User talk:Theatheistkilla

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


This user is blocked from editing here. Please do not offer challenges to him as he cannot reply. You have, therefore, not won if he does not answer. Please return to where you were and argue there. Thank you.

New logo large.png Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, Theatheistkilla.

This observation is due to the nature of your initial edits. Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble.

We realize it is possible that you do not understand the nature of the site or our objectives.

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards to clarify things for you.

If you're still interested in contributing, please see what our articles are intended to be.

See also our Community Standards. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 07:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, please, this is not difficult! Sign your posts with (~~~~) or (if that's too fucking hard) by clicking on the fucking sign BUTTON: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) This keeps the place tidy and stops you looking like a complete arsing tool so please, just fucking do it already.ТyBother me 18:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


I have blocked you for 1 hour for being a boring dipshit. Please take this time to read the newcommers' guide and the community standards (links above). Also, protip, writing in allcaps is, contrary to what you may expect, unlikely to result in you being taken more seriously. -- Nx / talk 08:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Since apparently 1 hour was not enough for you to stop being a boring dipshit, I've now given you a longer timeout so you can study our standards and newcommers' guide more thoroughly. Also, please sign your comments using four tildes. -- Nx / talk 18:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


hahaha the best way to end your childish games and weak attempt at censorship is to do the following...Mr NX (rationalwiki editor) I challenge you to a live one on one real time public debate on the topic of the elliott argument...there will be strict rules, you will be allowed to choose a moderator, and it will be on neutral ground where screen shots will be taken etc...should you decline this challenge or make an excuse as to why you refuse to debate me i will take that as another victory and evidence of your cowardice and unwillingness to face the AK...from this point on everything is being documented...i hope you dont make yourself look like a pussy before we even begin dipshit! lol...i suspect you will!! lol...waiting for either yes or no to the challenge :)— Unsigned, by: Theatheistkilla / talk / contribs

still waiting[edit]

This is where he can accept my challenge or run away Theatheistkilla (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Me fail English? That's unpossible. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 18:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

and waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting[edit]

you will obviously be waiting a long time and after a while will claim victory over nothing! You are doing nothing than playing tic tac toe with yourself and claiming to win! OptiPest (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If NX doesnt repond to my challenge within the next 2 hours I will take that as another victory[edit]

I know hes online and screen shots are being taken!! waiting for you NX my boy Theatheistkilla (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Me fail English? That's unpossible. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 18:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Shut up. Shut up nine times. --AmazingTechnicolorCheeseWedge (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Not everything is about you and your damn illogical Elliott Argument. (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Chad, how can you possibly claim "victory"? What a retard. You can't set a timeframe that suits YOU. NX might not even have seen your "challenge". You really are an imbecile. People have lives to lead, jobs to do (unlike yourself), and live in entirely different timezones. And TinyChat is NOT a sane place to debate, because debates are structured, with rules, they are not "chats". Sure, you dislike Debate.Org, so find somewhere that offers formal, structured, correspondence debates. And stop acting like a coward. (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Too late. The King of Tards has claimed "victory" and is promising an "ownage video". Seriously, what kind of moron think this is a "victory"? A very special kind of moron, the kind who has absolutely no education at all, but is happy to tell actual scientists they are wrong. (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Formal Debate Challenge[edit]

Hi Chad,

Finally, a place to talk with you that you can't censor the shit out of and run away bleating "victory" so that your handful of retarded acolytes can adore you (while the other 500+ "likes" of your retarded page of dictatorship look on in horror).

Anyway, I like what that guy above says. I'll meet you somewhere for a sensible debate, say 48 hours. We'll do it in the traditional style: Assertion, Response. Assertion, Response. Unlike you, I won't set any retarded rules. But likewise, I won't accept your ridiculous conditions.

The subject? I'd like to debate: "Is The Golden Question a false dichotomy?"

Choose an arbitrator, and a time and place (NOT fucking TinyChat or any other "chat" place, but an actual debate forum or a page on FB we're both admins of).

Let me know. Mongoletsi (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


I'm going to lock this page if any more tinpot "challengers" turn up. SophieWilder 22:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry mate. I know that's not what a sensible wiki is for. I just figure.... he kinda had it coming. Will play nice from now on. Mongoletsi (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Lets have a serious discussion Chad[edit]

Seriously, seem I can't on your page because I'm banned. Oh and because every time some speak to you you delete them and claim victory, kinda pathetic. So, lets have a go here

I'd like to start by addressing two parts of your "undefeated" golden question.

Firstly, your question is unfalsifiable as there is no possible right answer in your mind, whatever answer we give you, you respond with "hurr you're wrong, silly atheist guess I have to ban you". In science, an argument that is unfalsifiable is wrong straight off the bat.

Secondly, if we ignore the first glaring error, we get to the actual argument. Your argument assumes only two positions, in reality their are infinite number of answers, you restrict it down to two without and logical reason

So, lets start with that, your move (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I really wouldn't waste your time on these Danth's Law types. Getting anyone to take him seriously looks great on his CV, not so on ours. Scarlet A.pngnarchistModerator 13:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I kinda wanted to have a discussion with him, on a place where he won;t delete everything I say, oh well (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This user is blocked from editing here.[edit]

Seriously? Dude can't edit his own talk page? That don't seem right. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, the "prevent editing own talk page" button is unchecked. That's standard RW blocking practice. Scarlet A.pngbominationModerator 14:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Shhh! Don't spill the beans! SophieWilder 14:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Although the most recent block has expired, I suspect a hair-trigger has been set for re-blocking, in case good sense and civility do not prevail. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I know this to be the case for at least two sysops, probably more. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 20:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Human, 2013[edit]

Nice work. You idiots permabanned this moron within 24 hours of his turning up? I thought this was RationalWiki, where "We ... encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue." What a bunch of scaredy cat power hungry losers. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

And Human gives us his bi-monthly drive by insulting! Reset your calenders people! --Revolverman (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Haha! Awesome meme revolverman! You sure got Human good. Very clever! Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 12:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Rational people encourage rational debate, this nutbag had nothing resembling rational debate. Were he able to make a compelling case via logic instead of merely asserting victory and strutting around with a false dichotomy the discussion would likely still be taking place. -Zercomnexus 15:20, 11 Oct 2014 (PST)