RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2120Goal: $3500

User talk:Women are my superior and I respect them as such

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


New logo large.png Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, Women are my superior and I respect them as such.

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.

Hi there Wave.gif Fall down, welcome to the virtual computer of the Internet. - User \approx\piFor best results use daily 01:23, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

I am taking back my welcome. If you have a problem with the site you may discuss it in a hour when your block is over. You are also in the vandal bin until you can behave. - User \approx\piFor best results use daily 01:33, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
It does stager me that you complain about being blocked when your first action is to blank the main page. The comparison to CP is completely uncalled for. You may continue to edit and if you can do it in a non-destructive manner I will release the vandal break. I have better things to do then follow you around cleaning up your little messes because you have a chip on your shoulder about something you have not discussed in anyway. - User \approx\piFor best results use daily 22:31, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, we women do control the world. And it was about damn time. Men have controlled the world for millennia, so now we are getting our own millennia of rule. (Note, this comment is not serious) InaVegt 08:30, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Since when have feminists been not serious? Fall down
Fall Down: You are an asshole, a moron, and an embarrassment to all your fellow penis-equipped human beings. That is all. PFoster 16:19, 7 November 2008 (EST)
A fine example of tolerance. Fall down
Hate speech is not tolerated by people with an IQ over 80, Fall Down, Fall Down. InaVegt 08:59, 8 November 2008 (EST)
Fall of the House of Usher.  Lily Ta, wack! 09:05, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Bad site link[edit]

Guys, he's an idiot, but you can't just undo it when he deletes people's talk comments from this page. It's his talk page, he should be able to do whatever he wants with it even if he's not a member of the cool crowd.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 09:23, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Wrong, on RationalWiki talk pages, ALL talk pages, are community property and may not be deleted unless archived. and butter 09:29, 8 November 2008 (EST)
Wow, you're right, as I see when I check the community standards. Huh. Well, I'm not happy about that, but I guess it's the rule. Carry on :) --Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 09:36, 8 November 2008 (EST)
You've only to look at what eg Conservative does on cp to see one reason. and butter 09:40, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Surely there's a rickroll exemption? Or a vandalism exception in general? DickTurpis 09:51, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Also, the Ken comparison isn't valid. Ken reverts and deletes; Fall Down doesn't have that ability. DickTurpis 09:53, 8 November 2008 (EST)
No - but it's A reason. -> Dick, common sense should prevail. :) and butter 09:56, 8 November 2008 (EST)
Common sense dictates that if someone posts am obnoxious link on your talk page, you can remove it. As someone who clicked that link and had a hell of time trying to get it to go away, I have to say it's pretty obnoxious. So is this guy, sure, but let's not be assholes too. DickTurpis 10:03, 8 November 2008 (EST)
Guys, it really doesn't matter that much. I assume, from his desire to delete it, that Fall Down has already been RicRolled, which was the intention. Reinstating it repeatedly will just result in more people getting RicRolled out of curiosity. So if he wants to delete it again, let him. Yes it is a mildly obnoxious link, but there are much worse. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 10:25, 8 November 2008 (EST)
Actually, the rick roll didn't work for me, it just crashed. Fall down
Exactly, there are worse sites, and presumably this "you can't remove anything from your talk page without archiving it" rule we seem to adhere to so stringently would apply to those as well. Far from this dickhead acting like the assholes at CP, it is us this time, applying one set of rules to those we don't like and another to the rest of us. Believe me, if someone made an similar annoying post on my talk page, I would delete it, and not allow it to be readded. DickTurpis 10:33, 8 November 2008 (EST)
Fair enough, if poster & postee agree. and butter 10:42, 8 November 2008 (EST)
I think we permit deletion of obnoxious comments or links but whole pages with a multi-editor thread need to be archived.  Lily Ta, wack! 11:31, 8 November 2008 (EST)
Perhaps with regard to this particular link it should have been replaced with: "A link to x site existed here, but it was removed because y". With regard to rules being applied differently - as far as I am aware the "Don't remove talk page stuff" rule is applied to everybody. If not, then it obviously should be. Equally we should remember that our RationalWiki:Community Standards page where the rules are defined states: These are not site rules but rather a list of standards we as a community want to live up to, which gives a little bit of latitude in certain situations.--Bobbing up 12:03, 8 November 2008 (EST)
Jeez, one can always leave a comment next in line - or before the toxic link - saying what it is... ħumanUser talk:Human 19:43, 8 November 2008 (EST)
I did that (a superscripted WARNING RICKROLL) but was overruled by other editors - so it goes. and butter 19:54, 8 November 2008 (EST)


