Difference between revisions of "User talk:TK"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Reverted edits by RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor (Talk) to last version by Phantom Hoover)
(Show some balls)
Line 99: Line 99:
 
:TK usually doesn't respond to questions that he can't rebut so easily. Not saying that out of spite or anything, just saying you shouldn't waste your time. [[Image:AndyToad.gif|20px]]<font face="Comic Sans">[[User:Norseman|<font color = "Green">'''Norseman'''</font></font>]][[User_talk:Norseman|<font color="red"><sup>Cyser <font color="blue">Melomel</font></sup></font>]] 21:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 
:TK usually doesn't respond to questions that he can't rebut so easily. Not saying that out of spite or anything, just saying you shouldn't waste your time. [[Image:AndyToad.gif|20px]]<font face="Comic Sans">[[User:Norseman|<font color = "Green">'''Norseman'''</font></font>]][[User_talk:Norseman|<font color="red"><sup>Cyser <font color="blue">Melomel</font></sup></font>]] 21:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 
::Thank you for the warning, my viking friend.  But I know this, however... If TK is gonna enter our playground, he's gonna have to deal with our rules.... and I can continue to call him on his shit and enjoy his nonresponse. {{User:SirChuckB/sig|}} 21:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 
::Thank you for the warning, my viking friend.  But I know this, however... If TK is gonna enter our playground, he's gonna have to deal with our rules.... and I can continue to call him on his shit and enjoy his nonresponse. {{User:SirChuckB/sig|}} 21:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::Far from doing what the liberal press has said, it seems the gentlemen in question were actually investigating the odd phenomenon of reports from citizens that whenever they called the Senator's office to complain about her support of Obamacare, they always received a "busy signal" day and night. O'Keefe & Company suspected that the public lines were being deliberately blocked while the staff used private lines to conduct its political business. If so, Senator Landrieu was betraying her public trust and deserves to be exposed. Chuck, go read the rules here....obviously you have no idea what they are. To jump on me for what hasn't been done someplace else is against the very spirit of the rules ''here''. There was no doubt Palin's email was hacked. Until charges are officially filed, and the investigation is done, there is a great deal of doubt about the Landrieu situation. For my part if the guy took the law into his own hands, stepped over the journalistic line, I will indeed make a news item about it.  Nice going not having any semblance of fairness, which you complain about others not having, lol.  --[[User:TK|TK]]<sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk</sub>]]<sup>RW User #45</sup> 23:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:15, 27 January 2010


This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>




Groups bar.gifConservapedia Discussion Group - Visit this group!





Parsing

You keep misusing the word 'parsing'. What do you think it means?-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 11:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That would depend upon what you think the word "it" is, David. --TK/MyTalk"Editor 08:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Come on, Mr Funnyman. If you have time for inane jokes, you have time to prove you're not a lying weasel. E-mail please. --PsygremlinZungumza! 08:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I am just waiting for you to do what you have since age 5, so perhaps 10 years now, Psy....stomp your little feet and turn blue holding your breath. Or in your case, perhaps it will be you wishing me into the Corn? --TK/MyTalkEditor 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Is that a Twilight Zone reference? JazzMan 23:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
So, just that we're clear on this... you are going back on your word, just as I expected? Oh and if you're thinking of googling my name and dropping a line to my boss - which you have done to others before - I am my own boss, so feel free to drop me a line. Or even better, drop by the office, we can do a beer. Hemlock on the rocks is yours I believe. PsygremlinParlez! 12:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear Psy: It wasn't me who contacted someone's boss, years ago now. It was another Admin. Do try to get your facts straight. And I wouldn't answer because I asked for your real name, and you didn't send it, as agreed. Threatening poison is typical of the left, and doesn't exactly instill confidence that you are anything other than what you are. --TK/MyTalkEditor 12:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but seeing as Brian isn't hypocritical enough to post here, I didn't want to drag him into it too - and the guys from Hot or Not certainly dispute your claim. But of course you'd say something like that, to weasel out of your agreement. Next you'll be asking for a passport, I suppose. Suffice to say you welched on the deal, as expected. And as for the poison, I'm guessing your dry sense of humour must be on the blink today. Maybe too much exposure to Brian's cartoons? --PsygremlinKhuluma! 13:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finally admitting the dozen of so posts of yours claiming I contacted people at work or their employers, is a lie. I would settle for a copy of your drivers license, assuming you are old enough to drive, Psy. James Hong disputes what claim? I see/talk to him regularly, so much for another of your lies. I haven't weaseled, and like your false charge of me contacting someone's work, your lie about sending your real name is just that. This ends our "conversation". I assume you will continue to troll this page anyway...have fun! --TK/MyTalkEditor 13:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Who said anything about James Hong? I'm talking about the others you harassed on HoN. I'm guessing you talk to Hong about as often as your talk to Ed Meese and Lucile Ball - when you sit next to her on the plane. And I stand by my comments that you called people at work - shall I ask PalMD to back me up on this? And I'll call you on your other claim - seeing as you think I sent you a false name, I'm quite willing for you to post what you think my name is right here. I've got nothing to hide. Or you can continue to run. Your call. Or, you send me your driver's licence and I'll send you my pilot's licence. --Psygremlin講話 13:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
LIAR. Terry you have NEVER met James Hong, you do not see him or speak to him and he hasn't answered an email from you since 2007. LIAR LIAR LIAR. Prove it. I DARE you. I do correspond with James, and I just may post up his (public) email addy so anyone can ask him. James considers Terry Koeckritz a kook, a psycho and he personally removed him as an Admin for HotorNot, then had to shut down the moderator board because of TK's repeated vile, profane posts threatening other users - want proof? I have the screen shots to this day. Terry, you are a LIAR. But what else can we expect from you, after all, you did claim to throw yourself in front of Nancy Reagan to save her from a sniper. LOLLOLOL!!! 193.200.150.137 (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Gauntlet thrown! Excellent BON. I have just eaten Toast& stiltontalk 12:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Would love to see that proof BON, would make an excellent addition to TK's article here. Terry, I'll await your apology - you can mail it - you have my address. --PsygremlinHable! 12:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Email.

