See something you'd like to change or add, but you've never edited an open encyclopædia before? This overview was written to help absolute beginners get started.

User talk:Teh Terrible Asp

From A Storehouse of Knowledge
Jump to: navigation, search
== joint late New Year's resolution ==

Let's just stay away, OK? We both know it's not worth it. Sterile 00:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Honesty week at ASK. Gotta love it. If only Awc and Hamster would pitch in. Sterile 22:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
my dad is 83 with dementia and he had a stroke on friday. Not got time yet to stir Phil. Hamster 00:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that. I hope he feels well and that your family is doing ok. Teh Terrible Asp 00:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Contents

That was funny

Happy post-rapture. I'll get the TV from Philip's house. Sterile 09:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to find the house first! Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Phil, answer your door. Teh Terrible Asp 14:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Nope, nobody there. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Well it's 1 in the morning. I gave up knocking like 35 minutes ago. Sheesh. Teh Terrible Asp 15:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I liked Graham Linehan's comment on HIGNFY on Friday:
This is the Rapture, where two hundred million evangelical Christians are going to disappear from the Earth, the day before my birthday! And it's gonna be the bestest birthday ever
CrundySpeak! 07:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Neither Philip nor the CMI people got raptured. That must sting. Teh Terrible Asp 00:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Why would it sting that we didn't get raptured when there was no rapture? It's not as though we thought the rapture would occur; we didn't, as the claims ignored Matthew 24:36. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As you profess to be a Christian yet weren't raptured, you have no business quoting the Bible. You were left behind like all of us, and are therefore a terrible awful no good sinner devoid of any absolute morality, and like the rest of us are bound to survive the tribulation until we're either cast into the fiery depths of hell or simply cease to exist as our miserable souls are snuffed out once and for all. I prefer the latter option as my own lack of absolute morality, like yours, would have destined me to an eternity of infinite suffering. Maybe there is some respite for us totally depraved animals. We can only hope for some mercy. Ears up sinner! The end times are upon us! Teh Terrible Asp 05:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Burning at first
No doubt would be worse,
But time the impression would soften.
While those that are bored
With praising the Lord
Will be more bored with praising him often.
(Stolen from an unknown source by Awc 07:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC).)
No rapture happened. No one claims it has. Harold Campling claimed it was coming, but he has been proven wrong. Doesn't that make him a false prophet? Maratrean 09:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Go away you humorless bore. I don't want your predictably dense response. If you can't tell I'm yanking Philip's chain you've got a screw loose. Teh Terrible Asp 12:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
If I don't get your jokes, maybe that's because they just aren't funny? Maratrean 20:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Or because you're a humorless bore. Teh Terrible Asp 20:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
No. Maratrean 06:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
My god but you're a bore. Go away. Teh Terrible Asp 14:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
That's not very polite, telling me to "Go away". Maratrean 23:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I really wish you would. At this you're just an irritant. Teh Terrible Asp 03:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
And what is this exactly? Your bad jokes? Maratrean 03:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I was editing on my phone. That should have read "at this point." But seriously you're like a humorless rash that won't go away. Please resist the urge to continue belaboring the point that you don't like my jokes. Nobody asked for or cares about your opinion. Teh Terrible Asp 05:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Why all the hostility? Why not we try to be nice to each other? I propose to withdraw anything negative I have said about you, if you will be willing to do the same to me. Maratrean 07:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
This isn't exactly hostility, but the answer is you're a crank, nothing on this page was your business, you weren't invited here, and I don't like you. I don't want a truce with you along those lines because you're literally the only person who cares what you think about me. I want you to go away but you're too stubborn to tuck tail when you're not welcome so I'm apparently stuck with you sticking your nose in this talk page too. Teh Terrible Asp 15:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't talk pages on this site be used for the purpose of improving this site somehow? Not having a private party to which only certain editors are invited? If you want to have such a private party, shouldn't you find somewhere else to do it? Maratrean 20:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm writing from heaven. Philip--you're a sinner. Sterile 12:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

perhaps the descriptions of softly floating up to heaven were wrong. A bunch of people still missing from Joplin , maybe they got roughly raptured ? Now the tribulation begins. Why did the duck cross the road ? It was stuck to the chicken ! *rimshot* Hamster 19:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Joplin is a horrible place. Maybe they used the rapture as an opportunity to get the hell out of Dodge, so to speak. They're still forced to endure the tribulation but at least not in Southern Missouri. Teh Terrible Asp 22:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Go away you humorless bore. I don't want your predictably dense response. If you can't tell I'm yanking Philip's chain you've got a screw loose. Be nice. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 08:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Your vote on my membership

If you don't think I'd make a good member, that's fair enough... but would you at least do me the courtesy of explaining why you voted against it? How is denying me membership in the best interests of this site? Maratrean 13:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I won't explain why I voted against you. I don't owe you that as a "courtesy" and Philip's already threatened to discard peoples' votes if he doesn't like their reasoning. Hope that helps. Cuddles, Teh Terrible Asp 14:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
...Philip's already threatened to discard peoples' votes if he doesn't like their reasoning. No I haven't. That is, I haven't said that I'll discard voted because I don't like their reasoning. Rather, I've said that if the reason is irrelevant, it might be discarded (such as voting on ideological grounds). Further, although reasons are not required, I (think I) have also said that negative votes without reasons will carry less weight than negative votes with (good) reasons. To put it another way, all membership appointments are subject to possible review, especially where the results are contested (e.g. where there are reasonable affirmative votes but also enough negative votes to block that), and the review panel will be entitled to take into account any reasons given for voting against a nomination. If no reasons are given, the review panel will find it harder to justify denying membership, although they still might, depending on how many negative votes there are, who they are from (e.g. senior members vs. members), etc. If it came to that, it would be acceptable for a negative voter to give his reasons to the panel privately. The point is, the more information they have, the better decision they can make. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
how is that review panal coming along ? So senior members are more significant than members ? is ot two to one or just depends on who the members are ? are senior members still required to be your brand of approved young earth creationist ? Hamster 00:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It strikes me as hypocritical to declare that membership should be "given out like candy" and oppose giving editors membership. LowKey 02:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It strikes me as at the very least presumptuous to throw around words like that simply because I didn't state my reasons and am not required to. You couldn't know my reasoning without me telling you, yet you assume bad faith. Stay classy. Teh Terrible Asp 12:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Given some of your previous vote-related comments...
  • Oppose Not on the basis of this user's privately held beliefs and views but his public misconduct in promoting discrimination against women and homosexuals on this site. If it was a matter of "views" and "beliefs" alone Daniel had no obligation to publicly advocate his perverted hatred of women and homoesexuals. Nonetheless, Daniel is in my view an evil and amoral person who has demonstrated through his conduct here that he should never have any authority over a woman or homosexual under any circumstances. Since there are both women and homosexuals on this site I find the proposition of his being an authority here deeply troubling. If Philip wishes to purge the site of those he finds doctrinally impure, including women and homosexuals, then Daniel would indeed be a fine thug to bring on staff to hasten this site's further decline[1]
  • Support -- As long as you're not a creationist, biblical literalist or inerrantist, or other flavor of fundie, you're fine with me.[2]
  • I take that back. I would oppose Daniel1212 because he's a hate-filled bigot[3]
  • I vote yes for all of them and twice if they're not creationists.[4]
  • Oppose He's a bigot who misuses his religion to reinforce hate of others who are different than him (or are they). This site is already bad enough without more misogynists and homophobes.[5]
...I'd say he's justified in presuming bad faith.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh balls Philip. Those are reasons to question a man's bona fides. He's a bigot. I view his ideology as nothing but troublemaking nonsense. So here you go making rules up as you go along and disparaging me on your own ideological grounds but not permitting me to make my own good faith determination. You're a hypocrite. Teh Terrible Asp 15:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
What's more, unless you know what was in Bradley's head when he made that statement you're talking out your [backside changed by Umpire]. Teh Terrible Asp 15:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
If memeberships are supposed to be given out like candy, then why do we do all this "voting"? All, like six of us? And I don't remember when Asp called Manatrean a bigot. Sterile 19:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
He's referring to me calling Daniel a bigot, which he is for abdicating all moral authority an individual could possibly possess to justify his beliefs that homosexuals are abominations and the role of women is to complement the role of men (by raising the children and staying in the kitchen) by relying on a book describing, in this instance, the curiously immoral pronouncement of a cruel god instead of his own innate moral sense. Teh Terrible Asp 20:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, duh. Of course Daniel is a bigot. What does that have to do with Manatrean? It's seems in bad faith to assume bad faith on the part of a voter because of their comments on another case, especially when they are justified. Sterile 21:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
That's Philip trying to score points and carrying on an old grudge. Teh Terrible Asp 22:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
since Asp is acting in line with the beliefs made apparent from his posts then he is acting in good faith. Danial may be acting in line with Biblical and Christian teachings that Homosexuals are an abomination before God and should be killed for the practice of sodomy. Women of course are to be silent in church and must not seek to teach men. There role is as helper , so cook, clean, and to bear children. One can not fault that as a Christian view but need not invite him to a picnic. I really wonder why voting for members, it seems a tedious way given the number of active editors. What real harm would be done by saying one month of edits with no major reversions ? after all dont members just get skipcapcha rights, and maybe upload pics ? Hamster 23:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Those are reasons to question a man's bona fides. Claims that you fail to substantiate. Furthermore, you were asked to substantiate them, and warned that repeating them would be dealt with under our civility rules. You are hereby blocked as a result of your endorsement of your previous comments.
He's a bigot. Actually, of those five quotes, only three were relating to Daniel. And that was part of my point: this wasn't just your attitude to one person, but your general attitude.
So here you go making rules up as you go along... I require you to substantiate that accusation. What rules have I just made up?
What's more, unless you know what was in Bradley's head when he made that statement you're talking out your [backside]. So how come you seem to know what's going on in Bradley's head to know that he's presuming bad faith?
Well, duh. Of course Daniel is a bigot. ... [Asp's] comments ... are justified And I require you, Sterile, to substantiate that comment, else you will also be dealt with.
since Asp is acting in line with the beliefs made apparent from his posts then he is acting in good faith. Not if his other comments were not in good faith.
Danial may be acting in line with Biblical and Christian teachings that Homosexuals are an abomination before God and should be killed for the practice of sodomy. And you might being employing a hypothetical to imply that someone believes something that they don't.
What real harm would be done by saying one month of edits with no major reversions ? Define a "major" reversion? Does "one month of edits" include both the person who makes lots of edits in that time and gets reverted in a "major" way once, and a person who makes two small edits in a month? Who is going to volunteer to spend the time checking a person's edits?
after all dont members just get skipcapcha rights, and maybe upload pics ? Block rights, skip captcha, upload, and move rights, effectively.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Who is going to volunteer to spend the time checking a person's edits? with the present system everyone who votes for or against a member should have read all his edits to determine what that person tends to promote and therefore are they in general alignment or diametrically opposed. What other criteria is there ?
And you might being employing a hypothetical to imply that someone believes something that they don't. I will say no to that Hamster 17:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't expect voters to have read all a person's edits, just enough to convince themselves that the candidate is probably legit. That's one reason for allowing negative votes—someone may have noticed something others have missed. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 07:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

(od)My “candy” comment above was intended as a reminder of a previously declared position. I used “hypocritical” which does actually carry connotations of bad-faith action, which was not my intent. I should have used “self-contradictory” (and would be happy to withdraw “hypocritical” in favour of that). I was not criticising Asp’s reasons for voting “No” here (indeed, none were given), but the very fact that Asp does vote against granting membership having espoused that it should be given out without the voting requirement. I was attempting to prompt Asp to examine this inconsistency and hopefully put his money where his mouse is. Elsewhere, Asp’s voting reasons are apparent (and I believe are out of order and/or faulty) and may well justify questioning the reasons here if there is a discernable pattern, but in my initial comment I was not making any reference to voting reasons at all. LowKey 01:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Spammers

Ignore them, or block them. Do not welcome them. LowKey 00:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Lol. A year later and the problem is worse solely because of your boss's stubbornness. Good stuff. Teh Terrible Asp 13:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity...

