User talk:Syamsu

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Syamsu! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

We're in a sorry state if it takes this long to greet new users. Harmonic drug Hoover! 22:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Significant and controversial amendments to articles such as Free will need to be discussed first. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ysosp¬!

Uoy ear a Ysosp¬! Harmonic drug Hoover! 21:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with four tildes or the signature button.

Please sign your posts with four tildes or the signature button.Please sign your posts with four tildes or the signature button.Please sign your posts with four tildes or the signature button.Please sign your posts with four tildes or the signature button.Please sign your posts with four tildes or the signature button.Please sign your posts with four tildes or the signature button.Please sign your posts with four tildes or the signature button.Please sign your posts with four tildes or the signature button.Please sign your posts with four tildes or the signature button.TheoryOfPractice (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

fi oyu notd¤, llI€' cklob oyu fro nlogre×. Harmonic drug Hoover! 22:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Denying...

Where is anybody denying the role of subjectivity in decision making? — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 14:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

like I said, I know dozens of your sort. Be very, very, very specific in criticizing the entry I made. --Syamsu (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

So, you refuse to answer the question then? Thanks for clearing that up. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 14:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a bullshit question intended to divert attention away from your rejection of subjectivity as a valid way of reaching a conclusion.--Syamsu (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

My question is, WHEN DID I REJECT SUBJECTIVITY you fucking back-birth. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 14:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

When you deleted my entry obviously, which validated subjectivity.--Syamsu (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please desist with the edit warring. Make your case on the article talk page. Генгис^marauding 15:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

shut up you stupid emotionless robot who rejects subjectivity.--Syamsu (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Use the Talk Page

You clearly don't deserve unabridged access to the article itself--Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 16:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

damnation be upon you for rejecting subjectivity, social darwinist. And I will continue in the same way, maybe that information helps the moderating process along.--Syamsu (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Damnation doesn't sound to bad; Bow down to satan now and get some nice rewards before i die! --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 16:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Solution

Hi! So I see that, both before and now, there are some conflicts over the free will article. I thought it might be good to tackle some issues about that, if you're willing.

In the first place, it might help if you took a close look at your edits. You might notice that there are some errors in syntax and word choice, as when you use the word "chose" instead of its present tense form, "choose." A lot of edits like that means that it is even less likely that your edit will remain, because what you're actually doing is adding a lot of errors in addition to the new material. That's not a deal-breaker, but it certainly doesn't help your case. So it may help to spend some time and revise your edits, to make sure they employ standard and correct written English.

Secondly, the content doesn't really fit into the rest of the article. If you take a look, you've just added a couple of new sections, without trying to fit them into the article organically. Again, this is something that someone else would have to go through and fix. It's not nice to make more work for other people, right?

And last of all, some of what you're saying finds disagreement with other editors. It's helpful to sort out those disagreements on the talk page for the article, rather than edit warring back and forth. Note especially that numerous editors feel this way. Maybe try to sort some things out on the talk page, first.

I hope we can work something out! Sorry for the bother.--^talk 09:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The other editors have no feelings, they are social darwinists who reject subjectivity. If you have any real criticism, be very very very specific about what is wrong with the entry. And things like spelling errors, and placement is a nonsense side-issue. I corrected a spelling error on the page, stood there for months for all I know, it said "bed" instead of "be", there is no high standard here. Let's be realistic, this place is inundated with people who reject subjectivity in favor of objectivity, some insane struggle between subjective and objective. I am just posting it here to put them in damnation for rejecting subjectivity, not anything of this sort will ever be accepted here regardless that it is valid.--Syamsu (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you heed AD's advice. Continual edit-warring is counter-productive and only aggravates the rest of the community. This is a wiki and no one person gets to impose their own PoV on the rest. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Get lost social darwinist. If any had any real criticism they would have said it by now. And arguing like "I have the impression that...", "It seems to me...", is just advancing prejudices, and not pointing out any specific fault. Your prejudice where subjectivity is held to be evil. --Syamsu (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was hopeful we could resolve this. So I'll just say that if you continue to keep making boring repetitive edits to established articles and edit-warring ad infinitum when people disagree, then you will probably (and justly) be blocked. If you are actually interested in changing hearts and minds - actually interested in making a better article or expressing your point - then your best route will always be amicable discussion on the talk page.--^talk 10:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You're a phony. Anybody genuinely concerned with making a better article would point out a specific meaningful fault in rejecting it. You point out side-issues in rejecting it. There's nothing wrong with the entry, it is generic common understanding as expressed by hundreds of philosophers also, in basically similar ways. It is solely because the people here are social darwinists who insist on making matters of worth of people a question for science, that the entry is rejected. --Syamsu (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Trying to smear as "Social Darwinist" a wiki notorious for its left-leaning userbase only exposes how clueless you are. Go bother User:Proxima Centauri, she is the only regular somewhat similar (but remotely) to your caricature of us.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Whatever happened to ListenerX? Sophie^Wilder 11:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You focus on the label "social darwinist", the label is a side issue. What it is about is that social darwinists treat love as a factual issue, instead of as a matter of opinion. Liberals are generally known to be phony, to have no real emotion. That is consistent with handling love as a matter of scientific fact, instead of opinion.--Syamsu (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Utter dribbling nonsense, and you know it. Sophie^Wilder 11:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

