Difference between revisions of "User talk:PolarBearInTheJungle"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Why the censorship about Rufus Porter's connection between God and science?)
(Irrational censorship)
Line 88: Line 88:
  
 
What happened to [[tolerance]] of opposing POV? To a rational mind, there is no need to [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Scientific_American&diff=next&oldid=627016 censor stuff like this]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|bug me]]</sup> 18:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 
What happened to [[tolerance]] of opposing POV? To a rational mind, there is no need to [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Scientific_American&diff=next&oldid=627016 censor stuff like this]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|bug me]]</sup> 18:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 +
:1--consider the source; creationism.com. Hardly worth anything. 2. So what? You're trying to argue that religion or the "glory of god" is somehow relevant to contemporary scientific practice because the founder of a contemporary science magazine thought that way.  It was the nineteenth century, and religion occupied a different space in public discourse then. That might be interesting for a history of scientific thought of history of mentalités approach to the question, but it has nothing to do with the article in question. 3. You're a fool who has displayed a particularly unsavoury type of persona in his online activity and I will prolly revert everything you try to insert into the wiki on sight. go away. [[User:P-Foster|P-Foster]] ([[User talk:P-Foster|talk]]) 18:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:32, 30 July 2010

Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, < 4>, < 5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, (new)

You are pretty awesome.

Awesome.jpg

That is all.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 16:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you abandoned Authoritarianism?

I'm impressed. Though this is of course tactical, not principled. 86.40.199.148 (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Meh. Little of Column A, a little of Column B. Partly I'm just tired of seeing the same edits appear, disappear and reappear on my Recent Changes; partly I think Gerard Takes Himself Too Seriously; partly I'm ticked off at how well we do at feeding you (and impressed at your tenacity, for what it's worth...). P-Foster (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Right there Gerard has suffered a massive, irredeemable blow to his authority. He swaggers around here with his big cock complex, thinking he's the daddy of the forum. All I know is that if he behaved like that when I started posting here, he would have either have been mocked, or bullied off the site. 86.40.199.148 (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete WIGO CP talk page

No! That would be akin to division by 0! ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ My computer has two mowses! 00:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Were you not around when I pulled that stunt? Epic laughs. I thought Trent was going to send hired goons to my house. Srsly. P-Foster (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I remember that - hilarity followed. Acei9 00:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Unblocks

IPs are one thing, but what's the point of unblocking a vandalism-only account, other than whitewashing the block list? Also, you should take a look at the vandal bin next. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I unblocked the vandalism-only account because we have a vandal bin to deal with those types--not even TK has an infinite block, ferfuxsakes. Spambots are a different matter to me, FWIW. The vandal bin worries me less b/c people can use their half-hourly eit to appeal. P-Foster (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Please do not pay any attention to 89. He/She is my nemesis. 86.40.194.130 (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Your devotion to the liberties of mankind will be justly remembered

You are a modern day Daniel O'Connell, leading the trolls of this world to free themselves from bondage, and through their courage and passion, shame the British State into granting Catholic Emancipation. 86.40.194.130 (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"leading the trolls of this world to free themselves from bondage" I'm not sure that's a good thing. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Its better than allowing the pencil pushing wikipedia geeks with an authority complex to rule the world. 86.40.194.130 (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
(EC) It would be a good thing. A better thing would be for the people who care so desperately about this wiki to be able to ignore such banalities, rather than lash out and/or censor them. 193.200.150.82 (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Why should the kind of personal attacks and abuse thrown around by MC be allowed to remain? 89.132.239.149 (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
ECthey shouldn't. But blocking IPs does nothing about that and only makes him have to run from one Internet cafe to another. Think of the carbon emissions.P-Foster (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The salient question is why you are provoking a fight where it is not warranted? I rarely if ever strike the first blow. Know your place, cretin. 86.40.194.130 (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Yeah right. There would be no fight had you not provoked it. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
yeah. This is much better. Quaru (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The policy not to remove comments promotes an open and transparent atmosphere which is free from censorship and authoritarianism. Why should the comments be removed (or changed, as it was in the latest round of ridiculousness) rather than ignored? 193.200.150.125 (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Open and transparent atmosphere free from censorship is one thing, but why should pure trolling be allowed to remain? 89.132.239.149 (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Besides, he will just whine louder until he annoys someone enough that they respond. He is a troll. It's as simple as that. There is no value in anything he says, and there is no reason to tolerate him. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if you've been here long, but removing it altogether provokes an even stronger reaction...with an even better reason. 193.200.150.152 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I beg to disagree. There is nothing worse for a troll than silently removing their comment. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
One problem is the subjective nature of trolling. From a position drunk with power, legitimate criticisms start to look an awful lot like trolling. CP, as a whole, is an excellent example. We are getting dangerously close to that. Why can't you just ignore it? 193.200.150.152 (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. But in this case it's not subjective [1]. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why a post like that would be deleted. What does it accomplish? Or are you saying that because he identified himself as a troll, everything he contributes subsequently can be summarily labeled trolling? 74.63.112.137 (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
That's illogical, but then again I always tell the truth. 74.63.112.137 (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Why? He admitted to being a concern troll. He continues to exhibit the behavior of a concern troll. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
If a man tells you he's lying, it's not necessarily the truth, is it? 74.63.112.137 (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It still looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
And let's not forget that MC has been tolerated for far, far longer and given way more good faith than he would've on any other sane place on the internet. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, you have the problem of subjectivity and corruption by power. You don't think Aschlafly thinks run-of-the-mill fact checking looks, smells and swims like trolling? Or are you saying it is trolling and those people deserve to be banned from CP? 193.200.150.137 (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Run-of-the-mill fact checking is not trolling, and neither is run-of-the-mill criticism. But MC's "criticism" is concern trolling, and some socking on CP is also trolling, because it is done in bad faith. But your analogy sucks for various reasons, including the fact that Andy is objectively wrong on many things. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Your non-answer is an admission to the personal bias in identifying trolling. Andy does see those people as trolls, even though by our subjective standards, they are not. Trolling is still subjective. And I'd still like to know why you're seemingly incapable of ignoring what you perceive as trolling. 193.200.150.137 (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's subjective. So what? I'd still like to know why purely disruptive and abusive comments that have no value whatsoever should be allowed to remain. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
And I'd still like to know why you can't ignore it. If the people being trolled could ignore it, what would the problem be? Seriously. 193.200.150.137 (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Littering talk pages with abusive and irrelevant comments. And someone is bound to respond anyway. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. In answer to your question, removing trolling is, by nature, the epitome of feeding the troll. The trolling itself might not add anything (in some cases, but that's subjective), but removing it causes more problems than it solves. If everyone could ignore it, there would be no problem. That's an ideal we should strive towards, even if some people have a really hard time doing so. 193.200.150.152 (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, I disagree. Secondly, like I also said, MC has been tolerated for a long time and has been given a metric fuckton of good faith. Finally, he won't go away even if he is ignored, so there are only two options: clean up after him or leave his droppings alone. If you do the former, he will edit war, but there are tools against that. If you do the latter, he will continue to whine and spam talk pages with his shite until someone responds. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Your example refutes your point. David had removed the post, which led to more trolling, which David can't ignore, so he removes it, so he gets trolled, can't handle it, removes it... Nothing was solved. He wasted some of his time warring. Now if David was able to learn to ignore it, what would the problem be? More trolling that doesn't bother him? Which path should reflect RW policy? 193.200.150.137 (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Apparently you didn't understand me. Try again. If David had ignored it, MC would've spammed his talk page with more trolling. Why should David be forced to put up with that. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am afraid that I do not understand you. If trolling didn't bother David, why would trolling bother David? 193.200.150.82 (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Who said it didn't bother him? 89.132.239.149 (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I can only assume it does by the amount of time he wastes trying to make it go away, which demonstrably exacerbates the problem. On second thought, I suppose it could be a BDSM thing. 193.200.150.82 (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
What it demonstrably did was annoy the troll, and probably make him go away for a bit. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
oops. I think you misunderstood above. I said if trolling didn't bother him, why would trolling bother him. It's a hypothetical situation where David learns not to let trolling bother him. 193.200.150.137 (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the ramblings of a loser like MC bother him, but the constant spamming of his talk page probably annoys him. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Forgoing the censorship issue, it seems like more effort for the same effect. The page will still be trolled, he just completely wastes his time reverting it. 193.200.150.125 (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
But the end result is also different, which justifies the effort. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
If you feel like letting someone waste your time is justified, you have other problems. I understand it's your way of "getting back" at the troll, but...it's not. You're just being trolled. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
But the waste of time isn't the result of David reverting the troll, it's the result of the troll having no life and nothing better to do. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
So let's step back and think for a split second... What are you here for? "Getting back" at trolls? Or are you here for other things? Did you get sidetracked from what you wanted to do while "getting back" (aka feeding)? Who really won? Not you. It's pathetic. What does the troll want to do? Troll. Who ends up doing what the want to do? The troll. The troll wins. You lose. Every time. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The troll is here to get an emotional response and to cause drama. If they do not succeed, they lose. Reverting their comments denies them that which they seek. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

GIVE ME BACK MY TALK PAGE!!!! P-Foster (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Trolling == success. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
lollol ur wrong
--194.197.235.240 (talk)
lol, you don't acknowledge the WP:Liar paradox. 193.200.150.82 (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Pat on the back #2

For deleting the ultimate troll magnet. Punky Your mental puke relief 05:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Doc salutes you
I do what I can. P-Foster (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Irrational censorship

What happened to tolerance of opposing POV? To a rational mind, there is no need to censor stuff like this. --Uncle Ed bug me 18:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

1--consider the source; creationism.com. Hardly worth anything. 2. So what? You're trying to argue that religion or the "glory of god" is somehow relevant to contemporary scientific practice because the founder of a contemporary science magazine thought that way. It was the nineteenth century, and religion occupied a different space in public discourse then. That might be interesting for a history of scientific thought of history of mentalités approach to the question, but it has nothing to do with the article in question. 3. You're a fool who has displayed a particularly unsavoury type of persona in his online activity and I will prolly revert everything you try to insert into the wiki on sight. go away. P-Foster (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)