Infogalactic:Galactic tribunal

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search
   


The Galactic tribunal is the place for Galaxians and Starlords to resolve conflicts and editing disputes. For technical or policy discussions about the InfoGalactic project, head over to the Galactic boardroom.

Galactic tribunal
« Older discussions


Tears of Ovid

I am going to speak my mind on this one as there are some serious warning signs here.

1. Notice the description of my reply to Ovid's comment: "original response." It was written before he posted Vox's reply and got caught in an edit conflict as Ovid had supplied Vox's comments in the meantime. I preferred to post it as is before replying to any new posts.

2. Notice the tone of my second reply.

3. My "rudeness" seems to have triggered a disproportionate response as he left four different messages on two different talk pages accusing me of all kinds of malintent and even banned me temporarily so I could not present my side of the matter.

4. He then proceeded to lock various SJW pages even though it was he who triggered the warring without even replying to the message on the article's talk page. If I had any intentions of warring, I would have done it before complaining on Crew's page.

5. One of his replies is to this comment of mine, which, if he had bothered to read when it was left ten days back:

(I am very opinionated by nature and so often come across as very aggressive. I suggest you ignore that and simply concentrate on what I am trying to say.)

would have allowed him to concentrate on the points being made rather than the tone being used to make it.

6. As you are well aware, his final action was to ban me and leave a "Sorry, Charlie!" message on my user pages after my departure. What triggered it? Did I edit any articles after the 24-ban?

This is the vindictive act of a small-minded person. The entire series of events might have just as well taken place on Wikipedia with Ovid being one of the 532.

7. Ovid doesn't seem to understand SJWism and his edits, redirects, general comments and expectations from people only seem to underscore that. He redirects some articles to pages that link it to progressivism. In other cases, he redirects them to topics related to the alt-right. It is nonsensical, to put it somewhat delicately.

8. I would like to continue editing article on subjects that I am interested in, but this incident shows that there is a lack of clarity regarding which kind of articles are acceptable and which aren't.

If fear of self-promotion (or being labeled voxpedia, or altrightopedia) and excessive emphasis on "facts" means avoiding articles critical of SJWs or the left in general while still hosting ones on Sexism in video gaming and associated self-promoters, I might just as well wait till the direction in which IG wants to move becomes more clear.

Want to see what the opposition is up to while you guys are playing fair?

Further, you have taken on board an admin who is quick to take offense to comments, assumes malintent at the drop of a hat, and cannot tolerate criticism of his actions. He abuses his newfound authority to indulge in petty and vindictive behavior. Banning someone for their tone? I am too old for this shit.

- Whitebeard (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Idris, I'll send an email to Vox Day and ask him to comment on this. Our policy says we ban ideological crusaders or 'griefers' of any kind, so I'm trying to enforce this, and Whitebeard's responses IMO showed he isn't interested in our policy of building a factual encyclopedia, but is more interested in just complaining about how biased he thinks Wikipedia is, and how we shouldn't be impartial. For example comments like "Want to see what the opposition is up to while you guys are playing fair?" and linking a RationalWiki article shows a likely incompatibility with our project goals, since I don't think Vox wants InfoGalactic to be a piss poor website like RationalWiki which uses rubbish like Reddit threads and "Tv Tropes" as sources. Whitebeard seems to not care about building a factual encyclopedia with marketing potential, simply soapboxing and promoting neologisms like "SJWism". If he simply wants to write his own opinions and thoughts rather than build an encyclopedia, there are other websites like "Conservapedia" or "Kings Wiki" which would be happy to accommodate him.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
which uses rubbish like Reddit threads and "Tv Tropes" as sources
In the modern world, programmers, gamers, chess grandmasters, scientists, politicians, celebrities and and even normal people communicate via Twitter, Hacker News, Reddit, Google Groups, Facebook and blogs. That is where a lot of knowledge and information exists. It looks like you are still beholden to WP:RELIABLE/WP:NOTABLE and won't consider something to be reliable/notable unless it is published by The New York Times or some worthless academic work by some two-bit Marxist professor.
promoting neologisms
If people are using it regularly on the internet, then it exists. Whether you want IG (your version of it, at least) to come down from the heavens and listen to the plebes is something IG policy dictates (or ought to dictate).
write his own opinions and thoughts
I sometimes do: User:Whitebeard/thoughts
ideological crusaders or 'griefers' of any kind
I don't try to hide the fact that I am opinionated or have certain ideological stances. But none of the articles I have created (and which you have issues with) suggest an "ideological crusade." Most of them have multiple sources to back them up. The list of SJW-converged organizations might require a better title to not sound too much like opinion, but there is a discussion to be had there (which you killed by edit-warring and taking offense to my tone).
- Whitebeard (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I think this post right here speaks volumes since it's more ranting rather than speaking in terms of facts; for the record this isn't an "anything goes" Wiki where anything someone posted on the internet is automatically considered reliable. For the same reason that an article called "list of right-wing nutjobs" wouldn't qualify as encyclopedic just because some left-wing blog like Daily Kos or a random "SJW" on twitter has coined the term "right wing nutjob".
I think it's pretty simple. This encyclopedia documents facts, you don't seem to understand the difference between opinions and facts. Calling an organization "SJW converged" is opinion, listing specific actions the organization has done is fact.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't immediately discount sources as 'unreliable' as in Wikipedia's policy providing the content is factual and verifiable (e.x. WikiLeaks), but you don't understand the difference between opinion and fact to begin with. This is not a project which documents "any and every opinion the plebes" have, it's one which documents facts and provable information, so long as the information is factual it is allowed regardless of the "name" of the source, but a gamer posting his opinion on Twitter is not a "fact"..--Tears of Ovid (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

"If people are using it regularly on the internet, then it exists" - Then you'll need to provide some facts or statistics (e.x. Google or Alexa ratings) demonstrating its relevence, not just "something somewhere on the internet said", if you take that route then you'll have to include anything and everything "someone said" on the internet, such as every individual reddit thread or Yahoo answers posted, and that rubbish is a dime a dozen. It's simple, do some research and provide facts, rather than try to equate opinions with facts. If you want to whine that "IG hosts all of Wikipedia's SJW propaganda articles", then nelp out like other editors are doing and fix the articles in question instead of having a temper tantrum.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
If you want to continue to argue, please take it to the Galactic tribunal. If you just want to rant about more about how "everyone and everything is liberal/SJW/Marxist/controlled by Marxist professors" rather than speak in terms of facts, then I think you will be incompatible with IG.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify the above, I think the key problem here is that Whitebeard views InfoGalactic as intended to be a "right-wing" version of RationalWiki; websites like that (e.x. Kings Wiki", Conservapedia) already exist. InfoGalactic's goal as stated by its founder is to be a professional encyclopedia and business. Unlike Wikipedia our sourcing policy does not value "sources" over facts. For example, on Wikipedia a blog may immediately be discounted as being an "unreliable source" regardless of the content, while a "mainstream" source such as Fox News or the New York times would automatically be considered "reliable" even if the information it provided was not factually provable or demonstrated to be false (e.x. referring to individuals as "white supremacist" simply because authors of "mainstream" publications described them as such even if the designation is ambiguous and factually debatable at best).
InfoGalactic's policy I believe is to value facts over sources; so for example an independent journalist who provides facts would be considered superior to an article by a "mainstream" journalist which is factually questionable. However this of course does not mean that "anyone anywhere on the internet who has this or that opinion" is allowed to create articles presenting it as fact if it can't be backed up by verifiable data.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Just to illustrate, here's my explanation of the difference between opinion and fact:
  • ESPN fired Kurt Schilling over a Twitter post objecting to "gender-neutral" bathroom policies - Fact
  • ESPN is an evil progressive SJW-converged Marxist organization - Opinion
  • Donald Trump proposed building a border wall across the US/Mexican border to help curb illegal immigration - Fact
  • Donald Trump is a racist Neo-Nazi fascist RWNJ - Opinion

--Tears of Ovid (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


@Ovid I have already faced two edit-conflicts while trying to post a response. Not going to try again today. Once you are done with your responses, mark your final response as such so that I provide a single reply tomorrow (if this thing is still active). Whitebeard (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm done, I recommend copying your text before submitting so that it won't get lost, sorry about the inconvenience. If there is an edit conflict, you should also be able to scroll down and view the text you attempted to submit; copy it, and then re-paste it into the next edit.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ovid

This encyclopedia documents facts,

It tries to. All of the following are opinion.

The redirect from Islamic to Islamist on Wikipedia was deliberately done by a former admin because of "POV" issues.

So, what is factual? Is it Islamic terror, or radical Islamic terror? What if it's only "Islamist" (political, fake distinction) and not "Islamic" (religious).

Any one who talks about facts and objectivity has to take sides on such issues. Maintaining objectivity or sticking to facts is not as simple as it looks.

you don't seem to understand the difference between opinions and facts.

That is an insulting comment.

Some top-level articles are never going to be completely factual for the simple reason that there will be two or more sides to an issue. Often, arguments will arise over the very title of the article.

If and when left-of-center editors get on board, these wars are only going to get worse.

Unlike Wikipedia our sourcing policy does not value "sources" over facts.

Even "facts" have to be sourced and I am certain that the reliability of the source will matter when there are multiple editors involved and different sources say different things.

Whitebeard views InfoGalactic as intended to be a "right-wing" version of RationalWiki

I want you stop avoiding articles on "right-wing" topics and avoid making them sound neutral. All you have managed to do so far is make them factually incorrect.

You keep targeting articles created by me without knowing anything about the issues involved. In this instance, the initiative is actually one person. This person is involved in the activities mentioned. And this is verifiable. They is used in the article because I don't know (or care about) their gender. They are trans.

Further, your obsession with eliminating opinion and keeping only facts seems to be restricted to SJW-related articles. IG doesn't have the fact/context/opinion system yet. I wonder what you gain by such destructive editing when it is apparent that a lot of this material can easily fit within the upcoming system.

this isn't an "anything goes" Wiki where anything someone posted on the internet is automatically considered reliable.

You are attacking a straw man.

If Kasparov posts something on social media, it is reliable in so far as it applies to him or his opinion. If the developer of a game/software posts something on Hacker News/Twitter, it is reliable. This reliability can be determined from the surrounding context as well as secondary/tertiary sources.

If ESR coins a neologism that has found some usage on the internet, there needs to be an article on it. Do we wait till M-W/OED officially accept these terms?

For the same reason that an article called "list of right-wing nutjobs" wouldn't qualify as encyclopedic ... the organization has done is fact.

After I said this?

The list of SJW-converged organizations might require a better title to not sound too much like opinion, but there is a discussion to be had there (which you killed by edit-warring and taking offense to my tone)

In any case, "List of people Daily Kos considers to be right-wing nutjobs" could be an encyclopedic article because it is factual.

if you take that route then you'll have to include anything and everything "someone said" on the internet

As long as we can source an etymology for terms and neologisms, yes, an article should exist.

IG should not be elitist. Notability is often used by Wikipedia editors to scrap articles they don't like. Why should articles on terms in common usage be avoided while those on terms no one in their right mind uses be kept (Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis)?

"any and every opinion the plebes"

Never said that. How do you make the leap from articles on neologisms to documenting opinion?

every individual reddit thread or Yahoo answers posted, and that rubbish is a dime a dozen.

I said that a "lot of knowledge and information exists" in various comments/posts on the internet. I never said that crap doesn't exist. It's a question of choosing appropriate sources.

"everyone and everything is liberal/SJW/Marxist/controlled by Marxist professors" rather than speak in terms of facts,

You do love your straw men. Discussions and debates are about agreeing with/refuting points. How does speaking "in terms of facts" look like, exactly?

- Whitebeard (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Infogalactic is intended to be "elitist" in the meritocratic sense (we value fact over opinion), not an anarchy where any opinion anyone has is considered "equal". As I explained we don't document or create articles presenting opionions as facts simply because "someone" has this opinion. We only document verifiable facts; unlike Wikipedia we don't automatically dismiss 'non mainstream' sources so long as they document factual content. I gave you an example of facts versus opinion; giving specific examples of what an organization has done (e.x. donate to Planned Parenthood) is fact; calling the organization "SJW converged" is opinion. By that same logic then, because there are likely hundreds of Twitter accounts calling Trump a "misogynist" or a "racist", then this should be documented as fact in an article just because "someone on Twitter says so". --Tears of Ovid (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Likewise, if you are complaining about articles which already exist then what you should be doing instead is pointing them out, discussing them with others, and fixing them, which is what InfoGalactic's primary purpose is to do, to eventually remove subtle bias which exists in Wikipedia. And as far as neologisms go, again you don't seem to understand the difference between documenting neologisms and promoting them. The article on Vox's Day's book douments his terminology, but creating articles entitled "list of SJW-converged organizations" is documenting opinion as fact. Why is this so hard to understand? For example, an article documenting who coined the term "right-wing nutjob" is just reporting information; but creating articles called "list of right-wing nutjobs" isn't just documenting a term, it's promoting an opinion as fact.--Tears of Ovid (talk)
As far as reliability/notability policy goes, I believe that's still being worked on, but there is going to be some threshold by which the relevance of new entries is measured (e.x. possibly Google rankings will be used as a threshold of notability); IG is not a place for people to coin or promote new neologisms or opinions.
So how about instead of complaining about "why can't I write biased articles if bias exists in other articles", why don't you help out correcting those articles instead like others are doing?--Tears of Ovid (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Froglich's Biased Rampage

Can a third party or Starlord please moderate this Infogalactic:Galactic boardroom#Objection To Narrative Domination issue?

Regarding:

Froglich is violating the stated Infogalactic:Editors' guidelines left and right:

I am not trying to stop Froglich from spewing biased opinions. But I am trying to present the biases clearly. Froglich, or anyone else for that matter, does not seem interested in defining the Infogalactic political labels and definitions, which I've been told will become meta-tag filters or something.

Specifically at issue is the difference of and title of Noam Chomsky (the truth that burns), formerly Noam Chomsky (a conservative perspective), and the deliberate removal of the truther and liberal perspective Chomsky (disambiguation), when a removal of the wiki-links may have been legitimate at best. This is censorship.

I use "He/she/zer" sarcastically for Froglich, if that is his/her/its real name, simply because it is ridiculous SJW bullshit. To be clear, again, I HATE Communism and other large government totalitarian systems (ie. Capitalsim), socialist or otherwise, I hate many socialist institutions (military, government, police, etc), but I see value in bottom up smaller socialist systems (ie. family, community, coops, unions, etc) to resist the exploitative oligarch systems, foreign and domestic. I also HATE the insane hard-left fake-left corrupt corporate Democrat sheepdogs for deceptively being Republicans in sheep's clothing, now getting exposed (ie. Charles Ortel at charlesortel.com exposing the Clintons and their Foundation, the SES, etc etc etc) and are making their desperate defensive plays and unleashing this thought police crap on us. I've stated this all before, yet Froglich thinks I'm some sort of SJW or enemy. Anarchists, truthers, and the progressive-left are distinctly and extremely different than the corporate-left and their agendas, and if Froglich can't see that perhaps he/she/it is too obtuse to edit an encyclopedia.

I want to punch up at power, not down nor at my fellow citizens or Galaxians, deluded or not.

If I am wrong or in the wrong, explain it, rather than call me a duck and tell me I'll never get it or be able to think "properly" without clearly defining what "proper" is.

Again, if I am not wanted here let me know and I'll pack my stuff up and go.

Thanks for your attention and thanks in advance,

~ JasonCarswell (talk)

Reply to Froglich's Biased Rampage

I propose that it be generally understood that Infogalactic's default viewpoint should be described as "alt-right".

All other viewpoints are also allowed, but should be listed as such. Since we don't have the special bias-filter software yet, biases could be disclosed in the article title itself, or in special paragraphs in main articles that clearly list their (non-alt-right) bias viewpoints. I do NOT want anyone to leave IG over this, as we do not have enough contributors.

Additional proposed rule: IG contributors are free to delete biased Wikipedia text to their hearts content (there is a lot that should be deleted), but should not delete the writings of fellow IG contributors. Instead they can add to it to clear up any biases. -- Jack-arcalon (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply to Reply

I kinda figured the "alt-right" thing out, though I think this may be the first time you've officially acknowledged it. Personally I think you should if not advertise it somewhere prominent, so at least people know what their in for (ie. in the header), or at least include it better in the documentation, if for no other reasons than to avoid potential future headaches and/or avoid looking like you're hiding something. Even if you feel you have to clarify for the misinformed that the alt-right is not equivalent to neo-Nazis, or something that suits you.

(In my opinion, the corporate-Democrats are swinging the Overton window far to the right, which will push the masses of sheeple to the right, but it's not the alt-right, the alt-left, progressives, Libertaians, or anarchists who are revolting and being censored while outing the Clintons etc etc etc. This cultural engineering is ramping up for civil and world war. Whether either actually happens or not is another thing, but the chaos is real. The swamp is being drained (slowly) but being filled with another swamp. It's hard to know what's really going on, on many levels, but it's fascinating. Anyway, whether you brand yourselves as "alt-right" or simply "anti-Wikipedia", you'll gain far more allies by stating it clearly.)

Naturally, I'd prefer it just being "alt" or "independent" or "free speech zone" and label every bias, including the Wikipedia biases, but whatev, sorta, as this raises other questions. Whether it's Noam Chomsky, Russiagate, or Pizzagate, I've relabeled the Wikipedia biased articles as non-corporate media accounts have been put forward.

  1. I like the Wikipedia articles for contrast and comparison, but only labelled as such, however I did not write them. Should they too be deleted?
  2. (I don't care about the lesser known commie freedom fighters from the last century Froglich deleted, other than my principle objection to deletion rather than re-labeling biases. Wouldn't it just be easier to relabel them as such, etc.?)
  3. From a truther perspective, using your logic and Froglich's impatience, I'd delete almost half of the conspiracy and government shit from Wikipedia, starting with the JFK and 9/11 pages. I've procrastinated on attacking the 9/11 Truth Movement article which was utterly terrible and misrepresentation on Wikipedia, because dealing with those thought police left such a negative taste in my mouth (an a banishment from Wikipedia for 1 year for being "another polite truther") that I don't even want to address it here, sadly. One day I will.
  4. I propose that instead of "delete" we say "truncate" or "clean up", implying that you could take a part of or even the entire biased article, and summarized down into a paragraph or two, stating what the "official" narrative is, and how/why it's biased.

I don't like Froglich. I don't like his/her/its confusing writing nor the way he/she/it tries to intimidate me (not working). I've tried to be nice, I've tried to help, and I've tried to explain things clearly. Even though I don't like Froglich and don't like his/her/its writing style I don't want him/her/it removed from IG. I do like some of the topics of his articles, though riddled with riddles and obscure meanings, and I like that at least someone is semi-sociable, sorta. All voiced need to be heard. Maybe a few more clarifications on the rules are in order. Not more rules, keep it simple, just clarifications. And a system and definitions for bias labels.

I know I write lengthy spiels. I'm trying to be clear and to avoid any misunderstanding. I can't say why Froglich is confused by my writing other than he's either legit retarded or playing a psy-op. He's clever enough so I think the latter. To my point, I only mention this because I want your honest opinion - is my writing hard to grasp? Seriously, I really want to know, from another source.

Also, what's up with the missing images?

Thanks for your attention to these matters.

~ JasonCarswell (talk)

Reply to Reply to Reply

Infogalactic Canon #7: Facts are facts.

(Froglich response)

"No griefing", the leftist mole wormed into Infogalactic reminds, while hypocritically griefing in his selective citation of the Canons (with #7 being the obvious omission).
Highlights tour:
"He/she/zer is engaging in editing wars" -- Takes to two to tango, disco-partner, and you were the first to revert the Chomsky article's edits.
"He/she/zer removed a criticism section where appropriate" -- This will be the third time I remind you that you really ought to read Vox Day's books so that you understand 1) what he loathed and despised about Wikipedia, and 2) why this place was created.
"He/she/zer uses "weasel" words" -- You mean like "bias" and "fair"? I never use those words, because they are arbitrary.
"He/she/zer not objective," -- You wouldn't know Objectivism if Atlas shrugged the world on your head.
"am not trying to stop Froglich from spewing biased opinions." -- Oh, heavens no; you simply insist on being the one entitled to label said alleged bias with your term of choice, while your own loopy nonsense is passed off sans labeling.
"This is censorship." -- 100% wrong. Censorship is what governments do. You are not in a "public space"; you are a guest on someone else's property. Getting booted square in your ass for any reason whatsoever that the owner sees fit is not censorship. Nope. It's called "Get off my lawn."
"I use "He/she/zer" sarcastically for Froglich, if that is his/her/its real name," -- You mean like "Vox Day" is his real name? Who, exactly, do you presume you are impressing with these top-tier arguments?
"To be clear, again, I HATE Communism and other large government totalitarian systems (ie. Capitalsim), socialist or otherwise..." -- Suuure you do, that being why you have your undies in such a bunch about Chomsky, who is a veritable Litmus test for hard-core commie agitprop fully-endorsed by the high-priests of the establishment press and Marxist academia. Recite after me the last sentence of Canon Four....
(Jump to the second set, after Jack-arcalon's intermediate response)
"I like the Wikipedia articles for contrast and comparison, but only labelled as such, however I did not write them. Should they too be deleted?" -- Again, you ask these questions because you haven't read Vox Day's books and do not know the raison d'etre for Infogalactic. The first time I suggested them, you whined that you couldn't afford it even though you claim to rent in New York. (The kindle version is like six bucks, assuming you're unable to swipe them from bittorent like anyone else in the internet era is fully capable of provided a greater than room-temperature IQ.)
"From a truther perspective..." -- Which does not include telling the truth about Soviet-asset Chomsky.
"I know I write lengthy spiels. I'm trying to be clear and to avoid any misunderstanding." -- Your intention is to bury everything under heaping mounds of trash that nobody in their right mind has any inclination to fully pound through, and your voluminous keyboard diarrhea in the Boardroom is ample enough proof.
"I can't say why Froglich is confused by my writing other than he's either legit retarded or playing a psy-op." -- Ah, yes, there it is: The infiltrator's ace card up-the-sleeve: impugning the other guy as a spook. Well *fuck you*, "Jason" (if that's your real name). I know your type, and I know it well. I encountered it on a daily basis in the Usenet trench-warfare of the 1990s during the Great Clintooniac Invasion following the launch of AOL permitting all the low-IQ types to pour in and parrot-spigot the talking-points du jour.
Froglich 06:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply to the 4th

Facts are facts. The fact is that cartoon is quite funny from a perspective. Another fact is that Chomsky would never endorse Mao or Pol Pot and I challenge you to provide any evidence to support your counter claim to this fact. Also, Castro and Chavez have their pros and plenty of cons but they literally aren't in the same realm as Mao and Pol Pot. Jimmy Carter and Harry Truman were both presidents but one used more bigger bombs and the other didn't. Next I suppose you're going to tell me there is no such thing as nuance.

Yet, as I stated, I care less about the gatekeeper, limited hangout, and government lifetime actor known as Noam Chomsky who is both a rich source of information "they" don't mind sharing, and a fucking liar saying JFK and 9/11 are not worth investigating (just to start), and I care more about Canon #2 "Infogalactic is non-ideological and seeks to present objective points of view", supporting my "Objection To Narrative Domination", and now #4 "No griefing." and #5 "Play nice and play fair." as well as the rest.

Your "counter point arguments" are all terrible, worth refuting only if you are a child who doesn't know better (or if called upon by a 3rd party to do so), and I will no longer indulge your intentional timesuck. Anyone can play a psy-op, head-trip, mind-game, whatever you want to call it, on someone - not just spooks. "The first rule of propaganda is to accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing." Well who started accusing who of what here? How do we know who you are? Or if you really are "alt-right"? Maybe you're a neo-Nazi infiltrator here to make IG look bad. I can't know, maybe you are an agent, but I'm pretty sure you're an idiot. Show us your face and your real name, anonymous coward.

Wave your dick around all you want but keep it away from me. I am now done with you, totalitarian anti-SJW timesuck troll, who ever you really are. You might want to stop licking those psychedelic toads as your mind is ruined.

I tried to keep this short, but you know me, and I got sucked into his/her/its trap anyway. No longer. Stay out of my way, as I'm trying to do with you.

~ JasonCarswell (talk)

The Chomsky Bet, and assorted buffoonery highlights

(Jason continues....) "Another fact is that Chomsky would never endorse Mao or Pol Pot and I challenge you to provide any evidence to support your counter claim to this fact..."

<snicker> Just those two? Give up on the other three (Ho, Castro, Chavez)--? ...Tell you what; let's make it a bet: If I am able to do as you request, you're *gone*. --Do you accept the bet? (This truth must be painful if it's going to stick.)

" Show us your face and your real name, anonymous coward."

(He writes, after posting a ten-year-old picture.)

Q. Do you think Vox Day is an "anonymous coward"? --And what about this lot:

Here's your big chance to tell all of these "anonymous cowards" what you really think of them.

"Wave your dick around all you want but keep it away from me. I am now done with you, totalitarian anti-SJW timesuck troll, who ever you really are."

Promises, promises (but SJWs always lie). If only you were a girl or could bring yourself to wear makeup and a dress and flounce in around in heels like Mags Visaggio, you could make a career of it. I must say: there's nothing sadder to witness than a struggling paleface who can't get the red pill down.

"You might want to stop licking those psychedelic toads as your mind is ruined."

Don't Freudian-slip too much.

Froglich 04:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)