Oh god, here goes Ottava again, Troll or psychopath, you be the judge Options

[SB_Johnny]

...

Can everyone who isn't a 16-year-old boy please raise their hands now?

[Abd]

...

Can everyone who isn't a 16-year-old boy please raise their hands now?

I'd raise my hand except that I'm still under 16, 51 years later.

Meanwhile, on our dear topic, this was too rich to pass up, given that I'm under 16.

Ottava is sitting in a bar, he's appointed himself the greeter, so he can win points for future play. So in walks a new customer, wearing a fresh name tag.

So he says:

Hello Abusemerump ... Ottava Rima (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

And the newcomer says... ? Prize for the best answer, a personal missive from Abd. No warranties, express or implied, but normally these are useful for doorstops, keeping tarps from blowing away in the wind, or, if read, as a treatment for insomnia.

Ah! Another one, this on meta

Hello TuurDS, and welcome ... - Ottava Rima (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Ottava was up late. Drunk? What?

Meanwhile, reasonable requests often sit with no notice on meta, for example, this, this, and, then, this, just a bit earlier than the above, showing how clearly he was thinking.

... I will be asking for blocks all around. This abuse is really egregious - defying consensus, asking for privileges without following standards, outright making up things. It really has to stop, and the people involved really should have known better. -- Ottava Rima 05:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

He's talking about, among others, a steward. But there is a more obvious application of the block tool, easily determined by just reviewing Ottava's recent contributions on meta. Considering what I had to do to get blocked on meta, like .... what? ... meta is penny wise and pound foolish.

This post has been edited by Abd: Sat 12th November 2011, 1:31pm

[Abd]

Hmm. Take a look at the admin who originally blocked Ottava. Do people who look like that really edit Wikimedia projects?

Are you talking about this babe? No, of course people who look like that have nothing to do with Wikimedia projects.

Her blogger profile pic is also quite lovely. Who would have guessed she's a theologian?
http://www.blogger.com/profile/13132702039138562947

"Theologian" is no surprise, seeing that blogger photo. Men see her and fall over with, "Oh, my God!" Might as well put it to good use, besides getting ahead, so to speak, on Wikimedia projects. Shows good sense, too, re the Ottava block. However ....

Poetlister is Very Bad because he shows a photo of a young woman to win friends and influence people.
This user is, what, because she shows photos of a young woman to win friends and influence people?

The difference, of course, is that Beria is -- probably! -- actually a woman, the one in the photo. That's not a difference in substance, as to Wikimedia business, since "theologian" and "editor" don't depend on "real" gender. Except, of course, to Ottava. He's got a thing about "fake." Fake woman, bad. Fake boobs, bad. Fake genitals, bad. Fake arguments (defined as disagreeing with Ottava), Very Very Bad. Ban them all!

[communicat]

I actually think Ottava makes some fairly sensible points there. Just because you'll never get him to admit there's a slippery slope involved, doesn't mean he's completely wrong about everything else, does it? Unless it's his persistence alone that's bothersome... but y'know, it's Wikipedia, so you'll have that.

The fundamentalist mindset tends to be characterized by binary Aristotelian thinking. No fuzzy sets. They very often only see black and white and do not recognize shades of grey, and thus (by definition) do not see slippery "slopes." Just cliffs and discontinuities between correct and incorrect, right and wrong, good and bad. Take a rather obvious process like formation of a human baby from a couple of cells and they can tell you EXACTLY when a complete human being appears--POOF--out of the tissue. No brain? Not a problem for a fundie. A Platonic ideal don't need no stinkin' brain.

Children think like this, too, right up to around age ten. In many ways fundies are like narcissists-- they would be normal children, if they WERE children. They have this quality of never growing up to mature "form-ops" (formal operational) thinking. These qualities (selfish, simple, never unreserved in judgement) are endearing and often humorous in animals and kids. In human adults, not so much.

Oh god, here goes Molten Row again.

[A Horse With No Name]

Her blogger profile pic is also quite lovely. Who would have guessed she's a theologian?

Bless me, mama, for I have sinned!

[Abd]

I actually think Ottava makes some fairly sensible points there. Just because you'll never get him to admit there's a slippery slope involved, doesn't mean he's completely wrong about everything else, does it? Unless it's his persistence alone that's bothersome... but y'know, it's Wikipedia, so you'll have that.

The fundamentalist mindset tends to be characterized by binary Aristotelian thinking. No fuzzy sets. They very often only see black and white and do not recognize shades of grey, and thus (by definition) do not see slippery "slopes." Just cliffs and discontinuities between correct and incorrect, right and wrong, good and bad. Take a rather obvious process like formation of a human baby from a couple of cells and they can tell you EXACTLY when a complete human being appears--POOF--out of the tissue. No brain? Not a problem for a fundie. A Platonic ideal don't need no stinkin' brain.

Children think like this, too, right up to around age ten. In many ways fundies are like narcissists-- they would be normal children, if they WERE children. They have this quality of never growing up to mature "form-ops" (formal operational) thinking. These qualities (selfish, simple, never unreserved in judgement) are endearing and often humorous in animals and kids. In human adults, not so much.

Oh god, here goes Molten Row again.

I thought the analysis was pretty cogent. Don't confuse "Fundamentalist" with one who is returning to "fundamentals," sometimes people who are actually doing that will call themselves "fundamentalists." However, what these Fundamentalists, being described, are returning to, is a caricature of the true fundamentals, as a reaction to what they believe is Wrong. Like, actually looking and seeing and describing and thinking and testing ideas. That's all Wrong because they imagine it is Against the Fundamentals, which, to them is, "Believe as I believe or you are doomed."

In Islam, these people were recognized early on as a literally deviant sect, the Khawarij, or "Kharijites." The name means the "Seceders," because they condemned the rest of the community. They assassinated the fourth khalifs because he ('Ali), son-in-law of the Prophet, wasn't fanatical enough for them. They also tried to simultaneously kill the "fifth khalif," who, making a long story short, was the first power-grabber, who founded a dynasty, but they failed, all they accomplished was to pave the road by removing 'Ali.

Their spiritual descendants are the Wahhabi fundamentalists of Saudi Arabia, the thinking spawned al-Qa'ida. Historically, these people killed everyone who disagreed with them, if they could get power over them.

So, by brother and sister Christians and others, Islam is also afflicted by "fundamentalists" who corrupt a message of love and honesty and caring, who forgive and "love their neighbors" with strict punishments, the death penalty, banning for disagreements, and general You Are All Wrong thinking.

[Abd]

Her blogger profile pic is also quite lovely. Who would have guessed she's a theologian?

Bless me, mama, for I have sinned!

You wish.

No sin in being normal. Actually, no sin in being abnormal, either. Wanting something, seeing it as desirable, is no sin at all. It's what we might actually do in response to our desires that can get us in trouble.

I'll say from experience that women this beautiful are not necessarily the best "choice," if one is faced with the choice. However, sometimes men don't have much of a choice, it is as if we've been pushed off a cliff. My God! I'm falling! What do I do now?

Enjoy the ride! It will all be over soon enough. Carpe diem, go for the gold. Keep your eyes wide, the chance won't come again.

[A Horse With No Name]

Enjoy the ride! It will all be over soon enough. Carpe diem, go for the gold. Keep your eyes wide, the chance won't come again.

Boy, are you depressing!

I'll say from experience that women this beautiful are not necessarily the best "choice," if one is faced with the choice.

Eh, phooey - Jimmy Soul said the same thing to music:

[Abd]

Enjoy the ride! It will all be over soon enough. Carpe diem, go for the gold. Keep your eyes wide, the chance won't come again.

Boy, are you depressing!

Well, maybe you are depressed, but, if so, not because I'm "depressing." How you respond to reality, how it occurs to you, is up to you. I can tell you that what I wrote is the opposite of depressing to me. I live my life more fully, more passionately, because I know I'm dying.

I'll say from experience that women this beautiful are not necessarily the best "choice," if one is faced with the choice.

Eh, phooey - Jimmy Soul said the same thing to music:

Indeed he did. I know the song, I can't hear the video now -- this computer has no functioning sound card, but I know the words: "If you want to be happy for the rest of your wife, never make a pretty woman your wife. So from a practical point of view, get an ugly girl to marry you."

I don't agree, by the way. Don't marry an "ugly girl," you will be inflicting your limited vision on her. Don't marry a woman if you cannot see her beauty. Rude. Very rude.

Look, if you love a beautiful woman, and if she loves you (don't forget that part), marry her. Just don't imagine that just because she's beautiful, you'll be happy. It doesn't work that way.

This post has been edited by Abd: Mon 14th November 2011, 6:09pm