Dragonfly Sixtyseven - super shmuck Options

[A Horse With No Name]

I only knew the admin Dragonfly Sixtyseven as the kook admin who turned his user page into a shrine for his girlfriend after she dropped dead. Well, he seems to know our little pony.

On November 12, 2011, DragonflySixtyseven went out of his way to delete a bunch of articles that I created under the name of Warrah. The Warrah account was disabled in April 2010 and the articles created under this account – all of which were properly referenced, and many had photos – were online without any controversy.

Now, I have no clue why this idiot abruptly decided to single out my work more than 1.5 years after the account was shut down. I only discovered this deletion spree by accident today.

Thanks to Mr. Dragonfly and something called "G5", the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" now has coverage holes in subjects relating to cinema, art, zoology, marine biology, whaling, publishing and art. The articles that were deleted (without discussion, AFAIK) include:

Two articles on films that are part of the U.S. Library of Congress’ National Film Registry: "Commandment Keep Church, Beaufort, South Carolina (May 1940)" and "Kannapolis, N.C. (1941 film)." A third National Film Registry-related article, "Traffic in Souls," was also deleted but was later recreated by another person.

Two articles about noted U.S. zoologists William G. Conway and Susan K. Avery.

An article about the critically acclaimed biography "Black Apollo of Science: The Life of Ernest Everett Just."

An article about the book “The Biology of the Cell Surface,” written by the aforementioned Ernest Everett Just (it is one of the most important books in early 20th century marine biology).

An article about the American Wind and Wildlife Institute, a prominent U.S. wind energy and environmental organization.

An article about the environmental book and documentary "River of Renewal: Myth and History in the Klamath Basin."

An article about Absalom Boston, the first African American whaling ship captain.

An article about the maritime folk song "John Kanaka."

Articles about the famous paintings "The Dream" (Rousseau), "Lions in the Desert" (Tanner) and "Apocalypse in Lilac, Capriccio" (Chagall).

Articles about two New England museums: Azorean Maritime Heritage Society and Kendall Whaling Museum.

Articles about two organizations that preserve U.S. whaling history, The X Seamen's Institute and Melville Society.

An article about the acclaimed indie publishing company Orchises Press.

An article about the Sarawak pygmy swellshark. (I guess it is not such a notable shark after all?)

An article about the influential U.S. pediatric physician/researcher Sidney V. Haas.

An article about the U.S. television program "Zoorama."

An article on Scottish historian Ashley Cowie (someone else rewrote it).

An article on the Giant Solenodon (somehow that got restored).

In case you are wondering, most of these articles were quickly written and at stub-level. Still, the level of destruction is pretty stupid, even by WP standards.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[TungstenCarbide]

I only knew the admin Dragonfly Sixtyseven as the kook admin who turned his user page into a shrine for his girlfriend after she dropped dead. Well, he seems to know our little pony.

On November 12, 2011, DragonflySixtyseven went out of his way to delete a bunch of articles that I created under the name of Warrah.

would it kill ya to add some links?

[A Horse With No Name]

would it kill ya to add some links?

Well, that was efficient. If you have a few free minutes, you can also clean my bathtub and polish my silverware. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[carbuncle]

I find it hard to reconcile this with the weeping and rending of garments on ScottyBerg's page...

[TungstenCarbide]

would it kill ya to add some links?

Well, that was efficient. If you have a few free minutes, you can also clean my bathtub and polish my silverware. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

interesting that you brought this up. Polishing silverware is just plain stupid. There is no need - make the damn stuff out of stainless instead of silver, jeeze. The only reason to have silver that needs polishing is if you are a 'first world parasite' (thanks eric).

Reminds me of my last trip to Scotland. All the fancy buildings had polished brass nameplates on the entrances. Thing is, during polishing the polishing compound got slathered about and left residue that stained the surrounding granite and wood. Jesus Fuck, what the hell is wrong with these people - making all that effort to look all fancy and creating a slovenly mess instead.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[A Horse With No Name]

I find it hard to reconcile this with the weeping and rending of garments on ScottyBerg's page...

I don't understand the comment. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[carbuncle]

I find it hard to reconcile this with the weeping and rending of garments on ScottyBerg's page...

