User talk:Fall down

From RationalWikiWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Hello Fall Down and welcome to RWW.

We try to keep a neutral tone in our commenting on RW articles, and some editors feel it is best not to comment on battles which they themselves are involved in. I would also like to point out in advance that one of our most important rules is that editors are now not allowed to edit their own article pages. (Their user pages belong to them.)

However, should you feel that there is anything inaccurate or unfair in your article page, you invited to whine about it on the appropriate talk page.--False Flag 10:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify what you may and may not edit on my talk page. If it's still unclear please come back to me.--False Flag 11:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you to the BON who corrected my typo. I am sorry if it caused any confusion.--False Flag 11:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Locking

I know "fall down" edited this but there was a typo on my original message: "now" instead of "not" which may well have confused him. So if that caused him to edit the article then we should re-consider the lock.--False Flag 18:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your ideas

Having looked at your links I must say that you have a number of - shall we say - "challenging" points of view. It is perhaps a shame that you didn't take the time to present them more quietly at RW rather then dropping the "women" essay in like a hand grenade. The subsequent discovery of your "Crash this Wiki" post would have done did little to encourage the few supporters you might have had.

While I think that I disagree with you about many things, your opinions would have done much to challenge the possibility of group-think at Rationalwiki. But now I rather think that your sock attacks have so poisoned the water that there will be little chance of your now making your case. Pity really. --False Flag 11:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I only resorted to using socks and vandalism because you wouldn't let me make my point in any normal way. Though I got some constructive edits, my arguments were met with ad hominem attacks, and then I was blocked for a completely bogus reason. How am I supposed to take your advice? Fall down 18:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I take your point, and I'm not an obsessive RW reader any more, but my impression is that your first main contribution was "Women". An article which seemed designed to push all the wrong buttons of the liberal sensitivities at RW. Such a radical article would win you few friends in that environment. Subsequently they found your "Crash this Wiki" post. I think this lost you whatever support you might have had. Finally you engaged in multiple sock attacks which had the effect of turning even the most broad-minded editor against you.
In short, I think it is a battle you have lost - not necessarily because your ideas were wrong (though I think you were) but because of the tactics you used. You had no hope of persuading people using the tactics you employed.
You obviously know how to use socks. If you really want to persuade people at RW you will need to create a new reasonable non-confrontational personality and go from there. There are a number of editors who do not fit in with the consensus at RW but who are are more or less respected and who edit freely and engage in debate.
Nevertheless, my personal opinion is that your identity as Fall down is dead. If you create a new, non-controversial character and later begin to question hidden assumptions you may have more luck. It's the best I can suggest.--False Flag 20:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
How can I change my identity? First, it would be lying. And what would be the point if I couldn't say what I need to say, and had to maintain the secret forever? 'Fall down' isn't my identity, it's only a username. I am who I am.
Usenet seems to be the only place I can talk on the Internet without someone kicking me off because of my opinions, so none of this has to happen. It's terrible that I can't talk anywhere else, and guess what, the censorship almost all originates with people on your side (leftists); that's not a law of nature, but it's how things are nowadays.
I have never understood why anyone would hate me because of my beliefs. I don't hate anyone else for that reason, so long as they are not trying to impose those beliefs on me or otherwise use them to restrict my freedom. Rational debate is a good thing, but it's only possible if everyone respects its rules, like not introducing (or at least trying not to) personal animus, and not trying to use suppression to 'win' the argument. Fall down 00:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I have no other suggestions.--False Flag 03:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you stop this pathetic victim playing it is wearing thin. Your first action at arriving at RW was to blank the front page and write about how shit you thought the website was, taking advantage of our open editing policy to be destructive. You had no interest in rational dialogue you instead write you little pieces based nothing more than assertions with no fact, citations or data. You are an annoying sad little troll with a chip on your shoulder about nothing. You complain about being blocked by female admins at WP but I bet you did the same thing there, you show up without any discussion start editing the articles to include your vile, uncited, opinion. No one is suppressing you, you are going out of your way to make yourself as unwelcome as possible. Or is that your way of feeling like you win an argument, you be a obnoxious as possible and then get yourself kicked off all the while you say to yourself won because that had to censor you to get rid of your opinion? So what you are trying to find sympathy here now? And when you get kicked off here you can go to another website complaining they were mean to you. You are a sad pathetic little man Usher. 192.43.227.18 04:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
To the contrary, I am quite interested in rational dialogue; merely looking through my Usenet history will show that I have discussed many topic in a decent manner. But that's not what I got at RationalWiki. I did not do 'the same thing' at Wikipedia; I tried to be - and actually was - a useful contributor, having thousands of edits (you can see my history). Yes, I do feel that I have won the argument when the other side fails to respond in a rational manner; wouldn't you?
Finally I note that you can't stop with the personal attacks, which I have never used during a civil discussion. Fall down 06:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Really? Damn I caught you lying again. 219.90.133.165 07:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
No, that wasn't a personal attack. Fall down 08:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Female admins