(EC) You're spewing ad hominem generalizations while simultaneously complaining that people avoid the "real" issues. Stop it. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Come on, none of you is going to find a meaningful fault in the entry, and none of you is going to try. Dukakis, Gore and Obama all have the drone-tone. Bill Clinton appeared to have emotions when he was in office, but then he was a womanizer, so that could have been lust posing as emotion. It is all very consistent with treating love as fact. Reject subjectivity, then the role for your emotions becomes very limited. And you all reject subjectivity, for which I damn you all. --Syamsu (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You know this is the talk page about you, right? Not "free will" or "weird tangential stereotypes"? 99.50.98.145 (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This page is about social darwinists trying to gain some credibility for themselves that they have emotions, while rejecting subjectivity outright at the same time. So the Darwinists think up excuses, and turn to side-issues. But they really do reject subjectivity and it results in their emotions being surpressed and destroyed, damn you all.--Syamsu (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're MarcusCicero perpetrating a skillful and longer-lasting troll sockpuppet than usual, or you really are as clueless, abrasive, and useless a human being as you appear to be. Yes, that's an ad-hominem, but you've established that you're not actually interested in discussion or productive change here. If the Vandal Bin was actually working, I'd have put you in it already, but since it's currently not functioning, blocking seems to be the workaround. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 10¹³ points 00:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It is an ad-hominem because you make insults instead of pointing out a specific meaningful fault in the entry. I provide argument, and besides that insults, that's not ad-hominem. And since I have been at it for years, like you point out, you can be sure that I have thoroughly investigated it. You all really do reject subjectivity, therefore be damned.--Syamsu (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Real solution

If you think you have anything useful to tell the world start your own blog or wiki and tell people there. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, I'm just off to buy a new irony meter. Sophie^Wilder 14:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion is, have a meaningful criticism that goes right to the main content of the entry, or don't remove the entry. Simple fact is I am correct. Everybody else are bullshit-artists who reject subjectivity. Like Sophie here.. just bullshit.--Syamsu (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Protest

Well since this is still at rational wiki, I will here protest the wholesale rejection of all emotions by socalled rationialists.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!

That was an expression of my subjectively identifiable emotions, my human spirit which chooses in freedom, which is rejected to exist by you all because it can't be objectively measured.

And make no mistake about it, I am dead serious that this practice of rejecting emotions results in unimaginable suffering inflicted by rationialists on millions of people for which they will be brought to justice at the final judgement. --Syamsu (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

When you're unblocked

Please don't go back to edit-warring over the Free will article again, because the block'll just be renewed and extended significantly longer. Please take it up on the talk page. Mass-replacing a mainspace article with your own version is pretty much a sign that you want it reverted. If you insist on having your own version of the article on this site, place it in your own user space (e.g. Syamsu/Free will) where no one will bother you. This isn't your first time doing this, but I'm choosing to be polite and reasonable. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 14:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hah! This has been going on for three years now. It's not really an issue for RW, we just block and revert. It is a bit of an issue for our friend here. Repeatedly trying the same actions while expecting differing results from previous efforts - I seem to remember that that is symptomatic. However, poor old Syamsu seems to feel some sort of need so, if it makes him any happier, then the low level of effort needed to revert and block seems like some sort of kindness. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Your drivel about formalities is too far away from reality, where freedom is real, and emotions can only be subjectively identified, not measured--Syamsu (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

When I grow up I'm going to bovine university. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 15:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This is really just a matter of finding the password to the rationalwiki site, in the form of what words to say, since rationalists behave like machines anyway. I believe the password must be some kind of phrase expressing feelings which are dressed up as facts. Could you please provide for me the words to say which would enable me to change the free will page?--Syamsu (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

When I grow up I'm going to bovine university. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 19:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not how this works, you idiot. Also, no, we do not appreciate you making subtle threats of hacking. Have a good vacation. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 20:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I took it more as a threat of neuro-linguistic programming. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 14:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There. Now play nice.

User:Syamsu/Free will

Be content with it there for now, because your own userspace is (generally) under your own control. Please do not vandalize other pages by pasting the article in anywhere else. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 12:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That thing where you do the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

How many more times will you need to be reverted before you learn that your edits won't stick? 2? 17? 74? 147? When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 15:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Based on my search of this username, never. Seriously love, you aren't going to be able to force it through. --^Mikal_lakiM 16:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Death threats? Really?

It's one thing to disagree and quite another to say "I want to kill you." I still don't understand why. All I did was try to clarify what Dawkins' book was about. (And a couple other sentences of constructive criticism.)

I'm posting this on your talk page because I see you've been blocked and I do honestly want to hear what you have to say. That is, if you have any actual point to make beyond trying to get our goat. Wehpudicabok (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

We were talking about genocide, I explained the roots of it.--62.140.132.186 (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you commonly issue death threats when giving explanations online? Wehpudicabok (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the murderous feeling I have towards all those people / scientists who don't subjectively acknowledge any spiritual domain is longstanding, I have it for years already. I'm quite sure this is the sort of feeling which makes for genocide, because with the total rejection of subjectivity which these scientists propose, there is also complete moral decay.--nothing 08:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at their edit from an outsider, uninvolved person's, long-time RationalWikian's perspective, it looks like he was being hyperbolic and forgot some punctuations in the process. I would certainly argue that it wasn't a serious threat, let alone one directed specifically directed towards you. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I figured it wasn't serious, but the "not directed at me" bit honestly baffled me. It was posted in apparent response to my comment. Regardless, it's also disturbing the way Syamsu throws around such language without clarification. Wehpudicabok (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, it would've certainlt been easier to tell it was hyperbole if they had used proper punctuation, i.e: put quotation marks around the alleged threat so you could see it was intended as a generality instead of a threat. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

He's talking about genocide in general is he not. Its a little clumsy but I really don't think this was a threat. Damo^Hi 08:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, it appeared I misread and I was giving you a cooling off block. I'll go ahead an unblock. Sorry about that Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 09:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)