I don't understand the comment. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

On the one hand, some WP editors rush to delete inoffensive content specifically because it was created by a banned user (you). On the other, some WP users argue that just because an editor (ScottyBerg) was the sock of a banned user, they should not be blocked because they are contributing "good" (inoffensive) content.

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[Peter Damian]

The fact this can happen at all shows that Wikipedia is in completely the wrong hands. The biblical story, you know, the baby and the women fighting over it, and the King offering to cut the baby in two. The real mother disagreed and would rather give the baby away rather than see it die. The pretend mother agreed. The bible story had a happy ending (the King realised that a true mother would not let the baby be killed). Not so on Wikipedia. Sad.

It's here in fact http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09a03.htm#16 .

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[A Horse With No Name]

On the one hand, some WP editors rush to delete inoffensive content specifically because it was created by a banned user (you). On the other, some WP users argue that just because an editor (ScottyBerg) was the sock of a banned user, they should not be blocked because they are contributing "good" (inoffensive) content.

Okay, now I understand. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

The thing that I didn't understand at first is what possessed Dragonfly Sixtyseven to think of me (of all people) and abruptly go out of his way to erase nearly every original article created by my least conspicuous pseudonym. I am assuming that he took up this inane endeavor because he is probably a lurker on this site and was probably offended over something that I said last fall. If he is here, I think I have an idea who is he among the WR sheep.

The biblical story, you know, the baby and the women fighting over it, and the King offering to cut the baby in two.

That's King Solomon...but there were better stories about him and that smokin' hot Ethiopian mama, the Queen of Sheba. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[EricBarbour]

If anyone has more info on D67, please, share it.

As I've discovered before, he's one of WP's most disgustingly evil patrollers.
He rarely blocks, but when he does, he calls the account "promotional", blocks
for one month, and erases all the histories and diffs, making a
third-party determination of what happened impossible. Plus, he's a regular on
various IRC channels, where he plots to screw people with a few other
"evil patrollers". I don't think he ever logs out of #wikipedia.

He is a slimy little bastard, and oh btw, one of Jimbo's biggest fans. And very
few people are even aware of his existence. Excellent example of Wikipedia's
worst examples of humanity. I would have felt sympathy over the death of
his GF, but then I saw him (a) continue to work on Wikipedia incoherently the
very day she died, and (b) his blocking history is quite disgusting in any case.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[A Horse With No Name]

. I would have felt sympathy over the death of his GF, but then I saw him ... continue to work on Wikipedia incoherently the
very day she died ...

Curious behavior. Wouldn't it be interesting if she was a figment of his imagination?

[Web Fred]

The fact this can happen at all shows that Wikipedia is in completely the wrong hands. The biblical story, you know, the baby and the women fighting over it, and the King offering to cut the baby in two. The real mother disagreed and would rather give the baby away rather than see it die. The pretend mother agreed. The bible story had a happy ending (the King realised that a true mother would not let the baby be killed). Not so on Wikipedia. Sad.

Its a good job it wasn't a day when the true mother had been up all night with an infant that wouldn't feed. The result may have been different!

Reminds me of my last trip to Scotland. All the fancy buildings had polished brass nameplates on the entrances. Thing is, during polishing the polishing compound got slathered about and left residue that stained the surrounding granite and wood. Jesus Fuck, what the hell is wrong with these people - making all that effort to look all fancy and creating a slovenly mess instead.

It was most probably because the job had been given to a teenaged office junior who had no idea how to do the job properly and didn't really give a shit.

[Abd]

Looking at User:DragonflySixtyseven, I noticed his essay on "why we might think you are a sock puppet." So I read it, i.e., User:DragonflySixtyseven/First-timer. This was written about a VfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs. The subject of the article actually showed up in the VfD, writing somewhat like I'd expect a cantor might write.

Dragonfly is concerned with the possible sock or meat puppet voting (lots of editors showed up with sole contributions being to the VfD), but what I notice is that this was a long and rambling debate over an allegedly non-notable person's article. I.e., huge fuss over nothing of value, allegedly. It's an example of how broken the system was, even back then (2005). Wikipedia only seemed to work because no value was placed on editor labor, unless maybe you were an administrator. (The argument for long blocks is to save on admin labor.)