I think that, apart from engaging in activities which alienate people, (page blanking, inciting others to attack the site etc.) it is possible that you do yourself few favors by the nature of your comments. Let us take: "I'm banned from Wikipedia because of a conspiracy of female admins."

This supposes the following:

While anything is possible at some level, I feel that I should point out that some might feel they detect levels of both paranoia and megalomania in such a statement. Paranoia because you feel you are the victim of a conspiracy, and megalomania because you feel that a conspiracy on such a scale is necessary to silence you.

Given the nature of your opinions I would not doubt for a moment that you may have fallen out of favor with one or more admins at WP (either male and female), but embellishing such a dispute in the way you would like does little to enhance your credibility. As I said before everything is possible at some level, but I am not aware of your providing evidence of such a conspiracy. Such a remarkable assertion will certainly requite really remarkable rock-solid evidence to convince people. The absence of such really compelling evidence will lead many (perhaps most) people to just read that line and dismiss whatever else you may have to say as ranting.

(Incidently, if you do indeed have such indisputable, rock-solid evidence of a conspiraty then the best place to present it would be WP not RWW or RW)--False Flag 18:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean that there was a literal conspiracy in that sense. I obviously couldn't have thought that. My blaming of 'female admins' was not meant to be all or only women did it, but that their reaction is the motivating factor, as always happens where women have power.
But it is a fact that WP admins work in a secret, conspiratorial manner and that their public statements on controversial matters are usually dishonest. That's one of the reasons I got angry at them (as mentioned on my user page); the power structure seems incapable of being honest about what is being done and, especially, why it is being done.
So it's not at all unreasonable for me to believe that my block was preceded by secret discussions among the admins that decided, at the behest of 'offended' women, that I should be gotten rid of. Further, the key decision was made by Alison, who further made a taunting comment when she did it. Calling that a 'female conspiracy' is not much of an exaggeration. Fall down 23:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Can I have a link to that. Your block log indicates quite a bit of edit warring and you seem to be at the incidents a lot, your final block appears to be for vandalism. Not exactly rational discussion now is it? 192.43.227.18 01:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
First, A link to what?
I am not guilty of 'edit warring', there's no such thing. There's only refusing to listen to reason, which the idiots that reverted me were doing. I've already mentioned how 3RR is obnoxious, and anyone that runs to seek a 3RR block instead of discussing is the one committing obnoxious behavior, not me - every time I was blocked, I was defending myself on the talk page, and the other guy wasn't.
Yes, my final block was for vandalism, but it was funny vandalism I think, and it was committed on a different computer and using a different account, and Alison used checkuser to find and block my main computer and wouldn't allow me to complain about that. Fall down 03:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
So you admit to sockpuppeteering and vandalism? Wow your second self pwning today. 192.43.227.18 04:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I never engaged in sockpuppetry, as my accounts' edits were entirely separate. I admit to what I did, because I'd rather tell the truth and because denying it would just look stupid. Finally, you're a jerk and a bully, Pi. Fall down 04:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
WP: A sock puppet is an alternative account used for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of (Wikipedia) policies. such as evading a block or ban. Fat Tuesday 05:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I posted using the alternate account when my main account was blocked. So what? The blocks were unjust anyway. And it's still not sock puppetry. Fall down 05:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Getting back to:

You now say:

Actually it's quite difficult to take your first statement in a non-literal way. And your qualification leaves me wondering what the sentence is actually supposed to mean, if it doesn't literally mean what it says it means. You seem to be assuming that people will read it and think. "Ah, he can't possibly be that insane, what he must really mean is the less dramatic: Some women may have been involved in the decision to ban me from Wikipedia." In fact, people will read a statement like that which, as you now imply, is literally absurd, and then dismiss the rest of your views.

Which leads me to wonder if your essay "women" is meant to be taken literally or not. Could you clarify? Thanks.--False Flag 16:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is, keeping in mind the obvious fact that generalisations normally have exceptions. Fall down 02:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Essay

Ok, let's take the very first line of your famous essay.

This is quite hard to understand. If you had said, "Women are inferior to men." or "Women are an inferior type of human." I would have disagreed with you, but the sentence would at least have made sense. How can women be a "form of man"? Women's biology is a lot more complex than men's because they need all the reproductive plumbing, and consequently I have heard men referred to as "simplified women", but I imagine that you are not making that point anyway. You could argue that they are both forms of human I suppose, but how can women be a "form of man"?--False Flag 21:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This is easy. The word 'man' in that phrase includes both sexes, though I was deliberately punning on the gender-specific sense. Fall down 23:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Socks

It's very good of you to identify your socks here. Could you tell me if AntiFish is one of your socks?

With regard to the renaming of some or your socks I renamed a couple (I think) because they were clearly offensive. While they will remain in the history, any potential future edits will not carry those names. I accept that, as it seems as though they will probably remain blocked until the heat death of the universe, this may may make little practical difference.--Bob M 18:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually Bob it changes the histories of the page so it is the new name. Fall down has no contributions but Women are my superior and I respect them as such has 46. Also if he tries to login as Fall down he will be Women are my superior and I respect them as such. 219.90.133.197 00:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
No, that account is not mine. Fall down 23:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
OK. You have said that you are always honest. Is Radical feminist one of yours?--Bob M 17:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
He pre-empted that question here Fat Tuesday 17:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Debate

I vill debate vou here. Vou choose a topic. I vill debate. ConservapediaUndergroundResistor at RationalWiki

No, you choose a topic, and say something interesting about it, to convince me that it's worth while debating you. I am not the Argument Clinic. Fall down 03:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
How about the fact that I blocked you with my turbobanners? Or, how about the fact that you're an intolerant bigot? --150.243.163.7 14:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps more realistically:

Not in my case, as I was making a statement to get your attention rather than just cause you trouble. Fall down 05:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I seem to recall somebody stating that your very first act at RW was to blank the mainpage. Has your good name been maligned?--False Flag 14:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This was it. Not technically blanking, I suppose, since I did put some text there. Fall down 17:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
And that was your very first act? Before the women thing?--False Flag 19:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Fall down 20:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. And it was "wandalism", not "vandalism". No bleach required to clean up. Of course, the only "statement" it made was "this editor is a wanker". Human 20:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
But I thought you once said that you only started to vandalise the site after your woman article received short shrift. Or are you now retracting that?--False Flag 21:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
My main account did not vandalise after that. Fall down 12:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe not, but you're back at it now, wanker!Fat Tuesday 13:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
You are a total loser, did you know that? Fat Tuesday 13:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fat Tuesday. Your abuse says more about you than it does about Fall down. If you have a point to make please make it civil manner. I understand that you have strong feelings but anyone reading your postings will come away with a bad opinion of you because of your insults, and a good opinion of Fd because of his self restraint. Is that your objective? A good rule to bear in mind is that it is better to criticize specific actions than it is to call somebody names.False Flag 17:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The two remarks above were made immediately after the wanker had made offensive sock edits on RW. So they were not really abuse but responses to abuse. (I care not particularly what anyone's opinion of me here is.) Fat Tuesday 01:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Why debate FD on RWW

