tell with 95% certainty that you are Dutch and a sci-fi liberal. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:21, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

"my fault"[edit]

"I proposed the RationalWiki:Constitutional Convention"

Good for you. One thing wikis don't encourage, or even facilitate in any way, is democracy. humanUser talk:Human 23:52, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Unblocking[edit]

Would it have killed you to, you know, ask first? I believe we just got through a discussion about doing exactly that. --Kels 22:21, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Crap. I screwed up. And that was just the sort of thing I promised myself I wouldn't do. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:36, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
Well, it ain't that hard to undo, so it's not like there's lasting harm. We all gotta be a bit less hasty. --Kels 22:47, 29 March 2008 (EDT)