User talk:Javascap

The leftovers from the Colbert/Andy interview is here. Be careful, Human left a nasty there.

Here be Archive

Moar Archive!

Teh Archive!

Last Archive? :(

Hey there

Been awhile, how tricks captain? Ace^ace 20:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Still walking, still breathing, still lurking, working hard. Javasca₧ duuudddeee... 18:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

dearest java

What is the new icon on your siggi? I"m thinking llamma, buttttttttt also thinking something far less polite.En attendant Godot 21:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

PS I'm always sad when i visit you. Here i think someone loves me enough to send me a message, and it's not real. sobs... :-) En attendant Godot 21:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be the Llamabean. Javasca₧ no really. 19:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Nom

Just letting you know that you've been nominated for moderator. Go here to accept or decline. Cheers. Blue (pester) 03:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Philmont

Ever been? Тy^{Please do not click on this} 03:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of it. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ Chinese ropes vocalise me... 03:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought you were an eagle scout, or have I confused you with someone else again? Тy^{Please do not click on this} 03:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I was an Eagle scout. Javasca₧ why me? 03:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

And your scoutmaster never told you about Philmont? Weird. Тy^Complaints 03:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it now, I don't live anywhere near New Mexico. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ <insert witty comment here> 03:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Nah, your troop gets a bus/plane to take you there. Fun place, except for the bears. Тy^YAUA 03:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Did someone say...Bear? (ಠ㉨ರೃ)--Dumpling (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I was in a small troop. We never had the funds to go further than the Adirondacks. ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ no hell below him 03:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I see. Sorry :< Тy^No 03:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Retired & running for office?

So you seem to have retired a coupla days after accepting a moderator nomination. Can you confirm whether you'd still like to be considered for the position? If not, it would probably be better to get your name removed from the ballot, if such a thing can still be done. Cheers, see ya later. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Still here, still well, still interested. ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ no hell below him 02:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

So what's with the retired thing? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Never bothered to update it. ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ Conservapedian flans glug me... 13:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread this edit as 20th June 2011, when it was actually 20th July 2010. Comment duly retracted. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Nom

Ye haven bein' nominated fer the election fer moderator here. Please be statin' whether or no ye be acceptin' or declinen' Yarr. Тy^{Serious Business Guy} 23:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

Is this from any movie? just curious. king of the rats ^{do you wanna kick it in the backseat?} 03:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Pennywise the Clown is the manifestation of "It" from this movie. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ no fate but what we make 01:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's creepy as hell. ha. RatMaster ^háblame 03:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Mei

Pops up every now and then. Тy^Talk. 22:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User rights

䯂 is Phantom Hoover just changing IDs. I don't think it rally matters if we're going to have a re-org. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh

At this point I wish I just went through the unbearably tedious renaming process. 䯂 (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

.......Should I know you? ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ the most colourful sig on RationalWiki! 21:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

HI

Hi! Nutty Roux (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ universal barfbags waste me... 15:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey!

You're back! Ace ^{of Spades} 21:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Much more so, yes. I guess I took a bit of a break to think and wonder, and oh what a world I wondered at! ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ would rather be hated for who he is than loved for who he is not 21:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

WTF?

How come I never noticed you were "retired"? I guess I noticed you were not about the Wiki, but not retired. Oh well. Hopefully, you find your way back here at some point. If only for the lulz. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 17:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

template:sex

Wow, nice catch of some weird wandalism none of us noticed while making it pretty! ħuman 04:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Help! Got de-sysopped for blocking the troll CowHouse!

Hi Javascap,

I very recently blocked CowHouse, who was trolling me by making very serious and false accusations (e.g. "poisoning the well", "false equivalency", and "weasel words", when those were not my intentions)... they once deleted AN ENTIRE ARTICLE over a plagiarism problem that could easily be fixed in a less-destructive way... when I complained about something off-wiki, they trolled me by completely ignoring the point I was trying to make (see text below, from their talk page) and demanding more and more evidence when it was already rubbed right in their face (the topic was about whether or not a source I had cited in the FFAF article that he removed was defamatory or not):

Hi CowHouse,

The reason why I said those things about TWP’s article on the AA’s “problem” was because the article was almost as biased and defamatory as the FFAF was, in that it also takes advantage of the ugly actions of a “bad actor” in the American Atheists (a secular rights group in the USA) and then tries to pin it on the entire atheist community, setting things up so that no matter what the AA does about it, it would always be viewed as some morally-corrupt act of misogyny/rape apologetics (the fact that the AA got rid of Silverman due to him violating their zero-tolerance harassment policy conveniently ignored). I know that it was a smear article, and I won’t stand for it. I thought that I’d bring it up so as to get the point accross that the “progressive” left are supporting the rights of all the other minorities in America, but for some reason are doing absolutely nothing about discrimination against us atheists, and instead defaming those of us who do, thus this being one of the few things that both the right AND left agree on- that all atheists are a bunch of little amoral misogynists who run around groping and raping women because Elevatorgate and Silverman.

No, really. Conservapedia also seized this opportunity to demonize atheists.

-BP9, 25 October 2018 11:16 PM (GMT)

@BadPiggies 9 On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (B'P"9 05:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Can you provide some quotes from the article to illustrate your point? I read the article and I don't think your description of it is accurate. CowHouse (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC) @CowHouse OK, here’s one quote from the article: [show]Show comment B'P"9 14:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC) I hope you don't mind but I collapsed your comment so this conversation would be easier to follow. I'll quote you before I respond so you know what I am replying to. "the AA seems to say otherwise". The link you provided says nothing about sexual relationships and the WaPo article quoted a spokesman for American Atheists saying "loss of confidence" was the reason for his termination. “”Nick Fish, a spokesman for American Atheists, said the sexual allegations were not the reason that Silverman was terminated. “The board was able to review a lot of [documents] that allowed them to conclude Silverman violated its internal policy,” including staff management, conflicts of interest and violations of its general code of conduct, Fish said. “He lost the confidence of the board, and his contract allowed the board to terminate him for any reason. And loss of confidence is more than enough. "The above quote is basically distracting attention away from the fact that Silverman did bad things, and instead goes, “Oh look everyone, yet another amoral atheist has faced charges of sexual misconduct, and he was the only one who was punished. We know that things have improved in their movements since the other incidents, but who cares?”. In short, the writer of the article appears to have some sort of confirmation bias about atheists being evil." I'm not sure how to respond to this. The writer said this: "Silverman is the fourth male atheist or secularist leader to face serious charges of sexual harassment, assault or other misconduct regarding women". I don't see anything there that's inaccurate or implies atheists are amoral or evil. "Oh, you mean that old issue that the American Atheists has already fixed with their harassment policy?" I won't comment on the issue being "old" and "fixed" but the quote was about "organized secularism", not American Atheists. "Oh yes, I forgot- they think the New Atheists are representative of the ENTIRE atheist community." Where are you reading this? The article doesn't say New Atheists are representative of the atheist community. "With all due respects, are all atheists not a minority ourselves?"' Yes they are, but I don't see your point. "That literally just contradicted that whole thing the article was just saying earlier about how that is not why he was fired." There's no contradiction. The quote you provided is talking about violating the code of conduct, not specifically about sexual allegations (see also: the above quote by Nick Fish). I think replying to the above points was a mistake in hindsight because I was not asking why you didn't like the article. This is what you added to the FFAF page: "The Washington Post tries to pin it on the entire atheist community as well". Where in the article does this happen? The article includes this quote which contradicts your assertion: “I think there are many people in the atheist community who are saying that women need to be believed, and sexual assault and harassment needs to stop.” Also, two of the critics quoted in the article are both atheists (Stephanie Zvan and Sikivu Hutchinson). As you'll notice reading the article, it's about atheist figureheads. It's about holding people accountable when they are in positions of power and influence. As Zvan is quoted as saying: "No figurehead is so critical that this movement will put aside its goals to serve them." This applies to the atheist community as it does to every other community. CowHouse (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, the second they were unblocked, I was de-sysopped, and he went right back to vandalizing the article on SJWiki, and again trolling me while doing so (please see the contribution log on that page for more details). I have grown to hate that person for all of their shenanigans. And on top of that, I have also noticed that they have been trolling other users in a similar fashion to how they trolled me; just look at their talk page!

B'P"9 05:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

What exactly were you hoping to achieve by posting this on the user page of a person who hasn't been active in almost 4 years? ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ thinking of what to say next 18:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)