Predictable from no value being placed would be that editors would burn out, and it was only that new editors kept coming in that kept the place afloat. True expertise was not being built and accumulated, which is unlike the wiki vision, which is not just about content, it's about community expertise.

Was this cantor notable? Damned if I know. There was little or no debate, as far as I could tell, over sources. Much of the deletion comment came out of concern for socking. After all, if he was notable, why would socks be voting?

(I don't know if there were really socks voting there, but it wouldn't be surprising. The Cantor would very likely have many friends, and if they found out about the AfD, they might well show up. It really is *more* likely to happen with a notable person, especially if the notability is within a specialized field.

There was allegedly some major media mention, but the article talk page was, of course, also deleted. It was suggested that the article be userfied, I think, but there is no sign that this was done. Userification was a solution to marginal notability problems, and was suggested, allowing the material to be visible and possibly improved, while still not allowing it in the basic encyclopedia pages. Where I got stuff userfied, it was often no-followed so that it wouldn't get Google ranking.

(Normally, I was able to get copies of deleted articles on request, but if no experienced user handles this, it usually isn't done.)

I and others argued for a "junkyard space" which would be used for deletion of legal but non-notable material. Like many other suggestions that would have reduced the inclusionist/deletionist wars, it went nowhere. Another version of this was WP:PWD, i.e., "pure wiki deletion," which would have been closer to the original wiki vision, reserving actual deletion for illegal content. Again, that was, probably correctly, sensed as something that would reduce special administrative privilege. Such proposals generally die.

That adminship is "no big deal," that it supposedly confers no special content privileges, is pure BS, as to common practice. It's true for truly ethical administrators. There is no training offered in ethical administration, so it's not surprising that few administrators even understand the issues.

To really know if the cantor is notable, I'd need to see the alleged sources. It can be very hard to find them with Google, and the only people motivated to find them were those SPAs and alleged sock puppets.... They were not guided to do the work, they were not encouraged; rather, they were rejected and insulted, by the likes of Dragonfly.

I've worked with authors of deleted articles about themselves, encouraging them to find newspaper sources -- which they claimed existed, and I believed them, they had no motive to lie to me. It can be very difficult for newspapers that don't have on-line archives.

I also saw a similar problem with a large set of articles about Amateur Radio Clubs. There were affiliates of the international organization that recognizes only one club per nation, that had existed for over eighty years or so, but the articles were being deleted because there weren't explicit independent sources. These clubs almost certainly had been mentioned in local newspapers in these various countries, as well as in international radio publications, and those would be, in theory, reliable source. Deletion was a toss-up, it would depend on who showed up to comment and who showed up to close. Some articles with exactly the same conditions as others would be deleted, others would be kept. I tried to improve the relevant notability guideline, it was one of my last independent efforts on-wiki. Useless, because editors were afraid that making the obvious exception, allowing a sole national affiliate of a highly notable international organization to be notable ipso facto, reducing much useless AfD debate, was considered to possibly create a loophole others would drive through with other situations. Nobody had an actual problem situation. This happened, as well, with Red Cross affiliates.

Most news coverage would be local, not in English. No argument was made that non-RS material should be in the article, only that a stub should be allowed, with a link to an official web site for the affiliate, and basic information sourced from the international organization. So that all similar clubs could be treated similarly, and then as RS was found for individual clubs' history and activities, there would be a place to put the information.

Useless, wasted effort, and few care. There are those who want this reinvent-the-wheel-over-and-over process, because it allows them to Do What They Want, pretty much. If they lose a discussion, just come back and start it up later.... Like the 8 AfDs for Wikitruth.....

[radek]

On the one hand, some WP editors rush to delete inoffensive content specifically because it was created by a banned user (you). On the other, some WP users argue that just because an editor (ScottyBerg) was the sock of a banned user, they should not be blocked because they are contributing "good" (inoffensive) content.

