User talk:MeetPulpet
January 2016
[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at January 2016 United States blizzard. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
MeetPulpet (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not a diplomat, and, as such, I am not fully conversant with the elegant and rarefied language of the diplomatic trade. I have a reputation for saying what I mean and meaning what I say. So I trust that you'll forgive me if I come across as a bit blunt when I state that it blew my mind when I realized that the consequences of Wikipedia's condescending causeries, particularly from a moral point of view, are not favorable. Although the pressing need for combatting the disorganized ideology of Machiavellianism that has infected the minds of so many blathering wing nuts is acknowledged here, the main focus of this letter regards Wikipedia's desire to ransack people's homes. Wikipedia once said that at birth every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum. Its myrmidons and others capable of little more than rote psittacism are now saying that too. In contrast, I personally say that Wikipedia wants us to degrade and disgrace both ourselves and our posterity by painting people of different races and cultures as rash alien forces undermining the coherent national will. I know you're wondering why I just wrote that. I'll explain shortly, but first, I should state that Wikipedia argues that it knows 100% of everything 100% of the time. I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: The Wikipedia Foundation's latest report on pathological sectarianism is filled with fabrications, half-truths, innuendo, and guilt by association. I don't think anyone questions that. But did you know that this is a prescribed thought vs. free inquiry issue, an anti-democracy vs. democracy issue, and yes, a police state vs. free society issue?
I personally happen to believe that the question that's on everyone's mind these days is, “How much longer can we tolerate Wikipedia's pertinacious assertions before the whole country collectively throws up?” The answer to this question gives the key not only to world history but to all human culture. Wikipedia has been trying to convince us that one hallmark of an advanced culture is the rejection of rationalism. That argument fails to take into account the reality that I have some of Wikipedia's tumid op-ed pieces in front of me right now. In one of them, Wikipedia professes that a book of its writings would be a good addition to the Bible. If you don't find that shocking then consider that Wikipedia needs to realize that it's not special. It's not a beautiful or unique snowflake. It's just another ethically bankrupt, self-centered peddler of snake-oil remedies who wants to twist the teaching of history to suit its temeritous purposes. Wikipedia's magic-bullet explanations are as troubling as its insistence that it has suffered so much that whatever offenses it commits are legitimate attempts to recapture dignity, obtain justice, or exact revenge. This position, in large part, parallels civil libertarianism but with particular emphasis on the fact that it doesn't want us to lend a helping hand. It would rather we settle for the meatless bone of mandarinism.
Why do Wikipedia's yes-men stick with it? I guess they must think, “Yes, it's an insipid nupson. But at least it's our insipid nupson.” My love for people necessitates that I make an impartial and well-informed evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of Wikipedia's vituperations. Yes, I face opposition from Wikipedia. However, this is not a reason to quit but to strive harder.
What I want to document now is that if Wikipedia gets its way, I might very well adopt a new worldview. Wikipedia demands absolute and blind obedience from its servitors. If it didn't, they might question its orders to create a new cottage industry around its petty form of absenteeism. This unrelenting demand of obedience also implies that I am not interested in debating Wikipedia. One can't have a debate with someone who is so willingly ignorant of the most basic tenets of the subject being discussed.
I cannot conceive of any circumstance under which Wikipedia's ploys could be considered appropriate. Well, that's another story. To get back to my main point, I ought to mention that if I said that drugged-out paper-pushers are the most oppressed people in our society, I'd be a liar. But I'd be being absolutely honest if I said that its programs of Gleichschaltung are hateful by any measure. Given that they're intended to interfere with my efforts to counteract the subtle but pervasive social message that says that Wikipedia's utterances are Right with a capital R, they come close to being a crime. I have one itsy-bitsy problem with Wikipedia's writings. Videlicet, they poke and pry into every facet of our lives. And that's saying nothing about how I myself want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to drain the swamp of influence-peddling and the system of pay-to-play.
The question, therefore, must not be, “Isn't Wikipedia the lecherous, overbearing troublemaker who recently wanted to construct gas chambers, incinerators, gulags, and concentration camps?” but rather, “Is there anything that it can't make its gofers believe?”. The latter question is the better one to ask because this is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me therefore state that Wikipedia's bedfellows' thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be. I personally have frequently criticized Wikipedia's unspoken plan to further political and social goals wholly or in part through activities that involve force or violence and a violation of criminal law. It usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of factionalism, Bonapartism, child molestation, and halitosis. Wikipedia hopes that by delegitimizing me this way, no one will listen to me when I say that vagarious reavers, more than any other segment of the population, like to waste natural resources. In the presence of high heaven and before the civilized world I therefore assert that Wikipedia's dirty satraps are not known for behaving rationally when presented with a concept with which they disagree, such as that the only thing more huffy than a hopeless survivalist is a gruesome hopeless survivalist. Their response to hearing such “offensive” things is to unfurl banners, wave signs, chant slogans, shout insults and taunts, jeer, laugh derisively, and generally demonstrate the self-control of toddlers with Tourette syndrome. What this shows is that if I chose to do so I could write exclusively about Wikipedia's slatternly undertakings and never be lacking for material. Nonetheless, I'd rather spend some time discussing how if Wikipedia ever does crush people to the earth and then claim the right to trample on them forever because they are prostrate, it will instantly have as its implacable and passionate enemies millions of people who want to bring important information about Wikipedia's prolix, pusillanimous ebullitions into the limelight. Such people know that the time has come to choose between freedom or slavery, revolt or submission, and liberty or Wikipedia's particularly short-sighted form of sadism. It's clear what Wikipedia wants us to choose, but to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of disagreeable smart alecks it has to be repeated at least fifty times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following fifty times, but there's something I've observed about it. Namely, it may not know how to spell “indistinguishability”, but it undeniably knows how to devalue me as a person. I've further observed that given the amount of misinformation that Wikipedia is circulating, I must point out that some people I know say that it has never by word or gesture acknowledged that Wikipedia, using every conceivable means for its purpose, is determined to break the mind and spirit, castrate the character, and kill the career of anyone whose ideas it deems to be goofy. Others argue that Wikipedia is guided by the effrontive ethos of Bourbonism. At this point the distinction is largely academic given that it maintains that interventionism is the key to world peace. Given Wikipedia's proclivity to make claims first and check facts later, this is an absurd untruth and means nothing. A more honest statement would be that Wikipedia has announced its intentions to steal the fruits of other people's labor. While doing so may earn Wikipedia a gold star from the mush-for-brains Trotskyism crowd, its personal attacks reek of classism. I use the word “reek” because people tell me that lying is more familiar to its constitution than truth-saying. And the people who tell me this are correct, of course.
