User talk:Kasreyn/archive4

NOTE: If you wish to comment on any material here, please add a comment to my main talk page, not here. Thanks, Kasreyn 09:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I appreciate your comments in response to Johnny Dangerously. Thanks. I'm trying to ignore him, save reporting his sick, bigoted behaviour. If you have a spare minute, you might wish to review the archives and look for Mad Merv and Jenchurch. Do they look familiar at all? Jakew 11:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That was quick. :) I'm glad you share my suspicions. We could request a check user, but I don't recall that either of them were banned, so it would probably be of little help. But I'm open to persuasion. Regards, Jakew 11:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Yes, you've made a good point. Do you want to press ahead with it, or shall I? Jakew 12:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the check user page, I think it's premature to request it (more to the point, I'm fairly sure that the request will be rejected). So, my feeling at this stage is let's wait until there's a sign of abusive sockpuppetry first. Comments? Jakew 14:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

breast size

Hi, in answer to your comment about HH being very rare, i really don't believe it is.

I wouldn't want to say anything this personal on as public a forum as the Breast talk page, but my wife is a 30J, and honestly that's not that big. It really isn't so large that you'd take one look at her and think that she has the biggest breasts you've ever seen. Once you realise what a J cup looks like (and that all big breasts aren't DD, as the mainstream media often suggests) you can't help but notice others, partly because my wife and i are to an extent made to feel she's a freak by the fact that bras are so very hard to come by.

Incidentally i think that fact, about bras being hard to find, is strongly related to a lack of education about variation in breasts. Even people with breasts that really need an HH cup bra think 'oh my god, HH cup must be huge!', and buy E cup bras, so nobody demands the larger cup sizes....it's a vicious cycle of ignorance that wikipedia can assist in breaking.

I think the size/shap section should/must show wide diversity, otherwise it's pointless. The fact is HH cup breasts look significantly different to AA cups, so it's worth showing. If you just show B,C and D - they all look basically the same. Spute 16:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved comment from my user page

What do you mean I vandalized ICP? I have never used this site before. I have no idea what yu mean and am NOT a vandal. - LTF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.17.26.4 (talk • contribs) .

I was referring to this edit in specific. If it was not made by you, then I should point out that your AOL connection is a rotating dynamic IP which may be shared by many users. One of them might be committing vandalism, and the warnings that person earns for their negative actions will appear on the page for the specific IP address involved. There are only two solutions for this dilemma available: get a better ISP, or register your own account at Wikipedia. Preferably, both. Kasreyn 00:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are different?

You say you are different and do not fit into boxes, therefor you must be such.

Who is truly different in this world has to point such things out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.137.218.247 (talk • contribs) .

My friend, I don't think anyone fits into boxes. I'm against wikipedia userboxes because I feel they oversimplify and objectify things which are extremely complex and subjective: human beings. All humans, including me, have a weakness in that we always seek the mental path of least resistance. Applying labels and categories to each other - putting each other in boxes - is an easy way to convince ourselves that we "understand" each other, to objectify each other to make dealing with each other more palatable. But in reality, we are each entirely unique and can never really "understand" another intelligence outside ourselves. To me, you will always be an alien intelligence, never truly predictable or knowable, and vice versa, me to you. All we can actually do with labels and boxes is fool ourselves into thinking we understand. Socrates put it best when he pointed out that his only wisdom was that he knew he was ignorant. Consider my refusal to use userboxes a sort of protest against attempts to quantify the unquantifiable. If you find that notion pretentious or cliché, then I can only regret that others, who have come to the same idea before me, have expressed it worse. Kasreyn 22:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Amusingly (well, amusing to those like myself who are easily amused, I guess), I'd just opened your talk page to leave you a message, when the bar appeared telling me that you'd left me a note. Anyway, I was wondering if I might email you privately to discuss? I'm jake@waskett.org. Jakew 20:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where?

Where in Florida is ye? I'm in Ft. Lauderdale. Lawyer2b 22:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a wikininja! (Hey, I like that username! I call dibs on it) ;-) Actually, I am just thorough and did indeed read your LJ profile. Bradenton...isn't that where Tropicana (subsidiary of the omnipresent [and omnipotent] Beatrice Foods; all hail, Beatrice!) is based? That was my favorite OJ before I gave up the calories. Lawyer2b 01:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warriors girding for battle

Yeah, I noticed that before I got involved and I agree with your assessment. If he only knew how not-liberal I am. It's people like him that give people like me a bad name.--WilliamThweatt 23:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks against me

I'm the judge of what's a personal attack against me, not you, so get over it buddy. Stanley011 02:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionary begs to differ. Kasreyn 02:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. for other editors possibly reading this, Stanley is referring to another editor's comments which Stanley (mistakenly) feels are personal attacks against me. Stanley is not, to my knowledge, claiming I have made personal attacks against him. Kasreyn 02:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Yeah, I know someone left a message for you through this IP. I'm sorry about that. We're sharing a network for the dorms and I didn't know one of our guys was being an ass. This is the third or fourth time I've had to get an IP address unbanned or it's been abused because of someone in the building messing it up for everyone else. Please, if you have any other trouble, feel free to write. Again, sorry for the hassle. Shadowrun 23:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striptease!

