User talk:FatSexuallyActive

Heh, I didn't get the play on "SlimVirgin" until now. I assumed this user was somehow goofing on my name, in retaliation for my reporting multiple sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg tonight. For more on the relative scarcity of slim virgins and sexually active fatsos, please refer to this article. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A fascinating article. For the record, I am not a sock of Spotteddogsdotorg. As for "trolling" SlimVirgin...I merely took inspiration for the name and opted for the opposite. Is having a username that is the opposite of an existing user now against policy? I've never had any interactions with SV under my, now-retired, previous account and don't plan to in the future. A shame, really, as I do like this name. FatSexuallyActive (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes and I'm more than happy for a checkuser to be carried out in order to show that. FatSexuallyActive (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, a checkuser wouldn't necessarily help .--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It would show my other, retired, account which is in no way related to the problems you've been having with the socker. Though I'd agree that checkuser is not up to much, anyway. The whole Mantanmoreland/SamiHarris/Gary Weiss saga that played out recently showed that! FatSexuallyActive (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)