Hello TK - why have you sent me an email detailing the fact the ToP blocked you for an hour? I don't care, why don't you email him? Acei9 19:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

TK, feel free to email me regarding any such further inconveniences. I care very much. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Ace, I emailed you because you asked me a question here that I could not answer due to being blocked. The fact that you changed the block to 31 seconds shows you at least cared about the image of RW, and the singling out of one user contrary to its Guidelines. Thanks, Neveruse, however the history here shows any semblance of fairness is always protested loudly and acquiesced to, by a small segment of dried-up haters who care nothing for logic. --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 21:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't care less if you were blocked for an hour. Don't know why I changed it. Acei9 22:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
~Yawn~ --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 22:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
You're yawning? You emailed me you idiot. If anyone should yawn it should be me. Acei9 23:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Liberal cyber bullies"

Wow. You just have absolutely, no conscience at all, do you? SJ Debaser 00:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the comments on this page, and elsewhere, about me and others, prove what liberal sensibilities are quite clearly. The same kind of taunting and vile name calling, in place of reasoned arguments against what a person believes, is shown here daily, like the taunts described in the news article about that girl. There are few places on the Internet that use personal attacks (a defacto policy of personal destruction) as consistently as Rational Wiki. The constant "un-funny" longer blocks and vandal binning of users some at RW disagree with, as opposed to the short term blocks given to users who are mostly agreed with, are self-mockery on the part of RW, showing most of their guidelines are BS, making this place not notable inasmuch as your dejour blocking policy is not different from CP. --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 01:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
RationalWiki is not the issue here. I've seen the nastier stuff which people have wrote here, and I don't agree with a lot of the personal attacks I've seen. Yeah, I'm guilty of referring to certain CPers as "fucking cunts" and other horrible things, but do you think just because you don't allow swearing at CP you don't attack people in the most vile ways? Lumping all people you perceive to be liberal as murdering bullies is terrible. The issue here is your attempt to bash liberals over a 15 year old who killed herself. Apart from the fact that what you did was despicable, do you seriously think the girls that bullied here were thinking "Ooh, I'm gonna go and upset this girl then go and support a state-funded healthcare system!" or something like that? Conservapedia is wall-to-wall liberal bashing. Remember Ted Kennedy dying? Remember Andy plastering the mainpage with his shit about how much of a bastard he saw him as? Yeah, die-hard liberals might do the same thing if a fastidious conservative died, but for a site that claims to be family friendly, trying to claim the moral high ground and such, you generally just have a lot of hateful, opportunistic shit on it.
Also, regarding the email you sent, I don't care. If you want my opinion, you're fucking lucky you aren't permablocked here after everything regarding Conservapedia. In future, please contact me in public via my talkpage, or find someone else to bother privately. SJ Debaser 11:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ashamed?

Not at all, we just have the balls to back down over something we've said or done - we aren't so fragile that we need to delude ourselves into thinking everything we've ever done was right. Now go back to destroying whatever shreds of respect CP still gets from the sheep it caters to. -RedbackG'day 03:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Or one could say RW is over-concerned with making itself appear "reasonable" when in fact it is anything but. But thats a matter readers can decide for themselves, reading the vile and completely personal insults heaped upon anyone who disagrees with someone else here....as it should be. --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 03:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
'Or one could say RW is over-concerned with making itself appear "reasonable" when in fact it is anything but. But thats a matter readers can decide for themselves' ---> I'm a reader and I decided that was bollocks. No offence. -- =w= 03:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Your right, Wei, and I agree with that. Thanks for keeping this place as it was intended, tolerant of all points of view, logical and rational. --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 03:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think someone who takes a tragic incident and attempts to use it to score cheap political points should be making remarks about what's reasonable and what's not. Now go ban yourself for editing here, hypocrite. -RedbackG'day 03:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
How about you uncloak your anonymity, Redback, or have someone do it to you without your permission, and give us a list of all your posts everywhere on the Internet, and let us judge your actions someplace else, like you do mine? Pot/Kettle, much, dude? --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 03:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
What exactly do you want to know, honey? My username for every other site I've ever signed up for? Well, okay I guess...
I use eBay under the name blackchocobo2640, I play warcraft under the names Drayle, Kazeiru and Magnificence, I used to use Torn City with the username BlackChocobo and well... that's really about it. I also use the internet for banking, but I think I might refrain from giving you my username for that.
Now back to the matter at hand, I see other users edit here, then get banned from CP for doing so. You edit here, why are you not banned from CP? What makes you so damn special? You know, other than a grossly overinflated ego. -RedbackG'day 03:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
PS: Oh, and I also go by the name Kazeiru on Xbox Live

Couldn't resist a final piece of hate, eh? I have proven myself on CP, I don't deliberately post false info to articles under a sock, or vandalize the place. While most RW users don't either, many do, and post here about it. I am RW member #45 here, which predates most of you, and the CP rule, which is why I don't block myself. --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 04:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I never vandalized or posted false info either, and never used a sock on CP (except that "Bohdan's friend" one, oh well). So why am I blocked? Note my membership at CP was also enshrined before that silly rule. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Quit trying to infiltrate CP, Human. TK caught you again! Lawl! AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 21:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
TK, that's BS and you and I both know it. --TheEgyptiansig001.png 12:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Soooo, how about those New Orleans Saints? AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 04:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Colts are going to win. You a Vikings fans Goonie? - π 04:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Curiously, I'm a heavy anti-Vikings fan (in other words, I hate them with a passion), mostly for reasons I no longer remember dating back 12 or so years ago. However, I think they did a heckuva job this year. However, I think that this year will, finally, be the year of the Saints. It's their turn to win the Super Bowl, in my opinion. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 04:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Colts' offence = Saints' offence, Colts' defence > Saints' defence. The Colt's will win. - π 04:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
(Stop ECing me and let me poke the troll a bit more) TK, when I see your name come up on the screen it's an instant trigger - you've proven yourself time and time again to be an inhuman, callous prick at every given opportunity. Rest assured that the "final piece of hate" is probably the nicest thing anyone who follows your backstabbing, opportunistic ways could possibly think about you. As for having proven yourself, what exactly have you done to do so? All you do on Conservapedia is intimidate other users, ban anyone who disagrees with you and regurgitate lies. -RedbackG'day 04:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but can I join http://pub11.ezboard.com/bfarfromthemaddingcrowd? I want to talk captivespeak words with you. Conservapederast Jerry 04:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC) (EC) Back to American football, perhaps you are right, Π. Especially when one considers that every time I've rooted for a team this season, they've lost. Therefore, the fact that I'm rooting for the Saints tells you whom to bet on. Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 04:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright then, who do you reckon will get the first touchdown? - π 04:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, the total over/under is 55.5 points. Looks like the betting is for a high scoring game. - π 04:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Colts will get the first one, naturally. I predict a close game, with the Saints winning in the end of the 4th quarter. And you? The Goonie Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 04:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Carl of Aqua Teen Hunger Force says that the Viqueens are A) old, B) dumb, and C) from the South. WodewickWelease Wodewick! 05:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Show some balls

Why don't you stop taking advantage of the tragic suicides of teenage girls and report some real news. When Palin's email was hacked and the kid turned out to be the son of a Democratic politician, CP jumped all over it... Why don't you report this story in the so called news section? SirChuckBThis country needs more Rutabegas 20:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

TK usually doesn't respond to questions that he can't rebut so easily. Not saying that out of spite or anything, just saying you shouldn't waste your time. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 21:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the warning, my viking friend. But I know this, however... If TK is gonna enter our playground, he's gonna have to deal with our rules.... and I can continue to call him on his shit and enjoy his nonresponse. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 21:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Far from doing what the liberal press has said, it seems the gentlemen in question were actually investigating the odd phenomenon of reports from citizens that whenever they called the Senator's office to complain about her support of Obamacare, they always received a "busy signal" day and night. O'Keefe & Company suspected that the public lines were being deliberately blocked while the staff used private lines to conduct its political business. If so, Senator Landrieu was betraying her public trust and deserves to be exposed. Chuck, go read the rules here....obviously you have no idea what they are. To jump on me for what hasn't been done someplace else is against the very spirit of the rules here. There was no doubt Palin's email was hacked. Until charges are officially filed, and the investigation is done, there is a great deal of doubt about the Landrieu situation. For my part if the guy took the law into his own hands, stepped over the journalistic line, I will indeed make a news item about it. Nice going not having any semblance of fairness, which you complain about others not having, lol. --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 23:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)