Talk:Reckless Noise Symphony
From RationalWikiWiki
I'd do more to this article, but it's about me, so it violates the policies here.MNpunkboy 03:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Should it be added to this that I was partially responsible for The Battle of WikiSynergy, or would that be redundant.MNpunkboy 06:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] MC's trollery
My response to MC's trolling of my page is simple: I can provide assloads of proof as to who I am. My question is: would he leave me alone in those places (myspace, facebook, etc.) if I did and, more to the point, could he provide evidence to prove he isn't just some stupid 14 geek? While I highly doubt it, it is available to those I trust who ask for the info. MNpunkboy 06:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not stalking you, nob-end. I've never looked at any ratwikians facebook or myspace page. 86.40.210.138 12:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Right, but the challenge here is that if you want proff that I am who you say I claim to be, I will provide all the proof you could ask for. But, then again, I decided that I don't give enough of a fuck about you to give you that proof. MNpunkboy 13:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Why are you so defensive? I'm talking generally about punks, goths, emo's... whatever. Groups of non conformists who conform to form a social group. They are the clichéd personficiation of chidish non conformist conformism. The Adjudicator 15:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. zit's quite an interesting conundrum, really. I call myself a crazy punk rocker because, well, I am. But then you get punks who are soooo goddamn punk that calling them punk makes one not punk, and calling yourself punk is, therefore, not punk. I, personally, call myselfpunk not because it conforms to some social clichebut, rather, because it defines the fact that I have a rash, upfront in-your-face attitude, regardless of my tatts, mohawk, etc. As for it being a childish personification of conformist non-conformity, I thinkthe fact that I label myself as punk really doesn't conform to anything, give that there are too fucking many interpretations of "punk" for me to conform to at once: crusty, street, skin, sXe, etc. But I do see your point... MNpunkboy 18:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Why are you so defensive? I'm talking generally about punks, goths, emo's... whatever. Groups of non conformists who conform to form a social group. They are the clichéd personficiation of chidish non conformist conformism. The Adjudicator 15:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Right, but the challenge here is that if you want proff that I am who you say I claim to be, I will provide all the proof you could ask for. But, then again, I decided that I don't give enough of a fuck about you to give you that proof. MNpunkboy 13:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm just referring to the way that when I originally called you a prick you came out with some nonsense about you being a punk etc. and that of course you're a prick. *Yawn*, yeah, whatever. Good character projection there, I think I get it... You're a punk of some kind! You must be a hardass.
- I don't really recall what you're talking about (but I do recall part of it), and that could also have just been my sarcasm speaking at the time. But, yeah, whatever. Why can't you have more intelligent commentaries like this one? Hell, I didn't even used to have a problem with you until your recent spree of trolling everyone everywhere. I didn't even mind the RationalWiki Reform Society idea, even though I completely disagreed with it. MNpunkboy 19:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is, punk, that you grossly over-reacted to my vandalism and you decided to caricature me as some kind of simple vandal. Why? Why do you refuse to recognise that the vandalisms context is essential to understanding it and that it was merely the one last hurrah of my sysop powers?? (The irony was intended to be that despite the fact that I admitted to being a troll I never abused my sysop powers)
[edit] No longer post-Conservapedia
It appears that, for now, he has given up being post-Conservapedia. That leaves Armondikov as the lone holdout amongst heavier editors. Conficker 23:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Prominent member status?
I think, given Goonie has the highest viewed talkpage and that he is the current Chair of the Board of Trustees, he's earned "Prominent Member" status. What say the community here? Conficker 16:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think so too. Ty 18:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Though it'll constitue a conflict of interest (and can be weighed thusly), I think that I've not done much on the Wiki that was notable enough for said award. Punky McPunkersen 07:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Important context missing from the Anti-Anti-Conservapedia section
Some important context is missing from that section. If you look at my very first talkpage archives, you'll see that I, originally, had joined RW after being a (admittingly poor excuse for) troll on CONservapedia. My early history on RationalWiki consisted of me originally being a CONservapedia watcher. Heck, I even engaged in an off-Wiki investigation of a formerly prominent CONservapedian that would make Conservaleaks look like nothing by comparison. Nowadays, however, I'm so damn sick of CONservapedia this and that because, let's face it, CONservapedia really doesn't matter in the scheme of things. I could go on and on about why I don't watch CONservapedia anymore, but I'll leave it that for now. Punky McPunkersen 15:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think I summarized this pretty well into that section. Short, sweet, and to the point. Conficker 08:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
