User talk:TK

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>

• Archive #1
• Archive #2
• Archive #3
• Archive #4
• Archive #5
• Archive #6
• Archive #7
• User_talk:TK/vandalism

---

Conservapedia Discussion Group - Visit this group!

---

Troll me if you so choose....

Seeing as how I no longer care one iota about Conservapedia, I will most likely be apathetic to not caring at all, if anything. Especially since I am one of the only people here that doesn't go completely apeshit when you show up. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 07:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I have no idea what caused you to post here. I said I wasn't looking for a big wooo, your comment just struck me funny, is really all there was. If you want a longer discourse, my AIM and Google Talk are pretty well known to lots of regular editors here. Again, peace! --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 08:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty. As you said, peace! AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 08:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Goonie, watch out. TK has a well known wide stance. ħuman 08:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Drunk again, Huw? Why not turn in and save me from hurling this close to bedtime. Talk about trolling! --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 08:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to hurl, you congenital liar. ħuman 09:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Huw, you and I never converse, never have, you never get anything that is first-hand from me, so you wouldn't know a lie if it shit on your bed. You are just another intolerant liberal, so be proud of that, and quit throwing your insults around, Mr. Bully. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 09:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

OMG I almost blocked you for being a moron. But I didn't. ħuman 09:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Should have. Really. Šţěŗĭļė milk 01:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Protip

If you are unhappy with this website, click here it will solve all your problems. - π 08:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Typical thuggish resolution for here, yet you continue to do the pot/kettle bit. If you don't like what I say, why do you keep posting here? BTW, I really do enjoy the typical knee-jerk posts here whenever I say anything, or someone here asks a question. I couldn't make up the vile intolerance and just plain meanness most here demonstrate, so it makes it easier for me to show outsiders what this place is mostly about. Cheers! --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 09:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That would only work if you were able to keep your calm - but no, you shit on the bed larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty unfair, LArron when you don't make the same comment about Huw's insult, or Pi's. Why do I need to keep calm? More special rules that apply to me and not the other hot-heads here? FYI, I am calm, and anyone outside the Kool-Aid drinkers can see, plainly and clearly, I have said nothing in response that wasn't in the same spirit already previously posted to me. Another liberal intolerance, like I said. I have never invited any user here to come to this page in response to my posts elsewhere on this wiki. If there aren't rules just for me, perhaps I should take the insults proffered here to other pages, other talk pages, so this can really become another HCM. But that's really want you want, isn't it? Bored that much? If you so totally disagree with everything I say, why keep responding? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 09:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone notice that the evil monster is still free to edit here? Whodathunkit?! ħuman 09:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This time, you mean. My history here has been one of constant blocks, so often and so frequently, that it is nearly impossible to respond. What's left in the block log for me, which hasn't been expunged, I wouldn't know, since users not sysops are kept from seeing all sorts of things here, given you have so much to hide. The last time I was around, the log said someone blocked me infinitely, and since no one emailed to inform me it was removed, why would I think otherwise? Do you really deny Huw that I have traditionally been the subject of harassment blocks here of a different type and length than users you agree with? How is that not intolerance? Thanks by making my point, as usual, with your mean-spirited (liberal mode) comments. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 09:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to keep calm - you may cry insults the whole day long, it doesn't bother me. But this isn't helping when you want to show the vile intolerance and just plain meanness most here demonstrate.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong again. The victim of the insults of members here, responding in kind after trying to dialog, cannot be turned into my being the attacker, LArron. Not in a rational thinking mind that is. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 10:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What's left in the block log for me, which hasn't been expunged, I wouldn't know, since users not sysops are kept from seeing all sorts of things here, given you have so much to hide. If the block-logs could be messed with, wouldn't you have done so at CP? No, logs are sacrosanct - not because you wish them to be so, but because that's the way of wikimedia. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been told directly by others here, and have seen it happen, that those with database access can manipulate the logs. Just because you have been told they cannot be changed, or you want to believe they aren't, isn't some kind of proof. Why else would RW make everyone except those they agree with, or never logon an admin then? Do you deny you can see hidden edits while I cannot? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 10:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And, ironically, you dumb fuck Terry, I sysoped you against all arguments by others a couple times a while back. Check the logs, you stupid shit. Just because you utterly warp the records over at CP doesn't mean we do that here. ħuman 10:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And how quickly was my being a sysop removed by others, and how utterly without knowledge was I about how this place works, or where to find stuff was I? Your own edit comment said as much, that since things were so well hidden here I was of no threat....an insult for something you now try to put forth as some exhibit of your fairness, Huw? Most non-members here, and not at CP believe it was all contrived just for "entertainment". --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 10:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your paranoia and projection are amusement enough. I sysoped you in good faith, moron. Sadly, it seems there are several hundred people here who hate your guts, so it didn't fly. Get it, Terry? People have a deep and abiding hatred of you. Yeah, they don't like you. I wonder why? ħuman 10:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Mainly because of the lies you and others perpetuate, Huw. In good faith, really? Odd you never contacted me about it. And don't say you never ask anyone else before making them a sysop, because I have never, not once, ever been treated like anyone else, because you and other haters like to keep the focus on me. Other CP Sysops were demoted to sysop, still are. Why? Because they never logon. Save the hysterical histrionics about your good faith, Huw. Several hundred? Really? I count about a dozen haters who instigated the whole bit. Time for sleep now, thanks for providing more instances of intolerance. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 10:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Goodnight. - π 10:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sleepwalking much? At least, you are editing at Conservapedia at this moment... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you make such inquiries to other members here, or am I just being singled out again? I am not allowed to change my mind, or did you and others just engage in childish baiting just to get a reaction? I am fairly certain that couldn't be the case with such self-proclaimed rational people and fair-minded liberals! --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 11:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I work it out (as in I looked it up) as 4:53am in California. Get some sleep, dude. - π 11:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Not much of an inquiry - I just happened to look at cp:Special:RecentChanges. Are you singled out? I don't know - has anyone else declared that it is time for sleep now? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, do you single out other users to distort what they say, is this another example of "liberal tolerance"? And actually what I said it was time for sleep now, but I fail to see where I said it was time for me to sleep, or anyone specifically. I hope you are more precise with math! --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 12:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we need night mode on RW. Bondurant (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

We have people from all over the world editing here, it would be inconvenient for me at the least. Just because some people can't regulate their nap times so they are not cranky when the do the wiking is no reason to punish the rest of us. - π 12:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, Π, I forgot to use the </snark> tag. Bondurant (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"I have never, not once, ever been treated like anyone else". And yet, you never stop to ask yourself why, just whine about being hated. Nobody hates for the sake of hating. face it, sweetheart, it's not us... it's you. --PsygremlinПоговорите! 11:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I learned early on how racist white liberals really are.

Could you please share some of your experiences that lead you to 'learn' that? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Slapped by Andy!

Oh no! How embarrassing is it when the great and glorious Schlafly deletes a brand new story you added^img rather than patting you on the head? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

In Tk's defense (Did I really just type that?) Andy didn't delete it, he just moved it lower down the ranks. You see, that was a positive story about the Democrats, even if CP tried to spin in their way. Andy would much rather have his wet dream that the Democrats will fail tomorrow (which is a possibility) rather than announce that they, you know, accepted a critique and changed their plans. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 00:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I made a mistake. Still, the basic point applies: the master didn't think much of the apprentice's story. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The "basic point" applies only if one has the mentality of a fifteen-year-old, and thinks keeping track of such minutia applies to "getting points" or "keeping score". Do you honestly believe (as opposed to just trolling my talk page for self-congratulation and your audience here) that real adults give any thought to such BS? Really? And do you really think the Democrat leadership was happy about abandoning their clever plan? Think again. It was the 80% opposed to such tactics by likely voters, liberal and conservative, that changed their minds. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 00:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do. That's why many of your peers post "Can I have a gold star!" requests on your master's talk page. On the other point, the Democrat leadership weren't "defeated" on "Deem and Pass" - they decided not to bother with it because they believe they have the votes. More lies from TK. Even Faux news doesn't claim it as a defeat! As least keep your lies plausible. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You're only here to cause trouble because you've run out of people to harass and block on CP, so don't start crying when people here call you out for what you are: a liar and a parodist. Oh - and notice that when I make a mistake, I admit it. I don't oversight it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that the only people saying I am here to cause trouble are intolerant assholes, SR, who simply need a bogeyman to hate one. I can only see civil discussion with a few who are actually interested in intellectual discussion wherever I have been on this wiki, except for the kiddie-like trolls posting nasty insults on my own talk page. As for your admitting mistakes, is that in the hidden comments only Sysops here can see? The rest of us cannot see all those hidden comments, remember? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 04:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your choice of BG color for your talk page is perfect. And quit calling everyone you disagree with a teenager or "kiddie". What "hidden comments"? This wiki is not run like the voices in your head run CP. ħuman 05:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

~Yawn~ That repeated party line isn't fooling anyone, Huw. And was that some Admin order about my own personal opinion that hate and trolling garbage comes from kids? Have I violated some rule here saying that? Please forgive me if I have. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 05:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well if this is to be believed you were banned for five years, less than five years ago. So I would guess you violated a rule by posting at all. - π 06:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

All I meant was that the poop color was a good choice. The rest of your comment is unintelligible, like most of your posts. ħuman 06:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I also extend to you an invitation to not post here again, because it seems to be a waste of your talent and efforts, Huw, and I don't wish to put you out. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 06:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's no problem to edit the poop-colored page. please continue to amuse us with your illiteracy and confusion about how various wikis work. Oh, and how our "brain" works. You are lots of fun. ħuman 06:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Despicable comes to mind in thinking of you. You most likely torture small animals too. Too bad with your kind of work your clients wouldn't mind your or expect different than you being here. Oh well. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 06:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm rubber and you are glue.... hehe, you are such a moron. I "torture small animals"? Like you? ħuman 07:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

DMorris

TK, don't be fooled by DMorris. His only allegiance is to himself. Keegscee (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The part where I try to be civil to someone reviled here

So, is it true that you sat in on a Slayer recording session? The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 07:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Taxes, Taxes and more Taxes

Regarding the start of this edit to CP main page talk. The difference is representation. The Tea tax was levied without colonial representation. They had no say in matter. The Health Care bill was passed by the Senate, who are elected by the people (except for a few appointments), passed by the House, who are also elected by the people and signed into law by the President, who is, get this, elected by the people. There are three seperate levels of representation. Just because your side lost does not make it tyranny. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 18:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as "my side" losing, Chuck. I see it as a loss for the American people in the long run, and especially those under-served with health care. Medicaid is so absolutely crappy now that Washington's response is to give the poor more of it, and they exempted themselves and their staff from it too because they know its shitty! Tell me what has changed in a few hundred years from when they gave an entire race 40 acres and a mule as "compensation" for enslavement? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 20:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference, in principle, between providing healthcare (a la British NHS) and providing things like military defence? Are they both as "socialist" as each other? Or is there something very different, ideologically, between the two? I ask simply because I wish to know. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I take it you are talking about military service, serving in the armed forces, and national health? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 20:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? State healthcare helps people, but military spending is ideally for harming them. We're talking about TK here. Word bastard Hoover! 20:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean just the provision of the service. The state provides its citizens with defence. The state provides its citizens with healthcare. Why object to one and not the other? Not being provocative, just interested. (As an aside, historically they are quite different. It was about power. Perhaps it still is.) Ajkgordon (talk)

You avoided the question TK. I am not debating the health bill itself, I am solely talking about you comparing it to the tea tax. The tea tax was levied to pay for a war we didn't care about, by a government that gave us no say. The Health care bill had plenty of representation, one side just came out the loser of the battle. By my calulations, there were over 500 individual representatives that voted in the matter. By the way, you do know that we never got that 40 acres right? Or the mule. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 22:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Email conversation. I have only posted my last email to you, TK, as I thought it was an interesting discussion. I have tried not to misrepresent anything you said.

Thanks.

I understand the constitution bit and the value that Americans generally attach to their founding principles, even when they are open to a lot of interpretation. As an older “evolved” state, we in the UK don’t have that benefit, although many other countries in Europe, such as France, Ireland and Germany, do.

I also understand your comment (some might say wishful thinking) about private enterprise providing services cheaper and more efficiently – that should in principle be the true as the state can be extraordinarily wasteful and unproductive. However, it seems in the case of healthcare, the US pays, by most measures, a hell of a lot more than other industrialised countries for little or no benefit - the current system doesn’t cover all its citizens and even more are “underinsured”, while US figures for fundamentals like infant mortality and life expectancy are some of the worst in the western world.

Now this isn’t intended to be a list of why the US is shit and Europe is the best. That’s not what I think. I’m not, like many of my fellow Brits, a flag-waving European anyway.

But the health issue remains a puzzle to me. The most advanced, wealthiest and sophisticated country in the world can’t or won’t provide its citizens with what many consider a basic right. And yet it provides its citizens with the most powerful and expensive defence – which, incidentally, is not provided by a consortium of private enterprises.

That is what I don’t understand. That the principle of getting private enterprise to provide a lot of universal services seems only to apply to some services, like healthcare. Which has been shown to actually be very inefficient compared to many examples of state provided healthcare in other countries.

(Oh, and there are plenty of kings, queens, potentates and the wealthy and powerful who get their life-saving treatment in Europe too. I don’t think the US has any great claim in that dubious honour.)

The merits or otherwise of Obamacare are irrelevant to me because I haven’t really studied them. It seems that a bad situation might have just been replaced with another one.

My tentative conclusion is that the objection to state provided healthcare is more an ideological one than a practical one. And when mixed in with rhetoric that contains any words beginning with “social-“, it can because a very powerful and polarising subject.

You probably disagree, but hey ho.

Ajkgordon (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

As an additional point, which I should have mentioned in the email... I do recognise that infant mortality rates and life expectancy aren't necessarily good indicators of quality of healthcare - there are plenty of other factors that affect those. That's just a tip of all the evidence suggesting that US healthcare isn't, in many ways, particularly good compared to other western countries, yet is significantly more expensive. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Another fantasy email to me, eh? Odd I never received anything from you, nor can I at all understand why you want to publicly present emails, unless you have some psychological need for aggrandizement. Is there someplace I can look and see other emails you purportedly send to other people, or is this only something agreed to between you and unknown others that only pertains to me? It seems the U.K. if you do in fact live there and are a citizen, isn't too highly evolved if people there think it is proper to post emails supposedly sent to me publicly. Since I do not have anything from you, I suppose this is merely a work of fiction, so your property to do with as you wish. I do recommend if you wish to have a honest and true discussion with someone you don't publicly post anything, to or from, whoever you engage. What's next? You posting emails supposedly sent by me threatening the Queen or offering to sell my CP account? Don't bother, it has already been tried.

Jesus, is there any way you can have a debate with anyone without turning it into a stroppy argument? The above is exactly as I sent it to you at 10:10 GMT, copied here (typos and all) because I thought it was an interesting discussion for others here. If they don't think so, then fine. I haven't posted anything of yours.

Stop being a dick, TK, and try to be civil. Your rant is remarkably childish and rude. If you think that me posting a copy of my email to you is somehow wrong, then I can't see how, but I'm sorry that you're so offended.

You don't, of course, have to respond to my post above but it is a genuine attempt at a public discussion with one of the few CPers who engage here.

Take a deep breath and reconsider that not everyone is always looking for a fight, even if it looks like you are. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Vatican/the Catholics on front page of CP...

So, is there any chance that as a CP sysop you can get a front page story about the Catholic Church that has less to do with holy relics and more to do with the systematic way that the Church protects people who fuck little boys? Thanks. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree, TOP. I think it has been covered before, but I am not here as CP's official spokesperson. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 02:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your email

• stating that you can post the {{troll}} thingy wasn't paternalistic. I'm only afraid that anyone who reads it applies it to you.
• I tend to overestimate your wiki-skills, as you are the sysop of wiki to which you have contributed extensively: this diff shows that - in the process of reverting of Hoover's edit, you undid Ajkgordon's edit, too.
• So, my subtle, Wikipedia like, edit notes indicated that you did something wrong as you did something wrong
• block Hoover for fairness? Sure, why not...
• Nx was concerned with the citizens ⇒ citizen's thing. I suppose he couldn't care less about the {{troll}} template.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Just see the template history for your answer, LArron. Your reasonableness is shown in insisting on your way, or no way. So nothing personal, just a disagreement. --TK

_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 06:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose he [Nx] couldn't care less about insertion, reinsertion, and deletion of the {{troll}} template on your talk page.

PS:As anyone, I'm pretty convinced of my own way. But I try to keep an open mind --larron^{sicut fur in nocte}

Well yes, that's why he edited the template as he did so it would not show up only on my page....caring less about what I do. As for your open mind, posting responses to private emails only makes you look belligerent and close minded, but that's just my own personal opinion. Good luck to you. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 07:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, the lurkers agree with you in pmail, too? Really? ħuman 07:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I stand corrected: Nx cares about the appearance of this template on your talk-page... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, like all little tyrants, he/she/it cares, fer sure. And Huw, I passed on a compliment earlier through a mutual friend; consider it snatched back, lol. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 08:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Projection much? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Gutter snipe much? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 10:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Projection much? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

While we're on the subject

Since we're already discussing email. I would like to ask that, in the future, if you wish to contact me, please do so via my talk page. I do like to have email conversations unless discussing personal or sensative information. I thank you for your kind comments, but I think that any Rationalwiki discussion should be done on Rationalwiki. SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 08:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought the discussion was about Healthcare, not about Rationalwiki or CP? So why this post? If you don't want discussion, don't come here asking questions. You could have posted your question on the page the topic was being discussed. Thanks. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 09:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny thing about that TK, I've been permabanned from CP, so I can't exactly go over and ask a question. Besides, we all know that CP does NOT tolerate dissent and I would be quickly thrown out politely removed within a week. On top of that, the permabanning of the SirChuckB username means I would have to create a sock and that's not exactly starting out on good terms. I am willing to discuss thing civilly, but I will do it in the open. Much like NX says below, every email I get from now on will be posted. Just giving fair warning. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 01:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The really funny thing, Chuck is that we were discussing it Forum: Taxing_addictions on RW as well. And why do you and others always fall back on that email "threat" thing? Do you really think I say anything differently in emails than here? If so you are being a fool or played. At the risk of repeating myself, publishing private emails only makes the receipent look like a jerk, not the sender. And haven't you posted before, like many others that you have already created socks there? And weren't you blocked from CP for violating the rules there, no matter if you agreed with those rules or not? So why do you continually bring up matters years in the past? Could it be because you can't move on? Could it be you never apologized for breaking those rules and asked for another chance? And did anyone curse you on CP, investigate your work, where you live, your income or say nasty things about your family, like is done here? Just saying...

And finally, no one oversights questions a week later. And yes, we don't much tolerate users who are not conservatives and seek to change our conservative and Christian point of view. We don't have that right? We aren't allowed to present our POV without constant argument and disruption? Have you ever looked at screen shots of Rationalwiki 1.0 and the constant plans of vandalism plans being made against CP? No? I wonder why all those threads had to vanish when moving to another website, or moving here? So stop being a kettle calling the pot black.....its very disingenuous of you, and you are far better than that. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 03:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You know what I love about you TK? You can talk and talk and never even come close to answering the point as advanced. You debate subjects that haven't been introduced, you play the victim, you cast blanket allegations on an entire site and then you pretend that your arguments actually have substance. However, let me answer as many of your points as I can.

• First, this has nothing to do with taxing additions or the debate at the forum. This discussion was started because you claimed, on CP, that this was exactly like the actions of the British crown that led to the American Revolution and asked what the difference was. Not being able to debate on CP, I answered you here (more on the CP thing later). That is why I started the thread on this page.
• Next, there is no email "threat." My personal preference is that, if you have anything to say, say it right here on the Wiki. There is no reason for anyone to have resort to private email conversations. If you fear that something you say "will be used against you" then don't spend time here, easy as that. I do not like email conversations and I see no reason for them. I was merely answering that, if you choose to continue sending me emails, I will post them here for all to see. I think the person who continues to harass another with emails after being asked not to is the one who looks like a jerk. If the threat of public posting is the only way to get that person to stop, so be it.
• I don't deny that I created socks on CP, just like you have created socks here (NightTrain anybody?) However, I ceased this action when I realized that it wasn't funny, or subversive, it was just a waste of my time. So I do not engage in any sock activity at CP. As for my socks being blocked "because they broke the rules," Check the SirChuckB username. It was created and blocked within a few minutes. Hard to break any rules when you can't even make a first post. While we're here, I would also like to point that I am over it. I mentioned CP because you asked me why I started a new thread on your page. By the way, to claim that CP doesn't oversight things is just plain wrong and you know it. You and JPatt abuse Oversight constantly. I know you claim that we're forging those screenshots, but we're not. We see them and we know what is going on (no pun intended).
• I'm sorry if someone here investigated your family and all that jazz, but you know what? I didn't do it, nor was I aware of it happening. In fact, from the start of my time here, I have always been very against the outing of personal information, and I have used my powers here to erase this information when it comes up. Also, regarding RW 1.0, I WAS NOT INVOLVED. Check my history. I came upon RW after it was updated and had nothing to do with it, nor would I have supported it. If you haven't noticed, RW has changed quite a bit in just the time I have been here. We are no longer as CP-centric as we once were and I doubt anyone is creating elaborate plans to destroy CP.... Or if they are, they haven't told me.

