User talk:TK/Archives7

This is an archive page, last updated 4 January 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

WELCOME BACK!

From all of us at RationalWiki. TmtamesP 16:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

email

TK, its me formerly Bohdan. I sent you an email through this wiki telling you the block had expired. Your email has probably been disabled by tmtoulouse, even your talk page was locked for most of the time. Welcome back. --TmtamesP 01:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

"And then, Sir, there is this consideration, that if the abuse be enormous, nature will rise up, and claiming her original rights, overturn a corrupt political system."

-- Samuel Johnson

TmtamesP 01:54, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Quite right, tovarich! Join the glorious RationalWiki Soviet today and do your part in bringing down this festering boil of oppression and villainy, ushering in a new era of liberty and brotherhood! Da zdrastvye revolutzie, etc. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 06:49, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Bye now.

Go fulfill your dream.-αmεσ (decider) 20:34, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Block

Satisfied? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:07, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

My point was mistaken, but I think it fair to say management jumps on some users much faster than others. RW will grow and mature when that is finally, officially recognized, and there are Admins in place, not over ruled by Bureaucrats, who enforce the standards equally. I was trying to point that all out in as light of spirit as I could, and wasn't demanding a block, as some here always do with those they disagree with politically. The point is, a statement by admin, disapproving what was done, by an obviously known user (to one person at least) would have been better. Better still, would be to give the rest of us the same slacks given to the rest. ;-) --TK_/MyTalk^{"Lowly" editor} 18:14, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sharing my trousers with anyone!  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 18:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

ROFL! Okay, okay....I'll buy a new pair! --TK_/MyTalk^{"Lowly" editor} 18:24, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

policy

I think the way to go foreward on rationalwiki is to get rid of the mobocracy. What is your opinion? TmtamesP 19:44, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

I think "mobocracy" is a buzzword, and nothing more. There are thousands hundreds of examples on this tiny wiki where just a few regular users minipulated votes, ignored them, whatever. If anything, long-time and regular users wishes should be given even greater credence by those who control this place. I think the time has long passed where users here needed some "big daddy" bureaucrat deciding what is best for the place, (Cue demeaning/denigrating response(s) from those guys) in most cases. Seriously, hardest thing for the founders of any site is to relinquish control/manipulation to a major degree, and just be proud of their baby's maturation. That isn't much different from real-life parents, is it? I doubt many of us have chosen the path in life our parent's had all mapped out for us, and the same goes for this place. If the powers that be don't like the direction RW goes, they need to just make another newer place, or relax and enjoy watching this baby as it grows and experiments. So, using the word mobocracy, if it stands for bowing to community maturation, I am all for it. If it stands for a few old hands, manipulating the place to ensure the outcome they want, then I am with you, because so far RW hasn't lived up to, nor have the Founders tried to make it, its original principles of tolerance and forbearance, something they didn't find at CP, and supposedly made this place for.

And thanks, Bohdan/TntamesP, for asking me, and getting me in deep-hating retaliation shit once again! :P --TK_/MyTalk^{"Lowly" editor} 20:00, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

I see. TmtamesP 20:02, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

As always, TK, you are welcome to raise specific complaints against specific individuals, backed up by solid evidence. Long and vague monologues about "those who control this place" are unlikely to be considered, especially considering that right now, nobody really seems to be in charge of anything. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 20:04, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Anders, go and play with your handcrafted shoes or your bacon and let us trained wikilawyers decide policy, allright? TmtamesP 20:06, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

"As always"? Since when? Do you ever at all just bust up laughing when you post such silliness? Do you think the majority of users here don't understand, know for a fact, who actually runs this place? The mere fact that you have always posted immediately after any reference to "powers that be" shows it to be your personal "hot button". The fact that you are part of that ruling group only makes others chuckle at your protestations. And in case you want to make people believe I am somehow going out of my way to put RW down, let me say that all sites are mainly run by a very few "leaders", self-appointed or made, who influence others who want to advance in the site heirachy, to support their ideas/decisions. Now, if you would be so kind as to step back, stop making threats to me, laying down the law, perhaps some actual dialog could happen. You saying, as an administrator, that I am "always welcome" to say something, but only in the way you want it presented is intimidating and threatening. You saying "no one" seems to be in charge is laughable, as I was just blocked for no reason, once again, and without discussion or notice, so "someone" obviously is "in charge". If this sounds as if I am pissed, I am most assuredly not, just being blunt, and sometimes I am overly so, as you know. ;-) --TK_/MyTalk^{"Lowly" editor} 20:16, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Hello, I just wanted to add that this time I won't interfere with the block. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 20:23, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Neither will I. human 20:49, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

TK, for the record, I consider the statement above to be impugning my motives as a sysop, which according to my own personal and long-standing standard is a cause for blocking. If it happens again, there will be sanctions. If this sounds as if I am pissed, I am most assuredly not, just enforcing policy. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 20:59, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Just to play devil's advocate, shouldn't site policy come before "personal policy"? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:17, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Is there a difference? I don't want us to repeat mistakes of the past.-- -PalMD ^{--Take two aspirin and call someone else} 21:19, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

It should, yes. However, since we don't have policies on sysops at the moment, the logical conclusion must be that it is up to the individual sysop how he or she administrates that privilege. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 21:23, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

We don't have sysop policies yet? Jesus Christ, even RationalWikiWiki has regulations for sysops—and they have less than 10 regular users! -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:26, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

We do have RationalWiki:Sysop_guide and RationalWiki:Blocking_policy, but neither are very specific. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 21:30, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

I think I see the source of this problem. It's a sysop guide, as in help for newbie sysops. What we need are sysop regulations, a document specifying under what circumstances a sysop can and cannot use their power(s), a standard to discern when a sysop is abusing their powers. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:55, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, and we also need to figure out which position a sysop should have in the community in the first place. So far, the prevailing attitude has been that they (we) are just unimportant janitors, which I honestly find horribly naïve. But we should probably take that discussion in a more logical place than here, and in connection with the other issues. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 21:59, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Agreed there. When it comes down to it, I like the idea that being a sysop should not be regarded as a privilege, but it's not valueless either, the way a janitor job would suggest. Although there is janitor work involved, it's janitor work pretty much anyone can do (reverting, page moving, and so forth). I think all a sysop can do that a regular editor can't is delete pages entirely and block people, is that right? So it's more like security guard than janitor, far as that goes. --Kels 22:08, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Alright, but... I would prudently suggest a greater display of transparency with regards to these matters (i.e. "I blocked him and for this long because...") Making history traceable on a wiki and all that, and not just "trust me, this was necessary" (not that I'd accuse you of such behaviour, but I ask on principle). Uchiha^KATON! 21:31, 25 March 2008 (EDT) I just wanted to point this out (and to start following Uchiha's suggestion, that's my reason for not unbanning. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 22:39, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

My thoughts to everyone else about TK

I'd just like to say, TK has made very few positive contributions to this site. See his mainspace edits. So why are we giving any comments/complaints/suggestions he has any merit? It seems pretty arrogant of him to expect to receive the same respect as everyone else when he has done very little that commands respect. Granted, the random I.P. adress made even less positive edits, but he has yet to demand anything of us, which is possibly why his side of the argument is better off. </IMHO> Thunderkatz^Ho! 21:40, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

I just received a very important e-mail from you.

You asked to have your account removed. We don't do account deletion... at least, I don't think we CAN, and if we can, I don't know how we feel about it. But we do do permabans & locks. If you'd so like, please reply to this telling me to perma-block you and lock your page, and I'll do it. Of course, you may in the future request an unblocking, given that you'd be parting at your own wish.-αmεσ (decider) 23:35, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Don't forget archiving to leave a nice, quiet blank space. human 00:10, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

I think he's doing it to get on the right side of the boss. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^cat! 15:48, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Nine months ago? ħuman 16:56, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Happy Birthday TK!!!!!!!!!!!

Happy Birthday TK! Have a Great 58th! - From your old mates at HotOrNot 193.200.150.23 16:22, 27 December 2008 (EST)

No harm in blocking him

He's still a sysop!-caius (tailor) 01:48, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Notice of serious vandal

Dear TK,

So long as you're blocking people associated with RationalWiki (a "vandal/parodist" site), I thought I would alert you to the presence of a vandal whose history is more troubled and complicated, but equally connected with RW and its mission. You can find his user page here. Thank you.

In return for this favor, please don't block my parodist sock (JPatt). Thank you, -Diadochus 17:47, 23 February 2009 (EST)

You Are Now My Bitch Here

For blocking me at CP for absolutely NO reason. Seriously, the only thing I edited on the account was Freedom Fries to reflect the history of the terms french fries and french toast. As a result, you are now my personal punching bag here. Have fun! Hell hath no fury like the wrath of The Goonie 1!!!The Goonie 1 23:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear TK...

Following a recent event on Conservapedia in which you accused "vandal site members" (by which you obviously mean us) of posting despicable comments on another CP user's userpage and reproducing said comments yourself on your own userpage, I am registering my disgust with you here.

As for your talkpage "thought of the day", the notion of offering condolensces to an "enemy" is not deceitful. It's something that signifies while we may have differences we are all in this (life) together, and to show genuine sympathy for another human being regardless of socio/political/religious reasons shows that these differences are not necessarily personal, even though you have a history which suggests you cannot discern between personal and internet lives.

I'm not even going to fart in your general direction, as you don't deserve it. SJ ^Debaser 14:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. I was going to post over there about how despicable it is for TK to repost that quote (which NO-ONE here condones) to use it in an attempt to discredit us. You may hate us, but you should show a bit of respect to the person involved (not that you actually care about people's feelings, asshole). Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A message for TK

You know I have never really made a statement about TK, publicly anyway, but I think I might now. TK, if you are reading this then I want you to know....in fact, I am going to tell you something you already know. This isn't what I think of you, this is what we all, including yourself, know about you. You're a lying, scheming, bigoted, unintelligent scumbag who obviously has failed so pitifully in real life, so appallingly, that your only option to make yourself feel important is to take over a little known website by manipulating its owner (which is the owners own fault I might add) so that you may spread your miserable existence, your utter inability to cope in the real world, to others. By throwing your inordinate weight around you get your jollies but you can't hide what you really are. Even with all your over-sighting it is painfully obvious to all what you really are. A nothing, a nobody, a zero, a loser. The fact that you spend all day being a petty asshole to all and sundry just goes to prove that you have NOTHING else in your life. I would pity you if you were not such a mean spirited bastard. All you have to look forward to is to get bureaucrated on CP. And that is a sad thing indeed. What is even sadder is that you know I am telling the truth but you'll deny it to your own face rather than face the failure that you have become. Ace McWickedⁱ⁹ 21:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Web (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that told him! Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You better believe it, G! SJ ^Debaser 20:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait, doesn't Ace say this about everybody he doesn't like on the internet? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And they say I'm a troll!!! ^{— Unsigned, by: 134.226.1.229 / talk / contribs}

Actually, no. Ace tends to make up fresh, carefully-crafted prose to express himself. Of course, many people Ace doesn't like on the internet might have traits in common... ħuman 21:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Evening Terry...

Thought you'd like to see this...

Spot of vandalism in my local pub. Good for poops and giggles.

Peace out. SJ ^Debaser 21:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Help

Plz unblock me and undelete Bimbo Wales at CP, so I can help ruin the cred there. You're not fooling me--I read PJR's essay. I know what you're all about. Say something like I gave good reasoning about it on E-mail or something. Pax 68.76.156.225 02:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You're wasting your time, TK doesn't check this page, and saying "I know what you're all about" means literally nothing to him. Out of luck my friend! SJ ^Debaser 02:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. There is a reason he is called SuperJosh, you know! --TK_/MyTalk^{"Lowly" editor} 20:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's because of his crippling weakness to Kryptonite, right? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The power of numerology can help. If you increment SuperJosh's initials by 1, SJ becomes TK.--^{Ask me about your mother} 22:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You do understand, Concerned, a house is now going to fall on you for revealing one of RW's darkest secrets, right? Godspeed to you! --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 22:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not me, it's numerology. Besides, with the quality of houses here, it's only a matter of time before a house falls on me. --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality of houses? Concernedresident, you're even lucky to have a house. I live in a van down by the river. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 22:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

At least it's handy for fishing. The only natural resource we have here is dog shit. Now we just need to find an alien race that considers dog shit to be more valuable than gold. It's grim that my plan for financial security sounds like it was nicked from a South Park script. --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The part that sucks is that all the fish in the river are full of mercury, so I can't even eat them. Dog shit would be useful, because I could thro that at my enemies. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 22:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely that is untrue, and you have no more enemies than I do here, Goonie, so no need for dog poop! --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 23:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

While you've definitely got more enemies here than I do, my #1 enemy here, I assure you, is more vicious than the vast majority of your enemies here. Of course, I've had to resort to TK-esque tactics in dealing with them, so you should be honored. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 23:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The folklore of my "tactics" is greatly embellished by morons, I can assure you. Sort of like people saying Harry Truman gave people hell, and his response was he merely told it like it was, and people thought they were in Hell!. Besides that, 99.5% of the people here now have been nothing but polite and (in most cases) downright nice to me. ;-) --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 00:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you go back to being less likable, please? I miss the antics. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 00:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Now, now, Neverused, don't be churlish! I read the caption on your video, and I have to say this place has always been as it is now....I think it is just our perception's have changed over time. --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 01:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were 404 blocked? - π 01:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that is a perfect illustration of the difference between thinking and knowing, Π! Some nice folks here seem to have gotten it all sorted out, and since I haven't much technical expertise, can't even imagine what was done. Suffice to say I am appreciative for whatever was done. :D --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 01:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Now you are back are you going to be consistent and block yourself from CP for being a member of a vandal/parodist site or are you happy being a hypocrite? - π 01:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Faulty logic, Π. In fact totally lacking in it. I was a member here before I added that block reason to CP. The difference is I have never condoned or participated in adding false information to CP. Now continue to troll post here all you want, trying to instigate an argument, dude....but you will not sour my good humor. Merry Christmas! --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 02:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are now to divide the Members of Vandal/Parodist Site into subcategories, you might wish to know that several of us here have no sympathy for vandals and parodists on Conservapedia. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Some sense! Yes, you've got it exactly right there TK, it's not "being a member of a website that supports vandalism" that counts, but "causing vandalism". I have an account on CP (wouldn't call it a sock, because I only have one), and I don't engage in vandalism or parody, and yet I dare say you'd block it in a heartbeat if you could run checkuser here and find out who it is. Johann (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You do, do you? You really dare to say that? Well you are wrong. I know of a few RW users who also have accounts on CP. Others, including Administrators here, I have unblocked, some of them more than once. If a member here comes to CP and inserts lies, or deliberately tries to stir the pot, then comes here and brags about it, or emails me about their "victory", I will indeed block them. I don't think anyone who has a reasonable mind would say that result is unfair. Now my reason for being is not to constantly answer these lame "when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife" type of questions, so I will try to avoid doing this again publicly. If anyone wants a response they can use the send email link, or simply get my email off my CP page, including you, Johann.

HAPPY FUCKING CHANNUKHA, (religionist?)!!!!!!!!! --User:Theautocrat/Sig 02:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"Besides that, 99.5% of the people here now have been nothing but polite and (in most cases) downright nice to me. ;-)" Well, I suppose it's because you stayed away from your much fabled tact of causing trouble here. My standard here is that, regardless of who you are and what you represent, if you respect this here community, I'll respect you. I'm aware of your fabled and colorful past from a long time ago. But, so long as you don't cause us trouble, I have no reason to consider you an enemy here. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 06:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wonder if you think my responses to other RW members on WIGO talk is really me trolling. I guess things really haven't changed that much here, and in spite of your comments above, any answer by TK that differs from the RW offical version is trolling. That is hardly liberal or open. Peace. --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 10:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, in all honesty, I can only go by what the people here tell me about those days, as I wasn't around then. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 19

01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Visting Conservapedia

I going to visit Conserpedia. ^ComradeGhy213^{Viva La Revolution!} 13:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Lying and stealing gets you sent to hell, you little worthless piece of shit

Get ready for it TK, Satan is going to come around your backside and fuck you up the ass. You should repent of your sin by apologizing, asking Christ for forgiveness, and most importantly by repenting and not stealing other people's drawings and claiming them as your own again asshole. You should also make the person you stole the drawing from whole by paying him damages. Otherwise, your heathen ass is going to be buttfucked for eternity. Just visualize that TK, and then think about how you made the baby Jesus cry. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas TK! SJ ^Debaser 21:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Email

The problem is not on our end, the emails get sent. Check your spam folder. Also, if it doesn't work, how were you able to use the password reset email to get your account back a few weeks ago? That too was sent through the same system. -- Nx / talk 10:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

We have a bot that can do that for you. - π 11:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 11:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You're apparently a sysop now, if you haven't figured it out yet. Here's your bucket, mop, and instruction booklet. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 11:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean this?:

(show/hide) 20:32, 11 January 2010 Human (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:TK from (none) to Sysops ‎ (Mostly harmless moron who has no idea how we operate. He will still fail to get it.)

I saw it after you posted here, and was touched by the usual warmth and sincerity, as always. Thanks for letting me know, RA & for the links. I would have imagined a person would have at least gotten more edit buttons! --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 12:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

an update

The reason why I decided to register at Conservapedia was because the article on Croatia contains some outdated information.

The prime minister is no longer Ivo Sanader, it is now Jadranka Kosor. New president was elected on January 10th this year and will be sworn in office on February 18, 2010. Croatia joined NATO so you should update that too.

Also, if you wish I can send you some pictures. I've already decided to release them to public domain so you can use them freely.

Mr.Orange (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother, Mr Orange. 1) TK is a total cunt. 2) No one uses CP as an encyclopaedia; a handful of bible-bashing loons use it as a platform to spout forth their hate (and hatred of science), and the rest of use it for lulz. Do you think anyone would thing "Hmmm, I need to find some information on Croatia (or any other topic), I know, I'll head to conservapedia"? Nah! It just doesn't happen.

Welcome to RW though buddy! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Orange. Be mindful of the fourth wall. We should sit back and enjoy the tragicomedy that is CP. ^{Ask me about your mother} 23:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Orange, thank you for your gracious offer, and I look forward to reading your thoughts, and seeing your photographs! Don't mind the self-appointed "minders" giving you pressure here. They really do believe they mean well. --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 00:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

for late arrivals

MEMO Happy New Year, TK. This is from Useful Mei. It is an appropriate time for festivities, like alcohol. Today try not to eat too much, or too little.

Have a happy or new year, or both. -- =w= 11:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This template looks really dramatic on your background. -- =w= 12:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does! Thanks for the nice template and thoughts. Same to you! --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 00:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Haiti

TK, you really are an asshole, you know that? You really think it was lack of economic freedom that has Haiti at its knees right now? In conservoland, does a post-colonial society even exist? Perhaps you should take a look at what actually has transpired in Haiti over the last 300 years rather than blindly go off on what can only be described as a incoherent capitalist rant. Everyone is supposed to pull themselves up using their own bootstraps, right? δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$

"George Mason University Economist Don Boudreaux again opens my brain to what should have been obvious:"

(T)he Haitian earthquake killed tens of thousands of people. But the quake that hit California's Bay Area in 1989 was also of magnitude 7.0. It killed only 63 people. This difference is due chiefly to Americans' greater wealth. With one of the freest economies in the world, Americans build stronger homes and buildings, and have better health-care and better search and rescue equipment. In contrast, burdened by one of the world's least-free economies, Haitians cannot afford to build sturdy structures. Nor can they afford the health-care and emergency equipment that we take for granted here in the U.S.

These stark facts should be a lesson for those who insist that human habitats are made more dangerous, and human lives put in greater peril, by freedom of commerce and industry.

Boudreaux adds that per-capita annual income in Haiti is $1,300. Per-capita annual income in the Dominican Republic is $8,200. Had the earthquake struck Santo Domingo rather than Port-au-Prince, the death toll would almost surely have been lower

Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/01/14/a-tale-of-two-quakes/#ixzz0cpVbUwml

--TK_/MyTalk^Editor

Point-by-point:

• "This difference is due chiefly to Americans' greater wealth" We agree to here.

• "With one of the freest economies in the world, Americans build stronger homes and buildings" You/the (obviously conservative/delusional) author you quoted has this completely BACKWARDS. Haiti has one of the freest economies in the world. Businessmen can literally get away with murder in Haiti. Because the Haitian economy has been so free for so long, there is absolutely nothing left of it. The land has been raped of everything because people were free to do/take whatever they wanted to. In stark contrast, America has, until recently, been very highly regulated since the Great Depression. Because of this we were able to distribute goods much more equally, hence a majority had proper supplies. Also, due to HEAVY REGULATION, all the buildings in California were built to code. Due to the completely free market in Haiti, builders could build any shit they wanted to (I say this because I was there this summer and saw it with my own eyes). Do you understand the basics of free-market capitalism? I have lived in very free countries and it is fucking scary because there is nothing to stop a guy from stuffing concrete with hay (exactly what they did in Haiti) with no fear of reprimand. Seriously, you conservotards have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

• ". In contrast, burdened by one of the world's least-free economies" In your demented mind, what way is the Haitian economy not free?

• "had the earthquake struck Santo Domingo rather than Port-au-Prince, the death toll would almost surely have been lower" Horseshit. Been to Santo Domingo lately? I lived in the DR for awhile, I would be happy to share pictures of their wonderful "free market construction" with you.

This is a honest question: do you actually think about things before you post them, or does your blind Conservatism prevent this? There are these minor inconveniences called facts that none of you seem to deal with very well. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$

You seem to be mistaking a news item for an encyclopedic article. News items are interesting, provocative, or made to spark discussion, as this one has. There isn't anything wrong with that, I hope you will agree. We have political differences, as you surely know. No need to call names over that. --TK_/MyTalk^{404 Blocked!} 03:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaking someone (the "best of the (conservative) public) crapping out utter nonsense for actual news. News is a compiled set of facts. Facts have to be grounded in reality. What you posted has no basis in reality. Is this your problem...you fail to distinguish between NEWS and OPINION delusion? δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 03:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you obviously just want someone to berate and rant to, my participation has ended. Try some of your fellow liberals here to berate and rant at, and see if it gets you server blocked. The "News" item was clearly linked, and that link took you to an opinion piece. --TK_/MyTalk^{404 Blocked!} 03:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Give me a break, TK. You have seen my rants. This is nothing close to a rant of mine. You picked a completely indefensible position and now your acting like a two year old and running away. Had this been CP, you would have burned everything by now. If it offends you that much, I will abstain from name-calling, but you really need to defend this nonsense you're spewing. If you are actually willing to put it on the mainspace at CP, you must think it true. Because it's obviously not true you either need to renounce it or try to defend it. Be truthful now, TK...you don't really believe this crap, do you? δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 03:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You should not blame capitalism or the market for Haiti's issues, many of which were caused by the restored French monarchy forcing Haiti to pay large amounts of money in exchange for not re-conquering the country, or by post-revolutionary dictators who engaged in ethnic cleansing. Also, an economy is no more "free" if the government allows businessmen to assassinate the competition instead of doing it themselves, or if businessmen are allowed to get away with fraud like stuffing concrete with hay. Indeed, this makes an economy less free. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I can only laugh at the foolishness of this. Tell me how, with government regulation in place, the US market is more free than the Haitian one, in which anyone can do anything they want. You can start by defining "freedom." δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 04:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Kindly cease conflating "free-market conditions" with "anarchic chaos." How about "the right to do what one will with one's own property"? This is not exactly secured if other people are scot-free to nick it. Or "the right to offer your products or services on the open market without unreasonable restraints"? Not exactly secured if people are allowed to knock you off when you try it. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That merry xmas neon

Hello TK, I was hoping if you could just explain a couple of things to clear up any misunderstanding over that JPEG; because without your side of the story many people are under the misapprehension that you

• Nicked a picture from another website.
• Uploaded it to CP, claiming that you had made the image yourself.
• Got all arsey (along with other CPers) when someone pointed out that you were telling porkies.
• Burnt the talk page in question that pointed out you were lying, with a deletion comment that it 'contained lies'.

I would love to know the truth over this innocent little incident.

PS. Nice work with the 'new' version of the pic, but I'm not sure if opening an image, then saving it in a different size constitutes 'making' said image, but what to I know?

Peace. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sysop speech

tl;dr, but I hope u do get op'd, because you're not as much of a twat as everyone says you are. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the fact that one of the main haters using this site already slapped my post with a "Troll" template speaks volumes about living in the past and intimidation not being owned by any one site. But thank you for the courage to state what you did here. --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 01:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

TK, if you want to make friends and influence people, you have to learn to write English. Those commas between the subject and predicate really embarrass me - how can I argue for the sanity of someone who lacks basic grammar skills? ħuman 05:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Huw, my suggestion would be to exhibit for the users who read this - members and not - tolerance and forbearance. Perhaps it is wisest to at least publicly show you and RW don't judge ideas and concepts, or a persons sanity, based upon some elitist notion of how things need to be phrased or grammatically structured to gain respect. That's just off the top of my head. I could be wrong.... --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 06:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

And here I thought "humour" was a Conservative word. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 07:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Humor would be. Humour would be liberal U.K. spelling, and as such never humorous. ;-) - - --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 08:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow... you never do let the mask drop do you? Impressive. And really, if the addition or deletion of a 'u' defines what's funny in your life, then you really are a sad little man. So, how's your whispering in Andy's ear to get RJJ demoted going? --PsygremlinZungumza! 08:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh and perhaps you'd be willing to debate your behaviour on CP here, seeing as you ran screaming to the WP admins (a tactic I see you discourage on CP) as soon as I raised it. --PsygremlinSpeak! 08:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps your feelings of importance are slightly exaggerated? I didn't contact anyone at Wikipedia....the attention you got was earned only by you, and given by people who in no way could be considered conservative. It must sting to realize there are fair minded liberals there, eh? At least I don't go to other websites to stalk you, or demand you explain your actions. I guess my humor above was a little too dry for your tastes. I'm crushed. Your lies, repeated here, like me running to anyone, are still your petty little lies. --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 10:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you might see being asked to account for your actions as stalking (actually you would), especially as you'd just lied and said that sysops were bound by the commandments (do you still say that, liar?). And as for running to sysops [1]. Anyway, are you going to answer the questions, or carry on bleating about being persecuted, just like Bugler used to? --PsygremlinSprich! 10:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As your own link shows, that was me thanking someone AFTER the fact, not "running to cry to" some WP sysop. As usual your grasp of the truth is loose, and you play fast and loose with accusations. Why don't you channel your silly hate into something positive, like Haitian relief fund raising or world hunger? --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 11:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"At least I don't go to other websites to stalk" Oh really? And how about 'fessing up on just why you did claim that image as your own, then act like a prize idiot when called out. Anybody with a shred of decency would have blushed and deleted it, but not you. Were you that convinced that you'd made the image yourself, or was part of your ongoing plan to undermine CP? --PsygremlinTal! 10:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't, Psy. Enjoy your childish theories and paranoia all you want, but I have never registered, under any name. And try holding your breath, under any and all of your personas, until I respond to your foot stomping demands for explanations. If you want some kind of answer, send me an email under your real true name. Otherwise, pound sand. --TK_/MyTalk^{404 Blocked!} 10:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, so you really are psychologically incapable of telling the truth at any time. And let's face it - given your reputation on the internet, giving you my real name, would be akin to sticking my dick into a meat grinder. Suffice to say, you are probably the singular most unpleasant human being (not because you are "conservative" but because you are a horrible little man) it has been my misfortune to come across and I have nothing more to say to you. Still, I'll bite - e-mail sent (to your gmail acc), but I doubt you'll respond. --PsygremlinSnakk! 10:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I'm just a very curious person who doesn't know much about you, but I was wondering what is so interesting about Rationalwiki that makes you (an active administrator of Conservapedia) to post here? Surely, editing "a well-known vandal site" is highly discouraged in Conservapedia? (Aren't you supposed to pretend that Rationalwiki doesn't exist at all?). And, uh, well, it seems whenever you turn up, everyone are very hostile to you, so I was just thinking, why you're still here?

It's just a friendly and honest question, really.

--Earthland (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Psy!

? --Earthland (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry Earthland, it's just TK's paranoia showing. After all, all Germans on CP are Sid, and I'm apparently all users on here (maybe I inherited that mantle from Ames). Sadly, TK is unable to appreciate that people might want to have a genuine convo with him, seeing as he is incapable of doing so. --PsygremlinParlez! 13:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually Earthland, I asked TK this very question t'other day at the Saloon Bar and he must've missed it, doubtless an innocent oversight on his behalf. Is there any particular reason you're so interested in RW, TK? Indeed, you yourself has blocked upwards of about a thousand editors for being a member of "a known vandal/parodist site," do you not see any massive hypocrisy in being a member here now while maintaining your account on Conservapedia? SJ ^Debaser 11:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. --TK_/MyTalk^{404 Blocked!} 16:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

404 block

1) I am not TK 2) A 404 block is unnecessary good lord, you people are awful blocking people from even VIEWING your site, simply because you disagree with their ideals? because you like misinforming people? if you value reason at all, as per the NAME OF YOUR SITE, youd undo the 404 block right now sent from my iphone sorry for spelling grammar YourEnemy? (talk)

Huh? ħuman 03:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Trent 404 blocked TK for 5 minutes again and now he is crying to anyone who will listen at CP. - π 05:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No wonder, Trent denied his human rights. It's only a matter of time before he's at the dock in the Hague. --Kels (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As suggested on the TK/Debate page, the NEWEST block went into effect late last night and is still in effect now, which is why I am using a proxy now, and like I posted on the debate page. Nice to know I am such a celebrity that I attract the attention of the Queen of Hate. --TK_/MyTalk^{404 Blocked!} 05:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

TK, you have no room to talk. There is good reason to block you...like harassment. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 05:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Harassment? I have never once harassed anyone here, unless you call making posts on my talk page or others here, doing that. Oh, and brother, Semper Fi, you piece of shit. --208.87.241.95 (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you ever serve, TK? Corry (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you dare to mock the military? That's pretty fucking brazen, asshole. Glad to see those conservative values have really paid off for you. Go fuck yourself, TK. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 05:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Queen of Hate eh? Sorry about that m'lady but you reap what you sow. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No one holds a candle to your hate, Ace. Unless the Kiwi government enforces its own laws against cyber hate and nails your ass. --208.87.241.95 (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this like your bit about the British libel laws? You are a coward. Corry (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A coward now? While people out my supposedly real name without permission here, and hide behind anonymous names? That's rich! Corry, you should read up on the U.K.'s laws against hate speech....things written on this page could land a person in jail, according to them. --TK_/MyTalk^{404 Blocked!} 05:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear people outed your name Terry^img. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you a chiropractor? Corry (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

UK's hate speech laws have no bearing on a server not housed in the UK. I have a picture of myself up, my page links to my university account and a good deal of my history is now on this wiki. You really want to try to libel me a coward, Terry? Sitting behind a computer mocking the Marines while cheering them to go to war for you is cowardice. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 05:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"UK's hate speech laws have no bearing on a server not housed in the UK." Tell that to Simon Sheppard. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe I just wasted time doing legal research to respond to idle legal threats made by and to anonymous people on the internet.

UK laws define "hate speech" narrowly in the sense we're discussing here. They don't care whether a UKer or anyone else says any number of nasty things about TK. They care whether the speech tends to incite hatred because of race, religion, or sexual orientation. The NZ Racial Disharmony law (the only "hate speech" law I can find in NZ) applies only to race, color of skin, or ethnic origin. Canada combines these prohibitions. I see no such "hate speech" here. US law doesn't prohibit speech that would be "hate speech" under some foreign law. TK has so far failed to identify anything that could colorably be called "hate speech" under UK, NZ, or Canadian law. Following through on a threat to turn someone in to law enforcement without getting good counsel beforehand is a dangerous game. Can we knock this shit off now? 15:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The most prolific commodity on the planet is Internet Lawyers, and the second most common is the differing opinions they will have on any given law. --TK_/MyTalk^{404 Blocked!} 16:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Kiwi government will nail my ass, oh shit! I am moving to Australia, changing my name and appearence before the bastards catch up with me. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, you could change your name to "e" and set up account "2.7182"! --User:Theautocrat/Sig 18:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Or e.wig, that's a good one.. no, wait, that's already been taken... Refugee^{talk page} 21:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the Kiwi government just a half-dozen sheep herders anyhow? I'm pretty sure you could take them. --Kels (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record

TK was never actually blocked from the site, just a bit of street theater to see if he would claim he was. tmtoulouse 06:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Figured - you made as much clear to me already via email. Didn't want to call TK out on this though in case I was wrong. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, my browser wouldn't resolve RW. I never once said I was blocked as a user, just 404 blocked, as before. Once again a Red Herring post about something I didn't claim. And please tell us if you consider a server block not a block. If I had to use a proxy to see RW, that's a block in most people's book, at least those who haven't drank the Kool-Aid. --TK_/MyTalk^{404 Blocked!} 07:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

For those who are not technically saavy, can someone explain what is going on? ConservapediaEditor (talk) 08:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, ConservapediaEditor, by now you have gotten one of them sekret emails from Trent letting you in on it, like Ace got. --TK_/MyTalk^{404 Blocked!} 10:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What seekrit email, I did't get no sekret email (or secret email for that matter)? Trent use to send me that kind of email once, he doesn't anymore. I know what it is! You are all conspiring against to get me 303, 404 and 502 blocked. I know those bad gateway errors are bullshit, Trent. You can't lie to me like that!!! I am calling Amnesty International!!!!! - π 11:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice tactic, Pi. What you can't use Red Herrings on, marginalize and turn into a joke. Only thing is most will realize its a ploy. But I do give you credit for trying. Now que the usual paranoia remark. ~Yawn~™ Greedy Salmon --TK_/MyTalk^{404 Blocked!} 11:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So you got a 404 error? It is probably the most common error on the internet. If we wanted to block you from viewing, you should be seeing a 403 error. I thought you would know this from your high paying computer consulting job. You know the one which requires you to fly first class to the UK every few weeks in the seat next to Lucille Ball, when you are not sitting in on Slayer recording sessions that is. - π 11:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

We have political differences... no need for names!

“”We have political differences, as you surely know. No need to call names over that.

—TK, January 17th, 2009

07:36, 16 January 2010 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked JulietB (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Trolling / Liberal Trolling: "I am not an Ape! I am a man!") [2]

07:33, 16 January 2010 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 129.81.137.156 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Trolling / Liberal Trolling) [3]

18:07, 12 January 2010 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked ThomasRidgefield (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Trolling / Liberal Trolling: Bye.) [4]

21:42, 31 December 2009 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 209.200.224.0/19 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation disabled) ‎ (IP of blocked vandal / troll / troublemaker: bastet.lunarservers.com, La Habra, CA -- Trying to re-set passwords, childish liberal ) [5]

22:41, 26 December 2009 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 128.208.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (IP of blocked vandal / troll / troublemaker: Univsersity of WA, Seattle; DerekE, Atrios, et.al. several liberal trolls) [6]

I sure am glad you have the ability to overlook political differences, and uphold your ideas equally everywhere, TK! SJ ^Debaser 12:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And I am sure glad you have enough intelligence to realize that different sites have different policies, Josh! --TK_/MyTalk^{404 Blocked!} 16:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean like how one is democratic and the other is a hierarchy? ALL HAIL QUEEN ANDY!! δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 16:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Frightfully different policies, yes. So different that one might wonder how another copes with maintaing the same persona on both accounts, yet manages to fester out bullshit in two completely different ways. SJ ^Debaser 19:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

More lies.

I'm sure Compañía Dominicana de Teléfonos would love to know they're an anonymous proxy. --PsygremlinSpeak! 17:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, TK was only protecting Andy et al. from the unpleasant truth. Isn't that right TK? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You're using a Dominican proxy you sick fuck? If you haven't noticed,the whole island is kind of in a communications FUBAR right now. Thanks for taking advantage of the totally free Dominican market to fuck things up for communications specialists in Haiti. I'll be sure to pass your name along to my friends trying to get things set up there, I'm sure they'll be appreciative. Just when I think you can't make a bigger asshole of yourself you do this... δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 17:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No no, he blocked a telephone company with "anonymous proxy" as the block reason. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

oOoo. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 18:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Super Seekrit!

I have never received a super seekrit email from Trent or anyone else at RW. Just emailing, back and forth, my RW friends. Oh yeah, by the way TK, I think your an asshole. OH NO! Call the Hate Police! Aceⁱ⁹ 19:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

More like the FBI. Or the Thought Police. And, for the record, I also have received no email. So there is hardly a bureaucratic cabal out to get you. --User:Theautocrat/Sig 19:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about you guys, but I have received multiple life affirming, riveting, super seekrit e-mail from myself. tmtoulouse 20:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The only super seekrit ones I receive have been naked pics of Human. I keep asking him stop but he won't. He insists on calling them "art". Aceⁱ⁹ 20:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought he was "Huw"? --Kels (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wiki manners

When addressing an editor on a Wiki, it is customary to do so publicly, on that editor's talk-page. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting.

So, I e-mailed you, as per your whine. Still waiting for your response. Then again, I guess I was foolish expecting you to actually honour your word. Oh, and before you say something about "It was in my spam" - it's a gmail to gmail mail, so spam isn't going to happen. You really are just incapable of being honest, aren't you? --PsygremlinHable! 17:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting too

Hello TK, I am aware that you are a busy man, what with your highly paid IT consultancy work and your selfless work at conservapedia, but surely you can find a moment to just explain a couple of things to clear up any misunderstanding over that 'merry xmas' neon; because without your side of the story many people are under the misapprehension that you

• Nicked a picture from another website.
• Uploaded it to CP, claiming that you had made the image yourself.
• Got all arsey (along with other CPers) when someone pointed out that you were telling porkies.
• Burnt the talk page in question that pointed out you were lying, with a beautifully hypocritical lie in the deletion comment (that the page was deleted because it "contained lies!").

I would love to know the truth over this innocent little incident.

Peace. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 10:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)because

By the way

I loved you trolling Andy with your "Books are also another example of a Liberal trap!" How does that reconcile with Andy's "The Bible is most logical book ever written?". Good work. Thank you for keeping us entertained. --PsygremlinTal! 12:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Any new user is reCaptcha-ed with the words: "stop spam read books" Heh! ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 12:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Quote on your userpage

Are being intentionally hilarious, purposely ironic or straight faced full of shit? Aceⁱ⁹ 02:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Case in point. Asshole. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Parsing

You keep misusing the word 'parsing'. What do you think it means?-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 11:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That would depend upon what you think the word "it" is, David. --TK_/MyTalk^"Editor 08:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Come on, Mr Funnyman. If you have time for inane jokes, you have time to prove you're not a lying weasel. E-mail please. --PsygremlinTala! 08:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am just waiting for you to do what you have since age 5, so perhaps 10 years now, Psy....stomp your little feet and turn blue holding your breath. Or in your case, perhaps it will be you wishing me into the Corn? --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that a Twilight Zone reference? JazzMan 23:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

So, just that we're clear on this... you are going back on your word, just as I expected? Oh and if you're thinking of googling my name and dropping a line to my boss - which you have done to others before - I am my own boss, so feel free to drop me a line. Or even better, drop by the office, we can do a beer. Hemlock on the rocks is yours I believe. PsygremlinПоговорите! 12:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Psy: It wasn't me who contacted someone's boss, years ago now. It was another Admin. Do try to get your facts straight. And I wouldn't answer because I asked for your real name, and you didn't send it, as agreed. Threatening poison is typical of the left, and doesn't exactly instill confidence that you are anything other than what you are. --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 12:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but seeing as Brian isn't hypocritical enough to post here, I didn't want to drag him into it too - and the guys from Hot or Not certainly dispute your claim. But of course you'd say something like that, to weasel out of your agreement. Next you'll be asking for a passport, I suppose. Suffice to say you welched on the deal, as expected. And as for the poison, I'm guessing your dry sense of humour must be on the blink today. Maybe too much exposure to Brian's cartoons? --PsygremlinSnakk! 13:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finally admitting the dozen of so posts of yours claiming I contacted people at work or their employers, is a lie. I would settle for a copy of your drivers license, assuming you are old enough to drive, Psy. James Hong disputes what claim? I see/talk to him regularly, so much for another of your lies. I haven't weaseled, and like your false charge of me contacting someone's work, your lie about sending your real name is just that. This ends our "conversation". I assume you will continue to troll this page anyway...have fun! --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 13:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Who said anything about James Hong? I'm talking about the others you harassed on HoN. I'm guessing you talk to Hong about as often as your talk to Ed Meese and Lucile Ball - when you sit next to her on the plane. And I stand by my comments that you called people at work - shall I ask PalMD to back me up on this? And I'll call you on your other claim - seeing as you think I sent you a false name, I'm quite willing for you to post what you think my name is right here. I've got nothing to hide. Or you can continue to run. Your call. Or, you send me your driver's licence and I'll send you my pilot's licence. --PsygremlinParlez! 13:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

LIAR. Terry you have NEVER met James Hong, you do not see him or speak to him and he hasn't answered an email from you since 2007. LIAR LIAR LIAR. Prove it. I DARE you. I do correspond with James, and I just may post up his (public) email addy so anyone can ask him. James considers Terry Koeckritz a kook, a psycho and he personally removed him as an Admin for HotorNot, then had to shut down the moderator board because of TK's repeated vile, profane posts threatening other users - want proof? I have the screen shots to this day. Terry, you are a LIAR. But what else can we expect from you, after all, you did claim to throw yourself in front of Nancy Reagan to save her from a sniper. LOLLOLOL!!! 193.200.150.137 (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Gauntlet thrown! Excellent BON. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 12:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Would love to see that proof BON, would make an excellent addition to TK's article here. Terry, I'll await your apology - you can mail it - you have my address. --Psygremlin말하십시오 12:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Email.