Fall down is a habitual liar, why are you arguing with him? It was explained to him on his talkpage, at the time, that if he had a problem with the site he could discuss why once his 1 hr block was over. Instead he trolled the place and then feigned ignorance and carried on like the injured party in all this like we were bullying him only for his beliefs instead of the way he was acting. 192.43.227.18 02:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As our mainpage now proudly states: "RWW is not RW". "Fall down" has been generally polite here and has followed the rules pretty closely. The fact that he does not follow them somewhere else is, to my mind, irrelevant to the way he should be treated here. His treatment here should be based on what he does here. Furthermore, given that our main focus is RW, and given that he is sometimes a bit of a pain in the ass at RW, this would seem to be an ideal site to ask him about his motivations and actions. (Though I must admit that he's not been very forthcoming above.)--False Flag 16:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, he has been respectful of the rules here. He hasn't even been tempted his own article. 219.90.133.197 00:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Bullshit, Pi. I am not a liar; I do not lie here or at RW. You've made your lack of respect for my certain of my beliefs clear; don't pretend otherwise. Finally, CUR is not actually arguing with me. Fall down 12:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? You first say you didn't vandalise WP so your block was unfair, and you then admited you did using a sock puppet, two blockable offences. You say that we don't like you just because of your beliefs and then you admit your first interaction with us was blanking the main page. You keep going back and forth at an incredible rate. 192.43.227.18 00:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Signatures

In a purely professional capacity, you can timestamp your sig on RW by typing "~~~~~", which gives only the timestamp. Phantom Hoover 18:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Debate? You want to debate? Oh, Goody!

You are a hate troll. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 21:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

And you are a coward. Fall down 05:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
And you are an idiot. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 15:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
And you are. Phantom Hoover 18:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Damn! Now I'm agreeing with CUR!! Life gets so complicated. Fat Tuesday 17:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Why ...

... do you imagine that anyone's interested in your opinions or beliefs? Fat Tuesday 16:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose people (not women) that actually think about things should be. Anyway, they were already linked, I just didn't want them ever disappearing. Fall down 17:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Should? Why? Because you're a bitter, fascist person who hates half the human race? Logic's missing somewhere there. Fat Tuesday 17:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Now, now. Godwin's law. ti no snah ym teg ll'I nosnhoJ snaH 21:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Fascist, LOL! Fall down 00:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Fall Down, as an 'ist, you have no right to call anyone else an 'ist. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 02:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
What the hell does that mean? I didn't call her anything there. Fall down 05:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
You are a sexist. Therefore, you have no right to call anyone anything associated with oppression. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 18:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Does that mean that I'm not allowed to call anyone anything associated with oppression? Just because I'm a liberalist, socialist, parodist and let's not forget, a motorist? I feel oppressed... 220.240.137.152 19:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
You know perfectly well what I mean. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 19:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, you mean jack shit. Fall down 07:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
CUR, you are allowed to call someone an 'ist if they are an 'ist, regardless of your own 'ism. Phantom Hoover 09:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Query

Do you object to having your name on RW? Phantom Hoover 22:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Evidently you're going to put it there no matter what. Fall down 04:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictions

You claim to be “for truth, honor, and dignity” on your RW userpage, and, while you engage in disruptive behavior, you also maintain certain standards—i.e. always signing your user name—when you are active on RW. Your attempts at transparency would seem to indicate that you take this commitment to what you see as “truth, honor, and dignity” seriously.

I cannot see how these ideals can possibly be reconciled with your actions on Rationalwiki.

Fall down, if I believed I was being maliciously censored by a conspiracy of WP/RW administrators, I would attempt to get the word out, as you have. I might even get frustrated and engage in vandalism, as you have. I may not agree with your conclusions, but I can respect that trying to get a fair hearing for your conception of the truth does not explicitly contradict a commitment to “truth, honor, and dignity”.

But, I swear with God as my witness, I would not threaten to rape my enemies. Not only is such behavior unproductive and unlikely to garner support, but it crosses the boundaries of decency, decorum, and the dignity you claim to stand for.

I want to know how you can see yourself as committed to justice and truth and dignity and then turn around and threaten other human beings with that sort of degradation. Is rape just? Is the threat of violation dignified? Do you see censorship as less honorable than threatening people? And how can you possibly reconcile these threats with your ostensible values?

This is not an ad-hominem attack. I have not harassed you. I have not insulted you. I have not questioned your honesty. I do not possess the power to censor you or your reply. The authorities here at RationalWikiWiki have neither attacked nor censored you; they have given no indication that they will prevent you from answering my question. There is no valid reason for you not to respond. This is not an attack—I genuinely want to know how you can reconcile your supposed commitment to honor with your evident commitment to threatening other people with rape. The Michigander 22:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, you deserve a reasonable answer. I did not make rape threats; if people have really taken my stuff that way, I'm sorry for it. My mentions of 'rape' were either jokes or simple insults, not serious threats. I do not consider rape to be a good thing, really. Fall down 14:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Michigander, I'm afraid Fall Down will not give you a good answer. He is a hate troll. He does not care about anyone but himself. He is deceitful (sort of), rude, crude, immature (even when compared to myself), and an idiot. The fact is, he's just a sexist lunatic. And a mysogimist. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 00:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Fuck off, CUR. Fall down 14:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
You must concede CUR, his reply to the comment above was perfectly civil. Phantom Hoover 19:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Perfecly civil, but my comment was still accurate. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 21:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User rights

You can be a janitor on the condition that you don't delete anything (or hide revisions) without asking someone else about it first. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 00:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This won't go down well on RW... Phantom Hoover 20:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Or here. Rrose Selavy 00:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
If the other bureaucrats object, then I won't promote him. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 01:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree to that condition - what's the point in having the right then? Fall down 17:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sig

After typing the link to your userpage here, you can add a timestamp to make it look professional by typing "~~~~~" after the link code. In addition using [1] makes it look like an internal link. Phantom Hoover 20:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't want my sig to look like an IL now, as I want to draw attention to your not permitting me a regular account. Fall down 15:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Then at least add the timestamp. Phantom Hoover 17:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Holyroller

I think we can trust him with this, but given his history I would like some comment. (Oh, and FD, read my flipping messages on your userpage about your sig)Phantom Hoover 19:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

He already is one. --  Nx/talk   19:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Is he? Egg and my face are in alignment. Phantom Hoover 19:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SPAMMER

Why don't you just leave it for a while? 217.171.129.nn 05:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

think hes trying to rack up his edits? theyre probably same person --Test fail 06:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's likely an automated bot, I've blocked him infinitely until we can get the confirmedit extension, which should stop them. --  Nx/talk  06:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 92.48.201.39

I'd block them, but I cannot, apparently. humanbe in 06:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A Storehouse of Knowledge

Did you create a sock at Phillip's new site by the same name? See here

Already answered. No, that account is not mine, and I don't know who it is. It has no edits. Fall down 07:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wandalism

Stop it, now. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 01:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you make your userpage less lame? Fall down 21:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
You didn't make it any funnier. If you have an idea, tell me on the talk page. By the way, nice work on the Humazee article. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 21:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] aSK vandalism

"Grawp on wheels. 154 edits for great justice and epic lulz!" So you were also Grawp at RationalBeta? --  Nx/talk  22:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably. GRAWP WANT HERMY! (Harry Potter). --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 23:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
No. I've never heard of it. What was RationalBeta? Fall down 00:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling section

[edit] Internet Tough Guy

I wonder why such a nice guy like you got banned from wikipedia?86.46.207.58 19:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a nice guy; I'm an honest guy. Fall down 17:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Nah, you're a jackass. You blame your own failings on those you hate. humanbe in 04:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] haha

Your impotent rage nourishes me. Mei 21:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone rename a few of his socks, please. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 22:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Someone also needs to remove rights. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 22:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Do you have eyes?