In closing, TK, as I have said many times, I am happy to speak with you in a civil manner here. But I will not continue private email conversations. If that means the end of our little chats, oh well. However, I will not see you as a victim, no matter how many times you repeat your mantras, and I have no reason to accept your accusations without some solid proof. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 03:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"screen shots of Rationalwiki 1.0 and the constant plans of vandalism plans being made against CP?" - TK. Would it be redundant to point out that what he says is not true? ħuman 03:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

PS, here's a glimpse into RW 1.0. ħuman 03:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I have the screen shots, as do dozens of others, Huw. You can repeat that lie over and over, but it doesn't make the truth go away. Fine if you all have changed your ways, I applaud it. But don't post here what dozens have seen isn't true. Did you perhaps have another name at RW 1? How many times are you going to keep repeating the same bull? And I emailed you out of courtesy, because the trolls like Huw kept interjecting, Chuck. Please excuse my thinking that was the polite thing to do, and I don't see how you can prostitute your integrity and add harassment as a term to describe that polite answer to your question. Are you that big of a scum, really? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 03:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't we have an article on psychological projection? Your response in unworthy of comment, but is a nice diff to show what sewage runs through your mind. ħuman 04:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

TK, if you have these screen shops, prove it. Set up a Photobucket account, load them and show us all. I have no problem admitting that my friends were misguided if that is the case, but as of right now, all we have is TK shouting "I have here a list..." I knew nothing of Rationalwiki or Conservapedia until the Lewis Black Daily Show segment that first aired in 2007 or so. So in answer of what I think is your question, no I did not have an account under a different name. I did not say you engaged in harassment. In fact, I think exactly the opposite. You have been nothing but polite in emails and (mostly) polite when speaking to me here on wiki. However, if you continue to send private emails after being asked not to (which I just did last night and, up to this moment you have not) then it becomes harassment. ^{— Unsigned, by: SirChuckB / talk / contribs}

So I haven't harassed you at all, ever, but just in case I do harass you, you just wanted to keep throwing out the word harassment, and saying the word harassment over and over linked to my name, just for the search engines Ken Chuck? Those old screen shots were put up before, and some here still continue to deny it. It's old business now, and the only reason I brought it up at all was because you stated as fact what I over-sighted. If your name was insta-blocked, and didn't share the same IP as other previous socks, perhaps it was because you were a sysop here. Even if you don't agree with what many here do, we are all judged by the company we keep. That isn't special for here or CP, its everywhere. Sorry if I spoke too harsh, Sir Chuck. I'm old school....I don't agree that a question from you or anyone has to always be conducted in front of the eyes of those who do vandalize and disrupt. We just have a honest disagreement on that. But I don't think it right to always be demanded to answer for CP here. Hope you can understand. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 08:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"Those old screen shots were put up before" where? That site you made with about 10 pointless ones? ħuman 08:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That text is a great example of what I was talking about. First off, because this is the most important. I do not, nor have I ever expected you to answer for CP. What Andy or Karajou or Ed says is what they say. I started a thread to answer what YOU said. You compared healthcare to the tea tax and I answered your question. Do you really think I am trying to SEO the phrase TK and harrassment? Honestly? You think I don't have enough to do in my life without taking on a KEn-like mission that nobody gives a damn about? I mean really? How many people do you think are search TK and harrassment. We already have a great page on you and your actions IIRC. Lets get this harrassment bit straight. Stop throwing around accusations and re-read my post, very slowly if you need to. You said "publishing private emails only makes the receipent look like a jerk, not the sender." I responded "I think the person who continues to harass another with emails after being asked not to is the one who looks like a jerk. If the threat of public posting is the only way to get that person to stop, so be it." Following me so far? Good. Then you said "I don't see how you can prostitute your integrity and add harassment as a term to describe that polite answer to your question. Are you that big of a scum, really?" Assuming that there was a legitimate misunderstanding, I came back and said "I did not say you engaged in harassment. In fact, I think exactly the opposite. You have been nothing but polite in emails and (mostly) polite when speaking to me here on wiki. However, if you continue to send private emails after being asked not to (which I just did last night and, up to this moment you have not) then it becomes harassment." Did you get all that?" If you want to have discussion, I'm happy to do it. But I will not waste my time if all you're going to complain about how we're making you a victim and accuse me of engaging in some Rube Goldberg style SEO conspiracy. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 22:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Chuck, if you didn't ever think or believe I engaged in harassment, my simple, unanswered question was, why did you even bring it up? it is almost as if you and others received a warning, via email or private forum, saying not to engage in private emails with TK. Did you? While I don't mind dialoging with you, you should remember that I am not here to answer for things I do elsewhere, on wiki. Are you? In spite of the trolling of some, who post on this page only for self-aggrandizement before the mob, I enjoy thinking, polite individuals asking questions, and I have learned lots from those people here, even had my mind changed a few times as well. But over the years several of us (by that I mean myself and a few RW members) have learned its easier to converse by IM or email rather than be subject to the slings and arrows of what amounts to professional trollers, because they have no real interest in polite conversation, and merely seek to provoke and disrupt. My opinion is if two or more people wish to exchange ideas or opinions, what real business is it of CP, RW or any form of group or association? This is especially true if the mission of some at any of those places, but specifically on my talk page here, is to stifle dialog and the exchange of opinion by constantly repeating vile personal insults, or calling me to task for things that are obviously none of their business. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 22:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I found something in my spam folder