Okay, now I understand. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

The thing that I didn't understand at first is what possessed Dragonfly Sixtyseven to think of me (of all people) and abruptly go out of his way to erase nearly every original article created by my least conspicuous pseudonym. I am assuming that he took up this inane endeavor because he is probably a lurker on this site and was probably offended over something that I said last fall. If he is here, I think I have an idea who is he among the WR sheep.

The biblical story, you know, the baby and the women fighting over it, and the King offering to cut the baby in two.

Edit: I *think* I just said what Abd said just in fewer words.
That's King Solomon...but there were better stories about him and that smokin' hot Ethiopian mama, the Queen of Sheba. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

I have no idea how he came across your edits, but the mentality is pretty common - to people like him it's an opportunity to fill up their admin log and look like he's doing "good" by banning "bad" people like you. It's cheap, it looks good, costs<<benefits. From an individual perspective of Mr Dragonfly himself. From the perspective of common sense, basic decency AND EVEN Wikipedia itself it's just moronic.

This post has been edited by radek:

[EricBarbour]

Looking at User:DragonflySixtyseven, I noticed his essay on "why we might think you are a sock puppet." So I read it, i.e., User:DragonflySixtyseven/First-timer. This was written about a VfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs. The subject of the article actually showed up in the VfD, writing somewhat like I'd expect a cantor might write.

I'm glad you mentioned that AFD, because it's got this deathless exchange in it:

An emphaticKeep. My name is Reverend Cantor Victor I. Beck, President of the Jewish Ministers Cantors Association of America. I led the delegation of cantors - one of the 13 cantors who were selected to sing for the Pope on 1/18/05. It was a monumental event unprecedented in Judeo-Christian history. Rev. Cantor Kepecs gave the Pope a mezuzah that he created for that purpose - to show that the Jewish people really want to have reconciliation with the Catholic church. The Pope very much wanted this meeting. Being the President of the oldest Cantorial organization (dating back to 1896)who had such illustrious members as Cantor Yossele Rosenblatt, Ben Zion Kapov Kagan, Chaskele Ritter, David Koussevitzky, Moshe Koussevitzky, Berele Chagy, Israel Alter, Mordechai Hershman, Adolf Katchko, Leib Glantz, Alter Yechiel Karniol, Zavel Kwartin, Samuel Malavsky, Shlomo Mendel, Yeshia Meissels Pierre Pinchik and many others, I feel in my expertise that Cantor Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs is more than a noteworthy cantor, he is an exceptional Cantor and artist, who deserves a page in your encyclopedia. I can only assume that those who wish to remove mention of Cantor Kepecs in this forum are either ill-informed or have other agendas which are not in keeping with the historical and informative nature of this forum.-Rev. Cantor Victor I Beck, President JMCA May 5, 2005

Note: User 162.83.159.221's first edit. Jayjg (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

For the record, the many illustrious cantors mentioned above were real people. DS 13:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Rev. Cantor Beck: Welcome to Wikipedia! Please avoid personal attacks and assume good faith; these are among the rules we try to live by here. We are not here proposing not to mention the meeting between Jewish clergy and Pope John Paul II; as I write, it is very extensively discussed in the article Relations of Pope John Paul II with the Jewish People. That is not at question here. Neither is Cantor Kepecs' ability as an artist or personal worth. Indeed, many people have deleted who everybody voting agrees sound like wonderful people who have contributed to the world, just like Cantor Kepecs. It is just a question of where to draw our line. Please see Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies for some sense of how we think about this. Again, welcome! Samaritan 18:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Samaritan, I trust as your name implies, that you are a good samaritan. Please do not ascribe any lesser motivations to me than you do for yourself. My entire life and the lives of those with whom I associate, are dedicated to attending to the needs and aspirations of both the Jewish community, and the world community at large. Endemic to this work, is a constant striving to uphold the fundemental building blocks of a civilized society. In the Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the fathers) there is a statement that the world rests on 3 things, on study of Torah, prayer worship, and on acts of loving kindness. Endemic to those 3 principals is a constant striving for truth and accuracy. I invite you to join me in this endeavor. -Rev. Cantor Victor I. Beck, President JMCA 5/5/05