Is this related to this, by any chance? You don't have to answer, of course; it's your vote. I'm just trying to figure it all out is all. Jim 18:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I won't comment lest Philip substitute his own judgment for mine and throw my votes out. Teh Terrible Asp 00:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Howdy

Hi, %Teh Terrible Asp. Have you seen %Awc or %Hamster lately? %Sterileevolutionist story telling! 21:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

AWC posts despite claiming to be finished with PJR's pigheadedness. I believe he's presently on vacation. Hamster pops in occasionally now that it looks like he's recovering nicely. You know where else you can find him. Cheers. Teh Terrible Asp 22:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Instruction to stop reverting

As an Umpire, I'm hereby instructing you to stop reverting the Creation-evolution controversy article. You say that you have "substantiated [your] claim". What claim? That it's not legislation or ministerial ruling? I have already pointed out that it's not saying that. There is nothing incorrect about the text that you keep deleting. The only issue is whether the reader will read the second sentence as being an example of something mentioned in the first sentence. That is, it is correct, but possibly misleading. You could fix it yourself rather than simply deleting it. Or you could simply point out that you consider it misleading. But by reverting it after I explained that it wasn't meant the way you thought it was meant, with the edit comment "Then rewrite it honestly and don't mess around", you are (a) giving me an order (i.e. acting as a policeman), and (b) implying dishonesty, which you haven't substantiated.

Further, I said the last time that I reinstated it that "I'll consider if it needs rewording", yet that was not good enough for you, and you again deleted it (rather than suggest a better wording, for example).

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 09:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be discussing this on the talk page, rather than argumentum ad baculum? %Sterileevolutionist story telling! 10:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd be happy to discuss it on the article's talk page, but Teh Terrible Asp would seeming rather revert than discuss. That's part of my point. If he wanted to say that the wording is misleading and (if he likes) even propose new wording, that would be fine. But he repeatedly reverted with no discussion other than an attempt to justify the reversion in edit comments. I could perhaps also note that if this were Wikipedia, he would have fallen foul of the three-revert rule. We don't have that rule, but we do have an expectation that there will be more discussion than reversions justified by edit comments making accusations of dishonesty.
In case it wasn't clear above, my instruction to stop reverting was not meant as an instruction to leave the matter alone. When I pointed out that he "could fix it yourself", etc., I mean that he could have done this and could still do this. That is, he is still free to object, suggest, even edit to improve. The only thing I'm instructing him to not do is to keep reverting.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
You've got no business bossing me over a good faith edit. I don't care whether you've appointed yourself, to the exclusion of "evolutionists," to have the authority to do so. I reverted, which was fixing the problem, because those two sentences together do exactly what you accuse "evolutionists" of doing: conflate concepts that are unrelated in the context in which you presented them. I'll consider reverting the entire thing again because you failed to support your claim, something you yourself wholesale revert for when it's "evolutionists" honestly making a fool of creationism and you just can't have that. And frankly I'm not aware of legislation that does what you suggest. In this country, our constitution prohibits teaching religion in public institutions, but that doesn't come close to the unsupported claim you're making. Christian schools can teach religion all they want. They probably also have an obligation to teach real science in addition to your religious dogma, but that's irrelevant to what you're claiming. Teh Terrible Asp 16:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Without commenting on your actual motives, I don't consider a straight reversion—let alone a series of them—when there was an easy fix a "good faith edit".
I'll consider reverting the entire thing again because you failed to support your claim… What claim have I failed to support?
…you yourself wholesale revert for when it's "evolutionists" honestly making a fool of creationism and you just can't have that. False. I always try to salvage what I can from someone else's edits. That's not always possible, or at least easy (insofar as I can see a way to), but the ease with which I fixed this one to your satisfaction ("as simple as a linebreak", to quote Sterile) shows that you have no such excuse.
And frankly I'm not aware of legislation that does what you suggest. I've now corrected it. See the references given in the main article if you still doubt it.
In this country, our constitution prohibits teaching religion in public institutions… Except atheistic ideas.
Christian schools can teach religion all they want. Not always.
They probably also have an obligation to teach real science in addition to your religious dogma,… Actually, unlike government schools that teach only atheist origins myths, they teach real science also.
…but that's irrelevant to what you're claiming. True.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Without commenting on your actual motives, I don't consider a straight reversion—let alone a series of them—when there was an easy fix a "good faith edit". I don't consider your edit remotely good faith. By any stretch. So where does that leave us?
What claim have I failed to support? Groan. Playing dumb is dumb.
("as simple as a linebreak", to quote Sterile) shows that you have no such excuse. I said that, actually, and it's not my job to fix deceitful edits. I'll delete them or encourage you to man up and show some good faith, which you sort of did.
I've now corrected it. See the references given in the main article if you still doubt it. Nope. You didn't. Removed.
Except atheistic ideas. Pst… Calling atheism a religion is a lie that fundies tell unsophisticated people who don't understand the difference between belief in a god or gods and the lack of belief in a god or gods. Pass it on.
Not always. Yeah always and without a citation I don't believe you. You can even teach wacky nonsense like that it's alright to stone homosexuals, girls who got their cherries popped before marriage, and people who eat shrimp! Heck, teach your kids it's alright to take Midianite women as sex slaves! Just don't follow through on very much of the savagery your god urged on your primitive forbears or you'll find yourself in the hoosegow. But I think you know that.
unlike government schools that teach only atheist origins myths Lol?
they teach real science also Probably because the law requires it or they don't get accreditation, which is why fundies love homeschooling, eh?
Teh Terrible Asp 13:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The claim is not supported in the Creation Evolution Controversy article. You attempt to support it in the Suppression article, but over rely on CMI, which is a questionably source on anything but creationism. CMI at least misrepresents the British case. Withdrawing government funding from a private religious outfit isn't "suppression." The Australian example is troubling. I can't find any reference to the "South Australian Non-Government Schools Registration Board" or the specific language quoted in the CMI article from any official source. Can you? Teh Terrible Asp 13:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
I don't consider your edit remotely good faith. By any stretch. So where does that leave us? With me giving a reason why I don't consider your "edit" to be in good faith, and you simply asserting your opinion why mine was supposedly not in good faith.
Groan. Playing dumb is dumb. Talking of playing dumb... The claim that you alleged I failed to support was made after you made your allegation. Try again.
I said that, actually,… Oops, yes. Sorry.
…and it's not my job to fix deceitful edits. It's also not your job to delete edits you don't like, and it's not you job to call edits "deceitful" without very good reason. Not only is not your job, it's not good manners and not acceptable here.
I'll delete them or encourage you to man up and show some good faith, which you sort of did. If you keep simply deleting parts without good reason, you will be blocked. Consider this another warning in my role as an Umpire. You know that with Wikis you have opportunity to question and discuss, such as with a {{fact?}} or {{fact}} tag, or on the talk page. Simply deleting without discussion is not the way to go, unless you can support that the claim is false or irrelevant.
Nope. You didn't. Removed. What was incorrect about my change? Again, simply deleting is not the proper way to do things. Reinstated.
Pst… Calling atheism a religion is a lie that fundies tell unsophisticated people who don't understand the difference between belief in a god or gods and the lack of belief in a god or gods. Pass it on. It's not a lie. See religion. And temper your name-calling.
Yeah always and without a citation I don't believe you. Yet I pointed out that the references existed.
You can even teach wacky nonsense like that it's alright to stone homosexuals, girls who got their cherries popped before marriage, and people who eat shrimp! Heck, teach your kids it's alright to take Midianite women as sex slaves! Ignoring that Christian schools don't teach that, this only reinforces the point that creationism is treated as though it's worse than those things!
Lol? So you think it's funny that they are so biased?
Probably because the law requires it or they don't get accreditation, which is why fundies love homeschooling, eh? By "real science", I was referring to a creationary view, because it's more science than is evolution.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The claim is not supported in the Creation Evolution Controversy article. You attempt to support it in the Suppression article, but over rely on CMI, which is a questionably source on anything but creationism. Your biased opinion notwithstanding, this is to do with creationism.
CMI at least misrepresents the British case. Withdrawing government funding from a private religious outfit isn't "suppression." Why not? Saying that they won't get funding if they teach a view is one way to suppress a view.
The Australian example is troubling. I can't find any reference to the "South Australian Non-Government Schools Registration Board" or the specific language quoted in the CMI article from any official source. Can you? I can't say that I've looked. If you were seriously trying to improve the article, as opposed to simply deleting bits you don't like and making nasty comments, I might be inclined to look, but given your attitude, I'm not sure that I have any good reason to.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't find any reference to the "South Australian Non-Government Schools Registration Board"… I decided to have at least a quick look, and quite easily found this (Google account needed). The (then) existence of the board is beyond question. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sentences are written in a certain order for a reason. One follows another as the writer builds on concepts. In this instance, you made a strong claim then weasel in an inapposite example that unsophisticated readers will never spot as a misrepresentation in that it does not support the prior claim. An expectation that there be more discussion? I expect people not to lie to me but here we are. Go edit your article honestly or I'm reverting you again. And FYI I did fix it myself. Now you take a run at it. Teh Terrible Asp 13:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I have already accepted that the wording could possibly be misleading. My objections are your reversions (I don't consider that a "fix") and your attitude, that I'm being dishonest, and now that I'm not prepared to discuss it. And that you will revert contrary to what you've been instructed.
I have made the resolution a separate paragraph. Are you happy with that?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hold on. How could knowing misrepresentation that could mislead an less than informed audience not be dishonest? %Sterileevolutionist story telling! 15:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hold on yourself. What makes you think that I knew it could mislead? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Because you're not a moron? Your "clarifying" edit fixed the problem. Things strung together like that, something you've bullied editors here over, naturally lend themselves to being interpreted as conceptually related. In this instance, notwithstanding your hot air, that's a dishonest implication and I know you know that because you weren't so stubborn that you refused to fix it with something as simple as a linebreak. A resolution is non-binding, but you write it as if it was of a kind with legislation. Bravo. Teh Terrible Asp 16:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
How does your saying I have already accepted that the wording could possibly be misleading yet insisting on your wording not imply you knew it could mislead? %Sterileevolutionist story telling! 17:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Because you're not a moron? Goodness! I think that's a compliment! (Of sorts.)
Things strung together like that, something you've bullied editors here over… Okay, so the compliment was countered with an insult. I have not bullied editors.
In this instance, notwithstanding your hot air, that's a dishonest implication… "Dishonest" indicates that I intended the implication. I did not.
…I know you know that because you weren't so stubborn that you refused to fix it with something as simple as a linebreak. Realising it after it was pointed out does not mean that I knew it to start with. I'll state it again categorically. I intended no such implication.
A resolution is non-binding, but you write it as if it was of a kind with legislation. As I said, I did not intend that it be considered as an example of legislation. It is "of a kind" if it has similar effects. I'm not claiming that it has, but I do think the possibility is quite real, and you've not shown that it hasn't or can't.
…yet insisting on your wording… I never insisted on my wording. What I insisted on was that it not be simply deleted/reverted.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Goodness! I think that's a compliment! (Of sorts.) It wasn't. I was observing that any reasonably intelligent person follows exactly what you followed when you were forced to go fix your edit.
I have not bullied editors. You've bullied me several times, as you have Ace. You'd be desysopped and blocked on WP for what you pull here. I guess it's nice to be the boss.
"Dishonest" indicates that I intended the implication. I did not. Sure you did. You know the difference between binding and non-binding government action (legislation vs. resolutions), yet you conflated the concepts by attempting to make it appear that the resolution you cited to was of a kind with the vague legislation and "ministerial rulings" you referred to in the first sentence. That's dishonest. If all you have is a citation to a resolution, that's what you put in the article. I know you know this.
I intended no such implication. Sure you did.
It is "of a kind" if it has similar effects. I'm not claiming that it has, but I do think the possibility is quite real, and you've not shown that it hasn't or can't. This just made me cringe. What a great example of your brand of obfuscation. So we've got some goalpost moving and improper burden shifting. The possibility is not quite real unless you're the kind of person who seeks out and follows non-binding statements of legislative bodies. Resolutions are not law. Further, it's not on me to show anything about effects. A resolution is what it is. If YOU want to show that some of your coreligionists are following a purely non-binding exhortation to the prejudice of their religious dogma, you'll have identified what I suspect is a mere handful of idiots who need to have their ears clapped stearnly, not celebrated on your blog.
Teh Terrible Asp 13:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I was observing that any reasonably intelligent person follows exactly what you followed when you were forced to go fix your edit. I wasn't forced to. I chose to because there was some reason to.
You've bullied me several times, as you have Ace. Nonsense.
You'd be desysopped and blocked on WP for what you pull here. Perhaps, but then again WP is not really the gold standard on how to handle differences of opinion on origins.
Sure you did. You know the difference between binding and non-binding government action (legislation vs. resolutions), yet you conflated the concepts by attempting to make it appear that the resolution you cited to was of a kind with the vague legislation and "ministerial rulings" you referred to in the first sentence. That's dishonest. and Sure you did. Right. As an Umpire, I now require you to substantiate that accusation or withdraw it and apologise. I have categorically stated that I did not intend that second sentence to be an example of the first, so not only are you accusing me of dishonesty in making the edit, but of lying about my motives. I'm giving you a one-second block as a record of this warning.
This just made me cringe. What a great example of your brand of obfuscation. Not obfuscation at all.
The possibility is not quite real unless you're the kind of person who seeks out and follows non-binding statements of legislative bodies. Resolutions are not law. Huh? Why do you need to "seek out" the resolution? I agree that resolutions are not law, and not binding. But the resolution included that "Parliamentarians from the 47-nation Council of Europe have urged its member governments to “firmly oppose” the teaching of creationism". So what if some of those member governments do just that? This was not just a "we don't agree with it" type resolution (although that would be bad enough), but a "please stop this" type of resolution. It's not merely an opinion, but a request for action.
Further, it's not on me to show anything about effects. The onus is on you to support claims you make, so if you claim that it will have no effect, there is an onus on you to support that claim.
If YOU want to show that some of your coreligionists are following a purely non-binding exhortation to the prejudice of their religious dogma, you'll have identified what I suspect is a mere handful of idiots who need to have their ears clapped stearnly, not celebrated on your blog. Huh? The member governments called on to support this anti-creationist religious dogma are not my "coreligionists".
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that you role as Umpire is a conflict of interest. Where's Bradley when you need him? %Sterileevolutionist story telling! 15:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

In addition, if you know that the language misrepresents a statements and is therefore incorrect and you intentionally leave it in the article by reverting deletion, it's still dishonest. In fact it's worse now, because you've demonstrated that you've thought about it. %Sterileevolutionist story telling! 15:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
It's also quite obvious that Teh Terrible Asp didn't need to revert when he could easily have taken other approaches.
Your second comment twists the facts to suit your accusations:
In addition, if you know that the language misrepresents a statements… I don't know that. Rather, I could see (after the objection was raised) that it had the potential to mislead. That's not the same as knowing that it misrepresents.
…and is therefore incorrect… Misleading ≠ incorrect. The statement about the resolution was correct.
…and you intentionally leave it in the article by reverting deletion… Nothing wrong with leaving in an accurate and relevant statement.
…it's still dishonest. This conclusion was based on incorrect premises, so is unfounded. It's also wrong.
In fact it's worse now, because you've demonstrated that you've thought about it. How can it be worse now given that I've changed it for the better? I changed it as a consequence of thinking about it (after being prompted to think about it by an objection).
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 05:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
And yet, your still justifying using misrepresentation for some reason, are you not? %Sterileevolutionist story telling! 08:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
No, because I've denied that it was misrepresentation. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Anti-creationist level of discourse?

I see that you've put a quote—from somebody with no obvious expertise—that is nothing but an abusive assertion, and demonstrably false. The full quote is:

Let us be clear. The essence of Creationism is ignorance. One cannot be aware of and understand the scientific evidence for our current understanding of the history of life on this Earth, be a rational human being, and be a creationist. One can hold with creationism and be rational if one is sufficiently ignorant. This is the preferred stance of the creationist, the one which they are trying to impose on our schools.

  • Given that there are creationists who were trained in evolution, believed in evolution, and even taught evolution, such people cannot be described as not "aware of and understand the scientific evidence" for evolution.
  • Absolutely no evidence is offered that such people (who held or hold responsible jobs) are not rational human beings. Rather, it seems a case of being true by decree: if they are creationists, they are not rational.

That you consider this quote that amounts to nothing more than name-calling worthy of being displayed on your user page demonstrates the level of discourse you seem to think is appropriate.

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Swearing

I have hidden two cases of you swearing recently. I'm tolerant, and have merely hidden them without saying anything, but given that you've done it again, I'm now formally warning you about it. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 08:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Tolerant? The only thing you are tolerant of is lactose...and I'm not even sure about that. Ace McWicked (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
If I had banned you on the first instance, I could have been called intolerant. I didn't, and didn't even warn you then. Or on the second. So doesn't that indicate some tolerance, at least in the context in which I used the word? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 08:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
No. Ace McWicked (talk) 09:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Of course not. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
It's because you are not a very nice person Philip. You pretend to be nice and respectful outwardly (which is why most at RW wished you well when leaving CP for your own project) but in actual fact you are a rigid, self-deluding, narcissistic and spiteful person who cares more about petty point scoring and obsessive/compulsive litigation of syntax as opposed to really understanding what it is people are putting to you. This same critique has been put to you on CP, aSK, RW and WP yet you don't seem to connect the dots and wonder "maybe it's me?". Instead you froth forward on all these different forums wrongheadedly assuming it's everyone else's fault. Take a breath, look inward and consider yourself. Seriously, this is no ad hom - just one person talking to another. Cogitate. Ace McWicked (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Ace, for your feedback, and the good will that appears to be intended. Despite what you think, I do look inward and consider myself. I often worry that I'm not responding in the best—including the nicest—way I could. When people point out what they think are my faults, I am willing to consider them, and will act on them to the best of my ability if I think they are correct. However, there are also plenty of people claiming that I have faults which criticism I know is coming from a distorted view of me, because their criticisms simply don't match reality. For example, your opening line that I'm "not a very nice person". That is such a sweeping statement that I can justifiably discard it. I am not a hermit whose only social interaction is on the Internet. I am have a full-time job working with a team of people. I am involved in various activities outside of work, including being a volunteer on a preserved railway, being involved with a church, and being the leader of a creationist group. Generally speaking, I am well liked in each of those situations. I do accept, of course that a person can be nice in some circumstances/venues/forums and rotten in others, so what I've just said may not prove a lot, except that it contradicts both your opening sentence which refers to me generally, as well as to your critique as a whole. And I can categorically reject your claim that I'm pretending to be nice and respectful. I personally know that this is not correct, so I have justification for rejecting your assessment of me.
I also know that I don't care more about petty point scoring, etc. Rather, I prefer to take an argument apart brick by brick, rather than using a broad-brush approach that doesn't get down to specifics. I believe that this is what you are actually referring to.
But there's another aspect which I've mentioned before, and that is the mindset of my critics, in that they are coming from such as different paradigm or worldview to me that they simply don't realise that much of what underlies their comments are positions that I simply don't accept. It's the same thing as a loaded question. To give a very simple example, someone might ask why I stick so rigidly to a book written by illiterate nomads thousands of years ago. Of course I am supposed to "understand that what people are putting to me" is that I'm basing my beliefs on something shaky, and I'm supposed to answer why I'm doing that. But I don't accept the premise that it's merely a book written by illiterate nomads; I believe that it's the infallible testimony of our Creator. So rather than direct my answer at the point of the question, I have to instead take apart the question, pointing out that it's very wrong in its underlying assumptions. This is then criticised as me being picky.
This same critique has been put to you on CP, aSK, RW and WP yet you don't seem to connect the dots and wonder "maybe it's me?". This same critique has been put to me by people who don't agree with my worldview, and generally not by people who agree with my worldview, yet you don't seem to connect the dots and wonder "maybe it's a worldview difference and not just Philip". (And for the record, although it's incidental to the main point, I have never posted anything on RW.)
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Saying you're not a nice person was not meant to suggest to you don't have the love and respect from your friends, family and co-workers. Ace McWicked (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Why is this discussion on my talk page? This is about swearing. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok I will try my best not to swear. It's hard because I believe swearing is a powerful signifier in all kinds of speech that should be more accessible to all. A strategically placed f bomb can make the difference between someone scanning a sentence and someone being deeply touched to the core of their privates. Also, I was born in the early 70's while my mother was in federal prison on drug trafficking charges. I guess you don't know how rough things were in the medium security women's lockup near the Mexican border in South Texas, but I can assure you I never wore shoes or smelled a flower until I was 14. I spent my first 8 years sleeping on the cold concrete floor under her bunk in a dirty laundry bag with nothing but a roll of single ply toilet paper to rest my misshapen head on. I'm probably mildly psychotic – definitely mentally retarded. Things haven't gone well for me, hence I have a filthy mouth and am generally a filthy and rotten person. I would ask you to give me a break, but you're super rigid and probably racist against me anyway. Don't leave your medicine cabinet unlocked anymore. I'm not going to survive the winter if I keep steeling your benzos and opiates. What were the Vicodin suppositories for? Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but the particular word, the way you use it, is handly a poweful signifier, or it is powerful in a bad way. If you want to explain what growing up in prison has to do with blieving that profanities are a "powerful signifier," then email me directly.--Myrtonos+@ 03:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
You are joyless and boring. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe thats a feature of German speaking Australian Pennsylvanian dutch persons ? Anyway Ace ,I think you have a superb command of the english language. Was the word perhaps F*** as used in F***itty ? I thought that was an accepted Australianism and one of the few adverb and adjectives. Dont get me started on New Zealanders and numbers. Hamster (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Formal warning regarding vandalism

Although you made some useful wording changes, most of this amounts to vandalism, and you are hereby formally warned, and have been given a 1-second block as a record of this. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 04:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It's only vandalism if you're you. You don't have to follow the rules. You might as well just block me infinitely. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
It's vandalism if it's vandalism. That was vandalism. LowKey (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The only part of that edit that you might call vandalism is an indisputable fact, it just happens to be one that Philip doesn't want stated out loud: the rules don't apply to him. And they really don't. There's no reason they should. The rest of the edit was helpful. Philip's bit about his rules being like a "constitution" is self-aggrandizing fluff that shows he either doesn't know or doesn't care what a constitution is. Family friendliness is an archaic term that now functions as a kind of dog whistle for fundamentalist christians. Its meaning has changed so much in the last 40 years that it requires some explanation, so I explained actual practice here. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh no! I have become allergic to the phrase "indisputable fact" due to overmisuse. I think Philip was simply describing the rules as a foundational document. "Constitution" is as you say something different to the rules, but I think you may find that we Aussies don't react to the word the same Americans do, so I certainly wouldn't have seen any aggrandizing. I agree with you about the "family friendly" bit, about actually describing what is acceptable and what is not. LowKey (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
these entries are a hoot. PJR makes it seem that there are actually other people than him making the decisions. i.e
Record of warning by Umpire <=== PJR
These regulations can be amended by the Policy Committee. <=== also PJR.
Hamster (talk) 05:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd ask you two to define vandalism, but the creationists here seem bad at definitions and using them. Steriledepraved mind! 12:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

its the trying to be like God thing I think. He does seem to use the policy, whatever I say at the time, to be the rule. There fore civility is whatever PJR decides and he is never uncivil, just like God is always good. My opinion anyway. Why does Lowkey keep popping up when PJR is under siege ? ( < rhetorical question)Hamster (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
rhetorical answer => "Keep popping up" is a pretty large stretch. Before the last week or so I hadn't posted in months, from memory. Sometimes I happen to be looking in when the vitriol exceeds a certain degree and I find it necessary to say something. If the vitriol is always directed AT Philip then to me that says more about those expressing it than it does Philip. LowKey (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, I don't know. Philip's a constant variable in those experiments. Philip has had multiple conversations at multiple wikis (not here) that led others to become angry, frustrated or bored. I guess I'm tired of the creationist-as-victim rhetorical frame, although it seems to be part of the ethos of all creationists and in the pathos of their rhetoric, and for all denialists for that matter. Steriledepraved mind! 13:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
If I have time in the next few days, I'm going to gather data from Philip's super slow API (unless I'm remotely slowing the site down any more or he doesn't want me to) to show the general trend that his posts are both far longer than the posts he responds to, but that they get longer and longer, forcing more and more meta discussion, until people give up, because that's how he wins. Viz a 119k (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) post at WP. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Just went back and looked at the timestamps on the data I gathered back in October and saw that the site greatlyslows down when I'm hitting the API thousands of times, so I'm going to let this one go for the time being. Needless to say, Philip sure talks a lot. Teh Aspis Atrocissima 01:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
the rules don't apply to him. And they really don't. There's no reason they should. They do apply to me, and they should, to demonstrate fairness and to set the example.
Philip's bit about his rules being like a "constitution" is self-aggrandizing fluff that shows he either doesn't know or doesn't care what a constitution is. I don't see the problem. It says that they are like a constitution, not that they are, and it goes on to say in which way they are like a constitution, so it's also not saying that it's like a constitution in every way imaginable, but in one particular respect.
Family friendliness is an archaic term that now functions as a kind of dog whistle for fundamentalist christians. Its meaning has changed so much in the last 40 years that it requires some explanation, so I explained actual practice here. I don't consider it "archaic", although it's possibly a little dated, and I don't agree that you "explained actual practice". You used a term frequently used to denigrate ("fundamentalist"), and wrote it as though it only applied to mothers, or that only mothers would be concerned. In other words, it was itself a gratuitous snipe. I have always, however, wondered if "family friendly" should be either explained or replaced with a better term, but have never really seen the need.
I'd ask you two to define vandalism, but the creationists here seem bad at definitions and using them. Another baseless slur.
There fore civility is whatever PJR decides and he is never uncivil, just like God is always good. The aSK:Civility breach page describes what is and is not civil and has been there for quite some time, and I have acted in accordance with it.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 08:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I guess I'm tired of the creationist-as-victim rhetorical frame, although it seems to be part of the ethos of all creationists and in the pathos of their rhetoric, and for all denialists for that matter. You mean like the denialism of the claim that creationists aren't vilified, bullied, and discriminated against despite copious evidence that they are? I'm tired of that.
  • Evolutionist: "Creationism is pseudo-science, creationists aren't scientists, creationists lie, creationists deceive their followers, creationism is not science because they don't publish in peer-reviewed journals because we don't let them because it's not science, creationists need to be vetted before we'll let them have a forum, we've got to do all we can to stop creationists getting their message out, such as banning even Christian schools from teaching it"
  • Creationist: "That's hardly fair".
  • Evolutionist: "Oh, and I forgot to mention, they don't like the way we treat them. What a bunch of whingers! We'll call them more names like 'denialists' and accuse them of being negative".
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Denialism in the modern science means denying well established tenants (theories, confirmed hypotheses) supported by academic research. Creationism is generally a denialist movement since it makes claims about evolution not being "true" (when really meaning valid) despite being well evidenced. There is increasingly studies in academic rhetoric departments about the science denialist movements. The way to get legitimacy is to do academic research. It's not my fault that creationist articles rarely even mention hypotheses let alone attempt to test them, and that much of creationism is framed as trying to negate or place doubt about evolution. There's a lot of evidence of all of that. Steriledepraved mind! 14:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
"Denialsm" is a word used to smear people who hold not-politically-correct views, and much of the rest of your post is question-begging ("well established", "confirmed hypotheses", "well evidenced"), not to mention unsubstantiated assertions ("creationist articles rarely even mention hypotheses let alone attempt to test them") and double standards ("much of creationism is framed as trying to negate or place doubt about evolution"—much of Darwin's approach was framed as trying to negate or place doubt about special creation, and much of science is arguing against a view in support of an alternative view). Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Formal warning regarding incivility

This is a formal notice that the Umpire who posted this considers this to be a breach of our standards of civility. See Civility breach for what constitutes a breach.

You are being given a 1-second block as a record of this warning.

A repeat offence will result in a sanction.

See Sanction policy#Civility Breaches for details of sanctions.

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify which words in the first link you allege breach your policy. The second link is Ace saying something that couldn't possibly scratch even your thin skin and doesn't in any event have anything to do with me. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
You're right about the second link (in that it wasn't you), sorry. Although adding another slur in the process of pointing that out is totally uncalled for.
As for the words, these:
It's good to be king, eh? … You just refuse to accept arguments and evidence that don't square with your perverse reading of the bible. Your disagreements here have been without principle. You are a shameless ideological bully ….
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
No prob on the second link. As to the first, I disagree that I did anything wrong, but since you're not "instructing" me to do anything, we're done here. No point in escalating. Just go ahead and enjoy being the "umpire" while you are also a central participant in all of these discussions. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Well. You found something to overreact to. Congratulations on pinching those nasty atheist evolutionists having some harmless fun. Teh Aspis Atrocissima 14:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
You are correct that I didn't instruct you to do anything. However, I did say that "A repeat offence will result in a sanction". Your further comments in this section amount to that, and your comments in these edits are as bad or worse, and you are therefore blocked for a period of one month. Furthermore, given your history of offensive and uncivil comments, any further offences might well result in a permanent ban. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 06:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten about this. I considered giving you a permanent ban over this, but given that there might have been a bit of a misunderstanding, I thought I'd overlook this one. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
What misunderstanding might that be? Teh Aspis Atrocissima 16:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Regarding what I was referring to as a "soft target". Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Why? Teh Aspis Atrocissima 15:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Why what? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 09:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Why were you considering giving me a permanent ban? Teh Aspis Atrocissima 00:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
For the reasons stated above, in my posts dated 06:36, 4 January 2014 and 12:25, 11 February 2014. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 01:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see you saying it. What "reasons"? Thanks for paying your hosting bill. Glad this is all worth at least $8/mo or whatever. Teh Aspis Atrocissima 07:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. These: Your further comments in this section amount to that, and your comments in these edits are as bad or worse, and you are therefore blocked for a period of one month. Furthermore, given your history of offensive and uncivil comments, any further offences might well result in a permanent ban. and I considered giving you a permanent ban over this, Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear. You're not following me. We're talking about your bullying me over my "soft target" comment and, as someone who has no justification for a claim would do, you're just repeating yourself. So I'll ask again, this time more clearly. What is your justification for claiming you were considering infinitely banning me over my "soft target" comment? It seems that you're obliquely referring to your self-serving "civility" policy, which you refuse to apply to yourself and under which you should have blocked your own self long ago. Is that correct? If so, what bearing does that have on anything that happened after your prior threats? Teh Aspis Atrocissima 17:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
We're talking about your bullying me over my "soft target" comment… My answer was in response to your question "Why were you considering giving me a permanent ban?" My answer was the correct answer for that question. And I'm not "bullying" you.
…as someone who has no justification for a claim would do, you're just repeating yourself. You asked me to repeat myself: you asked what the reasons were that I gave; so I repeated them. To accuse someone of doing what you asked them to do is hardly a sign of playing fair.
What is your justification for claiming you were considering infinitely banning me over my "soft target" comment? The justification that you realised: It seems that you're obliquely referring to your self-serving "civility" policy… Despite being repeatedly uncivil, and being warned that any more might result in a permanent ban, you were uncivil again.
…which you refuse to apply to yourself and under which you should have blocked your own self long ago. More insolence. And combined with your false accusation of bullying and your misrepresentation of my warning as a threat, you have crossed the line, and that permanent block will be applied.
Is that correct? If so, what bearing does that have on anything that happened after your prior threats? That was correct. Your question makes no sense. You have repeatedly had to be sanctioned or warned for incivility, and were warned that a further offence may result in a permanent ban. Despite that, you have continued to be uncivil.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The sad thing, Philip, is that you confuse statements that offend you for statements for are uncivil. They are not necessarily the same thing, and now you've blocked someone indefinitely for it. Steriledepraved mind! 18:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Another sad thing is that you make bald assertions (you confuse statements that offend you for statements for are uncivil) without justifying them. I don't believe that I have so confused anything. You are welcome, however, to justify your accusation. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 00:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome to deal your blocking policy. And you are welcome to deal with your conscience. Steriledepraved mind! 00:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
My conscience is clear, and I've responded on the talk page for the blocking policy regarding that. How's your conscience in making accusations but not being prepared to justify them? Or don't you have one? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 00:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
All you've done for months is try to bait me into saying something such that you can block me. I will not give you the pleasure. Go ahead and try to make me; at this point it will just make you look worse. Steriledepraved mind! 01:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Sterile, if I block you, there's a good chance it will be for making unsubstantiated accusations; it won't be for making substantiated ones. Despite not substantiating your previous accusation, you make another unsubstantiated one here (All you've done for months is try to bait me into saying something such that you can block me.) You are giving me "the pleasure", in the sense that you are giving me reasons to sanction you! I find it amazing and ironic that someone who espouses science is so reluctant to provide evidence to support their assertions. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

SVG

Assuming you don't have a locked cPanel account and can set up a temp account for me with appropriate rights and SSH access, I can get SVGs working in short order. Is easy. Teh Aspis Atrocissima 19:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Pfft. You can't be trusted. Who knows what damage you would do, evolutionist. Steriledepraved mind! 21:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm an atheistic evolutionist bigot and he's prideful and stubborn. In any event, ideology has no bearing on installing frickin software. Teh Aspis Atrocissima 23:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
wat has to be installed ? I thought image display was a browser task. Hamster (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
MediaWiki needs a few fields altered so people can upload svgs and it needs a rendering engine like ImageMagick to convert them to jpgs for most views. Check out my sig on RW. It's an svg but for anything but the file view it gets rendered as a raster image on the fly. Teh Aspis Atrocissima 02:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Most wikis block SVG images with embedded scripts, for example, for security reasons. SVGs don't animate on WP because of it (unless you look at the original image). Steriledepraved mind! 11:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I bet atheistic evolutionists at your secular college embed scripts in their svgs when they're doing their evolutionary pseudoscience. I solemnly pledge that I would disable that feature on this super-godly site, because creationism is a better explanation of the facts than evolutionism and creationists don't need pretty pictures; they just need really really long tq's. Teh Aspis Atrocissima 13:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Is "needs … altered" less of a Pennsyltuckey locution than "needs washed"? Teh Aspis Atrocissima 13:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ace can never be killed

Never. Ace McWicked (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

My brother. Teh Aspis Atrocissima 03:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
visitor navigation
contributor navigation
monitoring
Toolbox