User talk:TManchester

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

Come On You Reds!! Welcome, to RationalWiki, the eloquently bastardly tong of the internet. - π 05:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make an edit to the article, that is fine. Editorializing about the article in the article, is not cool. Please post comments on the talkpage for discussion. - π 05:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the Dollhouse! ħuman 05:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Were you Thunkful over at CP?

Your indenting style and outrage over the CBP seem pretty similar. Röstigraben (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This guys is Thunkful, and just trolling every wiki he finds. Let's not feed him. 17:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, please, TM, please learn to use the same number of colons for each paragraph in your talk page comments. That's how it is done and how it works. The fundamentals of wiki talk pages, as it were. ħuman 02:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring.

Seriously. Corry (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, stop insisting that lies and undocumented claims be left in an article. The claims have no right to be there without documentation. Tell the insisters to stop the war. They fired at this fundamentalist first by insulting us with the claim that Conservapedia is us.(TManchester (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

You came to this wiki and tried to dictate its editorial policy, so I think you are the one that needs to stop. - π 05:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I dictate no policy. It is accepted that persons who make assertions in articles need to support them. I exercise the right to delete undocumented and false statements.(TManchester (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

Seriously, we will lock the page if you keep it up. - π 05:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If an administrator tells me to stop, I will stop. Are you an admininistrator? (TManchester (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

Andys politics are far more alined with fundamental evangelicalism than Catholicism. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Was once, but I lost interest. Ace, tell him to stop. - π 05:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I am an administrator - so please stop. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ace. - π 05:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have gave you two references on the Conservapedia talk page (one an evangelical Christian newspaper) referring to Conservapedia as fundamentalist. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

He has unfortunately chose to ignore that. He has his own definition and nobody is going to move him from it. - π 05:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

False, I insist that in a serious article that the term fundamentalist be used for those who hold the 5 fundamentals, not as a skunk word. The 5 fundamentals are historical, not my own definition. The writer of the article has given no documentation. Why give in to irrationality and insist that undocumented skunk words be permitted in an article? No one has demonstrated that Conservapedia holds the 5 fundamentals. The Catholicism militates against it. And the so called 2 references alleged don't quote anything nor show specifically that Conservapedia holds the 5 fundamentals. Now if they do, the article writer should be able to show that from Conservapedia. (TManchester (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

Didn't I give to an article there to read? - π 05:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you alleging that somewhere on Conservapedia it advocates sola scriptura and denies that the pope is the vicar of Christ?(TManchester (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

Cp:Salvation is entirely based on sola scriptura. TK and Andy believe the Pope is the vicar of Christ, Ed Poor believe Sun Myung Moon is the second coming. There is no religious uniformity in their belief however they are all over all conservative Christian to the point where fundamentalism describes them all adequately. - π 06:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

CP drives a political point as much as a religious one. They are fundamentalist in the approach. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Pfft, you can't insist. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A chunk here was moved to talk:conservapedia, as far as I can tell. ħuman 07:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Lets try a different approach

People call RationalWiki an atheistic website. That does not describe every editor, it probably does not describe the majority of editors. It is definitely not a label I would apply to myself. But it is a good overall description of RationalWiki. It is harsher agnosticism than atheism, and shits all over religion. - π 06:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice one, Pi guy. I might be a hard atheist, but would not want to be "labelled" as such by my association here. However, I would not object to that characterization of RW. ħuman 06:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Blanking comment

HEY YOU GUYS! I DON'T LIKE THE IRRATIONAL STUFF BEING POSTED ON "MY TALK PAGE." SO I AM DELETING MOST OF IT. ^{— Unsigned, by: TManchester / talk / contribs}

Please see RW:CS#Talk pages. - π 08:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not intend to ever again read what you put here. So go ahead, complain about this or that; cuss, fuss, all you want. Just remember that I am not reading it.

Most of what was here I didn't appreciate. So I deleted it. Now revert it all you want, but remember, I am ignoring it. I insist!

Best wishes to you all, even all you irrationals.(TManchester (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

I don't care if you read it or not, don't blank it. - π 08:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What is really going on here

I think it is reasonably plain to see what has happened here. You went to conservapedia, a website you thought you'd agree with, and found that it was totally and utterly ridiculous. You then came looking for a place that criticises it and found us, only to find that while we agree that CP is batshit, we don't all hold the opinion that they are totally distinct from more mainstream conservative and fundamentalist thought. You have railed against this because you think this means that you are tarred with the same brush as CP, so you have sought to distinguish yourself and what you believe from them on very technical grounds. This is totally unnecessary because we all will acknowledge that CP is a unique brand of craziness that many conservatives and fundamentalists would object to. We get it. This does not mean however that they are not both conservative and fundamentalist. I think you have taken our criticisms of CP as criticisms of you and what you believe. You are being overly sensitive and precious. --Damo^Hi 17:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

we don't all hold the opinion that they are totally distinct from more mainstream conservative and fundamentalist thought.

I wish they were totally distinct from more mainstream conservative and fundamentalist thought! Then I wouldn't be quite so certain the country is doomed. --Gulik (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)