I assume the "Rev. Cantor" means "principles". Maybe he should trade the title in for another box of crackerjacks and a better education. If he were to do so, he'd eventually learn that the glorification of "the good Samaritan" is Christian propaganda. Tomer TALK 21:25, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to decreasingly humbly point out that "Reverend Cantor Beck"'s "contribution" here, quite clearly spells out that this article is, as has been pointed out previously, nothing more than self-promotion. I also think it's interesting that the Jewish Ministers Cantors Association of America website is hmmm...Missing in action. A google search for "Reverend Cantor" turns up exactly 5 distinct hits, only 4 of which are actually using "reverend cantor" as a title, two of which clarify that this is a title of sorts bestowed by the Cantorial Associaton of America, not the JMCAA. Another of them is a somewhat sideways joke about a blogger's grandfather, and the other is, Lo and behold, an almost verbatim copycat of the stuff that this anonymous editor keeps trying to inject into wikipedia. Wanna see? Check it out here: [1]. How do you spell "AGENDA"? So then, I decided, why don't I go see what I can find on Victor I. Beck. So, I looked him up, and guess what I found? 13 relevant google hits. About half of which identify him as "Victor I. Beck" and the rest as "Cantor Victor I. Beck". That's right, to my utter lack of shock, there were no "Reverend Cantor Victor I. Beck"s. So then I said me, "How about just plain Victor Beck?" So I did that search. Predictably, this turned up a significantly greater number of hits. I paged through them, and found out that there are a number of people with the names Victor and Beck in various combinations with other names, but still no Reverend Cantors Beck. So, now I'm thinking perhaps what I should do is email Cantor Victor I. Beck, at cantorbeck@cantorbeck.com, an email address I feel comfortable publishing, since it appears here: [2]...and ask him whether or not he's had free time lately to write disrespectful notes on Wikipedia talkpages. Now that I know he's a part-time resident of Phoenix, perhaps what I should do is head over to whitepages.com and see whether or not I can get his phone number. That might be quicker... Tomer TALK 21:14, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

That other website has the same text because it's a mirror of an older version of the Wikipedia article into which this had been inserted. Jayjg (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE! I went and visited Cantor Victor I. Beck's website, [3], which is overloaded with java and winmedia crap, but my critique of the bad webdesign isn't really the important point here: NOWHERE on that site, does it anywhere say "REVEREND CANTOR". Tomer TALK 21:23, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the "special cantorial robes and hat" either, unless that tuxedo and kippah count. Jayjg (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

What nonsense. Do you hear what you actually sound like? -Merlin 6 May 2005

So, a well-known Jewish clergyman shows up on Wikipedia--and gets lectured about "personal attacks" and "good faith". And Jayjg stands there and insults the cantor. And they got away with it (as usual). This is the major problem with Wikipedia's insiders, they've become so arrogant, they think they're better than even their own religious authorities. No wonder Jay doesn't want his real name known--one could print this stuff out and send it to HIS cantor, and thereby cause Jay considerable unpleasantness.

And FWIW, examination of D67's edit history shows something very predictable: a Wiki-True-Believer. When he's not patrolling like a mad robot and sucking Wales's dick,
he writes articles about science fiction...and comic books. And he's apparently in his mid-30s now.

WP is full of Arrested Development characters.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[melloden]

. I would have felt sympathy over the death of his GF, but then I saw him ... continue to work on Wikipedia incoherently the
very day she died ...

Curious behavior.

I think the rest of your comment was distasteful, even if it's been over two years since her death.

[radek]

"Rev. Cantor Beck: Welcome to Wikipedia! Please avoid personal attacks and assume good faith"

THIS is why you want to edit wikipedia. The laughs just keep on coming and it's like watching some new strain of a vicious virus evolve in a petri dish and you're right there sitting right smack in the goo seeing it happen.

[Web Fred]

. I would have felt sympathy over the death of his GF, but then I saw him ... continue to work on Wikipedia incoherently the
very day she died ...

Curious behavior.

I think the rest of your comment was distasteful, even if it's been over two years since her death.

I rather doubt she's upset about it.

