User talk:68.97.36.194

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Please refrain from vandalizing the Oklahoma Christian University page.

I apologize for conflating you with other anon users who are continuously vandalizing the page. Please log in to insure that this doesn't happen again. I'd also point you to Wikipedia policy: no personal attacks and guideline: assume good faith. Danlovejoy 00:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please leave me alone

Please refrain from leaving me personal messages on my Talk page. I do not read messages from anonymous users, and I deleted your message without reading it. If that means that you've won the argument, OK. You've won the argument. I'm quite happy to lose the argument to you. Please consider me a lost cause. I have no interest in having discussions with anonymous ax-grinders on Wikipedia, or anywhere.

Once again, I ask that you leave me alone and try to make the world better somewhere where you can make a difference. Danlovejoy 04:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: You know guy, changing other people's messages like you did is not only intellectually dishonest, but downright childish. Doesn't look like you have much call to criticize User:Alkivar's behavior. --Calton | Talk 12:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't run from legitimate arguments. You did. Maybe you should look up intellectual honesty while you're at it also. Parody doesn't exactly count - unless you want me to believe someone might come to this page and think Dan wrote that he is a big crybaby. Furthermore, you should also do just a bit more investigation. Dan erased my comments from his talk page on more than one occassion. The result was that he was parodied.
A further difference is that I can admit even though I did nothing unethical, it still would have been prudent not to revert Dan's comments. You, on the other hand, have fled, blocked, reverted, and protected. You even referred to the official policy as "vandalism". Do I have to wait another couple of days more before you respond with such thundering and compelling rhetoric again? 68.97.36.194 12:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Never mind, it's not Alkivar. It's only someone making strawman arguments for him. (Boy, I really wish I had noticed that earlier. Then I wouldn't have been so tough on the poor guy. I guess I should just read a little closer in the future, right, kids!)

68.97.36.194 12:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's see: intellectually dishonest, childish, using words without understanding their meaning (quick, what's the "strawman argument" you're talking about?), inattentive -- and, of course, hypocritical, since you're whinging about some "running from legitimate arguments" while hiding behind an IP number.
I have no idea what your beef is with Danlovejoy or Alkivar, but the postings of yours I've read so far tells me all I need to know about your good faith -- or lack thereof. Remember the First Law of Holes: when you find yourself in one, stop digging. --Calton | Talk 13:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I wish I had the luxury in my life of losing every single argument I made and then pretending like I won through the use of tired cliches. You've conviniently ignored every argument of substance. What about Alkivar's behavior? I named a lot of things he did wrong. The best you can come up with is pretending like you aren't the strawman standing in lieu of Alkivar. 68.97.36.194 02:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I wish I had the luxury in my life of losing every single argument I made and then pretending like I won through the use of tired cliches. From your postings, it looks like you've had plenty of practice. We can now toss in "Begging the question" to your tour of Rhetorical Fallacy's Greatest Hits.
The best you can come up with is pretending like you aren't the strawman standing in lieu of Alkivar. Guy, do you have even the slightest clue what "strawman" means? But enough of this: it's not so much that you're a troll, but that you're not a particularly competent one. --Calton | Talk 05:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


Why even post if this is the best you can do? Not a single substantive argument - just rhetoric. Let me explain a basic idea to you. Part of the ability to argue is to be able to synthesize facts and rules. The traditional straw man argument is making your own bad arguments to refute. If you can't see how the situation at hand is exactly as I have described before, then you should just quit. You are nothing but a straw man. Each time you post, I knock you down. Your arguments are so bad, that they detract from the people you're defending. Facts, rules, put them together. Your a straw man by proxy.
Nice work linking to the straw man article. Hey, look, I can link to the rational basis review article. Not that rational basis is important here, but why don't you check out who wrote it? Check out what links to it. Check out how many people have felt to correct the rational basis review article. Amazing, huh? You can pretend I don't know how to argue, but that just allows me to see your pathetic ability to grasp reality, as you are completely unaware of the competition.
I can see without anything of real substance to say, you've resorted to cheap, fifth grade attacks. You've bumped up from tired to cliches to baseless accusations. Next you might even make a real argument. Boy, oh, boy, that should be fun. Have you taken the LSAT? The bar? If not, you should. You seem to be picking up on this stuff really quickly. 68.97.36.194 06:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Policy Reminders

Hi Anon. I wish to end the feud over Oklahoma Christian University and bring it to a successful resolution that everyone can be happy with. I also want you to conform to Wikipedia policies, specifically regarding civility, assuming good faith, and personal attacks. I'd like to also remind you that Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a battleground.

If you want to add NPOV content to the OC article, please do so. I can't keep you from making changes to the article, and I won't. There's a lot that can be added, both good and bad about OC.

However, I must urge you in the strongest terms to refrain from your continuous personal attacks on me and on other editors with whom you disagree. Your real problem is with policies at OC, not with the Wikipedia article on OC. You can't solve that problem here, and you won't find any peace by raging against me or other editors.

I wish you the best. Danlovejoy 04:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It's really amazing how everything is a "personal attack" these days. The hypocrasy is sufficating. Is the DarkEyed vandal the DarkEyed blogger? No. Why did you think they were the same? Did you assume good faith, Dan? Why did you put a vandalism warning on this IP address? Did you assume good faith? Nope. And it's not like you were afraid to let loose with the H-word - "hate"!
But nice try, Dan. Get some sleep. 68.97.36.194 05:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/8/2E/User_talk%7E68.97.36.194.html"