You seem to be under the impression that I was leaving and never coming back, when I said several times it was just an exceptionally long wiki-break. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 22:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Exceptionally long break? It hasn't even been 24-hours, you idiot.
Actually, you're the idiot, I said nothing about RWW, only RW. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 23:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh my god, are you serious? That's like saying "I plan to quit watching movies, but not DVDs" or "I plan to stop using computers, but not laptops". You really are thick. My name is CU R, I plan to pretend to quit RW, only to have everyone be bummed out when I come back... again

[edit] Right

You say it's not you. I'll believe you when you provide me with one shred of evidence. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 23:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Zzzz who cares. All idiots are the same. Mei 23:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
(EC)Allow me:
1. That's not how burden of proof works (your inability to understand this is why you fail at RW) you need to provide evidence.
2. Do a google search for "Random proxy site", see how anyone can access dozens of proxies
3. You are an idiot (cur, not mei)
good day, sir. 208.116.34.138
Fine, I'll accept that it most likely is not you. Actually, I think it was several people, due to the fact that most accounts were made within seconds of each other. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 23:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Well gee, doesn't that give you some indication of just how much everyone loves having you here? </sarcasm> C UR, Why is it that you've 'quit' RW, but you're still here. I guess the shitstain theory is actually pretty spot on

[edit] jesus

stop fucking deleting everything. You don't get to decide what stays here. Mei 23:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] It's just amazing

That you, of all people (for want of a better way to describe you), can't take a bit of crap. You'd prefer to whitewash it and make it go away. Strange, I was always taught that if I was going to dish something out, to be sure I could handle it in return, but you seem rather incapable of that. 89.35.2.20 00:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Good afternoon

Hello Mr. Usher, I'm here to discuss your user page. I have no particular issue with it, I just want to have a friendly chat.

This is Fall down.

On RationalWiki: Fall down; see also my socks.

New: They apparently delete talk page comments that 'offend' them, though their stated policy is never to edit talk page comments (other than vandalism, etc.). They're one thing: LYING LIARS.

On Encyclopaedia Dramatica: Fall down, which I created only to harass Alison Cassidy, the woman that got me banned from Wikipedia. (She has now created accounts at RationalWiki and RationalWikiWiki solely for the purpose of messing with me.)

On A Storehouse of Knowledge: The real Fall down, which I created under that name due to an impersonator having taken Fall down. I'm pissed that they wouldn't do anything about it.

New: Grawp on wheels. 154 edits for great justice and epic lulz!

On Wikipedia: The way, the truth, and the light. This is an old version, as they have deceifully changed the current version to allege that I was a sock puppet of Who ordered 137?. In fact the latter account was the throw-away sock puppet.

That user page, as well as this subpage, express the most essential points of my philosophy. The RationalWiki admins probably allege that their censorship of me is comparable to my vandalism. No, it is worse: while I expect vandalism to be quickly reverted, they do not allow me to revert their odious censorship. (What they're censoring).

And I must make another point, that I would have included in my essay on women had they allowed me to expand it into an article: that it is quite evident that the root of my treatment at RationalWiki, as at Wikipedia, consisted in female admins. It is always the women that end up ruling. This is why no sane organisation may allow women into its upper levels of authority: one there are any considerable number, they end up controlling the tone and enforcing a feminist ideology.

Peace, love, and freedom. Andrew Usher

[edit] nnn

"You don't need attention" = wrong! Do something fun. Mei

Retrieved from "http://www.rationalwikiwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Fall_down"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox