User talk:TheTruthWasOutThere

Personal attacks
Please do not engage in personal attacks, as you did here. "Stop with the pedantic crap", "completely disingenuous of you", "You are attempting to pretend", "WOW. You are a disingenuous person, aren't you?", "you have stooped to precarious lows here", and "If you push an agenda of WP:OR and use falsification of primary sources in your defense, this is going to escalate quickly." are all inappropriate on Wikipedia. Try just arguing rationally about the subject matter, without making personal attacks, if you want to convince the others watching the discussion. If there are any more personal attacks I will go to ANI. Duoduoduo (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That was no threat, it was a promise. If you continue to put false information on Wikipedia, you will be the person censured. I am not new here.  TheTruthWasOutThere (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * TheTruthWasOutThere, you did indeed make personal attacks and you're behaving in a way that goes against the requirement that we deal with each other in a collegial manner--or, if that's unattainable, at least a professional manner. This can indeed escalate, as you indicate in your threat/warning, but there can be only one result: a block on your account. Please do not treat Wikipedia as a battleground. And if you're not new, please have the kindness to inform us of previous accounts you have used, and/or (re)read the guidelines at Clean start. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Drmies -- I could assert that DuoDuoDuo began with the personal attacks, that is all in the eye of the beholder. What you should be concerned about is the false information that DuoDuoDuo is pushing, going so far as to falsely represent a quote from a primary source.  TheTruthWasOutThere (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Drmies -- Furthermore, you just violated WP:INVOLVED. TheTruthWasOutThere (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, DuoDuoDuo did not make any personal attacks. I don't see any false information being pushed either. But the very fact that you claim they are "pushing" some false information (I wasn't aware that the subjunctive was such a happening topic) is yet another personal attack: you are ascribing some nefarious motive to...what? an edit they made two years ago? Last warning. Stop the personal attacks on DuoDuoDuo or I will block you indefinitely for trolling, since that's just about all you've done so far. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And no, I didn't. I know grammar and I answered your question for you. You're welcome, by the way. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The most important issue is the misrepresentation he or she made by selectively quoting the reference I provided, in such a way as to reverse its meaning. I hope you do block me, that would surely be the end of your Admin stint. TheTruthWasOutThere (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Subjunctive mood and past subjunctive
Have you noticed this statement on the Subjunctive mood article?

"The terms "present subjunctive" and "past subjunctive", such as appear in the following table, refer to the form and not to the time of action expressed."

This seems to be right up your alley. TheTruthWasOutThere (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. I don't completely agree with the statement, but I can understand why one might say it. It is true that in the subjunctive mood the notion of "tense" becomes more nebulous; sometimes it's nearly metaphorical. I've even read this in a grammar. Best regards. :) FilipeS (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)