User talk:Earthland

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Earthland! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Welcome to the wiki, Earthland! SJ ^Debaser 17:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You forgot a comma. Harmonic time Phantom! 17:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I see that in the abortion debate you were wondering why we called you "BoN". You were previously editing as an IP - that is to say you did not have an account. Accordingly all we saw of your identity was your IP Number. A Bunch Of Numbers. Typically anybody who edits here as an IP gets called "BoN". Getting an account is a good idea as people tend to take you more seriously. Welcome.--Bob^{Not Jim} 17:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Earthland. I note that you have previously told us. " Btw, I am not religious, I don't even consider myself conservative. ..." and "I am gay myself, but ..."

While I would not for one moment wish to suggest that you were being less than honest, you should be aware that our mainpage states: "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue." In other words, nobody needs to claim to be an atheist, liberal homosexual in order to participate in debates here.--Bob^{Not Jim} 14:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sysop

You are now a sysop. Manual here. Harmonic time Phantom! 17:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User page

I really don't like red userpage links, so I made you a user page that redirects to your talk. If you want to, you can delete it, if not, well... at least that is one less red link :) ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ 13:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Estonia

I've heard great things. how would an english-speaker fare? are there too many Russians? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

English-speaker survives, if not something more. Everyone in Estonia can speak English, but it doesn't always sound like English. My father is half-russian. About 25 % are Russians, but the percentage is decreasing. I heard the horror movie "Orphan" mentions Estonia. It's probably the best advertisement a small eastern-Europe country can wish for. --Earthland 18:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I heard it was very libertarian, secular, extremely free press, transparent e-government, "the silicon valley of the baltic", flat tax, etc. Sounds like a place I'd love to go. I was dead-set on it last time I was in Europe, but it's kind of difficult to get there. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Earthland. What is/are the main language/s there?--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Estonian. WP is useful for more than vandalism. Harmonic time Phantom! 18:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Estonian is obviously the main and only official language. Estonia is also the most atheist country in the European Union.--Earthland 13:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

'sometimes quite quite demagogic website.'

Thank you. Maybe if you plug at them they might get the message. MarcusCicero 20:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Your essay

People are considering deleting it. I would recommend that you hightail over to its talk page and defend it. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think we are only talking about the plagiarised bits.--Bob^{Not Jim} 07:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Abortion and deleted edits

Please, discuss huge revisions on the talk page--and making that many mistakes in a single for others to clean up is kinda obnoxious. RaoulDuke 21:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Trolling

I have replied on my talk page. Bob Soles 18:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

And again. Bob Soles 20:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

And this might interest. Bob Soles 00:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You've gone quiet

Is all OK? Bob Soles 22:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Real life is disturbing me consistently. You know, all these things that happen to me when I'm away from the computer. But you can be sure I won't leave RW that easily ... --Earthland 14:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

MarcusCicero

Read this little tidbit on him to learn a little about his trolling history here. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 18:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sir

I put forward the theory that you are Andrew Schlafly in disguise. SJ ^Debaser 20:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

How did you figure it out? Did you see trough the blatant lie that I have receive two blocks from conservapedia, while Aschlafly's block log indicates that Andrew Schlalfy has received six blocks from his very own blog? --Earthland 20:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This is classic Schlafly. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh, that was, at least, intentional. --Earthland (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Abortion

I forgot you were the guy that wrote the "I oppose abortion" essay. I haven't read it, but I'm assuming that you're evil. Am I correct? SJ ^Debaser 22:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Your blocking MO.