It says 'often viewed as' - so it's NOT cited as incontravertible encyclopaedic fact. I will search for the origin of these statements if you like, but I think you're straining on a gnat really (especially considering the crap in some of the rest of the article)! Linuxlad 08:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey Girls

I don't see how it is "POV pushing" to provide context and explanation for Ms. Coulter's inflammatory words about the Jersey Girls. (The edit you reverted points out that she uses the J.G.'s as examples of using victims as spokespersons in order to immunize them from criticism.) Lou Sander 14:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon's comment

Thanks for noticing and putting it back on the page! It certainly is more constructive than mine...--Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 17:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in policy suggested

After my experience with the case of Dabljuh, where you made some comments I found helpful, I suggested some changes to the policies and asked to enforce those we already have: [1] [2] Socafan 18:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome. :) Shadowrun 23:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR/Dabljuh

Hope you don't mind an uninvolved party commenting :-) Your comment here was well put. Thanks for taking the time & effort to put it together! FreplySpang 00:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depressed?

Don't take prozac. Try a little less self and a little more thought. Thought is good. I don't know why they did away with it. In the old days it was considered a good thing to think. Also, it's a real bummer that communists try so hard to rid the world of God. It is going to cause an awful lot of trouble here on earth. Mark my word. 65.200.179.195 13:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about, friend. Is this in response to something I posted? I honestly can't remember what I might have said that would lead you to make such a statement. In a spirit of charity, I will assume you have a good point to make, and are not simply delivering a condescending lecture. Assume good faith, and all that. :) Kasreyn 09:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Coulter Talk Page Inflammatory Comment

I'm removing the following innapropriate and intentionally inflamatory comment from the Ann Coulter talk page:

Is the word cunt POV? 24.8.6.242 06:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see that word in the article? I've searched for it and I can't find it. Please tell me where it is in the article so I can immediately remove it. Kasreyn 08:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and replacing it with this:

Removed inappropriate inflammatory comment by User:24.8.6.242. It can be found here Brentt 09:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind me removing your reply to it too for continuities sake. You apparently missed that the person was just being inflammatory. --Brentt 09:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wallie

What on earth is the deal with him? His comments don't make any sense at all. Do you have any idea what the deal is. john k 22:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Kasreyn, in reading over the talk page here, I realized I referred to you in the feminine. I'm not sure why (maybe a subconsious association with your chosen user name?), but if I was wrong, please accept my apology.--WilliamThweatt 23:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WOT

Right now there's a free-for-all at the above proposal, your input is highly appreciated (and feel free to disagree with me, as I'm in the minority :) ) --kizzle 22:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George H.W. Bush: NOT director of CIA when Glick said he was

According to Media Matters: "Glick was incorrect in claiming that the president's father, George H.W. Bush, was CIA director while the U.S. funneled support to the anti-Soviet Afghan forces. CIA assistance to the Afghan fighters began in 1979; Bush was CIA director from 1976 to 1977." [[3]]. Just so you know. Have a great day. Stanley011 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting--I would be even more curious to see the exact quote in which O'Reilly said that Glick thought that W. was senior director of the CIA. I know he doesn't always have a lot of faith in his guests--but thinking (or even pretending to believe) that the guy on your show believed that W. was senior director of the CIA in the 1970's (think DUI, hazing aftermaths, etc.)!!!! That takes like, zero faith in humanity Stanley011 19:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Coulter Controversies

(rm clause which completely reversed the meaning of a whole sentence. Huh??) When one says "Her style is not universally admired among those who share her political philosophy," one is using irony or sarcasm to condemn or at least demean Coulter's style. To point out there are admirers isn't to "reverse the meaning" of the sentence, but to moderate its hurtful and sarcastic/ironic nature. (The meaning is kept, since the subsequent sentence and references show a political supporter who doesn't admire her style.)

Later in the same paragraph we see "Some find her presentations, both published and spoken, to be biased, offensive, inflammatory and claim them quite often full of misinterpreted facts that put her credibility in question." There is a reference to support the facts that are asserted, but the use of "some," coupled with the strong subjective adjectives, makes a very strong point against Ms. Coulter. How are we to maintain NPOV if the findings of those who are not among the "some" are forbidden to be stated? Lou Sander 20:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the dispute flag on the "Anti-Semitic people" category

Hello, Kasreyn, again they are saying that there is no dispute as to the placing of people into this prejudicial category: [4]. I wonder if it is in order to continue to restore the dispute flag. It looks like an edit war. I guess the vote was inconclusive for renaming this category.--Drboisclair 15:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

Huh? Did I do something wrong?Politician818 07:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

ugh, this guy is a pain, look here for all the rest of his secret identities. --kizzle 22:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]