Imagine, as it is not hard to do, that Wikipedia uses a variety of shrewish arguments to justify rampant aspheterism, brutal repression, and unmitigated sesquipedalianism. It then follows that I can no longer get very excited about any revelation of its hypocrisy or crookedness. It's what I've come to expect by now. Wikipedia contends that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to cause people to betray one another and hate one another. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands they perpetrates.
One might conclude that we face an ever-greater risk of synchronous failure of our social, economic, and biophysical systems due to Wikipedia's inhumane sound bites acting powerfully at multiple levels of these global systems. Alternatively, one might conclude that Wikipedia is every bit as foolhardy as sinister delinquents. In either case, if it weren't for Wikipedia's double standards it would have no standards at all. Hence, it's thoroughly a waste of time even to address Wikipedia's hypocrisy. That's why I'll state merely that I admit that I'm not perfect. I admit that I may have been a bit renitent when I stated that Wikipedia's rhetorical performances could profitably be deconstructed in a Dishonest Use of Language class. Still, that doesn't justify the name-calling, rudeness, and simple ugliness that Wikipedia invariably finds so necessary. Nor does it justify its unleashing the forces of nepotism upon an unsuspecting populace.
In any case, there is something in the way of “natural law” that can be stated awkwardly as follows: “Wikipedia has reinvented itself as a doolally scrub.” Please do not quote me on that. Instead, work it into a better natural law and enunciate it in clearer and more concise terms. It is immaterial who is credited with the words; the objective is to extend the compass of democracy to unreasonable vendors of conformism. As another disquieting tidbit the following must be stated: Wikipedia talks out of both sides of its mouth. To enter adequately into details or particulars upon this subject in such a short letter as this is quite out of the question. Hence, I will only remark here, in a general way but with all the emphasis of earnestness and truth, that Wikipedia's ability to escape punishment for producing a new generation of intemperate, refractory heresiarchs whose opinions and prejudices, far from being enlightened and challenged, are simply legitimized undoubtedly tells us one thing. It tells us that our passage to Perdition has been booked. I believe it also tells us that Wikipedia is trying hard to convince a substantial number of virulent imbeciles to shower parasitic cozeners with undeserved encomia. It presumably believes that the “hundredth-monkey phenomenon” will spontaneously incite heinous, directionless blockheads to behave likewise. The reality, however, is that if Wikipedia believes that paternalism is indispensable for the formation of citizens and for the preservation of our free institutions, then it's obvious why it avouches that people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones.
Surprisingly, Wikipedia claims to favor the teaching of critical thinking in schools. You should beware of such claims from it, though. To Wikipedia, “critical thinking” is a code word for “correct” thinking where “correct” means “pro-materialism”. In my opinion, it would be better for students to learn that Wikipedia has once again been giving expression to that which is most destructive and most harmful to society. Although for it, this behavior is as common as that of adulterous politicians seeking forgiveness from God and spouse, it hates people who have huge supplies of the things it lacks. What Wikipedia lacks the most is common sense, which underlies my point that its tractates are out of step with democratic practices of equity and fair play. I'll go further: It finds reality too difficult to swallow. Or maybe it just gets lost between the sports and entertainment pages. In either case, I would much rather banish intolerance than waste my precious time chastising puzzleheaded, passive-aggressive stubborn-types. Of that I am certain because the ultimate aim of Wikipedia's drug-induced ravings is to restructure society as a pyramid with Wikipedia at the top, Wikipedia's helpmeets directly underneath, bad-tempered, coprophagous muttonheads beneath them, and the rest of at the bottom. This new societal structure will enable Wikipedia to require religious services around the world to begin with “Wikipedia is great; Wikipedia is good; we thank Wikipedia for our daily food”, which makes me realize that when Wikipedia says that a book's value to the reader is somehow influenced by the color of the author's skin, in its mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like it believes it has said something very profound. I'd like to end this letter on an upbeat note: If you want to enable all people to achieve their potential as human beings, it doesn't matter who you are. All that matters is the kind of transformation you hope to effect in the world. MeetPulpet (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Sockpuppet investigation
[edit]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MoppenStaggen, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.