Your blocking of CGB borders on abusive--you don't like what he says, argue with him, or ignore him. You don't have the right to block him for what he says on your talk page or anywhere else. Smarten up. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I was coming here to say the same thing. Not cool.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 18:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I blocked him for lying, not because I simply didn't like him. I try to ignore him. --Earthland (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't Conservapedia; you can't block someone just because you think they're lying. That's not your judgment call to make.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 18:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The hypocrisy is painful, it rips through my pores to acknowledge it. What on earth? 'thats not your call to make' - what about your decision to oust me? What about that? You people are disgraceful hypocrites who enjoy pretending to be servants of reason - however when someone comes along and calls you out for your collective idiocy and propaganda, you vandal bin him. RW has a lot to be ashamed of, but this hypocrisy is by far the most egregious. MarcusCicero (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is MarcusCicero unbinned?
Remember: Hi, This is John's brother. I know he has been using this account for a variety of reasons, none of them productive for his troublesome history of mental health problems. For obvious reasons I don't want to go into details about this but suffice to say my mother and father have decided to withdraw his access from the internet for the duration of his most recent treatment process. I apologise on my brothers behalf for any problems he may have caused this website during his period of instability. As you know, his posts have been of a bizarre quality but that is merely a reflection of his real world mental anguishes. MarcusCicero (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
And: 20:48, 5 December 2009 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Delaware" ‎ 20:47, 5 December 2009 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Argument from incredulity" ‎ 20:47, 5 December 2009 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Bohemian Grove" ‎ 20:47, 5 December 2009 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "John F. Kennedy" ‎ 20:47, 5 December 2009 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Lucid dream" ‎ 20:47, 5 December 2009 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Gerald Ford"
And: My glorious run has ended. This is not a case of 'leaving and never coming back', but more a case of 'burn out'. I created a personality on the internet so radically different from the real life version that I've forgotten even what trolls remorse feels like.. (You can thank Refugee over on RWW for providing the impetus) My highlights on RW: Making loads of people mad, especially Ace, Susan, Jeeves (Hi Jeeves! Wanker) and also Kels. Doing my best to persuade half of you that I 'was a dick who has something worthwhile to say', while really just being a dick and doing my best to annoy as many people as possible. Continuously rejecting the label of troll; even though I was the most transparent 'concern troll' in history. Riding the wave of mock grievance; So many times you put me on the centre stage with a semi reasonable grievance and I made sure to maximise the fallout as much as possible. Pretending to be a scholar (I know fuck all) One regret: Stooping to do the mental illness stunt. That was a terrible miscalculation. Adios RW! I may pop in from time to time, but at least now you'll know for sure than I'm a fully fledged troll! MarcusCicero 19:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
And: On the other hand, the temptation to shake the ant farm and watch them scurrying to each others aid is far too great to overcome. MarcusCicero (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh well this is just fantastic. We all know that individuals capable of piercing through hypocrisy have throughout the history of the world been given pejorative names. It makes it easy to ignore them. We can go back as far as Cassandra in Greek antiquity - the woman who saw everything but was always ignored and laughed at. Throughout history those who dared to speak the truth, at great costs to themselves and their reputations were given insulting names so as to allow the rest of society to ignore them and their 'inconveniant truths'. RW should be ashamed of itself for perpetuating this reactionary historical process. MarcusCicero (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Find some other talk page where you can moan, MC. --Earthland (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Just think, all of this moaning would stop if I were unbinned and made a sysop once again. I'd have no reason to pester any of you. I could ruin the wiki for everyone if I so choosed - I have done so before and could do so again! It is only because I am a benevolent man that I don't resort to this. My diplomatic efforts will continue until my just demand is met. MarcusCicero (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So it's OK for CGB to block Earthland calling him a "fucknut", but Earthland can't respond back? This is why I think block wars should never be done unless in good humour, but it takes two to tango. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I blocked him for 3 seconds, after he blocked me for 30. My block was an attempt to show his hypocrisy. Also, I stopped, he did not. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 02:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

You have won the "RW's obsession over single issue" award for 2009!

RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was "obsession over single issue", but it seems you made it more offensive. --Earthland (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You are indeed correct and I have corrected it. Your friendly messenger, ħuman 22:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

191 Facts

I want to steal this.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 22:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. --Earthland (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't leave, butter-cup

Would you stay if I changed my name to Skyland? Aceⁱ⁹ 10:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Serious though dude, reconsider...Aceⁱ⁹ 10:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, stick around. This is the problem in focussing so strongly on one specific issue. I think that most of us get along, despite disagreeing in some areas, because we discuss a wider range of topic - thus having things that we can agree on. Also, views expressed in other topics provide additional insights in to how someone is thinking, thus helping clarify their overall position.

