Forum:Anarchy Army

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 20:47, January 7, 2007 by Mowgli (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > BHOP > Anarchy Army
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2647 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.
Mylen 19:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Anarchism- freedom to make own decisions, no bans, the admins merely filter content

Anarchism is the Future For Uncyclopedia

Ability to bash n00bs n00bs can bash higher ranks freedom and happiness

Anarchists can't even be bothered to invent an original symbol, or properly spell words like 'activist', 'choice', or even 'anarchy'

Join the Anarchy Army on Uncyclopedia today

Our slogan: Your Future, Your Joice, GoAnarchy

Inlisted in Arachy Army (add your username

1. Mylen 2. Daviddinchi- fine ill join but your still an asshole

Arachy Army?

That some misspelling of Iraqi Army? IMHO, that's way too dangerous of a job. I'd be shot by someone just because I didn't side with them on who succeed Mohammed. --User:Nintendorulez 20:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Enlisted in whatever the opposite of the Anarch Army is

  1. Me. Anarchy is all fine an good, but when some dickhead is serial vandalizing page after page with "ADMINS HUMP OLD LADIES" or somesuch nonsense (real world example, by the way) then the " bans, the admins merely filter content" idea above just falls apart. Chaos is fine when nobody is an asshole.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 19:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC) <----Serious Mistake, anarchy gets the temptation of assholeness out of everyone since there is no consequencesMylen 19:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
good point. i'm all for anarchy in uncyclopedia. anarchy is not "a breakdown of government/order/system." it's more like egalitarianism. many don't understand what anarchy actually connotes to. many don't even understand what democracy connotes to! a lot of "educated" people i know still confuse democracy with a majority rule. ah well. not that i am very educated but fundamentals of politics/state: everyone should have their "politics" right, educated or not. -- mowgli 20:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Pure democracy is majority rule, though as far as I know no country uses such a system. Most countries have representative democracy, in which majority rule decides who the leaders will be that have the power of decision-making. --User:Nintendorulez 20:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
see what i mean? i think you are a little bit confusia here nin. i suggest you be a good boy and read up some wikipedia. start with wikipedia:liberal democracy, it being the commonly practiced form of democracy today. -- mowgli 07:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
"Anarchy" is by at least one well-accepted and historically precedented definition "a breakdown of government/order/system." The egalitarian model requires an environment in which each individual can if needed, do without the assistance of another (eg Network Admin/Plumber/Research Biochemist): this would be better off being called "anarchism", but I guess that's me with my rules not realising egalitarianism means never having to not confuse people for no reason in particular. Hey, if you can't pick a fight over why you (but not your adversary) get to appropriate words for your political movement, I don't know what you can pick a fight over. "Mom! It's my philosophy, quit naming it!" BerogenVFH 20:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
you know, the wiki concept (as in, say, wikipedia) is already biased towards anarchism. it shares the basic tenets of the philosophy insofar as it's belief in the idea that for for every vandal user, there is probably a counter-vandal user is concerned (i was just skimming through wikipedia:constitution and i saw "CHEEESSEE!!" in the first paragraph. i involuntarily hit "edit" and, to my surprise, someone had already reverted it between the time it took me to click that page and edit it). Were there not merit in the idea, it would have been very difficult to maintain a wiki like wikipedia. the site believes in good faith and conscientious behavior among a large group of users -- obviating the need for a large police, at least at one level, to control vandals. then again, anarchism when applied to websites or e-communities is much easier to implement -- personally i think it is impossible to implement in nation states for several attendant problems; i mean the commonalities among an active e-community, armed with just a mouse and keyboard, are more and sharply accentuated than those among a diverse group of people armed with guns. amusingly, a lot of times admins go about their business, in such e-sites and not just uncyclopedia, as if they are dealing with a population armed with guns. have to say though that it's just the idea, namely anti-admin, anti-rules, or rather, powerless admins and assumption of good faith, that i find appealing and seductive. i have no idea how it can be implemented or even if it should be. just thinking aloud. -- mowgli 07:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
