User talk:Color-Copycat

You're a hypocrite. Stupid Corn 23:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Though I do find it funny that we're able to do all this vandalizing without an admin noticing. Stupid Corn 23:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Question: do admins actually notice people doing this vandalizing, cuz its kind of scary this stuff goes unnoticed. well as long as my account isn't banned i don't mind the loose security

Alicia Li
Why do you have to ruin other peoples' fun? And who said I loved her? Stupid Corn 22:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Stupid COrn you have bad grammar. it's supposed to be people's not peoples'. Just letting you know.
 * Forget the grammar. Answer the question. Stupid Corn 21:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am unaware of any questions that were proposed by anyone. Color copycat
 * Stop your Minitruthing and ANSWER THE FREAKIN' QUESTIONS! Stupid Corn 21:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

How'd you know I was in league with the Thought Police! It's about time for you to get silenced for bad mouthing our Orwellian dystopia! -color copycat
 * So, instead of making jokes based on 1984, how about actually answering the questions this time. Okay? Okay. Stupid Corn 21:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well then. Please restate the question. And check your talk page. I wrote a message at the bottom with a link to an interesting article. User:Color-Copycat
 * Ah, forget this. You're not going to answer the questions anyway. But while we're here, here's a little something you might enjoy:
 * "Ten years after his death, Janet Asimov's edition of Asimov's autobiography, It's Been a Good Life, revealed that his death was caused by AIDS; he had contracted HIV from a blood transfusion received during a heart bypass operation in December 1983."


 * Not unprotected sex, a blood transfusion. I'm so awesome. Stupid Corn 21:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Causes aside, Asimov died of AIDS, and that alone is a pretty pathetic way to go. By the by, did you go see the talk page? The link is a good one. User:Color-Copycat
 * So people that die of AIDS are "pathetic"? And yes, I saw the link. 'Twas pretty funny. Stupid Corn 22:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you misinterpreted my reference to the word "pathetic". It was clearly visible that pathetic referred to the inability for the WHO to deal with AIDS. Hey wasn't I right about the picture of the space station looking like soda cans, huh, huh? Also Asimov needed a heart bypass surgery which shows that his arteries were clogged with Low Density Lipoproteins. Basically that means he was a typical fat American capitalist pig 'cause he needed bypass surger like fat people do. Color COpycat
 * Not all people with a heart disease are obese. And instead of criticizing his lifestyle, won't don't you actually try to criticize his works? Stupid Corn 22:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well if I must criticize the DAMN IDIOTIC MENTALLY RETARDED HEAVILY FLAWED works of Asimov, I will. First of all Asimov's whole "Foundation" series is a complete rip off of the The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire by the great literary master Edward Gibbon. It completely rips off this great work and copies plot, philosophical ideas, etc, so the Foundation series should be burned in those 1930s book rallies in Germany. Second of all Asimov has one other topic, robots. That is the most unoriginal, post '60s, bland topic ever. Think about it, robots, how many authors have written about robots in the past few decades. THOUSANDS of AUTHORS. Why not write about something interesting like a supercomputer going berserk aboard a space craft headed for Jupiter due to logic restraints caused by the programming of the misssion commanders. Huh? Huh? That's what I thought. The writings of Arthur C Clarke are far superior to the absolute shit that Asimov concocted. Color-Copycat
 * First off all, it's not ripping off. Yes, he was influenced by Gibbon's works, but aren't all authors influenced by other authors? I see it as more of an allusion to The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. And even though I like Clarke almost as much as I like Asimov, it is now time for me to criticize him. The whole idea of a monolith is really stupid. It just somehow magically transforms primitive creatures into sentinent beings? Worst plot device ever. Anyone can invent a super intelligent race of aliens. Now tell me how many times that has been used in science fiction.
 * Oh, and about images, see Help:Image. n00b.  Stupid Corn 23:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

When you think about of it, exactly how many people will read about a bunch of romans who are dead as opposed to a bunch of humans who might or might not be? --Pistolieer (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

=Philosophical Retort= The concept of the Monolith is that the beings that created it made have lots of capabilities. One of these just happened to be the ability to change the evolutionary process in Austrolopithacus Afarensis and make them be like apes on crack which caused them to become humans. Anyway, even if it was a lame plot device no other author has used it. Also the evolutionary process wasn't sped up that fast. It still took millions of years and is still more relevant than the shit that Asimov wrote. About Gibbon. If you check on the wiki page on the Foundation series you'll find that it also states that the series was a rip off of Gibbon's work. That's why i hate Asimov. He's one of those people who goes around stealing the philosophical essence of 17th century English philosophers. The only other guy who did that was the great religion guru, Joseph Campbell ( you know the guy who recently died and had hour long programs on PBS examining in minute detail every religion that ever existed). I just hate those people who steal the ideas of ''FAMOUS PHILOSOPHERS *AHEM* ASIMOV STOLE THE IDEAS *AHEM*. You can so totally tell that the entire concept of the book is plagiarised. Don't make me go oever there and cram these literary nuances into your brain so that it can be directly processed by your brain instead of the long and tedious process of reading it on this screen. How foolish of you to question my logic and rationale regarding the great Science Fiction author Arthur C Clarke -Color COpycat
 * I don't deny that Arthur C. Clarke is great. I just deny that Asimov sucks. According the the Wikipedia article about the Foundation series:

"According to Asimov, the premise was based on ideas set forth in Edward Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire..."
 * This is a far cry from "ripping off" Gibbon's works. And by the way, I don't even like the Foundation series that much. The Robot series is a lot better. (And now I bet you're gonna attack the Robot series too...) Stupid Corn 23:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

By the by the wiki article says "according to asimov". That means that whatever Asimov said is up to the interpretation of everyone because the statement came from him, not a professional Senate Reviews Committee. Again this shows Asimov wasn't pro democracy because your supposed to go to the Senate Special Investigation Committe to make an official statement the wiki way. You can't believe whatever people say, I thought you knew better -Color COpycat aka CC

=More Philosophical Insight into the rise and FALL of Isaac Asimov=

As you have predicted, I do have some problems with the Robot series ( I'm sorry but I just can't resist insulting Asimov). In the Robot series there's a bunch of guys living far from Earth called the Spacers (what kind of a gay name is that. Honestly, it's like Asimov had some kind of neural relapse and couldn't think of a better name. Point aside these spacers employ robots to do their work and it is analogous to the Plantations of Ante-bellum South. Another form of historical plagiarism. After all these Yankees die to prove that the plantation-slave system was bad, Asimov starts reviatalizing this concept in his book. He was a fucking US citizen. I just can't stand that. He undoes the hard won freedoms of the Civil War in order to further his own cause. That guy probably didn't protect our interests overseas either. Back to the future, or rather the topic of insulting the Robot Series, in one of the books (can't remember the name, but i know that it has the word sun in it) the Spacers employ some representative from decrepit old non-robotic Earth to investigate a murder on a spacer world. What teh hell's up with that. That's like going to Puerto Rico and asking the local constable to come to DC and find out who bombed the Capitol Building (I know who did it, it was Asimov that ungrateful Russian-American, or was he Ukranian, i seem to associate Ukraine with his name). Honestly why do the spacers need to be asking Earth for help? They are totally self sufficient and have no need to do that. Also it was stated that there was some kind of cybernetic revolution (robot revolt in layman's terms) prior to the books. According to Asimov's own Three Laws of Robotics this is impossible. Sure the logic allows for robots to go berserk due to the short sightedness of the logic in the Laws, thereby causing irrationale behavior, but it's still out of the questions for the robots to rebel. Another major grievance i have is that none of Asimov's books feature small arms as an integral part of the book. No sci fi series with no mention to weapons (Clarke's works aside) are real sci fi. Actually no mention of weapons = the book is not military sci-fi, which happens to be a rapidly expanding genre. Another problem i have is that Asimov didn't write Post-apocalyptic Science Fiction, which is also a very awesome genre. no self respection author would miss out on that hot genre. And what's up with Asimov's facial hair. He's got those long sideburn extensions that frame his face. That is something that would absolutely not be tolertaed in today's society. Speaking of society, people with AIDS tend to be excluded from society resulting in the masses not knowing who asimov was besides that fact he died of AIDS. Did you know that in Brazil a little known constitutional article forces the government to pay all citizens health care costs, which also includes the treatment for AIDS? I think the treatment was discovered by some Asian dude who was on the cover oF Time magazine. The treatment is nicknamed the million dollar cocktail for its high costs. I feel sorry for those Brazilian government guys who gotta pay all them health care costs. Color Copycat
 * First of all, you can't "plagarize" history. It's in the public domain. Second of all, Asimov's politics (whether or not he protects our interests overseas) are irrelevant. In fact, most of your post is irrelevant. I'm not even going to dignify it with a response (read: I am lazy and do not feel like replying to your rambling). I'ma go check out this new Star Trek movie they're making. Live long and prosper. Stupid Corn 00:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

=Logic Prevails= I see that you have admitted defeat in light of my logical analysis and comparison of Clarke and Asimov. Even you cannot deny that Asimov is inifinitessimally inferior to the great literary master, Arthur C Clarke, who is 89 years old I believe and was knighted by Queen Elizabeth the Second ( Asimov can't compare, he wasn't knighted, instead he was rejected from society due to his crappy books and un-American lifestyle). I prevail once again despite the fact we were debating a totally unrelevant topic. By the way are you still unwilling to partner with me for the history project? Speaking of skool I need to finish my History notes. Hey what's with the live long and prosper. That's spock's catchphrase. I'm pretty sure it's copyrighted by MGM or whoever made Star Trek. And you know what happens to wiki users with copy right violations. As for me I am prepared to sign off. Defending American interests OVERSEAS -Color-Copycat

Declaration of Independence
No, I still don't want to work with a partner. Your beliefs about defending American interests overseas will conflict with my beliefs about splitting away from the United States and forming my own micronation, which will eventually split from the Earth itself and become a dwarf planet. So the answer is no.

Defending my interests in the homeland, Stupid Corn 15:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Working with a partner, even with one who is my intellectual equal, will inevitably makes things more complicated. I like independence, and apparently the Founding Fathers did, too. So my answer is still no. Also, Yussuf vandalized the Schimelpfenig article again. (Sigh...) Stupid Corn 23:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

civility?
Do you think your edit summary here complies with WP:CIV? Geo Swan 00:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is usually considered a mistake to correct errors in quoted material.


 * Look, I am not going to "sweat the small stuff". A lot of your corrections seem to be based on your personal preferred style.  I am not going to futz with those.
 * Other edits are excisions of material that I think really does require an explanation.
 * Before you made these excisions did you read the transcripts for yourself? Geo Swan 01:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think if you look more deeply into the wikipedia's policies you will find that there is no exemption from WP:CIV for US citizens.


 * Should I assume you aren't particularly interested in explaining your excisions? Geo Swan 04:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * WRT your reply. I too am a native speaker of English.
 * The wikipedia's policies encourage frank but civil comments on other's contributions. Sarcasm is discouraged because it is divisive.


 * Several of your edits trimmed paragraphs about Abdul Majid Muhammed's background. Excessively, IMO.  And, as I wrote above, it made me wonder whether you had read the transcripts for yourself before you made your excisions.
 * You do realize that he was the only Christian held in Guantanamo?
 * You do realize that Iranians aren't Arabs?
 * If you look at the material I added to the article tonight you will see that his Tribunal confirmed his "enemy combatant" status based on his purchase of an HiG ID card. The details of this allegation, which you removed, are extremely important.
 * What we would all have liked, what I believe we all had a right to expect, was that the "intelligence" flowing from Guantanamo, and used to justify the continued detention of the captives was assembled by sober, experienced professional, exercising dispassionate reasoned judgment. Stephen Abraham wrote about his experience with OARDEC.  He has written that those assigned to compile these allegations were amateurs, who submitted "junk allegations".  The HIG was one of the militia groups the CIA supported during the decade they fought against Afghanistan's Soviet invaders.  Are they nice guys?  It seems they are not.  I think it was Truman who said, "he may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he is our son-of-a-bitch".  Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was a former President of Afghanistan, in the 1970s.  His militia group was not only one of the most powerful, but it seems to have been the one with the closest thing to a civil service.  During the war against the Soviets, the civil war that followed to communist ouster in 1991, until the Taliban's capture of Kabul in 1996, and during the Taliban's rule, millions of refugees from Afghanistan fled to Pakistan and Iran.  Some of these refugees lived in those countries for decades.  Some lived there only for a few years.  Some traveled back and forth seasonally.  What they all needed, if they were going to live in Pakistan or Iran, and not stay confined to a refugee camp was some kind of identity paper.  The communist regime or the Taliban regime weren't going to issue refugees with ID papers.  So they counted on ID papers issued by one of militia groups fighting the Communists, or the Taliban.  The HIG being the militia group with the equivalent of a civil service, with offices in the neighboring countries, was the ID paper refugees used.
 * The analysts who prepared these allegations for the Tribunals treated refugee ID cards, issued by the HIG, as if they were membership cards in the HIG. This is, IMO, a bone-head mistake.  How many refugee ID cards did the HIG issue?  Hundreds of thousands?  Millions?  How many ID cards did it issue for its members?  Thousands or tens of thousands?  A much smaller number.  One of the other captives who carried an HIG refugee card explained that the HIG was actually jealous about who was issued an actual HIG membership card.
 * There was a similar problem with Afghans who were carrying Pakistani ID. Analysts treated each of these ID as a  forgery.  What several captives explained to their Tribunals was that because the Pashtun tribes spanned the Pakistan/Afghan border the Pakistani government would issue Pakistani ID to anyone who had a male relative who already had ID would swear an oath that they were related.  Afghan refugees who were issued Pakistani passports were not using forged documents at all.  The failure of the analysts to realize this was another big mistake.
 * The WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies proscribe any of usinserting conclusions like those I have drawn about these HIG ID cards into article space. Repeating the details Abdul Majid Muhammed offered about how he acquired his ID papers is not a violation of policy.  I consider it important.  You, apparently did not.  But you didn't say why.  I'd like to know why.
 * Why did you cut the passage: ''"Some of them had tried to kill him. He offered to show his Tribunal the scars."
 * Why did you trim the passage: "...acknowledged he was a little bit of an addict himself"? -- Like several other Guantanamo captives who traveled to Afghanistan for drugs, not jihad, he was in serious denial about how addicted he was. He had obviously been a total, out of control addict -- who was incapable of recognizing and acknowledging how addicted he was.  As the center of the world's illicit opiate trade Guantanamo analysts should have anticipated that a general sweep of all foreigners in Afghanistan was going to net drug addicts and drug dealers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs) 06:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You asked:
 * Why? Because I was showing you the courtesy of assuming that you had put meaningful thought into your edits.
 * Merely reverting edits one disagrees with can lead to edit-warring. Geo Swan 06:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merely reverting edits one disagrees with can lead to edit-warring. Geo Swan 06:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 07:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite possibly the greatest article on Wikipedia
Quick question: does 0.999_ equal 1? For the answer, check out this article. Wikipedia truly is all-knowing. Although I personally am skeptical about the article's stance, it's a great read if you don't mind the severe headaches and universe implosions that result from reading it. Stupid Corn (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

¿Por qué no te callas?
Or, in English, "Why don't you shut up?" It's amazing that Wikipedia has an article about this. This is going to be my new insult of choice. Check out the YouTube video of the incident, by the way. Stupid Corn (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Returns for an answer
Thank you for answering my question, but, as a question, are you freakin' serious that you think that the Nostramous (or what ever it was) was a lot shorter than you expected? Or am I just another idiot thanking another idiot for answering my idiotic question? :-)--Pistolieer (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

by the way, have a happy holiday <<<<<- (chistmas tree)