Whenever I see your edits in recent changes, all I see is "abortion guy". --^{Ask me about your mother} 11:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I add my voice to this. For all our animosity you have made me re-examine my beliefs and I know far more about why I believe what I believe than before we started going head to head. I would guess that you could say the same. Whilst we strongly disagree and some harsh words have been said it would be a shame to see you go. Bob Soles (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote "temporarily". It wasn't just my bizarre English, I meant it as a joke, "I will never come back, temporarily". (Ha, ha, I know). But I'm still not sure if I have any interest to actually contribute. --Earthland (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Contribution is not a requisite. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

And in some cases, it may be actively discouraged. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Lay off the personal attacks

Editors have welcomed you to stay & debate or contribute at the site, but coming back with a barrage of insults & accusations isn't cool. Please keep it civil. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But it is OK to call me a "retard", and describe me as "absolutely closed to reason" and so on, while I only point out that someone lied about me (and yes, I added some sentences that probably could be taken as insults). If so, I don't really care about who is welcoming me and who is not. --Earthland (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A Fan Of Real World

Oh man, I hate that show so much. Corry (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I hardly watch the television... I better change the wording. --Earthland (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

w

When I read '[x] I bite my nails.' I was biting my nails at that exact moment. -- =w= 19:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggested reading

You might find this interesting. Bob Soles (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not interesting, it isn't anything at all. I see they try to back off from any rational argument and try the "labelling", depicting the whole pro-life movement as "freedom-hating fascists". This issue is so unbelievably fictional. Just observe the facts: during the worst period of pro-life violence in American history (1993 and 1994, when five murders occured), there were over two thousand other people killed in work-related homicides in the USA - for example, seven school teachers, four clergymembers, ten lawyers, nine newspaper vendors, 22 waiters or waitresses, five architects, 21 janitors, 10 hairdressers and six farmers (according to statistics from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). When the Department of Justice or the FBI publish studies on workplace violence, the rate of violence at abortion clinics is so statistically insignificant that it doesn’t even make it into the final reports. But, of course, when an abortionist gets shot, it is the lead story on every national newscast in USA. Then, the abortion industry’s legion of media stooges will make sure the issue stays in front of the public for years. Every article about abortion will mention this shooting and every report on terrorism will include references to “domestic terrorists like those who target legal abortion clinics.”

If this article is anything at all, it may be funny. "...including two with catastrophic foetal abnormalities and a 15-year-old who was raped, all in the second trimester, all traumatised by the assassin who calls himself pro-life, a phrase he cannot utter without air quotes and contempt. "They hate freedom," he says."

Who said "appeal to emotion"? Here is what Wikipedia says about reasons for late-term abortions:

71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation

48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion

33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents

24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion

8% Woman waited for her relationship to change

8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion

6% Something changed after woman became pregnant

6% Woman didn't know timing is important

5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion

2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy

11% Other

And, if the unborn has the right to life, then why should they lose this right if pregnancy occurs as a result of rape or incest or if they are disabled (""catastrophic" foetal abnormalities")? The unborn child created through an act of violence is no less a living human being than the one created through an act of love (and less than 0,1% of all abortions are performed because of being raped). And people with disabilities are not less valuable than those without, and no one has the right to decide that their lives are not worth living or protecting – not even their mothers. One of the most incredible aspects of the abortion lobby’s approach to the disabled is that they try to sell it as compassionate. What is overlooked is that the “choice” they offer is not between a life with handicaps or one without, but between a life with handicaps or no life at all. Abortions on the disabled are done for us, not them. And even if they take this “better-dead-than-disabled” philosophy, why limit this compassion to the unborn?

The only circumstance in which it is permissible to intentionally kill the unborn is when mother's life is at risk. But do not forget that with modern medicine the chances that continuing a pregnancy to term might kill the mom are extraordinarily rare.

But, there is something good about this article - it's a good example of provocation, ignoring the real issues, labelling, in other words, drowning the opponent in half-truths, lies, straw men, and bullshit to such a degree that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised.