As I said elsewhere, "Individuals tend towards anarchy, societies tend towards homogeneity". Hasn't it struck you as odd that a movement claimed by some to be the baseline for human behaviour is in fact not, at the present time, the baseline? People are well-behaved on wikis because they're getting something back. Only those who have nothing to reclaim, or feel they have nothing to reclaim, are badly behaved with deliberate malice. People are well-behaved in real life not because there is a large police/military waiting to clobber them if they step out of line, but because the alternative is a total unknown - which is hardly a knee-jerk reaction when what is being offered is touted as something they would, naturally, language being what it is, fear. My main problem with grown-up anarchists is that they won't just accept they're wrong and they need to find a new name for the movement - you can't reclaim a word that is used the way anarchy is, because we must have a word for the concept which, to most people, anarchy represents. We could, it is true, come up with a new word, but it wouldn't take: why would most people say "Flimboduliaratto" when they mean "anarchy"? Why would they say "Vih" if they mean anarchy? They wouldn't. It's a stupid, logically indefensible idea which, in my experience, most self-professed "anarchists" will defend until they are amusingly purple about the face.
And that's where, for me at least, the whole thing as a modern movement falls down. It has bugger all to do with prior philosphies or politics - quoting selections from Marx, Nietzsche, Zeno or Khayyam no more makes a movement than quoting Ariosto, Spenser or Mallory made the Borgia good, honorable and noble lords. Let's forget about all the jerky things people claimed have done in the name of "anarchy" - bombs in Venice in the 19th Century, murders in West Germany in the 1970s, putting locks, yes, padlocks, on municipal waste bins in modern Italy, slapping stickers on every surface that will take them... I could go on, so I will, because remember, we have to forget all this before people will accept "anarchism" or whatever it is to be called... appropriating ancient cultures who coincidentally cannot defend their position or extricate themselves publicly from "anarchism", as a means of bringing in relevance and gravitas to what otherwise appears a light-weight historical footnote; the fact that Christiania stinks to high heaven every summer (and has to be raided by the "external" Danish police when being used a criminal hideout), the fact that "anarchism" and it's apparently benevolent Praetors seem incapable of accepting that sometimes, some people do things because they really, truly, want to hurt someone, and that when they can, such people do it often, and yet clinically cannot be described as psychotic because they are not; the fact that "anarchism" despite claiming a long lineage has never once managed to govern a country, and the very same principles by which it claims it would do so, are in fact the principles which drove the second Paris Commune to destruction; the univeral problem of entropy requiring each of us to work within our means and include within that work the protection of what is ours (- to the lion, your children are food. So are other lions' cubs). It is, in short, unworkable if the people around it do not like the look of the thing, which is why you need propaganda (which wikis are great for), firm, directed leadership and all the other trappings which make every other system unpalatable but workable.
But yeah, forget all that: claiming what are essentially Lagrange effects between the major bodies in a democracy (or most any other kind of rule) can, of themselves, become a system of governance (without which, of course, we really are talking about the bad kind of anarchy) is, as has been noted elsewhere, unproven theory. BerogenVFH 15:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
not quite sure what you're trying to say but sounds good nevertheless. btw what do you (or whoever you're quoting) mean by Individuals tend towards anarchy, societies tend towards homogeneity? homogeneity as in milk? and what preciusely is the lagrange effect -- how does it relate to wiki communities? tia. -- mowgli 16:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The Lagrange effect is conceptually described as a point at which an object, affected by the larger bodies surrounding it (in astronomy, from which the concept arises, by their gravity) remains stationary relative to said bodies. It's a not-quite-null point, the Star Trek "sweet spot" of a starship's artificial gravity: a thing at this point has no force acting on it greatly enough to move it closer to any of the objects affecting it. How this applies in social theory (or more properly, in diplomacy) is as follows: say for example the courts, elected representatives and populace all have differing opinions on what to do about x. x may be a person, a country, a landmark which is technically dangerous or offensive, anything. Whenever one body does something about it, the others react in such a way that the "solution" is reversed or otherwise negated. In real life, I recall a news item about a local park which was unfit for children to play in as it was used by heroin addicts: the park was beautified, cctv was installed, the police made regular sweeps/greater effort - but it was still unfit because the prettying had included planting trees - yew trees. Yew is toxic if ingested. Children eat leaves (sometimes). Park unfit... so the parents/public said, and the trees were cut down. The situation had gone from the police saying "this is not a safe place for children" to the public saying "this is not...". Then, some wag pointed out that the reason that yew was chosen in the first place was... the hedge around the park was a yew hedge. The park was never "safe", it's theoretical status never changed.

Sorry, I'm just going over here for a bit... The example isn't the best, perhaps, but it illustrates the conceptual lagrange point to a degree, and it ties neatly in with how Lagrange applies to a wiki: if a wiki is constantly edited, seriously edited on any subject where a difference of opinion is possible, then unless all parties are scrupulously honest about their own intentions and modes of description, bias will emerge in their edits. Over time, a reader might get all viewpoints and thus be able to form, for themself a balanced view using all available evidence (which I personally feel is the standard to aim for). The article which is edited hovers, conceptually (although not temporally I concede) between all points, in the "sweet spot". But why would it? Homogeneity. Yes, like in milk - although I'd rather not emulsify people. The phrase would be better as "Individuals tend towards heterogeneity..." meaning difference rather than similarity. Hetero/homo - they're not just for sexing funz. Groups, societies, tend towards a common way of acting, even of thinking, and it has nothing to do with politics. It's just easier if we all get along, and without really thinking about it much, how you get along becomes habit, like your first language, or your body language, or your accent, or your way of looking at the world. BerogenVFH 16:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there is heterogeneity in a wiki - but it is these equally (in theory... oh, theory...) opposing and internally homogenized groups which cause, by their pushing of views, propaganda, or even just fresh modes of examining a given topic, a greater homogeneity (the lagrange point of the article). Man, I even confuse myself...BerogenVFH 16:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
nice explanation. -- mowgli 17:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ Not even anarchy can stop some people from being assholes. Assholes are assholes, it's what they do. We've even had serial vandals who use lots and lots of proxies to vandalize no matter how many times we have to ban them. And also, who's going to delete all the shitcruft if there's no admins? --User:Nintendorulez 19:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
no, you can have admins in an anarchy. they will have the "nice" powers, viz. the "roll back" button on their screen to revert, a nice broom with a gilded handle to sweep floors, like in QVFD et al. but none of the "bad" powers like banning users. sounds like a lot of fun. -- mowgli 07:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
How would they delete QVFD pages if there's no admin powers such as deletion. Here, take a look at Special:Log/delete and Special:Log/block. Look at the timestamps to see how many asshole need blocking, and how many shit pages need deletion. Imagine what things would be like with all those vanity "OMG BOB IZ GHEY" articles, and people like Slashy, Powershit, and the Crack Vandal running free with nobody to stop them. Anarchy only works if everybody agrees not to do something idiotic, and that's an impossible situation. ESPECIALLY here on Uncyc, were we have an amazingly high asshole and dipshit percentage amongst our users IPs. --User:Nintendorulez 16:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
i'm afraid you are reading things a bit too literally. wikis (like wikipedia) already incorporate principles of anarchy in their functioning/project. that doesn't mean they have embraced anarchism. neither is anarchism a form of governance -- it's only a political philosophy like several other theories of justice lying neglected in university libraries. the question is to what extent anarchism can be incorporated here before it begins to interfere with the sites functioning (and creating situations you enumerate). to return to your post, i don't see why giving admins the power to delete "bad" content would go against the principle of anarchy. i think only "banning" is being discussed in the present context. i think the original poster addressed only this particular dimension of admins in whatever he/she has said. at least, that's what still appears to me upon a second read (he/shed does state, i quote, ...admins filter content). -- mowgli 16:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The original poster was the one saying we shouldn't have admins at all. I say the current system is fine. --User:Nintendorulez 17:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. Me. This is really badly thought out, you know. Freedom isn't anarchy (since you're just as likely to find the actions of another anarchist have made your personal choices impossible), nor is happiness (since someone else's anarchistic choice might easily involve making you unhappy). Making your own decision isn't anarchy. It's applying personal order on a cold unknowing universe. But enough about ED. I've really got no idea what your last statement is meant to mean, but since you don't appear capable of hitting the Enter key it's probably best not to try. Finally, how can it be "Our slogan" ? Individuals tend towards anarchy: societies tend towards homogeneity. You're using tautology to justify your position. Also, now I think about it, the smaller a set of similar creatures, the less likely they are to be preserved for posterity, as fossils, extant species, users hint hint. BerogenVFH 19:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
i think there's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction going around to the choice of words, viz. anarchism, in the present discussion. the hobbesian view that vandals will overrun the site if anarchy is allowed to prevail is wrong. for one, the original poster is not arguing that everyone be given powers to ban. on the contrary none should have it (or a select few should -- if this sees the light of day it will surely see so in some blended form). in such a community, at least one of the incentives to vandalize will disappear, namely the lure to piss off people in power: banning being proof of having succeeded in pissing them off. also, i can't help but notice, and quite amusingly so, that the original poster is fighting "admin rule," the so called "state" in uncyclopedia, which, in reality, is just a cloak or an "illusion of democracy," i.e. a veil behind which the actual dictator hides. i think from a dictatorship to anarchism is a longggg jump. a republic lies somewhere in between. (not to stoke a rebellion, but just playing the devil's advocate on a boring sunday) -- mowgli 09:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
But vandals don't think like that. They vandalize for the hell of it. Just because there's no admins to piss off doesn't mean there's not other people to piss off. And even if nobody was pissed off, they would still do it. Somebody needs to be able to block them. Sure, our current state of admins is corrupt and out-of-control, but it beats anarchy. There would be more vandals than reverters, we would never be able to keep up. --User:Nintendorulez 16:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. If Uncyclopedia becomes anarchic, I will leave. Anarchists always make the assumption that everyone else thinks just like they do, and that everyone would be happy if the horrible, horrible system weren't there to oppress them. Why does this remind me of a scenario where "Kids wish their parents weren't there, because then they could do whatever they want?" Oh wait, because it's pretty much the same logic. The anarchist sees only the bad things created by structure in society, and thus concludes that the structure, whatever it may be, should be got rid of. Without banning, we would still have Anonymous Slashy, Powershot Guy, and Conspiracy Nut here to bug us. In the absence of power, a society is ruled by the strongest and most capable. Without a higher authority to resolve distputes, evenly matched individuals become stuck in endless feuds, making it impossible for them to contribute to the community. On the series of tubes that is the internet, this last problem becomes ridiculously prominent. Banning is pretty much the only defense a wiki has against stubborn assholes, who often have egocentric personalities and only act in their own best interest, and it is too much to ask the admins to "filter" the content generated by these people. The jerks will just keep generating more crap, and the admins will not be having any fun at all. So they will leave, and when they leave, so will their friends, and that includes most of the good contributers around here. Note to Anarchists: Not everyone is a humanitarian, stop acting like they are. Sorry, but authority and control are as necessary as law enforcement: imperfect, but life without them would be hell. Even on something as insignificant as a wiki. Do I think the current system is perfect? No. Would I rather have it be a free-for-all? Over my dead body. Pseudo-psychological arguments like "no consequences = no assholery" are flawed logically and unproven. --The Acceptable Thinking cap small Cainad Sacred Chao (Fnord) 21:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, anarchy does not deter assholism. I used to frequent a heavily used Voy forum which, for some periods, had no moderation and was, therefore, without bans or consequences for bad behavior. There were long stretches of excrement produced by pure assholism. That environment equals sh*t factory with the gloves off. Thanks but no thanks. ----OEJ 20:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
yeah, but did you have the power to revert vandal edits (like you do in wikis) there? -- mowgli 07:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Nope. I 'spect the reversion workload produced by vandal edits on a Wiki that did not ban vandals would be, what, 104 what we have now? How would this be a Good Thing? -- 16:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
i don't know what statistics say, but i followed a page, India, for over 4 months and i do not recall a single incident of having reverted an act of pure blanking (i know vandals blank in sprees and select pages at random). most of the edits, vandal edits, that i reverted were motivated, like politically or religiously motivated and i enjoyed reverting them. i also recall having tired some out by my incessant reverting. and this page was among the top 50 most edited articles then. i listed only one vandal in UN:BP during this period but even that wasn't a success 'cos the ip returned -- but soon tired. but no, i do not believe that the task becomes more onerous or pages become 104 more vulnerable to vandalism: quite simply because i did not encounter or notice anyone who was as determined to vandalize the page as i was to protect it. quite simply, i outlived them. on another note, let me add that primarily it's we who are responsible for protecting pages we create (or significantly contribute to or cherish for whatever reason) and not admins per se. this is a wiki, do not forget. this system can work only with this presumption in mind for admins are not here to protect our edits, not primarily at least. admins are here to administer other things. allow me to illustrate this with a stupid joke we have around these parts:
a foreigner, impressed with calcutta, wished to make a small dent in calcutta's society before he left. he saw a man pissing against a wall. accosting him, he shouted, hey! u know what happens if you do that in england?
no, the guy answered, i don't. what happens?
in england, the tourist replied in his mimic-english, police seize if you piss like this!
maybe they do, good sir, the man replied, zipping up quick, there are a lot of police in england but india is still a poor country and we have too few policemen to go around. here we all have to seize our own. -- mowgli 19:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sign HERE to enlist in Arachnid Army

The Spider-Queen needs YOU !!

She needs your brain to lay her eggs!

Look at all the positive energy i made by putting the word anarchy or variations and misspelling Mylen 20:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Positive... does that mean "Negative" these days? Oh, and by signing your name in this section, you've volunteered for the Arachnid Army - Nursery & Mess Hall. Snap to, soldier! You've got future overlords to feed! BerogenVFH 20:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It's strange...

How is it that every month, there is always some sort of asshole on the loose in the forums? On October, there was Anonymous Slashy, on November, there was Powershot dude, on December, there was Conspiracy Nut, and now, we have Mylen, who shall hereafter be referred to as "Anarchist". This person claims that without admins, Uncyclopedia would be paradise. How wrong is he to think that? Very wrong. If ten minutes go by without an admin to guard this place, crap articles would flood the recent changes and assholes would wreak havoc upon the forums. Anarchy never works. It only causes more problems. --General Insineratehymn 23:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What he said, but longer. —Sir Major Hinoa [TALK] [KUN] [23:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)]

Mylen unbanned

This may be old news to people who were there, but here's the IRC log. There was a side conversation going on, so that's the source of the non sequiturs.

*** Mylen [i=43642466@gateway/web/cgi-irc/] has joined #uncyclopedia

<diMario> yeah, just like that evening you stood my little sister up

<Mylen> I feel i was blocked for an unfair reason

<tompkins> Well that was fast.

<Mylen> I want to talk to you

<Olipro> you do, we don't

<Mylen> and ask you something tompkins

<diMario> She was weeping and crying

[16:42] <Mylen> Tompkins, i was blocked for editing a page????

[16:42] <tompkins> You were blocked because you vandalized Insineratehymn's userpage... like 3 times, and you repeatedly created vanity pages about yourself in the mainspace.

[16:42] <Citrusmirakel> Oh right, THAT. Well, she said she wanted me to teach her a few things and...

[16:42] <goshzilla^> By whom?

[16:43] *** goshzilla^ left #uncyclopedia []

[16:43] <Mylen> How did i vandalize it all i did was put that warning that it was extreme content

[16:43] <tompkins> You're not allowed to edit others' userpages, you've already been told.

[16:43] <diMario> Citrusmirakel: that woul have to be Wendy, my //adopted// daughtir

[16:43] <Olipro> yes, but it's HIS page

[16:43] <Mylen> what i never knew that???

[16:43] <Citrusmirakel> Look, I mean - I'm not saying shit didn't get out of hand, I mean - it did, but like, you know - Jesus said "Let he who is without a statuatory rape charge issue the first subpoena."

[16:43] <Olipro> would you like it if we entered your house and redecorated it pink Mylen?

[16:44] <Mylen> Please, tompkins i didnt know that, i wont do it again

[16:44] *** Rudy_zZ is now known as RudyValencia

[16:44] <Mylen> i am a n00b here

[16:44] * tompkins thinks

[16:44] <Olipro> the kid sounds like he means well

[16:44] <Olipro> go on, be nice

[16:44] <tompkins> Alright, I can unblock you, but there'll be conditions.

[16:44] <Mylen> yes?

[16:44] <Olipro> on your knees...

[16:44] <Mylen> what kind of conditions?

[16:45] <Citrusmirakel> Spanking machine!

[16:45] <TomMayfair> VANDEL

[16:45] * diMario no worries, friend. Wendy is my adopted Grue daughtir, currently engaged to be married to her handsome Borg officer.

[16:45] <TomMayfair> GOOD SIR

[16:45] <TomMayfair> VANDAL*

[16:45] <Mylen> what is VANDEL??

[16:45] <TomMayfair> ALL OVER THE PLACE

[16:45] <Citrusmirakel> What does Borg/Grue sex sound like?

[16:45] <Mylen> What do u mean??

[16:45] <tompkins> No more posts about yourself in the mainspace, or the "talk: space" no more editing other users' pages, and please no more posts at the VD about Anarchy or your plans to take-over the site.

[16:45] <Mylen> Yes sir

[16:46] <SonicChao> Don't unblock Mylen

[16:46] <Mylen> I understand

[16:46] <Olipro> yeah... that's just silly

[16:46] <diMario> Citrusmirakel: I am deaf. Thank grief

[16:46] <SonicChao> I will do everything in my power to make sure that [s]he stays blocked :P

[16:46] <TomMayfair>

[16:46] <tompkins> Violating any of these conditions will get you banned, for at least a week.

[16:46] <Olipro> diMario: yeah, meths will do that do you ;)

[16:46] <Mylen> yes sir

[16:46] <tompkins> You're unbanned.

[16:47] <Mylen> I am sorry and will not do this again honestly

[16:47] <Citrusmirakel> Wait, is there a discussion of unblocking someone who wrote Fart fart fart?

[16:47] <SonicChao> :/

[16:47] <Jedravent> oh I already put GOOD SIR on ban patrol

[16:47] <diMario> Olipro: I will correct you on the issue: I am Dutch

[16:47] <diMario> you see

[16:47] <SonicChao> You should have LISTENED to me tompkins.

[16:47] <Olipro> hah

[16:47] <Olipro> yesh you are

[16:47] <tompkins> Ahahaha, that GOOD SIR guy was fast...

[16:47] <Mylen> Bye, Tompkins, I will not do that again

[16:47] <tompkins> Goodbye, Mylen.

[16:48] <TomMayfair> ... god damn it

[16:48] *** Mylen [i=43642466@gateway/web/cgi-irc/] has quit [Remote closed the connection]

--Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 02:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing I like best about IRC is everyone else's conversations. It's like a party where the other people all seem to be having fun, while you're being chatted at by the urologist who really enjoys his work. Or something. It's not a perfect analogy.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 02:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You know how ill use an example president bush declared war on Iraq. If the president did not exist people could INDIVIDUALLY CHOOOSE rather to fight in Iraq or not. So now lets use that same theory on uncyclopedia people could INDIVIDUaLLY CHOOOSE rather to cause chaos or paradise and we all would choose paradise. If we ever get a leader we need an excellent one that has militant traits like me. Get one that will blast the fuck outta everyone. I think it would all be best if anarchy was the ruler. Mylen 16:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yoink! /me steals your rose-coloured glasses, me puts them on. Oooo! Blurry.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 16:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
No, people would choose chaos. Look at Special:Log/block and Special:Log/delete. LOOK AT THE SHITLOADS OF CRAP PAGES THAT NEED DELETION, AND THE SHITLOADS OF VANDALS THAT NEED BANNING. LOOK AT IT. They outnumber decent contributors signifigantly. If we let this shit run rampant on the wiki, imagine the state of things. AAAAAAAAA! would contain several Bs, Powershit would be dragging his bravado everywhere, HowTo:Get Banned would be blanked every ten seconds, and there would be lots and lots of cruft pages that nobody can delete. Even you would go around spamming your idiotic template on peoples' userpages. Also, I have officially lost several points of respect for Tompkins for unbanning you. Seriously, what the hell are you talking about that you didn't know it was Insineratehymn's userpage? You stated in your topic that Insineratehymn was a 'threat to Uncyclopedia' simply because he didn't agree with the notion of template spamming. You added Insineratehymn's name to a 'list of enemies' on your userpage. Even after the vandalism, you said on your talk page that you wanted to warn people about Insineratehymn and his free thinking. You knew full well what you were doing, don't play dumb. --User:Nintendorulez 16:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Insineratehymn is a threat to Uncyclopedia because uncyclopedia needs and craves militant anarchy leaders Mylen 16:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

All he did was vote against your template. And are you basically admitting that your vandalism to his userpage was intentional? --User:Nintendorulez 16:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

<tompkins> ...and please no more posts at the VD about Anarchy or your plans to take-over the site.

Forum:Anarchy Ruler Of Uncyclopedia - BANBANBAN. --User:Nintendorulez 16:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Troll! Cave troll! Nobody feed him, quick! I mean, somebody don't feed Mylen right now! Isn't there a way to unfeed a troll -- like by baleeting his topics from the Pancake House?----OEJ 17:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's feed him till he asplode. I say, choose anarchalarchy - then we run the place in a gloriously bloody benevolent commune, where those who act against the commune are punched in the face, say, five times banned. Then we choose our own system of order - oh, wait, did we do that when we signed up? BerogenVFH 17:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think trolls not asplodable. Their egos infinitely inflatable, never asplode, just get more and more bloated. Isn't there a disease called mylenesthemia or something? -- 17:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools