Title saids it all...
Guy Chapman, you got the nut come here and face us in open debate.
You can, behind your gated community of lairs and power drunk punks and say stuff like this...
Guy hiding and spouting.
Be a man and come and talk to us in the open arena of ideas an prove to us that you not an Ass.
and your wikkipean project is not a failure.
I don't mean to seem contrarian, but... what would be the point of that?
That "harassment links" page has been there for months. Mr. Chapman is completely committed to that policy, in some form or other - and irrationally so, at this point. We're not going to change his mind. Arguing with True Believers™ is usually a waste of time under even the best of circumstances, and besides, the BADSITES controversy has increased our traffic numbers, not the other way around. It was a huge tactical blunder on their part - they should have known that the rest of the world would see it as censorship. The fact that they didn't suggests a level of delusional thinking that, quite frankly, only reinforces the idea that arguing with him/them would be a waste of time.
Anyway, I fixed the spelling in the thread title...
That "harassment links" page has been there for months. Mr. Chapman is completely committed to that policy, in some form or other - and irrationally so, at this point. We're not going to change his mind. Arguing with True Believers™ is usually a waste of time under even the best of circumstances, and besides, the BADSITES controversy has increased our traffic numbers, not the other way around. It was a huge tactical blunder on their part - they should have known that the rest of the world would see it as censorship. The fact that they didn't suggests a level of delusional thinking that, quite frankly, only reinforces the idea that arguing with him/them would be a waste of time.
Anyway, I fixed the spelling in the thread title...
...love the self-referential "one nut" note, Somey. Well done.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 11th January 2008, 3:16pm) 
love the self-referential "one nut" note, Somey. Well done.
No, JuggsZisGuy's last edit line definitely refers to "taking balls and running with them, too far sometimes".
Jonny
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 11th January 2008, 1:13pm)
I don't mean to seem contrarian, but... what would be the point of that?
That "harassment links" page has been there for months. Mr. Chapman is completely committed to that policy, in some form or other - and irrationally so, at this point. We're not going to change his mind. Arguing with True Believers™ is usually a waste of time under even the best of circumstances, and besides, the BADSITES controversy has increased our traffic numbers, not the other way around. It was a huge tactical blunder on their part - they should have known that the rest of the world would see it as censorship. The fact that they didn't suggests a level of delusional thinking that, quite frankly, only reinforces the idea that arguing with him/them would be a waste of time.
Anyway, I fixed the spelling in the thread title...
Well, "WE" all know Mr. Chapman won't and Wiki won't change this policy.
The reason, by they're silence, that they consent to those offensive policies of censorship and the like.
They're refusal will speak of the kind of people and wikipeida is.
I don't think I like this sort of "calling people out" if they do something you don't like.
It doesn't accomplish anything, it doesn't help matters and it generally lowers the collective quality of posts.
It's not that I can't relate. I've written a few threads myself when I was pissed off, which were trashed later - I just don't think this particular approach is very useful.
It doesn't accomplish anything, it doesn't help matters and it generally lowers the collective quality of posts.
It's not that I can't relate. I've written a few threads myself when I was pissed off, which were trashed later - I just don't think this particular approach is very useful.
There is scant evidence to support invective as a functional approach, and considerable evidence to suggest that invective is ineffective at best and counter-productive at worst.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 12th January 2008, 12:52am)
There is scant evidence to support invective as a functional approach, and considerable evidence to suggest that invective is ineffective at best and counter-productive at worst.
Bugger Off
Jonny
Q.E.D.
Quo vadis?
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 12th January 2008, 12:51am)
Quo vadis?
From vadis or "were are you going?"
You planning a trip to a boys camp?
you going here?
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 12th January 2008, 12:24am)
Q.E.D.
Which was to be proved.
Can you prove A square plus B squared equals C squared?
cave fatuum!
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges
Cui Bono?
Lectio brevior praeferenda est.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.