That being said, do you have any idea how does the "late-term abortion", for example the "partial birth abortion" ("a quick, surgical outpatient method for late second-trimester and early third-trimester abortions" according to its creator Martin Haskell) looks like? The abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps (guided by ultrasound), pulls out into the birth canal, and then delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head. (Which means the baby is almost born, and in most cases when intact dilation and extraction is performed, the chance to survive outside the womb is over 80%). A scissors is jammed into the base of the skull. A tube is inserted into the skull, and the brain is sucked out. The now-dead infant is pulled out.

Is it, now, an "appeal to emotion"? Probably, but it's still true.

--Earthland (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So much hatred. Dear oh dear oh dear, so much hatred. Bob Soles (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your "work-related homicide" comparisons fail. Those waitresses & janitors were not murdered for politically motivated reasons, & are not in any way similar to somebody whose chosen career puts him or her at constant risk of violence from angry self-righteous lunatics. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the top two reasons - forgetting that they add to more than 100% - we have

• 71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
• 48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion

So the number two reason for late abortions - nearly 50% - is down to the pro-life brigade making it hard for women to obtain them in the fist place. OK, so you'll say that there should be no abortions but here we see where the end effect of your position is currently to increase the number of late abortions. I don't think there are many who would disagree with the premise that late abortions are undisirable. Whether you are morally 'right' or not has been the subject of endless debate but what cannot be denied is that the end effect of your position is to increase human misery. Bob Soles (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just a wild assertion that women can't make arrangements for abortion because of "pro-life brigade". The depiction of clinic workers having to dodge a hail of automatic weapon fire just to get from their car to the clinic door is pure fiction.

Why should the late-term abortions be "undesirable", if you believe that they are done or should be done only in cases of clear risk to the life of the mother anyway? And, after all, you have stated that you are "no fan of abortions" (I honestly don't remember where, but you did), but why? Is it realization that abortion means "killing another human being"? Or not? If abortion is the intentional killing of a child there is no defense for it being legal, and if it is not the intentional killing of a child there is no need for it to be rare. If abortion is not the intentional killing of a child, why should its use – even in extremely high numbers – be a problem? And if it really is a (reproductive) right, not "a wrong", then you should be celebrating it. No one says free speech or freedom of religion should be rare. So why apply this irrational standard to abortion?

--Earthland (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, no middle ground? We must either ban things or celebrate them! Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

People already do that, by calling abortion a "right" and those who think it is immoral "anti-choice freedom haters". You can look up this "suggested reading" yourself also. --Earthland (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What's that got to do with what I said? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Socks

Holy footwear Bat Bob! Earthland has discovered our secret identity! Jack Hughes (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry Jack, he'll never find our hideout in the bat cave. Bob Soles (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

But what if he finds our other socks? Jack Hughes (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Other socks Jack? Do you mean we have other socks? Bob Soles (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely fine upstanding citizens like ourselves would never go under false names, would they Mr R Soles. Jack Hughes (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No, we'd never stoop so low as that, that would almost be... dishonest! Bob Soles (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So lets make sure he never finds out about our South American friend. Jack Hughes (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Mums the word Bob, Ooops, I forgot, I'm Bob. Do you think he'll have noticed that little slip? Bob Soles (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, he's too busy being self righteous. I'm so glad I've got him to show me where my morality fails me. Jack Hughes (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's right, Jack, we're murdering scum doomed for eternity for destroying all those little babies. Bob Soles (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sob, now I've seen the light, now that I've seen the pictures he stole made fair use of, the pictures of what really goes on in an abortion. Jack Hughes (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, without him I would never have known. Oh how my heart bleeds for all the wrong I've done. Bob Soles (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, there's no point crying over spilt foetuses, er... milk. I'm off down the pub. You coming. Jack Hughes (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Might as well. Lets see if there are any babies we can murder on the way. Bob Soles (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Earthland will let us off because we're so ignorant we don't know what we're doing. 22:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's right, Bagsie the head, there's something special about warm brains. Bob Soles (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)