Talk:Usurper - Revision history

Angela: moved off topic to flames

2004-02-08T23:26:46Z

moved off topic to flames

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:26, 8 February 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~''from [[User_talk:Angela]], a conversation between a claimed caretaker and a seeming usurper (you decide who is who):''~~

	~~This claim not to have blocked the 142 ips on simple is a lie.~~

	~~You asked [[w:User:Cyan]] to do it.~~
	~~:No I didn't.~~
	~~::That's not how a reasonable person would read your dialogue with him.~~

	~~In any case, you are now a sysop there, and you haven't UNblocked that range.~~
	~~:Not technically possible even if I wanted to.~~
	::Interesting. "Not technically possible". You are willing to whine and beg others to CENSOR people, but not to UNCENSOR them. You hide behind what the technology can do, or what you personally are empowered with it to do, when the result would be what you don't like. Another lack of principle.
	::It also reveals how afraid the [[GodKing]] and his cabal are - they have to actually use blocks that ordinary sysops can't undo, knowing how strong the appetite for [[m:regime change]] is, and how many friends we have now BECAUSE WE ARE RIGHT.

	~~-------------~~

	[http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Usurper Metaweb] has some interesting observations about this - given their focus on the Baroque era.		[http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Usurper Metaweb] has some interesting observations about this - given their focus on the Baroque era.

142.177.106.131: reference

2004-01-17T16:48:14Z

reference

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:48, 17 January 2004
Line 11:		Line 11:
	::Interesting. "Not technically possible". You are willing to whine and beg others to CENSOR people, but not to UNCENSOR them. You hide behind what the technology can do, or what you personally are empowered with it to do, when the result would be what you don't like. Another lack of principle.		::Interesting. "Not technically possible". You are willing to whine and beg others to CENSOR people, but not to UNCENSOR them. You hide behind what the technology can do, or what you personally are empowered with it to do, when the result would be what you don't like. Another lack of principle.
	::It also reveals how afraid the [[GodKing]] and his cabal are - they have to actually use blocks that ordinary sysops can't undo, knowing how strong the appetite for [[m:regime change]] is, and how many friends we have now BECAUSE WE ARE RIGHT.		::It also reveals how afraid the [[GodKing]] and his cabal are - they have to actually use blocks that ordinary sysops can't undo, knowing how strong the appetite for [[m:regime change]] is, and how many friends we have now BECAUSE WE ARE RIGHT.

			-------------

			[http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Usurper Metaweb] has some interesting observations about this - given their focus on the Baroque era.

142.177.8.70: ok to delete User_talk:Angela, as the exchange is now here

2004-01-14T14:25:30Z

ok to delete User_talk:Angela, as the exchange is now here

New page

''from [[User_talk:Angela]], a conversation between a claimed caretaker and a seeming usurper (you decide who is who):''

This claim not to have blocked the 142 ips on simple is a lie.

You asked [[w:User:Cyan]] to do it.
:No I didn't.
::That's not how a reasonable person would read your dialogue with him.

In any case, you are now a sysop there, and you haven't UNblocked that range.
:Not technically possible even if I wanted to.
::Interesting. "Not technically possible". You are willing to whine and beg others to CENSOR people, but not to UNCENSOR them. You hide behind what the technology can do, or what you personally are empowered with it to do, when the result would be what you don't like. Another lack of principle.
::It also reveals how afraid the [[GodKing]] and his cabal are - they have to actually use blocks that ordinary sysops can't undo, knowing how strong the appetite for [[m:regime change]] is, and how many friends we have now BECAUSE WE ARE RIGHT.