User talk:Women are my superior and I respect them as such

LUSER:FALLDOWN IS A MISOGYNIST AND A HATE MERCHANT. IN NO WAY DOES RATIONALWIKI CONDONE SUCH HATE. PLEASE VIEW THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS (INCLUDING THEIR LUSER PAGE) WITH THIS IN MIND. ħuman 23:19, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, Women are my superior and I respect them as such. This observation is due to the nature of your initial edits. Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble. We realize it is possible that you do not understand the nature of the site or our objectives. Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards to clarify things for you. If you're still interested in contributing, please see what our articles are intended to be.

Hi there Fall down, welcome to the extreme tooth of the Internet. - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results use daily} 01:23, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

I am taking back my welcome. If you have a problem with the site you may discuss it in a hour when your block is over. You are also in the vandal bin until you can behave. - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results use daily} 01:33, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

It does stager me that you complain about being blocked when your first action is to blank the main page. The comparison to CP is completely uncalled for. You may continue to edit and if you can do it in a non-destructive manner I will release the vandal break. I have better things to do then follow you around cleaning up your little messes because you have a chip on your shoulder about something you have not discussed in anyway. - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results use daily} 22:31, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, we women do control the world. And it was about damn time. Men have controlled the world for millennia, so now we are getting our own millennia of rule. (Note, this comment is not serious) InaVegt 08:30, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Since when have feminists been not serious? Fall down

Fall Down: You are an asshole, a moron, and an embarrassment to all your fellow penis-equipped human beings. That is all. PFoster 16:19, 7 November 2008 (EST)

A fine example of tolerance. Fall down

Hate speech is not tolerated by people with an IQ over 80, Fall Down, Fall Down. InaVegt 08:59, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Fall of the House of Usher.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 09:05, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Bad site link

Guys, he's an idiot, but you can't just undo it when he deletes people's talk comments from this page. It's his talk page, he should be able to do whatever he wants with it even if he's not a member of the cool crowd.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 09:23, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Wrong, on RationalWiki talk pages, ALL talk pages, are community property and may not be deleted unless archived.

TOAST

^{and butter} 09:29, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Wow, you're right, as I see when I check the community standards. Huh. Well, I'm not happy about that, but I guess it's the rule. Carry on :) --Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 09:36, 8 November 2008 (EST)

You've only to look at what eg Conservative does on cp to see one reason.

TOAST

^{and butter} 09:40, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Surely there's a rickroll exemption? Or a vandalism exception in general? DickTurpis 09:51, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Also, the Ken comparison isn't valid. Ken reverts and deletes; Fall Down doesn't have that ability. DickTurpis 09:53, 8 November 2008 (EST)

No - but it's A reason. -> Dick, common sense should prevail. :)

TOAST

^{and butter} 09:56, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Common sense dictates that if someone posts am obnoxious link on your talk page, you can remove it. As someone who clicked that link and had a hell of time trying to get it to go away, I have to say it's pretty obnoxious. So is this guy, sure, but let's not be assholes too. DickTurpis 10:03, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Guys, it really doesn't matter that much. I assume, from his desire to delete it, that Fall Down has already been RicRolled, which was the intention. Reinstating it repeatedly will just result in more people getting RicRolled out of curiosity. So if he wants to delete it again, let him. Yes it is a mildly obnoxious link, but there are much worse. weaseLOId~ 10:25, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Actually, the rick roll didn't work for me, it just crashed. Fall down

Exactly, there are worse sites, and presumably this "you can't remove anything from your talk page without archiving it" rule we seem to adhere to so stringently would apply to those as well. Far from this dickhead acting like the assholes at CP, it is us this time, applying one set of rules to those we don't like and another to the rest of us. Believe me, if someone made an similar annoying post on my talk page, I would delete it, and not allow it to be readded. DickTurpis 10:33, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Fair enough, if poster & postee agree.

TOAST

^{and butter} 10:42, 8 November 2008 (EST)

I think we permit deletion of obnoxious comments or links but whole pages with a multi-editor thread need to be archived.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 11:31, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Perhaps with regard to this particular link it should have been replaced with: "A link to x site existed here, but it was removed because y". With regard to rules being applied differently - as far as I am aware the "Don't remove talk page stuff" rule is applied to everybody. If not, then it obviously should be. Equally we should remember that our RationalWiki:Community Standards page where the rules are defined states: These are not site rules but rather a list of standards we as a community want to live up to, which gives a little bit of latitude in certain situations.--Bob^{bing up} 12:03, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Jeez, one can always leave a comment next in line - or before the toxic link - saying what it is... ħuman 19:43, 8 November 2008 (EST)

I did that (a superscripted WARNING RICKROLL) but was overruled by other editors - so it goes.

TOAST

^{and butter} 19:54, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Sharks.

Nice try on the funny. But not quite. PFoster 16:50, 8 November 2008 (EST)

I believe shars are fish. Fall down 19:09, 8 November 2008 (EST)

A shark is a fish, a shar(-pei) is a dog!

TOAST

^{and butter} 19:31, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Fish are vertebrates... ħuman 19:44, 8 November 2008 (EST)

'sup, my pleasant-spoken friend.

Are you going to finish this? If my essay's so unreasonable, surely it should be easy to rebut?

Being bothered is a second key factor to rebuttal. Frankly, I'm not sure I can be bothered to rebut the workings of a troll so lame his idea of a website invasion is one (1) guy writing a mildly offensive essay that doesn't inspire rage so much as mild annoyance, and who receives a grand total of none (0) for his call for a crusade to 'take down this place'. So yeah, nice try; one can only fault, well, everything else. You can expect some sort of further comment, well, in time.

Oh, and why don't you unfuck your user page; I can't, for example, get to your talk from it.

lol internets

--מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

"I'm banned from Wikipedia because of a conspiracy of female admins."

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read. And I read Conservapedia. Please, go get a life. Better yet, get a clue first, before trying to impose your lame self on "life". I hope your mother does not know how much of an asshole you are. ħuman 01:01, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Actually I thought it was quite funny. Am I seeing Poe's Law in too many places? --Bob^{bing up} 03:15, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Please give links. We can't assess this unless we know how and why you were banned, assuming you were banned. Proxima Centauri 04:26, 23 November 2008 (EST)

It is okay...

...just because some woman turned you down you don't have to be a wanker forever. If you had a nicer attitude to women it would help. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 23:09, 23 November 2008 (EST)

...also, don't worry too much about your *ahem*, "size" issues. She was laughing WITH you. Really. PFoster 23:10, 23 November 2008 (EST)

...and if a girl says you're smelly... not saying anything, but showers don't actually hurt unless the water's too hot. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 23:45, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Hi there!

You found any friends yet? - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 22:05, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Why don't you make useful edits like that more often? - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 03:24, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Where did I change your words, all I did was break the link. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 22:41, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Power and evil

If all power is evil, then evil is omnipotent and we who are virtuous are powerless before it. At which point you might as well just give and go away. Researcher 10:51, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Though for the record, I don't consider you at all virtuous. Just saying. Researcher 10:52, 5 December 2008 (EST)

That's right, we might as well all kill ourselves; makes as much sense as anything. More seriously, no human agency is omnipotent. And we can never abolish evil (or power). Fall down

For a guy who thinks power is evil, why would he support paedophelia, which is exertion of power over the powerless, namely children? Seems pretty clear-cut. --Kels 10:56, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Since I don't support paedophilia - that's just PFoster's slander against me - that question is moot. Fall down

You don't address the logical fallacy in your argument. By your reasoning, no moral human agency can have any power whatsoever. Researcher 16:39, 10 December 2008 (EST)

And this is about

I've finally managed to work my way back to what seems to be at the bottom of all this. (Unless there is more even more deeply buried) Some twelve lines of insanity. True insanity. But I can't help feeling that there may be a small degree of overreaction here.--Herbert the Hamster 14:15, 5 December 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure what you found. Care to explain? Fall down^{— Unsigned, by: I am the truth / talk / contribs}

By all means. I found this. As I said, 12 lines of insanity (though that will depend on your screen size and font.) Was that what you were asking me?--Herbert the Hamster 03:49, 6 December 2008 (EST)

You missed this where he attempts to justify some paedophiles, this which has some lovely sentiments about gays, and this, which is just weird. --Kels 10:23, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks for the pointers. An interesting collections of opinions and prejudices I must admit. I rather get the impression that this user has been fought over sufficiently so I'll say no more.--Herbert the Hamster 10:38, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Censorship

You’re right there is unofficial censorship everywhere. Free speech doesn’t force us to give a platform to those who disagree with us. You are free to express yourself on Conservative websites and neutral websites. We are free to express ourselves on Liberal websites and neutral websites.

Does that mean Conservapedia censorship is OK?

No it doesn’t because Conservapedia is so extreme, so irrational and because Conservapedia even censors other Conservatives that are slightly different from Aschlafly. Andy uses his momma’s money to buy media space that’s only fit to be laughed at.

Christianity Knowlege Base is less extreme in its censorship. They are not attacked by vandals the way Conservapedia is. Proxima Centauri 02:46, 7 December 2008 (EST)

I think you're missing the point a bit, PC. Fall down is a pedophilia apologist and general woman-hater. Nambla or the local police station might be better places for it to spew its hatred. ħuman 02:59, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Renames

I must admit that I'm not up to speed on all of the socks here. Should we rename then to "Fall Down 1", "Fall Down 2" etc? Or are there only a few of them? I've been away for a while.--Bob^{bing up} 05:14, 7 December 2008 (EST)

That is possible do you have a list? - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 22:36, 8 December 2008 (EST)

He kindly put a list of them at rationalwikiwiiuiwkiwiki. Check his contribs there. ħuman 19:52, 15 December 2008 (EST)

It would be nice to get some sort of consensus first. I'm not entirely convinced with the rename to "Women are my superior and I respect them as such." The name "Fall Down" was not offensive in itself.--Bob^{bing up} 14:43, 16 December 2008 (EST)

I think Pi renamed him just to humiliate him, a bit childish, but fun! Toast 14:46, 16 December 2008 (EST)

I love you

I usually tolerate a troll. Your contribution to some of the main space articles would normally only warrant me vandal breaking you. I have even defended your right to free speech to have that bigoted little piece of shit you call an essay remain although buried. But your recent behaviour in harassing a user of this site is unacceptable. You no long have recourse to be unblocked and if I see one of your pathetic socks it is being thrown out. It has been explained to you how you can express your views in a rational way and you have chosen not to go down that path. You are not as you claim rational, I find it hard to believe that someone that demonstrates a hatred you do is capable of rational thought. I would argue with you but it is not worth my time, so I will simply say FUCK YOU AND GET THE FUCK OFF THIS SITE!!! - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 22:01, 13 December 2008 (EST)

I'm not harassing anyone, really. I've done what I did only to users that have blocked me, and thus deserve it. I have no desire to make trouble, really, only to be recognised as having the same right to my views that you have. N, you haven't explained to me 'how I could express my views in a rational way', at least not sensibly; I could not express my views without offending people that are offended by them. I hate no one; as my user page explains, I only hate lies, dishonesty, and censorship. Fall down

Your actions have already invalidated any credibility you might have had (and given your words beforehand, you didn't have any in the first place). I agree with Pi, I consider you a vandal, and anything you say will be treated the same as any other vandalism. --Kels 22:33, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Actually, no, you have engaged in a ceaseless attack on women and homosexuals, without even the slightest pretense at rationality. And, yes, you apparently do hate women and homosexuals, considering the way you constantly talk about them. Personally, I'm starting to think you are a little disturbed and need some help. But I'm not a licensed therapist, and even if I was, I probably couldn't deal with you in that capacity. Researcher 22:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Given that Mr. Misogynist Homophobe Stalker doesn't want to give up on this conversation, and he's in the long term ban/vandal bin anyhow, do we have support for locking the talk page? I don't have any interest in giving him a soapbox to try to defend the indefensible on. --Kels 22:55, 13 December 2008 (EST)

As just a general user I support this...I've been watching this exchange with a growing amount of disgust and am anxious to see it end Thinker 22:58, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Well, I'd say that last little childish outburst was Fall Down voting in favor as well. I'll give it a few minutes to see if we have any comment from some of the locals, but it seems pretty much a given now. --Kels 23:06, 13 December 2008 (EST)

I'm really at the point where I'm convinced the guy is actually crazy. I'm all for nuking whatever remnants he's left around. Researcher 23:07, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Sounds good. If anyone's still got issues, we can still discuss whether or not to unlock, but there seems little point. --Kels 23:10, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Actually, I don't see too much point in locking it.--Bob^{bing up} 02:34, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Block time

I haven't got a good enough calculator to work out how long I blocked him for; could someone else work it out? Wisest cubic Phantom!

Manipulation

He made 2 socks called Rose Pedals. Computers could tell them apart but humans couldn't easily. I blocked both. The first got blocked after a post that looked like vandalism but was less offensive than stuff he'd been spewing for several days. I blocked the second one at once before there were any edits because it was obviously deliberately confusing. If I hadn't spotted the second account I don't know how much confusion he'd have caused with those similar names. Then I got into trouble for blocking the second account. I should have given a block comment saying he was abusing multiple accounts. I was just fed up of reverting obscene vandalism to my userpage, my talk page and generally. Therefore I blocked quickly and assumed others would know what was happening during a prolonged vandal attack. He set out to get me so angry that I'd make a mistake. If a vandal posted obscene vandalism repeatedly onto a man's userpage over several days that man could get angry and make mistakes too. He picked on me because I'm a woman. Proxima Centauri 14:51, 16 December 2008 (EST)