Hello TK - why have you sent me an email detailing the fact the ToP blocked you for an hour? I don't care, why don't you email him? Aceⁱ⁹ 19:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

TK, feel free to email me regarding any such further inconveniences. I care very much. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ace, I emailed you because you asked me a question here that I could not answer due to being blocked. The fact that you changed the block to 31 seconds shows you at least cared about the image of RW, and the singling out of one user contrary to its Guidelines. Thanks, Neveruse, however the history here shows any semblance of fairness is always protested loudly and acquiesced to, by a small segment of dried-up haters who care nothing for logic. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 21:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't care less if you were blocked for an hour. Don't know why I changed it. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

~Yawn~ --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 22:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You're yawning? You emailed me you idiot. If anyone should yawn it should be me. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Liberal cyber bullies"

Wow. You just have absolutely, no conscience at all, do you? SJ ^Debaser 00:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the comments on this page, and elsewhere, about me and others, prove what liberal sensibilities are quite clearly. The same kind of taunting and vile name calling, in place of reasoned arguments against what a person believes, is shown here daily, like the taunts described in the news article about that girl. There are few places on the Internet that use personal attacks (a defacto policy of personal destruction) as consistently as Rational Wiki. The constant "un-funny" longer blocks and vandal binning of users some at RW disagree with, as opposed to the short term blocks given to users who are mostly agreed with, are self-mockery on the part of RW, showing most of their guidelines are BS, making this place not notable inasmuch as your dejour blocking policy is not different from CP. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 01:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

RationalWiki is not the issue here. I've seen the nastier stuff which people have wrote here, and I don't agree with a lot of the personal attacks I've seen. Yeah, I'm guilty of referring to certain CPers as "fucking cunts" and other horrible things, but do you think just because you don't allow swearing at CP you don't attack people in the most vile ways? Lumping all people you perceive to be liberal as murdering bullies is terrible. The issue here is your attempt to bash liberals over a 15 year old who killed herself. Apart from the fact that what you did was despicable, do you seriously think the girls that bullied here were thinking "Ooh, I'm gonna go and upset this girl then go and support a state-funded healthcare system!" or something like that? Conservapedia is wall-to-wall liberal bashing. Remember Ted Kennedy dying? Remember Andy plastering the mainpage with his shit about how much of a bastard he saw him as? Yeah, die-hard liberals might do the same thing if a fastidious conservative died, but for a site that claims to be family friendly, trying to claim the moral high ground and such, you generally just have a lot of hateful, opportunistic shit on it.

Also, regarding the email you sent, I don't care. If you want my opinion, you're fucking lucky you aren't permablocked here after everything regarding Conservapedia. In future, please contact me in public via my talkpage, or find someone else to bother privately. SJ ^Debaser 11:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh... Has the Teacake been sending his little emails again? Do us a favor and post that Super. I should be delighted to see what he has to say. SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 05:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ashamed?

Not at all, we just have the balls to back down over something we've said or done - we aren't so fragile that we need to delude ourselves into thinking everything we've ever done was right. Now go back to destroying whatever shreds of respect CP still gets from the sheep it caters to. -Redback^G'day 03:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Or one could say RW is over-concerned with making itself appear "reasonable" when in fact it is anything but. But thats a matter readers can decide for themselves, reading the vile and completely personal insults heaped upon anyone who disagrees with someone else here....as it should be. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 03:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

'Or one could say RW is over-concerned with making itself appear "reasonable" when in fact it is anything but. But thats a matter readers can decide for themselves' ---> I'm a reader and I decided that was bollocks. No offence. -- =w= 03:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your right, Wei, and I agree with that. Thanks for keeping this place as it was intended, tolerant of all points of view, logical and rational. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 03:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think someone who takes a tragic incident and attempts to use it to score cheap political points should be making remarks about what's reasonable and what's not. Now go ban yourself for editing here, hypocrite. -Redback^G'day 03:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

How about you uncloak your anonymity, Redback, or have someone do it to you without your permission, and give us a list of all your posts everywhere on the Internet, and let us judge your actions someplace else, like you do mine? Pot/Kettle, much, dude? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 03:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to know, honey? My username for every other site I've ever signed up for? Well, okay I guess...
I use eBay under the name blackchocobo2640, I play warcraft under the names Drayle, Kazeiru and Magnificence, I used to use Torn City with the username BlackChocobo and well... that's really about it. I also use the internet for banking, but I think I might refrain from giving you my username for that.
Now back to the matter at hand, I see other users edit here, then get banned from CP for doing so. You edit here, why are you not banned from CP? What makes you so damn special? You know, other than a grossly overinflated ego. -Redback^G'day 03:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
PS: Oh, and I also go by the name Kazeiru on Xbox Live

Couldn't resist a final piece of hate, eh? I have proven myself on CP, I don't deliberately post false info to articles under a sock, or vandalize the place. While most RW users don't either, many do, and post here about it. I am RW member #45 here, which predates most of you, and the CP rule, which is why I don't block myself. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 04:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I never vandalized or posted false info either, and never used a sock on CP (except that "Bohdan's friend" one, oh well). So why am I blocked? Note my membership at CP was also enshrined before that silly rule. ħuman 04:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Quit trying to infiltrate CP, Human. TK caught you again! Lawl! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 21:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

TK, that's BS and you and I both know it. -- 12:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Soooo, how about those New Orleans Saints? Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 04:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Colts are going to win. You a Vikings fans Goonie? - π 04:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Curiously, I'm a heavy anti-Vikings fan (in other words, I hate them with a passion), mostly for reasons I no longer remember dating back 12 or so years ago. However, I think they did a heckuva job this year. However, I think that this year will, finally, be the year of the Saints. It's their turn to win the Super Bowl, in my opinion. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 04:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Colts' offence = Saints' offence, Colts' defence > Saints' defence. The Colt's will win. - π 04:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(Stop ECing me and let me poke the troll a bit more) TK, when I see your name come up on the screen it's an instant trigger - you've proven yourself time and time again to be an inhuman, callous prick at every given opportunity. Rest assured that the "final piece of hate" is probably the nicest thing anyone who follows your backstabbing, opportunistic ways could possibly think about you. As for having proven yourself, what exactly have you done to do so? All you do on Conservapedia is intimidate other users, ban anyone who disagrees with you and regurgitate lies. -Redback^G'day 04:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but can I join http://pub11.ezboard.com/bfarfromthemaddingcrowd? I want to talk captivespeak words with you. Jerry 04:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC) (EC) Back to American football, perhaps you are right, Π. Especially when one considers that every time I've rooted for a team this season, they've lost. Therefore, the fact that I'm rooting for the Saints tells you whom to bet on. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 04:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright then, who do you reckon will get the first touchdown? - π 04:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the total over/under is 55.5 points. Looks like the betting is for a high scoring game. - π 04:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Colts will get the first one, naturally. I predict a close game, with the Saints winning in the end of the 4th quarter. And you? AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 04:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Carl of Aqua Teen Hunger Force says that the Viqueens are A) old, B) dumb, and C) from the South. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 05:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Show some balls

Why don't you stop taking advantage of the tragic suicides of teenage girls and report some real news. When Palin's email was hacked and the kid turned out to be the son of a Democratic politician, CP jumped all over it... Why don't you report this story in the so called news section? SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 20:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

TK usually doesn't respond to questions that he can't rebut so easily. Not saying that out of spite or anything, just saying you shouldn't waste your time. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 21:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning, my viking friend. But I know this, however... If TK is gonna enter our playground, he's gonna have to deal with our rules.... and I can continue to call him on his shit and enjoy his nonresponse. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 21:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Far from doing what the liberal press has said, it seems the gentlemen in question were actually investigating the odd phenomenon of reports from citizens that whenever they called the Senator's office to complain about her support of Obamacare, they always received a "busy signal" day and night. O'Keefe & Company suspected that the public lines were being deliberately blocked while the staff used private lines to conduct its political business. If so, Senator Landrieu was betraying her public trust and deserves to be exposed. Chuck, go read the rules here....obviously you have no idea what they are. To jump on me for what hasn't been done someplace else is against the very spirit of the rules here. There was no doubt Palin's email was hacked. Until charges are officially filed, and the investigation is done, there is a great deal of doubt about the Landrieu situation. For my part if the guy took the law into his own hands, stepped over the journalistic line, I will indeed make a news item about it. Nice going not having any semblance of fairness, which you complain about others not having, lol. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 23:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess you'll be all for exposing Cheney et al for using private email address for official business in order to hide their records then. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

TK... you're "sauces" for that inreliable claim? Aschlafly 23:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Why none other than the Washington Post, Josh! [7] And Ace, go suck the big one. That claim against Cheney long ago bit the dust. Damn Kiwi's, so far away, the news travels slow, I guess! --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 23:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

When do you think Cheney will come clean? A question CP should ask I reckon. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"TK," the article you link to is none other than a liberal, whitewashing newspaper. The "Source", as you claim it to be, is convoluted and uses many words to say nothing. Please, post substantively, or don't post at all. Godspeed. SJ ^Debaser 23:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice slight of hand, Terry (can I call you Terry?) but you can't fool a street performer like me. You see, the question isn't about whether or not he's guilty. If he were a liberal, arrested for misrepresenting himself to gain entry into a republican office, CP would be shouting to the world about it. While here, they haven't even mentioned it. PS, show me the rule that says you can't call out people for what they do on other sites..... That's what this place was founed on you idiot.... Just look at Jinx _{hi Jinx!} SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 05:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

PS, You're a Dick SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 05:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Deceit

The most deceitful thing you can do on a wiki is use oversite. I read what FrankC had to say and found nothing to be inappropriate or in bad taste and nothing he said broke any of the commandments. I've said it once and I'll say it again once more: Deceit, thy name is TK. Keegscee (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There you go again! Just where is that rule enshrined? Can you link me to it? Wiki's come with settings, so many in fact, that no two could be the same. Jimbo Whales has installed Flagged Revisions on the German Wikipedia, some don't have it. If I wasn't supposed to remove items, per the Owner, I wouldn't have that ability. Period. And thanks for your review of Frank's edit, dude...your personal opinion has been noted. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 00:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, he's right! Wiki software doesn't come with a list of moral values at all! Furthermore, deceit is allowed by the software! Why would you suggest such foolishness, Keegscee? ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 00:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Every wiki or site has the absolute right to decide what is relevant and what is not, and remove posts that are not. That is done here as well. Difference here is that some are allowed to see what is removed, while others are not. Is that "moral"? Don't hate the playa, hate the game. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 00:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) And Obama is allowed to use teleprompters too, yet CP is claiming their use is deceitful. Just because you are allowed to do something doesn't mean it's not deceitful. The liberal Wikipedia has very very strict oversight rules to prevent such deceit. Perhaps CP should adopt some rules as well. Keegscee (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So, what's not deceitful on oversighting this File:Talk-Global Positioning System - Conservapedia 1264634820907.png? FvC (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Entertain me, monkey!

Feel free to respond to each separately.

The man who brought the hidden video of ACORN people to the right wing has been arrested for trying to illegally tap Senator Landrieu's phones. If it's important that the "liberal media" report on the problems of ACORN, then shouldn't it be just as important to expose those who attempt crimes against our lawmakers? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

TK, how can the news items provoke discussion when you ban people for 90/10, complaining, liberal arguments, etc.? You don't want a discussion, you want a trollfest. That's the problem with the CP crowd: You have to think like Andy, agree with Andy, or you don't get to stay. That's not a discussion in any sense of the word. Impress us by getting rid of that 90/10 rule and arbitrarily banning people because they say things you don't agree with, and maybe I'll consider that the news list is there for provoking discussion. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Why won't CP cover the news? All those whinefests about how the "liberal media" refused to cover the ACORN issues, brought about by the same man, where's the outrage that he was caught trying to wiretap a sitting senator? We're waiting, TeaKakkke. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

TK: Explain to me how this does not constitute "name-calling?" Love and kisses, Irrational Atheist (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't be a "liberal" and dodge the questions, now. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't CP claim that liberals are full of deceit? So why are you trying to revert these questions, refuse to answer them, and mark them as "vandalism?" Are you a liberal, by your own definition? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the "ACORN scandal," let's. The reason why it's a non-story about setting up the paperwork for a prostitute is that, according to the lady in the video, she felt they were pulling her leg and she put on the show, but no paperwork was filed. But O'Keefe is due in court for the illegal recording there. Why don't you cover this? Are you a liberal? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have another question.... Why is TK here at Rationalwiki singing a different tune than TK at CP? I mean, which is which Terry? RW:"the gentlemen in question were actually investigating the odd phenomenon of reports from citizens that whenever they called the Senator's office to complain about her support of Obamacare, they always received a "busy signal" day and night. O'Keefe & Company suspected that the public lines were being deliberately blocked while the staff used private lines to conduct its political business. If so, Senator Landrieu was betraying her public trust and deserves to be exposed." CP:"I fear in spite of good intentions, and yeoman work in exposing ACORNS illegal activities in the past, O'Keefe may have fallen into the trap liberals often do, thinking that the end justifies the means. :-( I am praying he didn't, but if he did, we will add that to the news as well. Too early to tell right now." and Hey, I just noticed... TK just copy pasted his response to me to the guy on CP..... Wow, you lazy nigger. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 06:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Liberal monkey, it appears that when you have zero power, you tuck tail and run like a fucking pussy. You can't ban me, you can't burn the edit, and you can't run to anyone else to help you. If you come here and run your mouth off, you'll get called on it every time. That's what happens when you talk to people thousands of times smarter than you, who don't need to act like bullies to win an argument.

You're a joke, and you ran from four questions. Maybe I should make them sticky on your talk page and protect it? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Vacation!

TK! I will be going on vacation until Tuesday and will have almost no access to the internet. Can you try and keep the crazy down on Conservapedia while I'm gone? I don't want to miss too much. Thanks! Keegscee (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

People want to know

if your arse breaks out in boils if you tell the truth. Naturally, I don't expect you to answer that. You haven't got the balls.

Because other than a medical reason, there's no other explanation why you seem to lie compulsively. Although that said, I must applaud you on your latest efforts to dumb down CP. You twisted other people's word better than Bugler ever could, and despite two admins disagreeing with your stance, you went ahead with it anyway, then covered your arse to make sure nobody can call you on your deceit. Bravo, Sir, Bravo. Although that still makes you a lying sack of shit. --PsygremlinRunāt! 17:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are you letting Ken push you around?

So, TK, why haven't you dealt with Ken

for moving cp:Social_effects_of_the_theory_of_evolution back from Essay space after you had said "This is not an article, but rather an essay, so more properly belongs in the Essay name space. Still. Once again. Always."? I can only assume you don't want to upset somebody who is a more senior admin than you. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. Compromise is the key to any collaborative project. Once again you show just how prescient you are, SR. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 23:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This from someone who bans JDWPianist for a difference of opinion? Shut up, fuck face. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, no. I think it's good that TK is prepared to admit that somebody who takes 20 edits to make a one paragraph addition to CP is better than he is. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Liberal double standard

"Hollywood values are deadly." "Brittany Murphy, 32, motion picture film actress died of cardiac arrest from combining prescription drugs"
"The Los Angeles County coroner's office said actress Brittany Murphy's death was caused by pneumonia, and that prescription drug intoxication was also a factor."
It would be very "liberal" of you not to remove this, as it's obvious that "Hollywood values" had nothing to do with her death. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, you don't expect the truth to take precedent over a little bit of mudslinging do you? Besides, it would involve TK telling the truth, and we know that doesn't ever happen. --PsygremlinFale! 18:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Giggles

Thanks for the giggles re: NZ on the mainpage. You do realise that NZ has lower crime, lower unemployment, better education etc etc than the US right? You'd be better off here TK, for a start - NZ is gay friendly so you'd fit right in. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Your own posts here on RW, Ace, prove the claims about Kiwi education are somewhat embellished, what?. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 23:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how good an education system you have - if someone's not listening they ain't gonna learn. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, coming from the homeschooling advocate. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Coming from a guy who acts as a goon squad for a Yale/Princeton grad who doesn't believe in evolution or relativity. A little education is a dangerous thing. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Crundy, liberals and conservatives, both in the U.S. and the U.K., have found many advantages to home schooling, for a variety of reasons. That said, I don't think I have stated a preference for home schooling, although I have had both in my days. Mine was provided by the school district I was in, actually. Theory, the "goon squad" here, in full HCM, isn't any more appealing to users, IMO. Ace, rightly said! We all have our self-imposed blind spots, I reckon. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 00:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Bahahaha your comments on NZ on the main page are stunningly ignorant. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I demand this be posted to CP

Now, monkey! --Irrational Atheist (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

~Yawn~. Ronald Reagan made the same argument back in 1969, and liberals roundly condemned his proposals. I'm glad to see such ideas have now become "ground breaking"! --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 03:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Mutant!

Did you actually read the article you cited? Aceⁱ⁹ 04:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record

You should really watch videos before you crow about them. John Stewart was talking about how Fox is the most bias news network and his quote of "they're the most passionate and have the clearest narrative" was not, repeat not, a compliment. SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 22:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

First, I did watch the entire interview, on live television (satellite of course, in real time) and then again on the Fox site. Second, you put your spin on what he said and I will just state the facts, the words he spoke. Perhaps your abilities to discern what he really meant, to get inside his mind, are greater than the average persons, SirChuck. Take pity on the rest of us! --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 22:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok TK, I missed your boyish sarcasm when you know you're against the facts... Direct quote, from the transcript which can be found here:

O'REILLY: Now, are you shocked that a Democratic poll operation shows that Fox News is the most trusted news operation...

STEWART: No.

O'REILLY: In the country?

STEWART: No.

O'REILLY: Forty-nine percent of Americans trust us.

STEWART: No, I'm not shocked at that. Are you shocked that an Internet poll said I was the most trusted newscaster in America?

O'REILLY: Yes, but that was like Blinky did it. This was a big, big, big concern. And somebody told me off the record that you were one of the 49 percent, you believe Fox News is the most trusted news organization.

STEWART: I am. Here's what I believe. Fox News is the most passionate and sells the clearest narrative of any news organization, if that's how — are you still referring to it in that manner?

O'REILLY: Yes, it's a news organization. Right. That's how the poll referred to it.

STEWART: No, I'm sure it did.

O'REILLY: Nobody had any problem. Only you. Only you have a problem.

STEWART: I think Fox, in and of yourself, say you're not a news organization all day. Isn't it now your news — what was it your news from 9 to 11, and then your opinion and then your news again from like 1 to 2:30?

O'REILLY: It's kind of like a newspaper. You've got news pages...

STEWART: Except on Jewish holidays and then you're not, and then on alternate parking days, you're news, but then Christmas you're not?

O'REILLY: OK. Think about the news pages, and then you open another page, and there is the opinion page. Clearly labeled, opinion page.

STEWART: Yes.

O'REILLY: You have no problem with that, right?

STEWART: First of all, newspapers are a passive piece of paper that you go to, and you know where the opinion thing is. Television doesn't function that way, and you know it.

O'REILLY: You don't think people know "The Factor" is an opinion show? You don't think they know that?

STEWART: It's not — certainly not clearly labeled. I've looked at your promos. You're part of the fair and balanced part. You're part of the most trusted name in news.

You still wanna pick this fight douchebag? SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 22:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

He's teasing you. -- =w= 22:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

you talking to me or TK? if it's to me, I know, thank you Mei. But since Jinx _{hi Jinx!} left, I haven't had time to bait any conservatives... Except for my sock ventures into CP. SirChuckB^{Go Naked, Hitler Wore Clothes} 22:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Then go forth with my blessing. -- =w= 22:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mei. Allow me to put this where the douchebag in waiting can't delete it. SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 22:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

'Mei is a hater'

I don't hate anyone. All is well. -- =w= 23:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Air Force Wiccans?

So much for supporting the troops, eh, TK? RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As usual, your logic escapes me, but I have no doubt you have some trolling reason to ask such a nonseq, CUR. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 05:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it strikes me that if these men and women are willing to lay down their lives for their country--and for a Constitution that ostensibly guarantees freedom of religion for all citizens, their simple desire for a place at which to practice their religion should supercede what you think is a "proper" set of spiritual practices for them. Now, I admit, it's not like they've recently risked taking a bullet for the First Lady or something, but still, it's a fairly simple request given the massive commitment they've made to you and your country. And I'm decidedly not CUR--it's probably well past his bedtime. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

@TK, the way you write just makes me angry. TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 05:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess I somehow mistook you for CUR, with the UR part of your name, and also the silly idea that one deal has anything to do with the other. I never voiced opposition to those witches....I think it was Jpatt. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 05:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, you read this site too much if you know how CUR is given you weren't a "contributor" at the time. - π 05:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I never voiced opposition to those witches. Really? : "We are a Christian nation. Tolerance of others forms of worship does not require or obligate us to grant parity with tax dollars to every cult in the world. People arguing otherwise in this thread are taking matters to ridiculous extremes. So long as we are not actively stopping someone from praying to other (false) gods, we have fulfilled our obligation, IMO. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:27, 2 February 2010 (EST). RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes...what has that to do with supporting our troops in military operations? Do you somehow think American taxpayers should be on the hook for providing places of worship to every fringe sect, or even major religions? I don't. Again, what you are talking about has nothing to do with supporting troops. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 05:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Because our troops are supported when you don't designate what faith they should have, or tell them that they can fight for the country, just not have the rights that are guaranteed to them? If money can be spent for Christian worship, they can be spent for any recognized religious worship. Period. Because someone or several people don't like spending their tax dollars on something doesn't mean it shouldn't be supported. Otherwise we wouldn't have Congress, a military or aid to foreign nations, simply because there are many people who don't like those. But, and here's what you and your idiot CP buddies don't get, once your tax dollars are collected, you no longer have a say in how that money gets spent. You choose representatives to make those decisions for you. If you don't like it, change the people you vote for, get out others to vote like you. Logic like this just bounces off the ignorant, like yourself. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 06:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You, sir are a pompous troll. I ask you politely not to post your inane rants here again, or I shall start doing the same on your page. You, the defender of the American Way! What a freakin' laugh! --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 06:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to comment: TK calling someone else "pompous" and a "troll". Splutter! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 06:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

^{— Unsigned, by: TK / talk / contribs}

You know, if we just slap {{troll}} on every conversation with TK, we might as well just ban him for life.... Lets take the Jinx _{hi Jinx!} route and have fun winding his crank. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 07:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ooh ooh!

Now that you've "politely" shown RickD the door, there's only DouglasA, JDWPianist and BMcP to go. Then your job will be complete. By the way, what did you say to Prof Jensen to make him finally throw in the towel? Don't forget to tell Andy to de-sysop Justine for lack of activity. She hasn't edited since July, which is unsurprising given your misogyny towards her. --PsygremlinSermā! 10:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC) And you really need to stop with the checkuser shoutouts when you block people. It makes you look even creepier than you already are. --PsygremlinTal! 11:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Multiculturalism

Seeing as no one on CP can point this out without getting blocked and oversighted, I'll call you on this bullshit.

What's your "improved" version after "removing liberal claptrap"? "Conservatives - in the US, know that multiculturalism is an attack on America's traditional Judeo-Christian culture." And the claptrap you removed? The reasonable distinction that appreciating other cultures' contribution is different from saying these cultures are superior.

In other words, now Conservapedia is advocating that the mere existence of people from other cultures in the USA is an attack on Christians. Now you're either just parodying yourself, or you're a fucking racist. It's hard not to invoke Godwin's law, but what would be your "Final Solution" to all of those offensive brown and yellow people? Junggai (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think your god is watching you?

Am I correct in saying that you are a fundamentalist christian and actually believe that there is magic being keeping an eye on you, and taking notes to judge you after your death? If so, this god of yours will know that you stole (a sin!) that 'merry xmas' picture, lied (a sin!) about making it yourself, then acted in a very dishonest way (including more lying) when called out on it. Does it not bother you that your god knows exactly what a dishonest person you are and will judge you for it? Or do you not actually believe all that bible crap? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi - I changed the old parameter in the Pibot archiving template for this site from 2 days to a more realistic 7 days: Otherwise it would seem that you are trying to automatically dodge questions like:

• So, what's not deceitful on oversighting this File:Talk-Global Positioning System - Conservapedia 1264634820907.png? FvC (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome -- larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, jerkoff, I can dodge any questions I want. Where are your archives? As for your question above, I learned the oversighting trick from here. Fuck yourself. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 09:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't doubt that you didn't invent the oversighting trick - the question stands: don't you think that you applied it in a deceitful way?
• I'm not as popular as you at this site, so the necessity to archive my talk-page hasn't occurred yet.
• Of course, you can dodge any question you want. It's my intention to show to everyone that you are doing so.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow TK, language. Getting a bit hot under the collar when faced with the uncomfortable truth, are we? Or is it a side-effect of whatever drugs you take that keep you going on your 50-hour editing binges? However, you really should set the example - after all, you mention us so often over on CP that the little innocent home-schoolers are sure to follow you over here and I'd hate for your language to sear their retinas. --Psygremlin講話 09:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

TK - it's enough that you abuse archiving at CP - you won't abuse it here: The traffic on your talk page doesn't justify such a short time-span for active threads. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I was to harsh: TK, coming from CP you cannot know this, but archiving is a important task and should be done with common sense: no one - for instance - wants to interrupt an ongoing discussion or to prevent information from being seen by interested parties. As your visits here at RationalWiki are quite infrequent (looking at your edit history) you should at best refrain from using the Pibot - archiving function: you don't want to create a situation were you have to de-archive a thread to answer a question because it was posted here during a period of absence, and the eager bot had dragged it into the backroom. So, generally, human archiving is preferable to the botted version - whenever feasible. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You're a moron and a liar, LArron. Where is this archive rule posted? My page, since Pi suggested I use the bot to archive, has been archiving every two days, until I lengthened it to 3 which seems more than reasonable to me. Go fuck yourself, and the non-existent rule you are citing as well. Why do some users who have been here longer than me, seem to have no archives whatsoever, and no history longer than last year? Hmmmmm? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 23:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} Harmonic drug Hoover! 23:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice one, PH, that's what I always think when TK makes his asinine claims. Difflinks, please? Facts? Meh, arguing with a congenital liar is a waste of time... ħuman 03:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Here you go Huw, off the top of my head. Of course you know many don't archive already, and make your insulting remarks anyway.

• Armondikov - Archives located "somewhere"
• Toast - 2008 appears missing
• Pinto's5150 -
• Sid - Lots of archives listed, nothing in them

And if there are archives for those people, and they are just "relocated" and forgotten to be listed, do you object if I do the same here? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 04:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

TK, you are a sloppy researcher. And this is not a ad hominem or a plain insult, it is an observation:

Editor	TK's verdict	reality
Armondikov	Archives located "somewhere"	The archives are located at a usual place (User_talk:Armondikov/archive1, etc.), but there is no link on the talk page. That is unfortunate - but not so problematic, as the archived stuff is really outdated.
Toast	2008 appears missing	Toast became a member of this site on Oct 27, 2008. The entries of 2008 can be found in User talk:Toast/Archive01
Pinto's5150		User talk:Pinto's5150/Archive1, User talk:Pinto's5150/Archive2,User talk:Pinto's5150/Archive3,User talk:Pinto's5150/Archive4
Sid	Lots of archives listed, nothing in them	A quick look at the revision history shows that the talk page is always growing, it hasn't been archived yet: the fake archives are just messing with your mind.

Obviously, the rule archiving is a important task and should be done with common sense is stated nowhere. This is called the common-sense-approach.

I have to repeat:

• So, what's not deceitful on oversighting this File:Talk-Global Positioning System - Conservapedia 1264634820907.png? FvC (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can't see that archiving a seemingly ongoing discussion in which the last edit was made seven hours ago is premature - or if you can see it, but don't want to admit it - the fairly simple task of archiving seems to be to much of a challenge for you.

BTW: the great wikipedia doesn't even expect you to create an archive page - as the histories of the talk pages are not deleted, and so the information isn't lost. But it expects a sensible handling of cleaning your slate, too. I suppose that this is just another difference between Conservapedia and Wikipedia.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Your last edit comment read: Sorry moron, I am not having any ongoing discussions...if you want a bash TK page, create it'

You do indeed have ongoing discussions, though you may prefer undocumented discussions.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I know that consistency isn't your forte, but - as Bugler said once - what's good for the goose is good for the gander

TK at CP

TK at RW

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

rant

possibly because i've been drinking, i think it's important to tell you this now. conservapedia makes me sick. a bunch of borderline racists banging on about how evil liberals are, milking the deaths of those that aren't in line with your fucking ridiculous ideologies anyway you possibly can for your own selfish political ends, blocking anyone just for the fucking hell of it, and you TK, taking advantage of a fucking idiot like andy schlafly. doing his dirty work, quoting him because you know he's too thick to see through your act, and generally bringing modern day shame to the name of christianity, something which started with good intentions. pure and simple, you're just a bad man. SJ ^Debaser 03:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Especially for you...

Not my own work, but taken from the Drudge Retort. See, Terry, that's how attribution works. Easy, isn't it? --PsygremlinSermā! 11:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• If a liberal doesn’t believe that abortion is morally acceptable, she doesn’t have one.
• If a conservative doesn’t believe that abortion is morally acceptable, he or she wants to prevent anyone from having one.

• When a liberal asks where he gets his news, he’ll give legitimate sources such as the N.Y. Times or Washington Post.
• When a conservative asks where he gets his news, he won’t usually answer because it’s not from legitimate news sources.

• A liberal sees wrong and tries to right it.
• A conservative sees wrong and if it involves another conservative, he claims it’s biased.

• A liberal believes most foreign policy issues are best dealt with by taking diplomatic measures.
• A conservative believes we should bomb first and ask questions later.

• A liberal doesn’t mind his hard earned money going to legitimate government programs.
• A conservative hates all things government, but doesn’t mind his hard earned money going towards multi-million dollar bonuses for CEOs.

• When a liberal thinks about education, he thinks about college.
• When a conservative thinks about education, he thinks about grade school and high school.

• A liberal knows that a fact is information that is verifiable.
• A conservative thinks a fact is something you can link to. It might be just somebody’s opinion, but if you can link to it, he believes it’s acceptable to use it as a “fact.”

• A liberal debates with facts.
• A conservative debates by insulting the other person.

• A liberal evaluates information and forms an opinion.
• A conservative gets his opinions from right-wing pundits.

• A liberal debates by citing events that have occurred.
• A conservative debates by predicting events he believes will occur.

• A liberal debates using facts.
• A conservative debates the facts.

• If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he’s not a real conservative and is branded a wuss.
• If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he might want to ban guns, but most only want to ban assault weapons.

• If a conservative is a vegetarian… What are you, kidding me? A conservative vegetarian? Ha!
• If a liberal is a vegetarian, who cares.

• If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how his political party can capitalize on it.
• A liberal wonders how to solve the problem without getting anybody killed.

• If a conservative is homosexual, he hates himself but likes underage boys.
• If a liberal is homosexual, he wants the same rights as everyone else.

• If a conservative is down-and-out, he blames liberals and minorities for his problems.
• A liberal goes to college and develops skills that will make him prosperous.

• If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he rants, raves, and complains until he’s blue in the face about what he believes to be anti-American socialist/fascist ideas, or whatever else the right-wing pundits told him to believe.
• Liberals are too busy with their careers to pay much attention to talk-shows.

• If a conservative is a non-believer… What are you, kidding me? A non-religious conservative? Ha!
• A liberal non-believer doesn’t want his child indoctrinated by religious nut-jobs.

• If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes on Medicare and demands the government keep its hands off it.
• A liberal wants affordable health care for all, insurance company CEOs be damned!

Hey, you hypocritical cunt

Here's a suggestion - either stop posting here, stop blocking people for being a member of a site supporting vandalism (which you know is a lie - oh, and please quote the LA Times as gospel, so I can quote what they said about CP as gospel), or block yourself from CP. Your call. --PsygremlinPraat! 10:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Why even mess around with my userpage, etc. at CP, stating first that it was a user request to delete everything, and second to change the block settings to infinite for my membership here? I'd hate for you to be blocked from CP yourself, so I suggest you just please leave this site. It is only for your own good. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 15:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So, are you officially stating that everyone is not welcome here at RW Aboriginal Noise? Just do that, and I am more than happy to leave, knowing that all along the statements made on this wiki have never been true, and sysops here are no different than on CP....enforcing the unwritten RW rules as they deem they should be, and ignoring, always with a convoluted explanation the written ones, like the chart above makes excuses for no archives. I like making idiots like Psygremlin and the others dance to my tune, making hateful and mean-spirited remarks to innocuous remarks that make a lie of the so-called mission here, and show outsiders just how hateful liberals are. If your intentions as Wes on CP were so pure, it is indeed odd you participate here in the hate these people display....just a thought. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 00:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Admitting it TK? That's why you do anything on the net: "I like making [...] dance to my tune" Those with no position or influence in real life take advantage of their near anonymity to bully those whom they would otherwise be unable to defeat. BTW Lily is no connection with SusanG or me. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 00:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion, you idiot, is that you should block yourself at CP for being a "member of a vandal site" if you continue to edit here. Of course you are "welcome" here, you moron, but shouldn't you be slightly consistent? ħuman 02:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That is quite what I meant to say, the bit about consistency. Pre-coffee WesleyS Aboriginal Noise can be a bit cranky. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 03:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You - Matthew 7:12

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

TK, you're a coward

You're a coward. You know I'm right as you used an identical poll from the same company to prove your point. – Nick Heer 06:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Reno

Really Terry. You live there and you can't even write an article without plagiarising from here and here? It's word-for-word the same.

You could at least spend the time to muddle around with the wording and try and make it yours. But to just copy-paste? Have you no pride in yourself? Are you that much of a scum-bucket that you'll pass others' work off as your own? Last question was rhetorical of course. --PsygremlinSprich! 15:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Psy, what sloppy research. You omitted to check out the images.

• Reno Arch NevadaMax.jpg : (Photo Courtesy Nevadamax.com) - "Pictures on Nevadamax are not in the public domain and are copyright © Max Chapman Nevadamax.com or from other entities listed with the image. Images cannot be re-published without permission including print and internet display."[8]

I'm sure if I investigate further then the others will also be found to have been used without permission. Just tacking "Courtesy" to the web-site name does not exculpate you from plagiarism TK. But I guess old habits die hard.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha! The dried up old biddy appears! Sorry, but you are just as big a moron as the others. The email from Max, whom I know, said to credit his pictures that way....and he thanked me for asking before using. Of course always easier for a bitter biddy to assume no one was asked, but that is hardly logical or rational. Nice job, Psy, on the excuse making for the others....but a user changing their name, the history transfers, so no excuse in it not being there, and I would never have been given that latitude, even though the rules here say no one is "better" than another. ^{— Unsigned, by: 69.175.88.90 / talk / contribs}

FAFUXAKE! TK: Lilly =/= SusanG, I am SusanG but didn't change my name: I "left never to come back" & then created a new account as Toast. That's why my older edits are under SusanG & my later ones under Toast. When dealing with you, we always assume the worst - and are usually right! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 01:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no excuse for referring to a woman as a "dried up biddy." It's mildly nauseating that Toast already knows who TK is referring to when he uses terms like this, even when he's wrong. Please stop, TK. 01:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

On further investigation I can see it's a Chicago IP address that doesn't appear to be an anonymous proxy. My comments above stand minus the entreaty to TK above. Toast, you are lovely. 02:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That IP is a paid anonymous proxy. Whoever is using this service has paid to use an IP from a different location. Judging by the context and wording of the above post, I'd say it is definiately TK. 193.200.150.152 (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing TK's "e-mail from Max" is about as real as his "frequent conversations" with James Hong. --PsygremlinKhuluma! 17:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If I have been presumptuous in accusing TK of plagiarism then I apologise, but it can hardly be because of lack of previous form in this department. Indeed it could almost be the exception that proves the rule. However, it would be typical of The Klepto that he deflects the discussion away from the original claim of plagiarism from http://www.cityofreno.com/.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Shotguns

This is wrong. My Benelli bird gun holds 5 shells. Most hold at least 3. Double barrels hold 2. 01:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

hey, thanks

for the blocks on CP. love you Tommy (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Unwatchable DVDs?

Whilst everyone else is having a go at you, how are the DVDs unwatchable? I don't know about Gorden Brown, but I own a DVD player that is multi-regional and plays both PAL and NTSC. It also plays videos and cost about $150. I am sure Brown could afford one too. - π 10:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Brown is "near blind", is he? I'm half blind and I can watch DVDs quite well, thank you very much. I can even drive a car in this country. Why is Gordon Brown's ability of sight important, or even relevant? SJ ^Debaser 12:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not, and it doesn't even make sense since Brown wanted to watch the DVDs. But I think the important part in Weaseloid's article is this: A Downing Street spokesman said he was "confident" that any gift Obama gave Brown would have been "well thought through"

Here is an interesting bit of musing about this (which is also how I stumbled over this initially). So I find it silly that TK focused on the "unwatchable" aspect (or on Brown being "near-blind") as if this was the result of Obama being sloppy and not on the fact that the gift itself is hilariously unfitting and underwhelming when you consider what Brown gave Obama in return (see the last paragraph of Weaseloid's article). But then again, it wouldn't be CP if they didn't miss the obvious while reporting their own POV assumptions as fact. --Sid (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That is shocking, Brown should legislate against regionlisation of DVDs. Some activist judges here did some legislating from the bench and ruled it a violation of fair trade, damn liberals. - π 12:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Browns gift is very sweet. It's like it's their anniversary and Obama forgot. -- =w= 13:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a foreign liberal devil, we were rather happy with the DVDs. Region-free DVD players are common place, and being beyond the control of the DMCA allows Brown to circumvent the copy protection to make a legal and playable copy. I can't speak for the everyone, but I believe most of us are impressed by Obama's ability to avoid vomiting on foreign leaders. The rubbish bags are a bit unprofessional, but at least it doesn't ruin a good suit. Love your work. You're far better than Karajou.--^{Ask me about your mother} 14:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys. TK's pretending that he was permablocked from RW so he won't be responding to you here. He might send you a hateful email privately if you leave that option open. 15:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I got one from TK, it was pretty weak. - π 00:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I just got mine too. 00:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I got the feeling from mine that he just taking the piss. - π 00:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

For once, I feel glad to be out of the loop. Now, I'm thinking, say Obama had a PAL dvd in his hand at 8 pm and wanted to watch it with the daughters and wife that night, and popcorn was being crafted/microwaved by the White House chef. And it wouldn't play. How long would it take his staff to get a multi-region PAL/NTSC dvd player ($80) hooked up? Enough time to order pizza as well? I'm sure the PM is as well-covered. Although, yeah, slave ship pen holder is "deeper", I guess... ħuman 02:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Birgit Õigemeel

At first, thank you for blocking my account at CP (sincerely, I asked you to do it, after all). You blocked my ip as well, although I asked you not to do it, since it wasn't really my computer. But let it be so.

But you did a misfavour to CP by deleting my article about Birgit Õigemeel. This article wasn't any less "encyclopedic" than article about Britney Spears. And Birgit is a real fine lady, she is conservative and has even christian background. CP should enjoy her article much more than many other pop-culture related articles. Although Õigemeel is not world-famous, it will be just a matter of time. Just think of that glory it would be for CP (to have an article about a world-famous person before she is world-famous). I'm sure many editors had already read that article and didn't delete it; it isn't that unnoticeable. Please consider re-inserting "Birgit Õigemeel". Thank you. --Earthland (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice work

Well done on protecting your master. I don't expect a response because, of course, you are permablocked here. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I see you have invented a new definition of troll. Now a troll is anyone smarter than Andy. P.S. You a not blocked TK. despite your moans and threats. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Smarter than Andy? But that's 90% of the human race and some dogs (all cats of course). ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 23:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? Only 90%.... Oh, I forgot about the teabaggers! The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 00:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Merry xmas neon

Hi Telboy, due to your busy schedule you seem to have missed my previously asked question regarding that jpeg (Pibot is quick!). So please can you explain to us the background to that unfortunate mix up in which appears to the uninitiated that you

• Nicked a picture from another website.
• Uploaded it to CP, claiming that you had made the image yourself.
• Got all arsey (along with other CPers) when someone pointed out that you were telling porkies.
• Burnt the talk page in question that pointed out you were lying, with a beautifully hypocritical lie in the deletion comment (that the page was deleted because it "contained lies!").

And thus without your reasoned explanation people may assume that you are not a good honest conservative and instead a liar and a thief. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 09:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh do tell, the suspense and drama is just killing us. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 10:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Come on Tel, let's put this misunderstanding to rest... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 09:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Anything? StarDelta (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Old time religion

Nice work with that article, Terry. It is one of the finest encyclopaedic entries I've even seen. Splendid. StarDelta (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me miss, your slip is showing

TK: "I am more than happy to leave, knowing that all along the statements made on this wiki have never been true, and sysops here are no different than on CP." [9]
Um... but surely that would be a good thing in your book. Shouldn't we all act like the upstanding CP sysops... or did the mask slip and you're actually admitting that CP's sysops are a bunch of block-happy jerkwads? People want to know. ^{— Unsigned, by: StarDelta / talk / contribs} -- 16:03, 27 February 2010

DMorris is a member of a vandal site

Block him at once.... Do it, for the good of Conservapedia. Banhammer him like you did Jinx. SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 08:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Troll me if you so choose....

Seeing as how I no longer care one iota about Conservapedia, I will most likely be apathetic to not caring at all, if anything. Especially since I am one of the only people here that doesn't go completely apeshit when you show up. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 07:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I have no idea what caused you to post here. I said I wasn't looking for a big wooo, your comment just struck me funny, is really all there was. If you want a longer discourse, my AIM and Google Talk are pretty well known to lots of regular editors here. Again, peace! --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 08:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty. As you said, peace! Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 08:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Goonie, watch out. TK has a well known wide stance. ħuman 08:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Drunk again, Huw? Why not turn in and save me from hurling this close to bedtime. Talk about trolling! --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 08:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to hurl, you congenital liar. ħuman 09:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Huw, you and I never converse, never have, you never get anything that is first-hand from me, so you wouldn't know a lie if it shit on your bed. You are just another intolerant liberal, so be proud of that, and quit throwing your insults around, Mr. Bully. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 09:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

OMG I almost blocked you for being a moron. But I didn't. ħuman 09:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Should have. Really. Šţěŗĭļė polytunnel 01:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Protip

If you are unhappy with this website, click here it will solve all your problems. - π 08:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Typical thuggish resolution for here, yet you continue to do the pot/kettle bit. If you don't like what I say, why do you keep posting here? BTW, I really do enjoy the typical knee-jerk posts here whenever I say anything, or someone here asks a question. I couldn't make up the vile intolerance and just plain meanness most here demonstrate, so it makes it easier for me to show outsiders what this place is mostly about. Cheers! --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 09:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That would only work if you were able to keep your calm - but no, you shit on the bed larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty unfair, LArron when you don't make the same comment about Huw's insult, or Pi's. Why do I need to keep calm? More special rules that apply to me and not the other hot-heads here? FYI, I am calm, and anyone outside the Kool-Aid drinkers can see, plainly and clearly, I have said nothing in response that wasn't in the same spirit already previously posted to me. Another liberal intolerance, like I said. I have never invited any user here to come to this page in response to my posts elsewhere on this wiki. If there aren't rules just for me, perhaps I should take the insults proffered here to other pages, other talk pages, so this can really become another HCM. But that's really want you want, isn't it? Bored that much? If you so totally disagree with everything I say, why keep responding? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 09:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone notice that the evil monster is still free to edit here? Whodathunkit?! ħuman 09:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This time, you mean. My history here has been one of constant blocks, so often and so frequently, that it is nearly impossible to respond. What's left in the block log for me, which hasn't been expunged, I wouldn't know, since users not sysops are kept from seeing all sorts of things here, given you have so much to hide. The last time I was around, the log said someone blocked me infinitely, and since no one emailed to inform me it was removed, why would I think otherwise? Do you really deny Huw that I have traditionally been the subject of harassment blocks here of a different type and length than users you agree with? How is that not intolerance? Thanks by making my point, as usual, with your mean-spirited (liberal mode) comments. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 09:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to keep calm - you may cry insults the whole day long, it doesn't bother me. But this isn't helping when you want to show the vile intolerance and just plain meanness most here demonstrate.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong again. The victim of the insults of members here, responding in kind after trying to dialog, cannot be turned into my being the attacker, LArron. Not in a rational thinking mind that is. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 10:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What's left in the block log for me, which hasn't been expunged, I wouldn't know, since users not sysops are kept from seeing all sorts of things here, given you have so much to hide. If the block-logs could be messed with, wouldn't you have done so at CP? No, logs are sacrosanct - not because you wish them to be so, but because that's the way of wikimedia. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been told directly by others here, and have seen it happen, that those with database access can manipulate the logs. Just because you have been told they cannot be changed, or you want to believe they aren't, isn't some kind of proof. Why else would RW make everyone except those they agree with, or never logon an admin then? Do you deny you can see hidden edits while I cannot? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 10:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And, ironically, you dumb fuck Terry, I sysoped you against all arguments by others a couple times a while back. Check the logs, you stupid shit. Just because you utterly warp the records over at CP doesn't mean we do that here. ħuman 10:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And how quickly was my being a sysop removed by others, and how utterly without knowledge was I about how this place works, or where to find stuff was I? Your own edit comment said as much, that since things were so well hidden here I was of no threat....an insult for something you now try to put forth as some exhibit of your fairness, Huw? Most non-members here, and not at CP believe it was all contrived just for "entertainment". --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 10:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your paranoia and projection are amusement enough. I sysoped you in good faith, moron. Sadly, it seems there are several hundred people here who hate your guts, so it didn't fly. Get it, Terry? People have a deep and abiding hatred of you. Yeah, they don't like you. I wonder why? ħuman 10:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Mainly because of the lies you and others perpetuate, Huw. In good faith, really? Odd you never contacted me about it. And don't say you never ask anyone else before making them a sysop, because I have never, not once, ever been treated like anyone else, because you and other haters like to keep the focus on me. Other CP Sysops were demoted to sysop, still are. Why? Because they never logon. Save the hysterical histrionics about your good faith, Huw. Several hundred? Really? I count about a dozen haters who instigated the whole bit. Time for sleep now, thanks for providing more instances of intolerance. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 10:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Goodnight. - π 10:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sleepwalking much? At least, you are editing at Conservapedia at this moment... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you make such inquiries to other members here, or am I just being singled out again? I am not allowed to change my mind, or did you and others just engage in childish baiting just to get a reaction? I am fairly certain that couldn't be the case with such self-proclaimed rational people and fair-minded liberals! --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 11:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I work it out (as in I looked it up) as 4:53am in California. Get some sleep, dude. - π 11:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Not much of an inquiry - I just happened to look at cp:Special:RecentChanges. Are you singled out? I don't know - has anyone else declared that it is time for sleep now? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, do you single out other users to distort what they say, is this another example of "liberal tolerance"? And actually what I said it was time for sleep now, but I fail to see where I said it was time for me to sleep, or anyone specifically. I hope you are more precise with math! --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 12:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we need night mode on RW. Bondurant (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

We have people from all over the world editing here, it would be inconvenient for me at the least. Just because some people can't regulate their nap times so they are not cranky when the do the wiking is no reason to punish the rest of us. - π 12:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, Π, I forgot to use the </snark> tag. Bondurant (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"I have never, not once, ever been treated like anyone else". And yet, you never stop to ask yourself why, just whine about being hated. Nobody hates for the sake of hating. face it, sweetheart, it's not us... it's you. --Psygremlin講話 11:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I learned early on how racist white liberals really are.

Could you please share some of your experiences that lead you to 'learn' that? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Slapped by Andy!

Oh no! How embarrassing is it when the great and glorious Schlafly deletes a brand new story you added^img rather than patting you on the head? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

In Tk's defense (Did I really just type that?) Andy didn't delete it, he just moved it lower down the ranks. You see, that was a positive story about the Democrats, even if CP tried to spin in their way. Andy would much rather have his wet dream that the Democrats will fail tomorrow (which is a possibility) rather than announce that they, you know, accepted a critique and changed their plans. SirChuckB^{Go Naked, Hitler Wore Clothes} 00:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I made a mistake. Still, the basic point applies: the master didn't think much of the apprentice's story. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The "basic point" applies only if one has the mentality of a fifteen-year-old, and thinks keeping track of such minutia applies to "getting points" or "keeping score". Do you honestly believe (as opposed to just trolling my talk page for self-congratulation and your audience here) that real adults give any thought to such BS? Really? And do you really think the Democrat leadership was happy about abandoning their clever plan? Think again. It was the 80% opposed to such tactics by likely voters, liberal and conservative, that changed their minds. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 00:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do. That's why many of your peers post "Can I have a gold star!" requests on your master's talk page. On the other point, the Democrat leadership weren't "defeated" on "Deem and Pass" - they decided not to bother with it because they believe they have the votes. More lies from TK. Even Faux news doesn't claim it as a defeat! As least keep your lies plausible. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You're only here to cause trouble because you've run out of people to harass and block on CP, so don't start crying when people here call you out for what you are: a liar and a parodist. Oh - and notice that when I make a mistake, I admit it. I don't oversight it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that the only people saying I am here to cause trouble are intolerant assholes, SR, who simply need a bogeyman to hate one. I can only see civil discussion with a few who are actually interested in intellectual discussion wherever I have been on this wiki, except for the kiddie-like trolls posting nasty insults on my own talk page. As for your admitting mistakes, is that in the hidden comments only Sysops here can see? The rest of us cannot see all those hidden comments, remember? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 04:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your choice of BG color for your talk page is perfect. And quit calling everyone you disagree with a teenager or "kiddie". What "hidden comments"? This wiki is not run like the voices in your head run CP. ħuman 05:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

~Yawn~ That repeated party line isn't fooling anyone, Huw. And was that some Admin order about my own personal opinion that hate and trolling garbage comes from kids? Have I violated some rule here saying that? Please forgive me if I have. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 05:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well if this is to be believed you were banned for five years, less than five years ago. So I would guess you violated a rule by posting at all. - π 06:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

All I meant was that the poop color was a good choice. The rest of your comment is unintelligible, like most of your posts. ħuman 06:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I also extend to you an invitation to not post here again, because it seems to be a waste of your talent and efforts, Huw, and I don't wish to put you out. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 06:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's no problem to edit the poop-colored page. please continue to amuse us with your illiteracy and confusion about how various wikis work. Oh, and how our "brain" works. You are lots of fun. ħuman 06:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Despicable comes to mind in thinking of you. You most likely torture small animals too. Too bad with your kind of work your clients wouldn't mind your or expect different than you being here. Oh well. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 06:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm rubber and you are glue.... hehe, you are such a moron. I "torture small animals"? Like you? ħuman 07:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

DMorris

TK, don't be fooled by DMorris. His only allegiance is to himself. Keegscee (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The part where I try to be civil to someone reviled here

So, is it true that you sat in on a Slayer recording session? The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 07:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Taxes, Taxes and more Taxes

Regarding the start of this edit to CP main page talk. The difference is representation. The Tea tax was levied without colonial representation. They had no say in matter. The Health Care bill was passed by the Senate, who are elected by the people (except for a few appointments), passed by the House, who are also elected by the people and signed into law by the President, who is, get this, elected by the people. There are three seperate levels of representation. Just because your side lost does not make it tyranny. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 18:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as "my side" losing, Chuck. I see it as a loss for the American people in the long run, and especially those under-served with health care. Medicaid is so absolutely crappy now that Washington's response is to give the poor more of it, and they exempted themselves and their staff from it too because they know its shitty! Tell me what has changed in a few hundred years from when they gave an entire race 40 acres and a mule as "compensation" for enslavement? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 20:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference, in principle, between providing healthcare (a la British NHS) and providing things like military defence? Are they both as "socialist" as each other? Or is there something very different, ideologically, between the two? I ask simply because I wish to know. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I take it you are talking about military service, serving in the armed forces, and national health? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 20:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? State healthcare helps people, but military spending is ideally for harming them. We're talking about TK here. Harmonic drug Hoover! 20:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean just the provision of the service. The state provides its citizens with defence. The state provides its citizens with healthcare. Why object to one and not the other? Not being provocative, just interested. (As an aside, historically they are quite different. It was about power. Perhaps it still is.) Ajkgordon (talk)

You avoided the question TK. I am not debating the health bill itself, I am solely talking about you comparing it to the tea tax. The tea tax was levied to pay for a war we didn't care about, by a government that gave us no say. The Health care bill had plenty of representation, one side just came out the loser of the battle. By my calulations, there were over 500 individual representatives that voted in the matter. By the way, you do know that we never got that 40 acres right? Or the mule. SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 22:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Email conversation. I have only posted my last email to you, TK, as I thought it was an interesting discussion. I have tried not to misrepresent anything you said.

Thanks.

I understand the constitution bit and the value that Americans generally attach to their founding principles, even when they are open to a lot of interpretation. As an older “evolved” state, we in the UK don’t have that benefit, although many other countries in Europe, such as France, Ireland and Germany, do.

I also understand your comment (some might say wishful thinking) about private enterprise providing services cheaper and more efficiently – that should in principle be the true as the state can be extraordinarily wasteful and unproductive. However, it seems in the case of healthcare, the US pays, by most measures, a hell of a lot more than other industrialised countries for little or no benefit - the current system doesn’t cover all its citizens and even more are “underinsured”, while US figures for fundamentals like infant mortality and life expectancy are some of the worst in the western world.

Now this isn’t intended to be a list of why the US is shit and Europe is the best. That’s not what I think. I’m not, like many of my fellow Brits, a flag-waving European anyway.

But the health issue remains a puzzle to me. The most advanced, wealthiest and sophisticated country in the world can’t or won’t provide its citizens with what many consider a basic right. And yet it provides its citizens with the most powerful and expensive defence – which, incidentally, is not provided by a consortium of private enterprises.

That is what I don’t understand. That the principle of getting private enterprise to provide a lot of universal services seems only to apply to some services, like healthcare. Which has been shown to actually be very inefficient compared to many examples of state provided healthcare in other countries.

(Oh, and there are plenty of kings, queens, potentates and the wealthy and powerful who get their life-saving treatment in Europe too. I don’t think the US has any great claim in that dubious honour.)

The merits or otherwise of Obamacare are irrelevant to me because I haven’t really studied them. It seems that a bad situation might have just been replaced with another one.

My tentative conclusion is that the objection to state provided healthcare is more an ideological one than a practical one. And when mixed in with rhetoric that contains any words beginning with “social-“, it can because a very powerful and polarising subject.

You probably disagree, but hey ho.

Ajkgordon (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

As an additional point, which I should have mentioned in the email... I do recognise that infant mortality rates and life expectancy aren't necessarily good indicators of quality of healthcare - there are plenty of other factors that affect those. That's just a tip of all the evidence suggesting that US healthcare isn't, in many ways, particularly good compared to other western countries, yet is significantly more expensive. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Another fantasy email to me, eh? Odd I never received anything from you, nor can I at all understand why you want to publicly present emails, unless you have some psychological need for aggrandizement. Is there someplace I can look and see other emails you purportedly send to other people, or is this only something agreed to between you and unknown others that only pertains to me? It seems the U.K. if you do in fact live there and are a citizen, isn't too highly evolved if people there think it is proper to post emails supposedly sent to me publicly. Since I do not have anything from you, I suppose this is merely a work of fiction, so your property to do with as you wish. I do recommend if you wish to have a honest and true discussion with someone you don't publicly post anything, to or from, whoever you engage. What's next? You posting emails supposedly sent by me threatening the Queen or offering to sell my CP account? Don't bother, it has already been tried.

Jesus, is there any way you can have a debate with anyone without turning it into a stroppy argument? The above is exactly as I sent it to you at 10:10 GMT, copied here (typos and all) because I thought it was an interesting discussion for others here. If they don't think so, then fine. I haven't posted anything of yours.

Stop being a dick, TK, and try to be civil. Your rant is remarkably childish and rude. If you think that me posting a copy of my email to you is somehow wrong, then I can't see how, but I'm sorry that you're so offended.

You don't, of course, have to respond to my post above but it is a genuine attempt at a public discussion with one of the few CPers who engage here.

Take a deep breath and reconsider that not everyone is always looking for a fight, even if it looks like you are. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Vatican/the Catholics on front page of CP...

So, is there any chance that as a CP sysop you can get a front page story about the Catholic Church that has less to do with holy relics and more to do with the systematic way that the Church protects people who fuck little boys? Thanks. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree, TOP. I think it has been covered before, but I am not here as CP's official spokesperson. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 02:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your email

• stating that you can post the {{troll}} thingy wasn't paternalistic. I'm only afraid that anyone who reads it applies it to you.
• I tend to overestimate your wiki-skills, as you are the sysop of wiki to which you have contributed extensively: this diff shows that - in the process of reverting of Hoover's edit, you undid Ajkgordon's edit, too.
• So, my subtle, Wikipedia like, edit notes indicated that you did something wrong as you did something wrong
• block Hoover for fairness? Sure, why not...
• Nx was concerned with the citizens ⇒ citizen's thing. I suppose he couldn't care less about the {{troll}} template.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Just see the template history for your answer, LArron. Your reasonableness is shown in insisting on your way, or no way. So nothing personal, just a disagreement. --TK

_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 06:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose he [Nx] couldn't care less about insertion, reinsertion, and deletion of the {{troll}} template on your talk page.

PS:As anyone, I'm pretty convinced of my own way. But I try to keep an open mind --larron^{sicut fur in nocte}

Well yes, that's why he edited the template as he did so it would not show up only on my page....caring less about what I do. As for your open mind, posting responses to private emails only makes you look belligerent and close minded, but that's just my own personal opinion. Good luck to you. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 07:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, the lurkers agree with you in pmail, too? Really? ħuman 07:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I stand corrected: Nx cares about the appearance of this template on your talk-page... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, like all little tyrants, he/she/it cares, fer sure. And Huw, I passed on a compliment earlier through a mutual friend; consider it snatched back, lol. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 08:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Projection much? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Gutter snipe much? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 10:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Projection much? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

While we're on the subject

Since we're already discussing email. I would like to ask that, in the future, if you wish to contact me, please do so via my talk page. I do like to have email conversations unless discussing personal or sensative information. I thank you for your kind comments, but I think that any Rationalwiki discussion should be done on Rationalwiki. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 08:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought the discussion was about Healthcare, not about Rationalwiki or CP? So why this post? If you don't want discussion, don't come here asking questions. You could have posted your question on the page the topic was being discussed. Thanks. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 09:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny thing about that TK, I've been permabanned from CP, so I can't exactly go over and ask a question. Besides, we all know that CP does NOT tolerate dissent and I would be quickly thrown out politely removed within a week. On top of that, the permabanning of the SirChuckB username means I would have to create a sock and that's not exactly starting out on good terms. I am willing to discuss thing civilly, but I will do it in the open. Much like NX says below, every email I get from now on will be posted. Just giving fair warning. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 01:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The really funny thing, Chuck is that we were discussing it Forum: Taxing_addictions on RW as well. And why do you and others always fall back on that email "threat" thing? Do you really think I say anything differently in emails than here? If so you are being a fool or played. At the risk of repeating myself, publishing private emails only makes the receipent look like a jerk, not the sender. And haven't you posted before, like many others that you have already created socks there? And weren't you blocked from CP for violating the rules there, no matter if you agreed with those rules or not? So why do you continually bring up matters years in the past? Could it be because you can't move on? Could it be you never apologized for breaking those rules and asked for another chance? And did anyone curse you on CP, investigate your work, where you live, your income or say nasty things about your family, like is done here? Just saying...

And finally, no one oversights questions a week later. And yes, we don't much tolerate users who are not conservatives and seek to change our conservative and Christian point of view. We don't have that right? We aren't allowed to present our POV without constant argument and disruption? Have you ever looked at screen shots of Rationalwiki 1.0 and the constant plans of vandalism plans being made against CP? No? I wonder why all those threads had to vanish when moving to another website, or moving here? So stop being a kettle calling the pot black.....its very disingenuous of you, and you are far better than that. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 03:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You know what I love about you TK? You can talk and talk and never even come close to answering the point as advanced. You debate subjects that haven't been introduced, you play the victim, you cast blanket allegations on an entire site and then you pretend that your arguments actually have substance. However, let me answer as many of your points as I can.

• First, this has nothing to do with taxing additions or the debate at the forum. This discussion was started because you claimed, on CP, that this was exactly like the actions of the British crown that led to the American Revolution and asked what the difference was. Not being able to debate on CP, I answered you here (more on the CP thing later). That is why I started the thread on this page.
• Next, there is no email "threat." My personal preference is that, if you have anything to say, say it right here on the Wiki. There is no reason for anyone to have resort to private email conversations. If you fear that something you say "will be used against you" then don't spend time here, easy as that. I do not like email conversations and I see no reason for them. I was merely answering that, if you choose to continue sending me emails, I will post them here for all to see. I think the person who continues to harass another with emails after being asked not to is the one who looks like a jerk. If the threat of public posting is the only way to get that person to stop, so be it.
• I don't deny that I created socks on CP, just like you have created socks here (NightTrain anybody?) However, I ceased this action when I realized that it wasn't funny, or subversive, it was just a waste of my time. So I do not engage in any sock activity at CP. As for my socks being blocked "because they broke the rules," Check the SirChuckB username. It was created and blocked within a few minutes. Hard to break any rules when you can't even make a first post. While we're here, I would also like to point that I am over it. I mentioned CP because you asked me why I started a new thread on your page. By the way, to claim that CP doesn't oversight things is just plain wrong and you know it. You and JPatt abuse Oversight constantly. I know you claim that we're forging those screenshots, but we're not. We see them and we know what is going on (no pun intended).
• I'm sorry if someone here investigated your family and all that jazz, but you know what? I didn't do it, nor was I aware of it happening. In fact, from the start of my time here, I have always been very against the outing of personal information, and I have used my powers here to erase this information when it comes up. Also, regarding RW 1.0, I WAS NOT INVOLVED. Check my history. I came upon RW after it was updated and had nothing to do with it, nor would I have supported it. If you haven't noticed, RW has changed quite a bit in just the time I have been here. We are no longer as CP-centric as we once were and I doubt anyone is creating elaborate plans to destroy CP.... Or if they are, they haven't told me.

In closing, TK, as I have said many times, I am happy to speak with you in a civil manner here. But I will not continue private email conversations. If that means the end of our little chats, oh well. However, I will not see you as a victim, no matter how many times you repeat your mantras, and I have no reason to accept your accusations without some solid proof. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 03:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"screen shots of Rationalwiki 1.0 and the constant plans of vandalism plans being made against CP?" - TK. Would it be redundant to point out that what he says is not true? ħuman 03:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

PS, here's a glimpse into RW 1.0. ħuman 03:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I have the screen shots, as do dozens of others, Huw. You can repeat that lie over and over, but it doesn't make the truth go away. Fine if you all have changed your ways, I applaud it. But don't post here what dozens have seen isn't true. Did you perhaps have another name at RW 1? How many times are you going to keep repeating the same bull? And I emailed you out of courtesy, because the trolls like Huw kept interjecting, Chuck. Please excuse my thinking that was the polite thing to do, and I don't see how you can prostitute your integrity and add harassment as a term to describe that polite answer to your question. Are you that big of a scum, really? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 03:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't we have an article on psychological projection? Your response in unworthy of comment, but is a nice diff to show what sewage runs through your mind. ħuman 04:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

TK, if you have these screen shops, prove it. Set up a Photobucket account, load them and show us all. I have no problem admitting that my friends were misguided if that is the case, but as of right now, all we have is TK shouting "I have here a list..." I knew nothing of Rationalwiki or Conservapedia until the Lewis Black Daily Show segment that first aired in 2007 or so. So in answer of what I think is your question, no I did not have an account under a different name. I did not say you engaged in harassment. In fact, I think exactly the opposite. You have been nothing but polite in emails and (mostly) polite when speaking to me here on wiki. However, if you continue to send private emails after being asked not to (which I just did last night and, up to this moment you have not) then it becomes harassment. ^{— Unsigned, by: SirChuckB / talk / contribs}

So I haven't harassed you at all, ever, but just in case I do harass you, you just wanted to keep throwing out the word harassment, and saying the word harassment over and over linked to my name, just for the search engines Ken Chuck? Those old screen shots were put up before, and some here still continue to deny it. It's old business now, and the only reason I brought it up at all was because you stated as fact what I over-sighted. If your name was insta-blocked, and didn't share the same IP as other previous socks, perhaps it was because you were a sysop here. Even if you don't agree with what many here do, we are all judged by the company we keep. That isn't special for here or CP, its everywhere. Sorry if I spoke too harsh, Sir Chuck. I'm old school....I don't agree that a question from you or anyone has to always be conducted in front of the eyes of those who do vandalize and disrupt. We just have a honest disagreement on that. But I don't think it right to always be demanded to answer for CP here. Hope you can understand. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 08:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"Those old screen shots were put up before" where? That site you made with about 10 pointless ones? ħuman 08:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That text is a great example of what I was talking about. First off, because this is the most important. I do not, nor have I ever expected you to answer for CP. What Andy or Karajou or Ed says is what they say. I started a thread to answer what YOU said. You compared healthcare to the tea tax and I answered your question. Do you really think I am trying to SEO the phrase TK and harrassment? Honestly? You think I don't have enough to do in my life without taking on a KEn-like mission that nobody gives a damn about? I mean really? How many people do you think are search TK and harrassment. We already have a great page on you and your actions IIRC. Lets get this harrassment bit straight. Stop throwing around accusations and re-read my post, very slowly if you need to. You said "publishing private emails only makes the receipent look like a jerk, not the sender." I responded "I think the person who continues to harass another with emails after being asked not to is the one who looks like a jerk. If the threat of public posting is the only way to get that person to stop, so be it." Following me so far? Good. Then you said "I don't see how you can prostitute your integrity and add harassment as a term to describe that polite answer to your question. Are you that big of a scum, really?" Assuming that there was a legitimate misunderstanding, I came back and said "I did not say you engaged in harassment. In fact, I think exactly the opposite. You have been nothing but polite in emails and (mostly) polite when speaking to me here on wiki. However, if you continue to send private emails after being asked not to (which I just did last night and, up to this moment you have not) then it becomes harassment." Did you get all that?" If you want to have discussion, I'm happy to do it. But I will not waste my time if all you're going to complain about how we're making you a victim and accuse me of engaging in some Rube Goldberg style SEO conspiracy. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 22:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Chuck, if you didn't ever think or believe I engaged in harassment, my simple, unanswered question was, why did you even bring it up? it is almost as if you and others received a warning, via email or private forum, saying not to engage in private emails with TK. Did you? While I don't mind dialoging with you, you should remember that I am not here to answer for things I do elsewhere, on wiki. Are you? In spite of the trolling of some, who post on this page only for self-aggrandizement before the mob, I enjoy thinking, polite individuals asking questions, and I have learned lots from those people here, even had my mind changed a few times as well. But over the years several of us (by that I mean myself and a few RW members) have learned its easier to converse by IM or email rather than be subject to the slings and arrows of what amounts to professional trollers, because they have no real interest in polite conversation, and merely seek to provoke and disrupt. My opinion is if two or more people wish to exchange ideas or opinions, what real business is it of CP, RW or any form of group or association? This is especially true if the mission of some at any of those places, but specifically on my talk page here, is to stifle dialog and the exchange of opinion by constantly repeating vile personal insults, or calling me to task for things that are obviously none of their business. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 22:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I found something in my spam folder

TK, you're the master wikilawyer, so tell me, did you or did you not edit someone else's comment, which is against the rules. "Obey the rules here idiot"

You can keep spamming the troll template all you want, but you can't hide behind it, and it's getting annoying. Go ahead and whine all you want about your human rights being violated, noone cares. And no, the WP admins won't care either. [10]

Oh and, next time you send me an email instead of using my talk page, I will publish it fully on this wiki. You have been warned. -- Nx / talk 09:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

So I was right. It's "it". I didn't remove anyone's comment intentionally, especially someone who was being civil which you cannot. If Hoover hadn't trolled here and removed the template he rightly earned, there wouldn't have been a need to revert at all, would there have? People do care about the activities of WP editors elsewhere, especially when you present yourself totally different there, as opposed to here or anywhere else. If you don't understand that that you are very misinformed. You should ask around. On a wiki you have the sole choice of enabling emails from other users, or not. If you don't want emails from me, or anyone else, disable it. And of course you always have a choice to just delete emails from people you don't want to hear from. If you happen to have any maturity at all, please respect my wish you never post on or edit my talk page again. It seems to unbalance you. As your fellow Admin said on the template talk page "Please to not make morons out of yourselves." --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 09:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, calling me a moron and an idiot is civil. Right. -- Nx / talk 10:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A history of this place clearly shows who starts the trolling and insults, Nx. Your mature editing, and removal of that template, not even created by you, yet used against anyone some disagree with, clearly shows what you are. There were a couple of mature and civil conservations going here until trolls like you and Hoover showed up. Oh wait. That is why you guys showed up! Got it. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 10:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

I suppose the defence will be "plausible deny-ability" or "I didn't do it" but why on earth go to all the trouble to change a ".com" to a ".co.za" in the thousand pages you just leaked, but then go and leave your Google account details on top? I can understand your misogynistic tendencies, but that was just sloppy. If you were going to edit 1000 pages, you could have done a better cover up. Why not just open the group again, like you did last time? --IndependantObserver (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You should ask the owner of the blog who "leaked" them, Totnesmartin Independant. I note he/she/it were very careful with their language as they never actually said it was I who gave that silly stuff to them. He merely said I wasn't worth protecting. Sounds like careful lawyer talk to me. But if he's feeling really foolish I invite him to specifically state it was me, by name. Then of course destroy his hard drive. They might want to check with Nutty on legal matters. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 12:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

And yet I haven't seen you state categorically that it wasn't you. After all, it wouldn't be the first time, would it? What did Andy do to piss you off this time? --IndependantObserver (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Human rights

Why do you keep bleating about having your human rights violated on a site that, according to you, isn't populated by humans? I quote "RatWikian's are not human, IMO." So, now that we know your feelings towards us, remind me again why we should be civil towards you? --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 11:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Gosh you once said most of the users here were idiots and degenerates. You never saw me publicly posting what you said! Then of course you most likely have taken that out of context in your best junior reporter manner. I also never told anyone that your were outing many of the socks of other users on CP. I guess some of us just take a higher road, Psy, and leave the past in the past. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 12:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? I said that?? Care to provide the proof, liar. What's that anyway - another pathetic attempt to detract from your guilt?

Oh yes... leave the past in the past. You really are deranged aren't you? I eagerly await your "proof"... I guess it'll take you a while to type the "e-mails". --PsyGremlinSnakk! 12:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

In the light of this post, I would like to state for the record that I don't comment on this page for "self-aggrandizement before the mob"; I post on this page because it is the talk page of a noted and proven liar. I know the post in question wasn't aimed at me, but I thought I should eliminate any potential misunderstanding anyway. Thank you. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh noes! I fed the troll.

Noted and proven. What are you complaining about, liar? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk page cats

Ha! Now your talkpage has a cat anyways!

poop color

please do not delete talk page comments, you piece of excrement.  ħuman 08:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Won't somebody

think of the children? Ajkgordon (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Ed has that covered. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 11:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ta!

Is UK for bye. Are you really that much of a clueless fucking moron? What language is UK? And unless Andy is rewriting the OED, "ta" is slang for "thanks". So, it would be correct to say, "Ta for the good laugh at another example of your immense stupidity. Cheerio." (Which is "UK" for bye.) --PsyGremlin講話 11:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

He got it "half right", since "ta-ta" is actually slang for good bye. ħuman 00:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but why did you block someone who hadn't made any contributions? I can't see any, unless they were oversighted of course. SJ ^Debaser 14:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

He was blocked for liberal trolling, Josh. Open your mind, you don't need to make any edits to do a bit of liberal trolling! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose he was half right - ta-ta, as in ta-ta for now as used in the JY Prog in the seventies (What's the recipie today, Jim?) - is obsolete slang for goodbye but then colonials never do get the language right. Jack Hughes (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Ah, right. I thought TK simply looked at the name and thought, "by jove, a man with the same name as the Sex Pistols frontman?! We can't have that!" despite the fact there are quite probably more than just one John Lydon in the world. SJ ^Debaser 22:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I want you

You're just too good to be true Can't take my eyes off you You'd be like heaven to touch I wanna hold you so much At long last love has arrived And I thank God I'm alive You're just too good to be true Can't take my eyes off you.

I want your ass TK, you know you'd love it. I ride bareback btw, and don't pull out. You ever had a prostate orgasm? Tweety (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Since this user is blocked for quite some time, let's leave their talk page alone, ok? ħuman 02:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)