TK, you're the master wikilawyer, so tell me, did you or did you not edit someone else's comment, which is against the rules. "Obey the rules here idiot"

You can keep spamming the troll template all you want, but you can't hide behind it, and it's getting annoying. Go ahead and whine all you want about your human rights being violated, noone cares. And no, the WP admins won't care either. [1]

Oh and, next time you send me an email instead of using my talk page, I will publish it fully on this wiki. You have been warned. -- Nx / talk 09:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

So I was right. It's "it". I didn't remove anyone's comment intentionally, especially someone who was being civil which you cannot. If Hoover hadn't trolled here and removed the template he rightly earned, there wouldn't have been a need to revert at all, would there have? People do care about the activities of WP editors elsewhere, especially when you present yourself totally different there, as opposed to here or anywhere else. If you don't understand that that you are very misinformed. You should ask around. On a wiki you have the sole choice of enabling emails from other users, or not. If you don't want emails from me, or anyone else, disable it. And of course you always have a choice to just delete emails from people you don't want to hear from. If you happen to have any maturity at all, please respect my wish you never post on or edit my talk page again. It seems to unbalance you. As your fellow Admin said on the template talk page "Please to not make morons out of yourselves." --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 09:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, calling me a moron and an idiot is civil. Right. -- Nx / talk 10:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A history of this place clearly shows who starts the trolling and insults, Nx. Your mature editing, and removal of that template, not even created by you, yet used against anyone some disagree with, clearly shows what you are. There were a couple of mature and civil conservations going here until trolls like you and Hoover showed up. Oh wait. That is why you guys showed up! Got it. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 10:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

I suppose the defence will be "plausible deny-ability" or "I didn't do it" but why on earth go to all the trouble to change a ".com" to a ".co.za" in the thousand pages you just leaked, but then go and leave your Google account details on top? I can understand your misogynistic tendencies, but that was just sloppy. If you were going to edit 1000 pages, you could have done a better cover up. Why not just open the group again, like you did last time? --IndependantObserver (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You should ask the owner of the blog who "leaked" them, Totnesmartin Independant. I note he/she/it were very careful with their language as they never actually said it was I who gave that silly stuff to them. He merely said I wasn't worth protecting. Sounds like careful lawyer talk to me. But if he's feeling really foolish I invite him to specifically state it was me, by name. Then of course destroy his hard drive. They might want to check with Nutty on legal matters. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 12:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

And yet I haven't seen you state categorically that it wasn't you. After all, it wouldn't be the first time, would it? What did Andy do to piss you off this time? --IndependantObserver (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Human rights

Why do you keep bleating about having your human rights violated on a site that, according to you, isn't populated by humans? I quote "RatWikian's are not human, IMO." So, now that we know your feelings towards us, remind me again why we should be civil towards you? --PsyGremlinPrata! 11:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Gosh you once said most of the users here were idiots and degenerates. You never saw me publicly posting what you said! Then of course you most likely have taken that out of context in your best junior reporter manner. I also never told anyone that your were outing many of the socks of other users on CP. I guess some of us just take a higher road, Psy, and leave the past in the past. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 12:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? I said that?? Care to provide the proof, liar. What's that anyway - another pathetic attempt to detract from your guilt?

Oh yes... leave the past in the past. You really are deranged aren't you? I eagerly await your "proof"... I guess it'll take you a while to type the "e-mails". --PsyGremlin話しなさい 12:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)