Nice try on the funny. But not quite. PFoster 16:50, 8 November 2008 (EST)

I believe shars are fish. Fall down 19:09, 8 November 2008 (EST)
A shark is a fish, a shar(-pei) is a dog! and butter 19:31, 8 November 2008 (EST)
Fish are vertebrates... ħumanUser talk:Human 19:44, 8 November 2008 (EST)

'sup, my pleasant-spoken friend.[edit]

Are you going to finish this? If my essay's so unreasonable, surely it should be easy to rebut?

Being bothered is a second key factor to rebuttal. Frankly, I'm not sure I can be bothered to rebut the workings of a troll so lame his idea of a website invasion is one (1) guy writing a mildly offensive essay that doesn't inspire rage so much as mild annoyance, and who receives a grand total of none (0) for his call for a crusade to 'take down this place'. So yeah, nice try; one can only fault, well, everything else. You can expect some sort of further comment, well, in time.

Oh, and why don't you unfuck your user page; I can't, for example, get to your talk from it.

lol internets

--מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

"I'm banned from Wikipedia because of a conspiracy of female admins."[edit]

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read. And I read Conservapedia. Please, go get a life. Better yet, get a clue first, before trying to impose your lame self on "life". I hope your mother does not know how much of an asshole you are. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:01, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Actually I thought it was quite funny. Am I seeing Poe's Law in too many places? --Bobbing up 03:15, 23 November 2008 (EST)
Please give links. We can't assess this unless we know how and why you were banned, assuming you were banned. Proxima Centauri 04:26, 23 November 2008 (EST)

It is okay...[edit]

...just because some woman turned you down you don't have to be a wanker forever. If you had a nicer attitude to women it would help. - User \scriptstyle2\int_{-1}^{1}\sqrt{1-x^{2}}dx 23:09, 23 November 2008 (EST)

...also, don't worry too much about your *ahem*, "size" issues. She was laughing WITH you. Really. PFoster 23:10, 23 November 2008 (EST)
...and if a girl says you're smelly... not saying anything, but showers don't actually hurt unless the water's too hot. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 23:45, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Hi there![edit]

You found any friends yet? - User \scriptstyle2\int_{-1}^{1}\sqrt{1-x^{2}}dx 22:05, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Why don't you make useful edits like that more often? - User \scriptstyle2\int_{-1}^{1}\sqrt{1-x^{2}}dx 03:24, 29 November 2008 (EST)
Where did I change your words, all I did was break the link. - User \scriptstyle2\int_{-1}^{1}\sqrt{1-x^{2}}dx 22:41, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Power and evil[edit]

If all power is evil, then evil is omnipotent and we who are virtuous are powerless before it. At which point you might as well just give and go away. Researcher 10:51, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Though for the record, I don't consider you at all virtuous. Just saying. Researcher 10:52, 5 December 2008 (EST)
That's right, we might as well all kill ourselves; makes as much sense as anything. More seriously, no human agency is omnipotent. And we can never abolish evil (or power). Fall down
For a guy who thinks power is evil, why would he support paedophelia, which is exertion of power over the powerless, namely children? Seems pretty clear-cut. --Kels 10:56, 5 December 2008 (EST)
Since I don't support paedophilia - that's just PFoster's slander against me - that question is moot. Fall down
You don't address the logical fallacy in your argument. By your reasoning, no moral human agency can have any power whatsoever. Researcher 16:39, 10 December 2008 (EST)

And this is about[edit]

I've finally managed to work my way back to what seems to be at the bottom of all this. (Unless there is more even more deeply buried) Some twelve lines of insanity. True insanity. But I can't help feeling that there may be a small degree of overreaction here.--Herbert the Hamster 14:15, 5 December 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure what you found. Care to explain? Fall down— Unsigned, by: I am the truth / talk / contribs
By all means. I found this. As I said, 12 lines of insanity (though that will depend on your screen size and font.) Was that what you were asking me?--Herbert the Hamster 03:49, 6 December 2008 (EST)
You missed this where he attempts to justify some paedophiles, this which has some lovely sentiments about gays, and this, which is just weird. --Kels 10:23, 6 December 2008 (EST)
Thanks for the pointers. An interesting collections of opinions and prejudices I must admit. I rather get the impression that this user has been fought over sufficiently so I'll say no more.--Herbert the Hamster 10:38, 6 December 2008 (EST)


You’re right there is unofficial censorship everywhere. Free speech doesn’t force us to give a platform to those who disagree with us. You are free to express yourself on Conservative websites and neutral websites. We are free to express ourselves on Liberal websites and neutral websites.

Does that mean Conservapedia censorship is OK?[edit]

No it doesn’t because Conservapedia is so extreme, so irrational and because Conservapedia even censors other Conservatives that are slightly different from Aschlafly. Andy uses his momma’s money to buy media space that’s only fit to be laughed at.

Christianity Knowlege Base is less extreme in its censorship. They are not attacked by vandals the way Conservapedia is. Proxima Centauri 02:46, 7 December 2008 (EST)

I think you're missing the point a bit, PC. Fall down is a pedophilia apologist and general woman-hater. Nambla or the local police station might be better places for it to spew its hatred. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:59, 7 December 2008 (EST)


I must admit that I'm not up to speed on all of the socks here. Should we rename then to "Fall Down 1", "Fall Down 2" etc? Or are there only a few of them? I've been away for a while.--Bobbing up 05:14, 7 December 2008 (EST)

That is possible do you have a list? - User \scriptstyle2\int_{-1}^{1}\sqrt{1-x^{2}}dx 22:36, 8 December 2008 (EST)
He kindly put a list of them at rationalwikiwiiuiwkiwiki. Check his contribs there. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:52, 15 December 2008 (EST)
It would be nice to get some sort of consensus first. I'm not entirely convinced with the rename to "Women are my superior and I respect them as such." The name "Fall Down" was not offensive in itself.--Bobbing up 14:43, 16 December 2008 (EST)
I think Pi renamed him just to humiliate him, a bit childish, but fun! Toast 14:46, 16 December 2008 (EST)

I love you[edit]

I usually tolerate a troll. Your contribution to some of the main space articles would normally only warrant me vandal breaking you. I have even defended your right to free speech to have that bigoted little piece of shit you call an essay remain although buried. But your recent behaviour in harassing a user of this site is unacceptable. You no long have recourse to be unblocked and if I see one of your pathetic socks it is being thrown out. It has been explained to you how you can express your views in a rational way and you have chosen not to go down that path. You are not as you claim rational, I find it hard to believe that someone that demonstrates a hatred you do is capable of rational thought. I would argue with you but it is not worth my time, so I will simply say FUCK YOU AND GET THE FUCK OFF THIS SITE!!! - User \scriptstyle2\int_{-1}^{1}\sqrt{1-x^{2}}dx 22:01, 13 December 2008 (EST)

I'm not harassing anyone, really. I've done what I did only to users that have blocked me, and thus deserve it. I have no desire to make trouble, really, only to be recognised as having the same right to my views that you have. N, you haven't explained to me 'how I could express my views in a rational way', at least not sensibly; I could not express my views without offending people that are offended by them. I hate no one; as my user page explains, I only hate lies, dishonesty, and censorship. Fall down
Your actions have already invalidated any credibility you might have had (and given your words beforehand, you didn't have any in the first place). I agree with Pi, I consider you a vandal, and anything you say will be treated the same as any other vandalism. --Kels 22:33, 13 December 2008 (EST)
Actually, no, you have engaged in a ceaseless attack on women and homosexuals, without even the slightest pretense at rationality. And, yes, you apparently do hate women and homosexuals, considering the way you constantly talk about them. Personally, I'm starting to think you are a little disturbed and need some help. But I'm not a licensed therapist, and even if I was, I probably couldn't deal with you in that capacity. Researcher 22:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Given that Mr. Misogynist Homophobe Stalker doesn't want to give up on this conversation, and he's in the long term ban/vandal bin anyhow, do we have support for locking the talk page? I don't have any interest in giving him a soapbox to try to defend the indefensible on. --Kels 22:55, 13 December 2008 (EST)

As just a general user I support this...I've been watching this exchange with a growing amount of disgust and am anxious to see it end Thinker 22:58, 13 December 2008 (EST)
Well, I'd say that last little childish outburst was Fall Down voting in favor as well. I'll give it a few minutes to see if we have any comment from some of the locals, but it seems pretty much a given now. --Kels 23:06, 13 December 2008 (EST)
I'm really at the point where I'm convinced the guy is actually crazy. I'm all for nuking whatever remnants he's left around. Researcher 23:07, 13 December 2008 (EST)
Sounds good. If anyone's still got issues, we can still discuss whether or not to unlock, but there seems little point. --Kels 23:10, 13 December 2008 (EST)
Actually, I don't see too much point in locking it.--Bobbing up 02:34, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Block time[edit]

I haven't got a good enough calculator to work out how long I blocked him for; could someone else work it out? Bastard educated Hoover!


He made 2 socks called Rose Pedals. Computers could tell them apart but humans couldn't easily. I blocked both. The first got blocked after a post that looked like vandalism but was less offensive than stuff he'd been spewing for several days. I blocked the second one at once before there were any edits because it was obviously deliberately confusing. If I hadn't spotted the second account I don't know how much confusion he'd have caused with those similar names. Then I got into trouble for blocking the second account. I should have given a block comment saying he was abusing multiple accounts. I was just fed up of reverting obscene vandalism to my userpage, my talk page and generally. Therefore I blocked quickly and assumed others would know what was happening during a prolonged vandal attack. He set out to get me so angry that I'd make a mistake. If a vandal posted obscene vandalism repeatedly onto a man's userpage over several days that man could get angry and make mistakes too. He picked on me because I'm a woman. Proxima Centauri 14:51, 16 December 2008 (EST)

What evidence have you just discovered proving Rose Pedals was a sock of Fall Down. Looking at the logs, the second Rose Pedals was created over an hour after the first was moved into the vandal cat, plenty of time for someone to google how to evade blocks and get a new IP, use a proxy, or download and run TOR. You still have no evidence Rose Pedals was a sock of Fall Down, so stop pretending you have. Bastard educated Hoover!
I'm not quite sure why PC has brought this back up. I personally find the Rose Pedals incident incident very odd, but we've got no prof that it was Fall down. Indeed we've got no proof that any of Fall down's socks were, in fact, his socks. We've got his word of course, but given that he's dedicated himself to messing with us I'm not sure how far we can trust that.--Bobbing up 15:15, 16 December 2008 (EST)
Almost all users blocked for being his socks signed their name as "Fall Down" or added misogynist vandalism to various pages. Rose Pedals just added a joke to the Darwin article. I am amazed that PC has had the audacity to state that RP was definitely a sock of Fall Down. Bastard educated Hoover!
Rose Petals incident? --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoroverworked and overbearing 20:06, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Abuse of buried template[edit]

What was so offensive on the page that it needed burying? Phantom Hoover 13:52, 24 December 2008 (EST)

I think it was "everything the user wrote"... but the history will show you if you are curious. "I" don't think it was an abuse of the template, although perhaps we need a third version of it (and its image) for usage like this. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:42, 24 December 2008 (EST)
Actually, I've reverted it to the full ravings, adding a note saying that RW does not support these sentiments. I think it was a misuse of the template, as the page doesn't make any offensive statements about anyone except some digs at people in power, and it's not as if that's an unusual sentiment. Phantom Hoover 17:04, 24 December 2008 (EST)
Why did the assquote keep getting removed? If using it makes you a troll, than why do we have it? And why is it still on my user talk if that is still the case? What do you have against practical jokes? What is the meaning of life? --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoroverworked and overbearing 20:09, 3 January 2009 (EST)
It is not trolling adding the template, it is troll baiting to keep adding it to Fall down's page so he comes around and vandalizes things again. - User \scriptstyle2\int_{-1}^{1}\sqrt{1-x^{2}}dx 20:21, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Aside from which, posting taunts and the like on a blocked user's page isn't exactly in good taste. --Kels 20:24, 3 January 2009 (EST)
He's vandal binned, not blocked. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoroverworked and overbearing 20:28, 3 January 2009 (EST)
No he has been banned for a year for harassing an established user. You might want to consider this an example. - User \scriptstyle2\int_{-1}^{1}\sqrt{1-x^{2}}dx 20:31, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Under this name, it appears he is currently blocked, but I doubt he would use this account again anyway after it was renamed. He creates new accounts whenever he wants to, which we can't prevent, & tends to vandalise people's user pages with some extremely vulgar & hateful personal comments. So trying to attract his attention isn't a great plan. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:33, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Wouldn't mind arguing with him. No one's argued with me in such a long time. As for him being blocked, didn't know that. Sorry. And is that a threat, Pi? And the assquote is more like humor, not a taunt. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoroverworked and overbearing 20:35, 3 January 2009 (EST)
It would appear that he has been blocked for over two universe-lifespans. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoroverworked and overbearing 20:36, 3 January 2009 (EST)

(unindent) Look he doesn't argue he trolls and vandlises. I can see you like an argument you always seem to be getting one. - User \scriptstyle2\int_{-1}^{1}\sqrt{1-x^{2}}dx 20:43, 3 January 2009 (EST)

(Edit conflict) The block makes no real difference; he'll be back. He doesn't argue or debate with people, he just harrasses & insults them. It isn't enjoyable. The best we can hope for is that he will eventually loose interest & leave us alone. Which is why it is best not to do things that will attract his attention & keep him coming back for more. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:45, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Wrong, I argue whenever I can. Only when you stopped me from debating did I start to exclusively vandalise. Fall down
How were you stopped from debating? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:14, 4 January 2009 (EST)
You started blocking my socks on sight, and then ever reverting my talk page edits. Fall down
But that was after you had vandalised numerous pages and made hostile attacks on some users. Your socks only get blocked because all they do is vandalise and harass. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:18, 5 January 2009 (EST)
In that case, make it two more universe-lifespans. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistormesa likesa Starsa Warssa 20:47, 3 January 2009 (EST)
I've had non-confrontational conversations with Fd at RWW. His user talk page on RWW is here if you want to have a go.--False Flag 09:24, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Fall down and his socks have all been vandal-binned and accordingly unblocked. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:24, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Heh. Not Long way to Tippery. I blocked him for 20 minutes and gave him a warning. If he does anything evil or vandalous again, tell me. I'll zap him again with my turbobanners. — Unsigned, by: ConservapediaUndergroundResistor / talk / contribs
Sure, and you'll save the world. Fall down

Tell the Protestants that Neil Diamond says “Hi”[edit]

Go collate a salmon, wanker. The electrocutioner 04:46, 8 January 2009 (EST)


For someone who is protesting his innocence elsewhere, your New Gwenson avatar is certainly making a liar of you. fröhlich "gay" and "happy" 08:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)