"Rev. Cantor Beck: Welcome to Wikipedia! Please avoid personal attacks and assume good faith"

THIS is why you want to edit wikipedia. The laughs just keep on coming and it's like watching some new strain of a vicious virus evolve in a petri dish and you're right there sitting right smack in the goo seeing it happen.

Why should it make any difference just because he has some arbitrary religious rank?

[radek]

Why should it make any difference just because he has some arbitrary religious rank?

The specific part of your statement where you're either being foolish or dishonest is the word "arbitrary".

Obviously, in this context, there was nothing "arbitrary" in his "religious rank". In fact, the whole point is that it was about as non-arbitrary as you can get. Follow?

More like "why should it make any difference just because he has some very specific and relevant relation to the subject"

Yourself, can you claim even an "arbitrary rank"? Religious or otherwise? No? Then why the fuck are you even expressing an opinion on a subject you don't know shit about? Goddamn, opinions are too damn cheap on the internet. About freakin' time they put a tax on people just spoutin' shit just because they can. 200$ minimum on anything to do with religion (get your mom to get another credit card Ottava). 100$ on anything to do with political elections. 5$ on sports, with a rebate of 2$ if your team wins and 3$ rebate if it places last (we want some churnin'). In fact, if Wikipedia started charging 50 cents per edit (say, 10 bucks to delete an article, another 11$ to recreate it, another 12$ to delete it again, etc., 69.50$ to get somebody banned for a day, 1800$ to get someone indef banned (I did a present value calculation for that one) and two-fitty to get on the ArbCom... then it might turn out to be a decent encyclopedia after all).

Oh yes, think before you write- as if every letter cost you money (if you ever see me being sloppy or wordy it's cuz I'm either filthy rich or a spend thirft, firfth, frith, thriftfh, ffffffrithhhh, thrif,t, dammit, stupid Battle of Hastings, opposite of cheap assssss bastard). (Extra "ssss" are the bling).

Quick! Someone black out Wikipedia until Congress agrees to tax random stupid opinions!!!

[Web Fred]

Why should it make any difference just because he has some arbitrary religious rank?

The specific part of your statement where you're either being foolish or dishonest is the word "arbitrary".

Any religious rank is arbitrary. It's just a name given to someone who spouts bollocks and insists that others should believe the bollocks.

Obviously, in this context, there was nothing "arbitrary" in his "religious rank". In fact, the whole point is that it was about as non-arbitrary as you can get. Follow?

The rank made no difference whatsoever to the discussion. It's just a word tacked onto someone's name. It means fuck all in the real world, ie the one that doesn't have make believe deities.

More like "why should it make any difference just because he has some very specific and relevant relation to the subject"

Yourself, can you claim even an "arbitrary rank"? Religious or otherwise? No?

Of course I don't, but then again I don't have a job that depends on other people believing the snake oil I pedal.

Then why the fuck are you even expressing an opinion on a subject you don't know shit about?

Because I can and because fora would be very quiet places indeed if people like me didn't.

In any case, why are you spouting an opinion on something you know shit about, ie me?

Goddamn, opinions are too damn cheap on the internet. About freakin' time they put a tax on people just spoutin' shit just because they can. 200$ minimum on anything to do with religion (get your mom to get another credit card Ottava). 100$ on anything to do with political elections. 5$ on sports, with a rebate of 2$ if your team wins and 3$ rebate if it places last (we want some churnin'). In fact, if Wikipedia started charging 50 cents per edit (say, 10 bucks to delete an article, another 11$ to recreate it, another 12$ to delete it again, etc., 69.50$ to get somebody banned for a day, 1800$ to get someone indef banned (I did a present value calculation for that one) and two-fitty to get on the ArbCom... then it might turn out to be a decent encyclopedia after all).

Oh yes, think before you write- as if every letter cost you money (if you ever see me being sloppy or wordy it's cuz I'm either filthy rich or a spend thirft, firfth, frith, thriftfh, ffffffrithhhh, thrif,t, dammit, stupid Battle of Hastings, opposite of cheap assssss bastard). (Extra "ssss" are the bling).

So how much do you think your rant should cost then?

Quick! Someone black out Wikipedia until Congress agrees to tax random stupid opinions!!!

I wouldn't mock, unless of course you're part of the 1%.