Difference between revisions of "User talk:Jazzman831"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Maybe I can get your attention?)
(New section: fuck you too)
Line 162: Line 162:
Ah, I see.  Well, good luck!  Are you editing on CP then?  I haven't looked at the site much for a while (short of WIGO) but I wish you luck.  Also, your invite continues to stand.-{{user:amesg/options}} 01:20, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Ah, I see.  Well, good luck!  Are you editing on CP then?  I haven't looked at the site much for a while (short of WIGO) but I wish you luck.  Also, your invite continues to stand.-{{user:amesg/options}} 01:20, 14 January 2008 (EST)
:I am, though I don't make it to WIGO other than when I fix something you guys point out :) Thanks again, [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 01:23, 14 January 2008 (EST)
:I am, though I don't make it to WIGO other than when I fix something you guys point out :) Thanks again, [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 01:23, 14 January 2008 (EST)
== fuck you too ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:18principle whine, whine]? Do you have any kind of humanitarian sextant? Compass? No? Thought so, you miserable scumbag. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''<font color="green">Hoji</font>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Hojimachong|die!]]</sup> 18:22, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Revision as of 23:22, 24 February 2008

Someone will be along shortly with a nice welcome template I am sure, in the mean time let me offer my personal welcome... tmtoulouse pester 18:41, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

I would use a template, but that would mean admitting that tmtoulouse is psychic. So instead, welcome to RationalWiki. Hope you stay around for a while. ThunderkatzHo! 18:43, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
Holy cow you guys are quick! Thanks for the welcome. JazzMan 18:43, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Jazzman831!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Welcome! You are #831. I am #2. Do not ask who is #1. You are #831. DogP 18:51, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

  1. 831, got it. That means only 830 more people to kill before I am Jazzman1!! MWUHAHAHAHA! JazzMan 18:56, 5 September 2007 (CDT) <-- Hrm, maybe I should have called myself Jazzman-831 -- then I would have been waaay above #1 JazzMan 18:56, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

A dull roar? But I just bought a brand-new roar sharpener! --Kels 18:51, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Man, don't you guys have anything better to do? Posting at this rate, two days are going to fly by! (And not nearly enough homework will get done...) JazzMan 18:56, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Aw man, I missed the welcoming bandwagon. I hate it when that happens :P Anyway, hope you'll stay active longer than just those two days! And I hope (against all hope) that you'll stay alive over there once your block expires. --Sid 21:13, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Actually, Sid, you were the first to welcome me. Before I was even a member! As for editing at either place, we'll see what shakes out, I guess. JazzMan 22:31, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Good job

surviving a block to go back to CP! You're just as much of a masochist as I am. -αmεσ (!) 18:55, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, as long as it isn't pushed in my face, I'm pretty good at ignoring the stuff I don't agree with. I enjoy writing articles, and some of the outrageous comments (from editors, sysops, and trolls alike) keep me entertained. But I fear my masochism tolerance isn't quite as high as yours seems to be; when it's not fun anymore I'm outta there :) JazzMan 19:00, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
I enjoy their comments, and enjoy writing articles as well. I have decided to write here and just read over there. It helps me sleep better at night :). tmtoulouse pester 19:37, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Welcome, Jazzy! Enjoy the site, pull up a goat, etc, etc. If you ever feel like writing a co-essay... ask someone other than me.--Offeep 21:27, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Ha ha alright then. By the way, this edit made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I had never thought of myself as a major contributor until I saw some of the comments over here. JazzMan 22:15, 5 September 2007 (CDT)


I won't vandalize CP either, never have. As you well know, it's pointless. CP is bad enough without wandals "helping" it along.
But you're history over there. Welcome here. CЯacke® 20:40, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the welcome. I never really understood from the start the point of vandalism, but some people think it's fun, I guess. I hope to be able to post on CP again someday, though. We'll see how things turn out :-/ JazzMan 20:44, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
I just noticed the edit comment. Priceless. JazzMan 20:52, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Same here. Heck, I've never even had an account, because the thought of helping them, even as little as adding to their membership numbers, is repellant to me. Although TK has banned my IP a couple of times, not really sure why. --Kels 20:45, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Meh, I'm "half" conservative (though using their definition of conservative, it's a pretty small half), so it's not nearly as repellant to me. Granted, I only joined because someone from school sent me the link and they looked pretty radical. I was curious if they would block me for making harmless, factual edits. Turns out (with one small exception where I think I accidentally got mixed up with the (in)famous Stevecarlson) I was actually surprised at how easy it was if you don't rock the boat. Then I found out I enjoy making little edits to chemistry articles and such. It made my expensive education seem useful! JazzMan 20:52, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

The vast majority of vandalism RW is accused of was simply adding consensus, sourced, factual information into controversial articles. tmtoulouse pester 20:53, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I admit, I've been indocrinated from the "other side" so I don't actually know how much vandalism comes from here. However, sometimes people (from here or otherwise) go over the edge trying to get the "right" information in. Granted, I had a two-week long conversation to try and insert a 66 word definition, but sometimes it seems that people are only trying to get CP to agree to something they will never agree to. And it's those kind of things where I just say "meh" and move on to other efforts. In the long run CP will be hurt by holding too tight onto their definition of reason, but if that's what they want to do, who am I to stop them? Maybe it's the libertarian in me :) JazzMan 21:02, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
If they were to embrace their bias whole heartedly and openingly I would have a whole lot less to say about it. But Andy likes to pretend that there is no bias at CP. He preens around talking about how CP is a trustworthy encyclopedia free of all bias because it has a "constitution" and should be held up as the example for how a wiki can develop with out an inherent bias. Its the rank hypocrisies that lead me to basically pull a POINT. tmtoulouse pester 21:33, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
welcome, welcome... I used to edit at Conservapedia. They eventually block everyone or cause them to leave. CP is a dying site. and it's their own fault. a lot of it is caused by their mistreating serious editors such as yourself... Refugeetalk page 21:31, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
I used to think they're paranoid blocking of everyone who wasn't in the Trusted Inner Circle was by sheer stupidity, but I'm now convinced it's necessary. If they were somehow to become as big and popular as Wikipedia, they'd NEVER be able to keep the iron control over all articles they have now, and inside of a few months, CP would be WP. --Gulik 00:54, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Larry Craig?

Hey Jazz, did you actually talk to RobS, or did he hallucinate this after snorting Joe McCarthy's ashes? --Kels 12:08, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Was just about to ask the same thing... --Sid 12:19, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
At first I thought RobS meant you were taping his foot trying to give him a signal, I was very confused. Jrssr5 13:01, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
I'm going to decline a comment until I know what Rob's "final answer" is. JazzMan 14:10, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
And now I know... JazzMan 18:25, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
OH. MY. GOD. *just read the block story* I can only shake my head. --Sid 18:40, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
Oh, and I won't tinker in your userspace, but it should be "Rob Almighty" (missing "l") and "September 6th: I'm officially done with Conservapedia forever" (wrong month). No biggies, just minor things I noticed while cruising through. --Sid 18:42, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
Hm, feel like I should say some more. I certainly feel sorry that you got perma-banhammered. However, especially given the timing (with your userspace article) and Rob working even against Andy, it's fairly clear that RobS simply wanted you to be gone just because (they should turn that into a rule and just get rid of all the deco shit like 90/10: "If I don't like you, I will ban you. The end."), so it really was just a matter of time, I think. Maybe Andy will actually do something - you definitely were one of CP's driving forces for a good while, that should count as something... --Sid 18:49, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
Exactly. I considered not saying anything after he commuted my block, but I knew he would just hound me once I got back on the site. I truely did want to get back on, but not if I had to be under watch of anyone but Rob. It would be nice if Andy overruled Rob, but I'm not holding my breath. (I also did get some "no" votes... at least one by DanH, which is interesting considering I've never had any contact with him). JazzMan 19:02, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
Mh, I completely understand how you feel (regarding the desire to go back to CP, but not with a watchman who would most likely x-ray your every contrib to look for the first best ban reason). And you getting "No" votes from people you never interacted with is certainly interesting. It may be that he had been following your progress silently, but I think it's either a "Yeah, uh, whatever, I trust your judgment, Rob, no stop distracting me" or an "It's strategically sound to stay on the good side of the paranoid guy." case. --Sid 19:42, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
Regarding your edit and edit summary: Read the last line before the TOC in your block story - I had posted a corrected version above (and didn't really make clear that that was the corrected version). :P --Sid 19:45, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
Heh heh ok that makes a lot more sense now! JazzMan 20:24, 6 September 2007 (CDT)


Are you really into Jazz, or is that just a funky name? I play a bit of experimental Blues myself The Anti-Conservapedia 18:43, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Actually the name came before the love of music. So... yes and no. What kind of experimental blues? I'm starting to get into experimental jazz, and I love blues, but I don't think I've ever heard of experimental blues before. JazzMan 19:04, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
Speaking of blues, have either of you ever heard of Jonny Lang? I saw him in concert the other day, and all I can say is "damn."--Offeep 20:09, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
The name kind of rings a bell. I don't really have a good grip on blues music. I love almost anything I hear, so I buy a lot of compilations. It's great for breadth and overall musicality; not so great for familiarizing myself with specific artists. JazzMan 01:36, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Experimental Blues (The way I play it anyway) Is playing a random line, then responding through song. Pretty much what the Black African Slaves would have done back in the day The Anti-Conservapedia 05:22, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

That sounds really interesting. Do you know of any artists I could find that do that kind of thing? I know a "Blues Lounge" CD from the Putumayo record label (awesome for world music and some really neat music) and some of the songs are slave hollers or chain gang hollers which have been put to modern mild house-ish music. I really love some of the more gritty blues, especially the stuff that barely got out of the Delta. JazzMan 01:36, 9 September 2007 (CDT)
Well I thought the name came from the african-american slang - jazz: sexual intercourse. I'm sure I read/heard many years ago (probably BBC Radio 4) that most of the terms for black music which was latched onto by whitey, were actually slang for sexual/bodily functions, e.g. rag-time for menstruation. This was their way of having a laugh at their opressors, rather like parody articles at CP. Maybe we should do an article on it. (apologies for an non-PC terminology) Genghis Khant 05:42, 8 September 2007 (CDT)
I've heard a lot of jazz/blues history, but I've never heard anything about that before. Of course, it probably has to do with racism in one way or another. Either this is a racist rumor designed to denegrate blacks (it's not very likely, but possible; especially if this "knowledge" started coming out in the 50's or early 60's) or, more likely, people are afraid to talk about it because they are afraid of being called racist. This isn't really related, but I saw a movie/doccumentary last night called "The Aristocats", about the famous dirty joke of the same name. In it, some comedians were speculating on the future of the joke, and a couple of them postulated that the next "taboo" to be added would be race, since scatalogical humor and sexual humor aren't nearly as "dirty" as they used to be. JazzMan 01:36, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

I'm not even sure experimental Blues is even a recognised genre! Its just something me and my brother play from time to time. I'm a big Jools Holland fan though. The Anti-Conservapedia 06:52, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Just to add the scat refs, er, "rock and roll" means, well, naughty stuff humanbe in 22:58, 17 September 2007 (EDT)


Save it in the "Essay:" space (ie, article title starts "Essay:") and run with it, dude. You don't have to edit every day to be a valued member. OCD is just a, um, feature, oops, bug, no a feature of most of us. You can still join in even if you aren't clinically diagnosable! humanbe in 02:42, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Nah, it's nothing with you guys. I just can't find the motivation or energy to do much more than grammatical and spelling changes, something with which RW needs little help! Who knew senior year in a tough major was going to be killer, eh? JazzMan 11:14, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
Ah, grammar and spelling. Can we call you for cleanup after Tmtoulouse or Icewedge write articles/sections? Anyway, best of luck with school, and I still hope you manage to drop by once in a while, if only for the goats. humanbe in 20:20, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Parthian shot

Rational political discourse does not include raising money by vandalising another's work. You have only put yourself below the people you hate so much. If it's come to the point at which you believe calm discussion will not convince your opponent, then why not just live and let live, eh? Seems CP took the higher ground in this case, which puts you... where, exactly?

Well, apparently you aren't clear on the reality of this story.

Let me school you.

This was an inside joke, among friends. (We are all friends, here)

The person who "bought" the "Samwell" account sems to have done so to enjoy the privilege of blocking Assfly. Among others. Was "vandalism" committed? I think not. More, a "suicide" on the part of the sock puppet! Odds, are, the bidder who won the "auction", would have gladly paid "X" dollars to keep RW on line, under any circumstances.

Also, the chances are, whoever that RW user was, they'd have gladly coughed up money to help the cause anyway! This was just a fun way to pay into the kitty.

Apparently, looking at the logs, all "damage" was undone within minutes.

Do you understand that one of the reasons RW exists is to have fun?

You protesteth too much, IMHO. humanbe in 00:44, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Fun to the detriment of the goals of another organization? I don't believe I'm unclear on anything. JazzMan 01:44, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
Oooh, another organization? Whose goals are... Christ the carpenter, do I have to spell it out? YEC, pro-American no matter what the USA might do wrong, once in a while? Sorry, maybe your "retirement" might be a good idea? Sorry to lose ya... seriously. Because your "reason" for going away is frickin silly. It all went down over fifteen minutes last night. You still did not address my POV that it was not vandalism. humanbe in 01:50, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
And absolutely, the stated mission of our site is refute the idiocy that groups like CP create and propagate. We refute for a reason, we refute in the hopes that it will one day be a great detriment to not only CP but any other organization that promotes their insanity. Whether its the Society for Homeopathy or Institute for Creation Research or Schlafly's homeschool project. So yes detriment is good. Now we maybe divided here about how best to go about being a detriment to CP, but most of us are in agreement that we should be. But as Human has pointed out, there was no lasting damage to CP beyond feeding the paranoid delusions and Christ complex of its founder, and that I can live with. Schlafly is one mental breakdown away from hanging himself from the crucifix anyway. CP has fired its own shots at our website as well, a thick skin is needed on the Internet. I personally feel that anyone that spends much time over at CP helping it out in any shape or form is doing a tremendous disservice to humanity, and is certainly not going to be appreciated by even the CP loyal crowd. Its a losing battle on all fronts. But to each their own, I stand firmly behind this site and each and everyone of its memebers, even if they like to go replace articles at CP with "IcEwEdGe PwNs!11!1!!" every now and then. tmtoulouse pester 02:01, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
That's not my reason for leaving. As I know you know (Human, anyway), this has been a progression; last night's incident was simply the last wheel finally turning in my head. Even if you didn't vandalise (or whatever silly euphemism you want to call it), I simply do not think at this time that contributing to RationalWiki is something I want to do. I just don't find it fun, which as you rightly point out, is one of the reasons that RW exists at all.
As for your claim that last night's actions were not vandalism, that's just semantics. You didn't do any permanent "physical" damage (which, really, what vandalism is permanent anyway? Spraypaint can be painted over, scratch marks can be buffed out), but you acted with express purpose to denegrate another organization. You have used the incident to hurt their credibility (whether or not it actually has any is irrelevant; the purpose was to do harm) and you have only upped the level of paranoia over there. Disagreeing with someone is simply not a good enough excuse to spend so much effort trying to disrupt them. Many a truely evil act has been committed using that logic; thankfully we are only in cyberspace.
I have said before that I strongly believe in the philosophy of "live and let live". Disagree with someone? They won't listen to your reasonable arguents? Fuck 'em then; they only have themselves to blame. If they really are as bad and as crazy as you say, just let them die out on their own. I simply can not stand behind a group that exists explicitly to cause harm to anther group of opposing ideology. That you think this type of reasoning is "frickin silly" is one of the reasons I don't have fun at Rational Wiki.
I received a kind email from a RW editor and I'm glad I did; otherwise I might think that you guys are only nice to people when they are doing precisely what you want them to. So with that, I bid you good day (er, night, morning, whatever it is). JazzMan 02:23, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
All of the people, all of the time and all that. Live and let live only works when an opposing ideology will abide by the same rules. CP and what they stand for will not play by that rule. Ignore them and they gain power, and when they gain power they shove their stone age, whack job and dangerous belief system down the throats of everyone. Shall we just let the anti-vaccination people have their way? What about the aids deniers? These people are not "harmless", check out the massive measle out break in England right now. Tyranny, theocracy and fundamentalist ideology are kept at bay by people willing to directly engage them and "harm" their cause. You are only free to "live and let live" because people are out their making sure the Schlafly's of the world stay relegated to the fringes of society. I have no problem with you not enjoying RW or wanting to edit here, go in peace, and perhaps it would best to let you go in silence. But I feel compelled to reiterate to myself, and others who may come across this, why silence and "ignoring the problem" is not a solution. tmtoulouse pester 02:33, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I think JazzMan has a point that's worth looking at. If RW is to live up to its mission statement and help dispense with the garbage tossed into impressionable minds by the CP-style crowd under the guise of "education," credibility is something that plays a key role. To that end, I don't think much is gained by the site sanctioning vandalism or pseudo-vandal activity (call it whatever you want), as was done in the Samwell incident via an auction that at least appeared to be site-sponsored, and which was then celebrated as such. If someone's about to go into a homeopath's office, we're supposed to be the guy outside the office saying, "Hey, you might want to rethink that decision. Look at this pile of evidence." But if the prospective "patient" just sees the "rational" guy TP-ing the office while wearing a clown mask and no pants, is he really going to put a lot of weight into the "rational" POV? This is especially important since the homeopath is slandering the mainstream view at the same time, and those who don't know better could think, "well, they're both just smearing each other, there's a lively debate, maybe both sides have merit" when that's NOT the case.

I'm all for fun, and for keeping an eye on CP and its ilk (I think that WIGO@CP is both hilarious and provides a good watchdog service, for instance) and obviously individual editors are responsible for their own actions, have free will, and can do whatever they wish, even if it's some pwnage. But if we are to attract and keep editors who are interested in the serious aspects as laid out in the mission statement, credibility would help, and credibility would be boosted by at least minimizing the "official" site-sponsored forays into rule-breaking at other places. I'm not at all saying that the ridiculous people at CP shouldn't be outed as the complete wackjobs that they are (hell, that's why we're all here), and I admit, I laughed--hard--when I saw the Samwell Incident. I just think we need to be very careful about how RW sanctions off-site "fun" and the effects it has on how people see this place. Just my $0.02.--Bayesupdate 03:13, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I love the debate. Nothing better, to my mind... humanbe in 03:46, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
I very much agree with Bayes on this. I'm very uneasy about RW publicly condoning actions designed to disrupt other sites. --Bob's your uncle 05:18, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
Same here, honestly. I've never participated in wandalizing over there (it's way more fun over here, where the "victims" have a sense of humour about it), and I've never to my memory encouraged anyone to (including this incident). I honestly don't think it's worth it. On the other hand, I'd barely call this wandalism, since the only way you'd even know it happened was to obsessively watch the "Recent Changes" over there (I admit nothing! Nothing!!), it didn't actually affect any article at all, and was cleaned up in literally a few minutes. I'd call it more a big signpost saying "haha, look who you trusted" than anything. I doubt it's really worth crowing about, since it's not much of an accomplishment (I didn't have any paranthetical comments for this sentence, so here you go). Dunno if it's worth leaving the wiki over, though. That seems equally silly, since there are loads of people here who don't do that stuff, and there's lots here that has little, if anything, to do with CP or wandalism at all.
Summary: Doing it was petty, silly at best. Celebrating it is dumb. Leaving over it is overreacting. The end. --Kels 12:47, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

What does "site sponsored" mean in relationship to RW though? Who is the person that decides when something is official sponsorship, and when something is just and RW users doing it on their own? We have gone out of our way to blur the lines of ownership and responsibility, when your user base is considered the boss of the site, then is everything a user tries to do sponsored by RW? I am certainly not pushing for wandalism and have not been an advocate for it at all. I prefer much different approaches. At the same time, I believe there is a qualifiable difference between spray painting and TPing, and blanking a wiki page. Conflating real world vandalism, or even more hardcore internet stuff like DNS or hacking, with blocking a user on a wiki for 30 seconds seems to really miss something. I do not believe that it is an effective means of fighting people like CP or their message. You have to realize a lot of us had a direct established relationship with these people over a period of time and it was not pleasant. The samwell blocking and other wandalism is a more of an interpersonal tit for tat between a given RW editor and a given CP editor. I don't see how RW officially condones wandalism, every aspect of the Samwell incident took place between individual users, from the initial inception to the "auction", to the act, to the reporting on the act. I suppose since the user base is in charge here that it could be conceived as officially sanctioned but that seems like semantics to me. tmtoulouse pester 13:04, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

If the Samwell thing counts as an official RationalWiki thing, then TONS of cases of abuse against us are also official CP affairs (like CP sysops infiltrating RW1 and Karajou harassing people on Wikipedia with FBI threats). I'd say that even if it counts, we're still way above CP.
But that's not really the point. There is no hive mind. RW doesn't have a consciousness, it only has the goals we officially set into stone, and "Make socks to go on a silly banning spree" isn't one of said goals. What single people do is their business. I always found it to be silly to treat a site as some sort of entity (like Andy claiming that Wikipedia has a liberal agenda or whatever, and like some sysops claiming that registering at RW automatically makes you a troll). There are only people who contribute to a site, but that doesn't mean that we meet every night in a secret back room to plot our next steps to enslave mankind or whatever.
I'm totally with Kels and TMT here. It was silly (even though I can sympathize to a certain degree - many core RW1 members have been exposed to bullshit and occasional harassment/taunts for, like, MONTHS), I wouldn't exactly use it to celebrate RW, but it's still the act of individuals. Many core members here openly oppose silly wandalism, and we are as much RW as the socking guys. --Sid 13:23, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
OK. How about we make it official policy that we don't condone or encourage activities designed to disrupt the functioning of other sites? Obviously individuals can do what they like, but I think a site policy of this type would be good.--Bob's your uncle 13:29, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
Propose it over at RationalWiki talk:Community Standards. 13:32, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
Done.--Bob's your uncle 13:39, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
Yes we haven't even begun to discuss the things CP has aimed at us. You want to talk about potential damage to a project? I think filing a false FBI claim and then threating to file a false DMCA claim against a site rank a little higher than what Samwell did. Or maybe when a CP sysops e-mailed the president of my university to bitch about me? Or when another sysops threatened to get a user here fired from their job because they know their boss. Thats some serious hardcore stuff, thats tapping into the real world lives of wiki editors and trying to fuck with them. Thats trying to use bullying tactics to get a site shut down completely.
But of course we are the bad guys. Since we allow people to comment about us and our tactics, and we respond to them and attempt to engage the ideas, our little foibles will be the only really out their to be seen while CPs vicious personal attacks against RW editors and the site are excused? 13:31, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

That makes me think for a moment. Yes, the Samwell thing was dumb, but to call it anything more than a prank is, let's face it, blowing things way out of proportion. But that raises the question. Has there ever been any "assault" on CP by anyone, whether RW-connected or not (and seriously, there's a lot of not) that has been any more serious than a college prank? Joke articles, joke names, talking about the FBI, attempting to insert actual science into science articles, arguing, occasional spoofing or running socks, it's all kids' stuff. Honestly, I'm pretty underwhelmed by the seriousness of these crimes. --Kels 15:44, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I think the worst that happened to CP (on a project level) was the accidental Denial Of Service attack that happened when tons of popular blogs linked to CP, which at the time didn't have the bandwidth to withstand the demand (a.k.a. "Slashdot Effect"). --Sid 16:14, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I agree with the sentiment expressed here that these activities are incredibly minor in the grand scheme of things, rising at most to the level of silliness and resulting in a 30-second-or-less inconvenience. And if what I'm hearing about some activities of the CP people is true, then they have committed far, far more serious and outrageous real-world acts, and I'm not trying to excuse them. My concern is how this looks--if an "impartial" outsider comes here and gets a message of "Ha ha, look who we PwNeD today! We made them press a revert button!11!! Now check out our refutation of pseudoscience X." they probably won't be terribly impressed.--Bayesupdate 16:34, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

So in a round about way I think we have all basically expressed the same sentiments, I think we are all in agreement with each other. Yay for consensus. And you know what, the fact that we let this conversation take place, the fact that we reached a consensus and that we are acting on it in a pro-active way seems to suggest to me that we are not so far below the people we hate.......but all of the people all of the time are a fickle lot....... tmtoulouse pester 16:39, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Okay, what?

Impersonation? --Cheers, RyanIcons-flag-au.pngǂ wuz here ǂ 00:57, 14 January 2008 (EST)

user:HelpJazz is not cp:user:HelpJazz. JazzMan 01:03, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Ok...............................................................--Cheers, RyanIcons-flag-au.pngǂ wuz here ǂ 01:04, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Maybe I can get your attention?

Hey Jazzman, I'm sorry you left, but excited to see you back, even if it is for something that I'm not sure I understand... ...anyways, I thought I'd let you know that RW has publicly apologized for the Samwell incident, and definitely moved on. If you can trust us that we've moved on (.org), we'd love to have you back?-αmεσ (ninja) 01:02, 14 January 2008 (EST)

I appreciate it, and I'm flattered at the invitation. However, right now I'm only here because someone is trying to impersonate me. (Also, I'm having a hard enough time as it is editing at CP -- even though I have never done anything wrong, Andy still seems to think I'm a sock of one of you guys. I try to stay away from here to "prove myself", not that it's actually doing any good....) JazzMan 01:09, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Ah, I see. Well, good luck! Are you editing on CP then? I haven't looked at the site much for a while (short of WIGO) but I wish you luck. Also, your invite continues to stand.-αmεσ (ninja) 01:20, 14 January 2008 (EST)

I am, though I don't make it to WIGO other than when I fix something you guys point out :) Thanks again, JazzMan 01:23, 14 January 2008 (EST)

fuck you too

whine, whine? Do you have any kind of humanitarian sextant? Compass? No? Thought so, you miserable scumbag. --Hojidie! 18:22, 24 February 2008 (EST)