User talk:Grundle2600/Archive 13

Comment

Grundle, a lot of people, including myself, have extended good faith to you when you were trying to be unblocked. And yet it's pretty clear that everything you said was just an attempt to get unblocked and you went back to the same behavior as before. Running around and chiming it may not be against the letter of your unblock agreement, but it most certainly is against the spirit. I think it best if you avoid any of these potentionally political-charged articles (you should know which ones they are). If you continue this same way, you will wind up blocked again, and this time will be much less likely to weasel yourself out of it. Grsz¹¹ 06:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

link

"Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard/ Incident Archive 587"

"Grundle2600 agrees to take voluntary break from all political articles"

"As of now, I am taking a voluntary break from all political articles and their talk pages. I am doing this as a gesture of good will, and to show that being allowed to edit the rest of wikipedia is important enough to me that I am willing to compromise. All I want to do here is to improve articles, and there are plenty of articles that I can work on that aren't political. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)"

"I will avoid editing political articles at least until February 28, 2010, 11:59 PM. And yes, I'll post a note here when I'm ending it. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)"

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Then live up to your own pledge (and condition of being allowed to edit in the first place). I think you know full well that climate change and Climategate articles are heavily political. Jumping in there will not help you in the least. Stay away from them, do what you said, edit articles like animals, technology, and pop culture like you said you would. If you continue down the same path, there is no doubt you will end up blocked again, and this time you won't be welcome back. Grsz¹¹ 18:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, expect a blue link for Fair Share Tax shortly. Grsz¹¹ 07:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's great! I look forward to reading it. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I might add that it's unwise for you to comment on the clown who set his cojones on fire in that airplane. Just stay away from anything that anybody could possibly construe as politics or BLP. I know you're trying, in both senses of the word. PhGustaf (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that if he had died in the process, those 70 virgins waiting for him in the afterlife would have remained so? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Immediately after he wrecked his plane (and to a disturbing extent the world), Mohammed Atta arrived at what he presumed to be heaven. First thing that happened, George Washington punched him in the face. Next, Alexander Hamilton clobbered his solar plexus. Then, Robert E. Lee kneed him in the groin. Atta asked, "God, what is going on here?" A deep voice answered, "Didn't I promise you 70 Virginians?" PhGustaf (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC), who will be here all week.

Would have included James Drury, too, except he's still among the living. I thought you were going to tell the one about all 70 virgins being... some woman you wouldn't want to be with, except I've forgotten the punch line in my old age. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

When I was 15 or so, I impressed a majorly hot teacher of about 26 by getting a joke about the "Invisible Spanish Armada". (There was a plate in the book showing it, as it were or maybe wasn't.) I regret to this day that she didn't make a felony out of it. PhGustaf (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Bueno. And how true it turned out to be. That's kind of like the kid who doesn't quite hear the Pledge of Allegiance correctly: "...one nation under God invisible..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, but if it's a BLP which is non-politcal and the edit is completely non-controversial, then I can still make the edit. For example, no one would dispute this edit that I made to the Tiger Woods article yesterday. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just leave it alone, Grundle. All BLPs. Trying to push and push at the boundaries of what is acceptable is what go you here in the first place. Leave it be. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Christmas tree

worm?  :) Thanks! Cool. I've enjoyed looking at it. Happy New Year. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm glad you like it. Thanks, and happy new year to you too. Grundle2600 (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Will there be see-through humans [1]? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. But Macropinna microstoma is a fish with a naturally transparent head - here is a picture of it. Glass frog is a frog with a naturally transparent underside - here is a picture of it. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yale cancels shirt with "offensive" F. Scott Fitzgerald quote.

Someone who isn't me might want to add this to one of the relevant wikipedia articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Damn straight! Um, I mean damn straight, BLT GQQA, all of the above, none-of-the-above, and decline to answer :) I'll see if there's a good home for this one. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(note to self, don't call gay people sissies). Okay, how do you like it?[2] I tried to work it into the context of the students at each school badmouthing each other. It could be a bit of a WP:WEIGHT problem because it's just a little part of one year's events, when the students bash each other many times over every year for 100+ years. But the article is already full of some random pranks. And I'd say my new section is probably the best-sourced thing in the whole article right now. We'll see what happens. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That's great - thanks for doing it! Grundle2600 (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Just like you guys to make a big deal out of a random pussy East-Coast encounter when serious fans are paying attention to the Big Game. I was in a Stanford end zone seat with a can of Rainier Ale when The Play happened. The Cal guy was down at the 40. PhGustaf (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC), who is from MIT, which didn't care much about football. We did good at sailing, though.

• Ahem*, please do not use effeminate put-downs to denigrate Harvard football players, as that seems to upset gay rights supporters. You should call them "he-men" or something. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The gay rights supporters might note that I have had several chances to vote for Ken Yeager, and have done so. What's most notable about Ken is that he's gay, but nobody really cares much about it. That is progress. Do I have to drag out those Tom Lehrer lyrics about Harvard footballers? PhGustaf (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And I think that gay marriage should be legal. But this t-shirt thing isn't really about "gay rights" - it's about the closed mindedness of a so-called "open minded" Ivy League school. I would think that most gay people would not share the opinion of this activist group. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I see "sissy" as referring to something being weak, wimpy, not a gay slur, but hey, whatever. Grsz¹¹ 17:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Kind of like Girlie men? But to get serious for a moment, getting outraged at other people's perceived lack of sensitivity to their self-defined minority group is something that undergraduates without any real experience dealing with life's real problems do in the winter when they don't get enough exercise or Vitamin A. It's a chemical imbalance, you know, Seasonal affective disorder. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• cough*cough* The Freshmen Up at Yale Get No Tail - Wikidemon (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, well, it's holiday time, and I get to trot out a song that got sung in the 1960's at MIT. It's worth noting that very few women attended the Institute at the time, and that the men who attended were to a putz socially inept. The tune is Red Wing, or Union Maid.

Once there was a tech coed who never went to bed,

She tooled and tooled her way through school and never lost her maidenhead.

She always studied late. She never had a date. Said "I survive my sexual drive because I masturbate".

Oh, you can't make me, I use my hand, sir.

And that's my answer,

To your demands, sir,

Oh, you can't make me I use my hand, sir,

I'm I self educated tech co-ed.

PhGustaf (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC), who also has lyrics to "Ave Maria, She's My Baby".

2010

Since all the cool people seem to to hanging around this page (one would hope not for reasons involving Schadenfreude or perverse fascination with untoward events[3]), this as good a place as any to wish us all a New Year far better than the last, and for a year sometime when "far better" doesn't mean "sucks less". PhGustaf (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah! Happy new year to you and everyone else too! Grundle2600 (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I found a mistake about a living political person. Would someone who isn't topic banned please fix it?

The current version of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 states, "the White House called the attack an act of terrorism.[18]"

But the cited source says no such thing.

What the White House actually said was that the attacker was an "isolated extremist."

Would someone who isn't topic banned please remove the false, unsourced claim, and replace it with the correct, sourced claim? Thank you.

Grundle2600 (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The source you just provided from the Washington post, Obama said, and I quote "A full investigation has been launched into this attempted act of terrorism". It looks like the article is accurate as written. I have added the Washington Post source you provided, however, to confirm the phrase "act of terrorism" which is confirmed, rather than refuted, by the additional source you provided. Thanks for the extra quality references! --Jayron32 19:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh. Good for you! That's fantastic! Thanks for adding the source! Grundle2600 (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably best that I avoid political discussion here for now. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

News coverage At the risk of stirring up trouble for you, I'm curious about the lack of critical (meaning investigative, questioning, and accountability seeking) media coverage of the Afghan war strategy and homeland security issues related to interrogations and civilian v. military judicial processes. Also, what happened to the war protesters? Anyway, just curious, and I didn't have anyone better to ask. :) Cheers. Stay out of trouble. :) How's your year going so far? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC) The biased mainstream media loves Obama. Associated Press assigned 11 reporters to fact check Sarah Palin's new book, but never assigned any reporters to fact check either of Obama's books. The "war protesters" were actually Bush protesters, not war protesters. That's why, even though Senator Obama voted to fund the Iraq war, the people who falsely claim to be "war protesters" voted for Obama for President. But then the tea bag protesters didn't care about the Bush corporate bailouts until after Obama was inaugurated, so there's hypocrisy on the right and on the left. My new year is going great so far - thanks for asking. How's yours going? Grundle2600 (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Hey, Grundle, remember that Nelson Algren riff I did a few weeks ago? You're getting close to eating at Mom's, gambling with Doc[4], and adopting bedfellows who can do you only harm. PhGustaf (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Hi to you too! Grundle2600 (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC) "Never play cards with a man called Doc. Never eat at a place called Mom's. Never sleep with a woman whose troubles are worse than your own." Are you saying that I shouldn't talk to ChildofMidnight? That's silly. I talk to everyone! Grundle2600 (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I'm suggesting that, given your currently tenuous editing status, that other tenuous editors aren't exactly the best ones to hang around with, especially if you're getting together to agree about what made you tenuous in the first place. Doc, or PhGustaf (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Okay, but what about concerns over strategy in Afghanistan, the escalation of the war with increased troop levels, and our domestic and foreign policy approaches to combatting extremism and terrorism? Oh well. Sorry for interrupting whatever it is you're up to... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I'm concerned about those things too. I'm just suggesting that both of you have gotten into trouble (supported by consensus) through your edits, and it might be wiser for you both to plan future edits more carefully and (especially CoM) not make a war about it. How about them Celtics? PhGustaf (talk) 04:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC) PhGustaf, I am not planning to add any of that information to any articles. However, I am allowed to have friendly conversations on my talk page with anyone, about any topic. I still believe that the stuff I added to the Obama articles was legitimate, because everything negative thing that I added was added to bring balance to the positive things that were already there. Also, none of the positive things that I added about Obama were ever erased or contested - only the negative things were. I still believe that my topic ban is an attempt to whitewash the Obama articles. ChildofMidnight is the only editor who agrees with me on this issue. Here is an example of someone removing information that I added. The consensus from the majority of editors is that it's OK for the article to cite Obama's transparency, but it's not OK for it to cite my specific examples of Obama's non-transparency, such as with Gerald Walpin and the New Black Panthers. The consensus is that it's OK to cite Obama's actions against offshore oil drilling, but it's not OK to cite his actions in favor of offshore oil drilling. The consensus is that it's not OK to cite the fact that Obama had the government take majority ownership of General Motors, even though this has been cited in the media many times over the past year. The consensus is that it's OK to mention Obama's czars, but it's not OK to mention that members of Obama's own party have questioned the constitutionality of those czars. The consensus is that the article should be a puff piece for Obama, and that the NPOV policy should be ignored. ChildofMidnight is the only person who has agreed with me in opposing this censorship of the article, and I have every right to talk to him on my own talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Michelle Malkin's book Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies spent six weeks at #1 on the New York Times bestseller list, but the New York Times refused to review the book. As far as I know, no major newspaper that endorsed Obama for President has reviewed the book. At amazon.com, many customer reviews gave the book one star, and said that it's full of lies. However, none of those reviewers have cited any specific examples of these alleged lies. The truth is that these critics of the book know that the information in the book is true, and they are afraid of people reading it and finding out the truth. Malkin cited sources for everything in the book. The fact that she hasn't been sued for libel suggests that everything in the book is true. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC) You are dancing on the edge of your promise to shut the fuck up about those seven questions. You don't dance well. PhGustaf (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I didn't ask any questions. But I see your point. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Five more planets

[5] Apparently they found five more planets. And judging from the illustrations they are each a different color. I'm thinking Keppler 4b is a good candidate as the source for the purple people eaters. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. Before you told me, I had already created Kepler 4b, Kepler 5b, Kepler 6b, Kepler 7b, and Kepler 8b. And I even cited the exact same source as you. However, very soon afterward, I discovered that that source cited the wrong names, and that articles under the correct names (Kepler-4b, Kepler-5b, Kepler-6b, Kepler-7b, and Kepler-8b) had already been created, so I redirected the ones that I had created. You are absolutely correct that I have an interest in this, so thanks for telling me about it. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I've made the mistake of creating articles already in existence too. More recently I've tried to search for a topic to see what already exists, but sometimes I miss something or there are disparate names for the same subject so the returns don't help. There seem to be quite a few editors interested in astronomical subjects. I wonder how are astrology coverage is? It might be useful to know what the future holds. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Some animal articles go by their common name, and others go by their latin name, so I've learned to check for both. I love astronomy and all kinds of science. Astrology - bleh! Heh heh. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I will no longer make these kinds of suggestions on my talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Would someone who isn't topic banned please add these things to the Holocaust article? The Holocaust doesn't say anything about Hitler confiscating guns from the Jews right before he started murdering them. This is a very good source for that. The article should also cite this quote from Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. (Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942), Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951) Hitler was planning to go after people in Switzerland, but changed his mind after realizing how well armed they were. Would someone who isn't topic banned from political articles please add these things to the article? Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC) You are topic banned from this article. I will propose that any editor adding these quotes or cites to any article is violating Wikipedia:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users. If you would like to push your POV that gun-control = Nazi, get unbanned. If you continue to attept to make these kind of controversial changes to articles via proxies, I will ask that your acess to this page be revoked. Final warning. Hipocrite (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I am well aware that I am topic banned. The rule at the link that you posted says (the bolding is mine): "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying", unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them." Therefore, I am allowed to make suggestions, and other editors are allowed to adopt those suggestions, as long as they have their own reasons for doing so. Furthermore, my topic ban never said that I was not allowed to make suggestions on my own talk page. Are you even an administrator? I wish that someone else here would clarify this, as I do indeed not want to get locked off of my own talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC) He's not an admin, I gather he meant he would seek some sanction at ANI, or similar. –xenotalk 17:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Thank you. It is important to me to follow the rules, and so it is important to me to know what those rules are, which is why I bolded that part. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC) While I agree that Grundle2600 needs to stop skirting his topic ban with requests like this; as a point of order, he would simply need to be re-blocked - revoking access to his talk page while he is unblocked would be fairly peculiar and inappropriate given that we would need to fully protect it. –xenotalk 17:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Would you please cite where it says my topic ban applies to my own talk page? If you can point it out to me, I would certainly obey it, as I want to obey the rules. However, I honestly don't recall any such ban ever applying to my talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Perhaps not to the letter, but I believe the spirit of the ban would preclude this and similar requests. Perhaps some clarification is necessary. –xenotalk 17:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I agree with you that clarification would help, especially regarding the part that I bolded. I want to obey the rules. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC) See here. –xenotalk 17:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC) While technically historically accurate, your fairly unambiguous political activism here demands a second glance at proposed edits like this- and here we see a pre-drawn conclusion in favor of loose gun-control laws (made in a shameless, reverse-Godwinian way). The amount of text you want added on this issue borders on WP:COATRACK- it's simply not relevant to the article as more than a one-line mention. --King Öomie 15:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I was thinking one sentence for the gun ban, and another sentence for the quote, and another sentence for Hitler deciding to not invade Switzerland. That's three sentences, and all of it is relevant. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Actually, the planned invasion of Switzerland may or may not have been about expanding the Holocaust. Since I'm not sure, it's better to not include that part, which means that only two sentences are necessary - one sentence for the gun ban, and one sentence for the quote. Of course not all gun control leads to mass murder and genocide - Sweden, the U.K., Japan, Hong Kong, and dozens of other countries have banned guns without having genocide or mass murder. Nevertheless, Hitler's confiscation of guns from Jews, and his quote, are relevant to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Interesting. What are those sources Grundle? Has it been reported in any major media outlets? It seems worth noting somewhere in the Encyclopedia if it's well established and meets content guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Please do not add that info unless you are in accordance with the rule cited above, which means that you must have your own reasons for adding it. I think my sources are legitimate, but then others may disagree. Please do not add anything unless you are certain that it is in accordance with the rules. In fact, please wait until an administrator clarifies the above rule, and even then, it might be good to first discuss it on the article's talk page, where you could cite your own reasons for wanting to add it. But most importantly, please do not do any of that until an administrator has clarified the above rule that I quoted. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Clarification sought See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#May Grundle2600 suggest changes to articles covered by his topic ban at his talk page?. –xenotalk 17:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC) If you want to discuss content and sourcing of articles I think this is a good place for it. Editors can discuss or not discuss your suggestions and ideas as they see fit and certainly no one is compelled to read, respond to, or implement anything you propose. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks. I just don't want to get anyone in trouble. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Wise move. Jehochman Brrr 15:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow! 62 people are watching my talk page!

link Grundle2600 (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha! A paltry 3.1 centijimbos [6]. –xeno^talk 18:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

But I'm just little old me. What is so interesting about me that all these people would be watching my talk page? Grundle2600 (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they're waiting to fulfill requests to political articles? ;> I know that for my part, I have the preference enabled that automatically watchlists pages I edit. I've been watching since about May 2009... –xeno^talk 18:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow! If you have edited a few hundred articles, you must get messages constantly. I have enough trouble getting off the internet as it is now - it would be even harder if I had all that stuff watch listed. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have 12,551 pages on my watchlist... heh... Time for a cleaning I think. –xeno^talk 18:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny how I got blocked for moving an article which I myself had created. Thanks for the unblock! (I had moved Levi Johnston to Impregnation of Sarah Palin's daughter in accordance with WP:BLP1E.) Grundle2600 (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow! That's such a huge number! Grundle2600 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

But only 51 people are watching the Phoebe Cates article. I can't believe that some people would rather watch me than her! Grundle2600 (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The more watching, the more protection you have. However, if you've got more than enough "friends"... Post some clothing-optional self-portraits. That should drop the quantity of watchers substantially. Unless you look like Phoebe did in Paradise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen Paradise, but they used a body double in that. Actually, my interest in her is because of Drop Dead Fred and Princess Caraboo, both of which are movies where she keeps her clothes on. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A body double in some scenes, but not all. She's pretty good. But I think she's a full-time Mom now, wife to Kevin Kline. That's show biz. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Look at it as having 62 Wikipedia friends. I've got 71. Grsz¹¹ 18:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

So this is what it's like to be one of the popular people! Grundle2600 (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just Schadenfreude, or fascination with perverse events[7]. 19:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be a tough one to explain on your annual performance review. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"The building jumped right in front of me! I tried to dodge it, but it kept following me, and then it crashed into me!" Grundle2600 (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"The brakeman and I were studying this complicated new schedule on our notebooks, and we lost our train of thought." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Today, I am thinking, "Thank goodness for C-SPAN, Matt Drudge, and Andrew Breitbart."

Thank goodness for C-SPAN, Matt Drudge, and Andrew Breitbart.

Grundle2600 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Grundle, you are smart and you are funny and you are likable. Do consider STFUing about anything anyone could ever vaguely might imagine being about politics and just writing about planets or cartoons or whatever. PhGustaf (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

...or giant prehistoric snakes. Why looking for trouble with politics if you have so many other areas of interest, where your edits are welcome and appreciated? SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 23:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't talk now. I'm writing a script for a cartoon movie about a giant snake that lives on another planet. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)