User talk:Beligaronia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Beligaronia! As you have not yet revieved a greeting, allow me to say "WELCOME!" to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. The new contributor's help page can also be very useful, as can the help desk and/or the reference desk. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature icon.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing!
[ MESSAGE UPLOADED BY THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) AT APPROXIMATELY 07:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC) ]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Contents

[edit] Is this a code?

Is this a code because following an operation on it creates an intelligible message or is it not because it says so? If not is it a random collection of letters or a conspiracy?

Also if people think that there is a conspiracy between conspiracy theorists to make conspiracies where there aren't any is it a conspiracy? Beligaronia 04:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As an expert on the subject of pointless debate, I feel motivated to express my opinion. Now we must remember that this is not a debate over what is right or wrong; it is a debate ABOUT the code (or not code, conspiracy, etc.) Therefore, we must reason in line with what the code (or not code, conspiracy, etc.) has to say for itself. In highly scientific and sociological terms, this means if the code says it is not a code, then it is not a code.
However, this brings up the debate about the writing of the "code". The Wikipedia article on code states that

In communications, a code is a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letter, word, or phrase) into another form or representation, not necessarily of the same type.

Seeing as this "code" is in "another form or representation" then we can conclude by saying that while it is not a code by choice, it is a code by definition.
I think that just about covers all my main points, however my second and third speakers will be happy to fill in the holes if you remain confused on our views. They will also cover are arguments for the conspiracy theory the somewhat confused first speaker, Beligaronia, has quite predictably set up.
This was THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))), writing at approximately 05:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC). He now sits down to allow the second speaker of the opposition to rebutt and/or make his case strong enough to sit on.

[edit] Rebuttal

I would like to point out that the existence of a rule does not imply that it was intentional.

Seeing as this "code" is in "another form or representation" then we can conclude by saying that while it is not a code by choice, it is a code by definition.

This phrase can be rewritten following a rule to say:

Seeing as this "code" is in "representation or form another" then we can conclude by saying that while it is not a code by choice, it is a code by definition.

But I assume that you did not intend that this should be done. I believe that for something to truly be a code there has to be the intention for some other party to apply a rule to their creation. If there is no such intention then it is not a code, then it is just a bit of gibberish written by monkeys on a type writer. (See infinite monkey theorem). These are theoretical monkeys that don't think, only type.

Since there is no evidence of design the fact that a rule can be applied to make it read "this is not a code" is merely superfluous extra evidence. (That by the way supports my case). In closing I would like to say that this piece of gibberish appears to know what it is talking about and who/how are we to argue with something who says:

UIJT JT OPU B DPEF.Beligaronia 22:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC) Beligaronia will now sit down to consider the implications of the opposing team's arguments, while keeping on the lookout for ducks

Mister Beligaronia, I must point out to you that by calling the text "gibberish", you have sealed your fate in this debate. As a unknowing poet, I am able to realise, comprehend and explain that

Gibberish is a generic term in English for talking that sounds like speech, but has no actual meaning.

Furthermore,

This meaning has also been extended to meaningless text.

By saying that the "code" that found its way onto your UserPage is written in Gibberish simply screams to all concerned readers that it does not make sense. However, you, I and Richard Hatch all know that it is written in a form of replacement code (each letter is replaced with another, in a organised and methological format). Hence, it is a code. But it still insists that it IS NOT a code. We can compare this to the times of old.
Imagine that the year is 1941. You are living in Germany under the rule of Adolf Hitler. Mister Hitler has decided that he doesn't like you because you didn't send him a box of chocolates for his birthday. He calls you a Jew (even though you aren't) and - because all of Germany hates the Jews - you are publically humiliated and dishonored. Then, you are taken against your will and put into a concentration camp. You gradually lose the will to live, and die there. Because of one man calling you something you aren't, your life has become a misery. A sufferance. And just because of one man.
I would like to bring up the fact that The Noble and Most Ancient House of Trombonator, the only survivor of which is THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))), will not stand for any injustice caused by the actions of another human being. It is morally wrong and unjust to call someone something they are not - look at McCarthyism, for crying out loud. He did it all the time. Innocent people died because of him. Thousands of people were scared out of their wits! It's just a big witch hunt - and don't you quote Monty Python on me, Mister Beligaronia, because it's quoting in my favour! The base of the matter is this: you called a not code a code, against its will, and now you are trying to reason it. Face it, you can't. It's like being Hitler and saying "oh, zee stinking Jews are making us lose zee var, ja!" You just can't do it.

This was THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))), standing in for his absent second speaker who was washing his hair, writing at approximately 03:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC). He now sits down for the final speaker of the incredibly wrong and morally unjust side to finish digging the hole they will soon be buried in.

[edit] I'm Confused, What are we arguing about?

We seem to have changed sides in the middle and then you accused me of being Hitler. I think I would know if I was Hitler. Did Hitler even speak English?

I would like to point out that at no point did i state that it was a code I merely debated whether it was. I would also know what the winner of the first survivor series, now incasseroled for tax evasion has anything to do with this debate.

On the next point I would like to ask whether a code/hunk of gibberish written by monkeys has free will. You claim that it does not wish to be called a code but how do you know what it wants? It is an inanimate object, a figment of reality.

Let us imagine that it is not Germany 1941. It is New Zealand 2007 around teatime.

You accuse us of being morally unjust and yet you slander the glorious English language by claiming that Hitler used it to slander Jews. Where is your proof?

I always do my thinking down holes it saves having to keep on the lookout for ducks!

In closing I would like the opposing team to clarify which side each of us is arguing and what is the moot. Beligaronia 04:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)This user will now wait for the opposing team to come back and fall over the tripwire he has placed around the edge of the hole.

[edit] Who is this God-person anyway?

WARNING: This section may contain blasphemy. God, if you really are there and reading this, please forgive us.

This is a topic not often debated.

  • Is he/her/it God? If he/her/it is God is he having the world on in the Koran, Bible etc.? If he is not God should we still listen to him/her/it?

What does "thou shalt not kill" actually mean? Cardamon, will you please use your wizardly wisdom and answer these puzzling dilemmas or at least respond. Feel free to blast me as a heretic but keep all discussion G-rated.

Roger, roger, come in Bela (can I call you Bela? It has a certain ring to it that's actually quite.... I'll stop the niceties now and get onto the shouting)
G-rated? G-RATED? How dare you suggest that I may fill up your talk space with obscenities aimed at people older than we are? I'll have you know that with the right ID I can get into R18 movies.
Anyway... I think you'll find that the patron saint of Scottish comedy had it right: how can we prove that he exists? The simple answer (and one that the church(es) couldn't comprehend) is he doesn't. Nope, nothing, nada. Therefore, we can sue all we like out of him (or her, or it, or etc.) and get nowhere other than a few thousand dollars richer at the expense of His representatives.
This is relevant to the argument "if God is up there then why do we have wars and famine and NCEA exams?" Just look in the question for the answer. Where is God? Up there. Where is up there? Heaven. What is heaven? The place where all the good dead people go.
This is somewhat contradictory to the argument I had in place before, but the grunt of the matter remains the same. God is incapable to affect anything that may be happening on Earth because he either doesn't exist or is dead. Therefore the gender of said individual is irrelevant.
As for needing to listen to this dead/non-existant being, do you really feel the need to listen to voices that aren't there and go against your own personal beliefs? Please don't say you're a schizo and do whatever they tell you because I will dismiss those claims on grounds of insanity.
"Thou shalt not kill is pretty much as the links will tell you: don't end the lives of others. This includes animals, vegetables and other living things (remember MRS GREN from Y10 Science?). In other words, this "God" character is encouraging us to go up there and join him in the afterlife.
The Bible, Koran and all the like are the old-fashioned version of the Women's Weekly. Everybody had it, and everybody listened to it. It's much more useful knowing how to bake orange cakes than knowing that if we f*** up make a terrible, horrible unforgivable mistake we are sentenced to an eternity or two "down there".
Upon further reflection, my argument is a load of horse manure, and I should have spent this time on my history research. Schade as they say in Germany. Anyhoo, I shall close by quoting paraphrasing one of the great maestros of the world: (Sir) William Henderson.

Trombone is... God

Cardamon out. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 07:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apparently, not debatable

You may wish to check this: WP:UCFD#Random_Babbling_Cats - they want to get rid of us! Is it worth arguing, or shall we carry on secretly? As a side note, the 'cats' refers to categories... i.e. don't start calling everyone discriminatory to small furry felines. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 10:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Too late, we are officially publically disbanded. (Yet another page I created is down the pipehole). However, we are still allowed to proclaim our babbling ability by leaving our userbox on our respective user pages. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 07:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we appeal? Half the people who responded were random babblers as well. What other pages went down the pipeline?Beligaronia 08:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

For a full list, check the link above. (You can scroll up and down to see them all!) I am slightly annoyed that they took advantage of our language then deleted it. Makes me say grr... I don't think we can appeal. We could have while they were debating it (although I'm fairly sure a procedure of Wikipedia is to tell the author it had been nominated... that would be me), but now it's gone, it's gone. We COULD recreate it, but there is not really much point. I was in it for the userbox (the cat came free), and some of the thieves other users pointed out some good points i.e. it makes WP look unprofessional.
Truth be told, I don't actually care whether we have the category or not. I do care that you didn't sign your last post. Grr. Again.
~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 10:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism?

not likely! it was just improving the page. still, i have complied, and also written this all without capitals. i'm so gramatically incorrect it's not funny nor proper. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 10:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

You also put too many tildes.Beligaronia 03:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC) No, that's how I have decided to sign my name. It's like it follows a quote... you know what I mean? ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 05:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I challenge you to a Duel

Find the shortest path between two pages (for more information see Wikipedia:Six degrees of Wikipedia). And no you may not edit the page to provide special links. The first page is Bow Group. To Aragon, Georgia. You have until the end of the weekend.:)Beligaronia 11:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

One solution is Bow Group-United Kingdom-United States-Georgia (U.S. state)-List of counties in Georgia (U.S. state)-Polk County, Georgia-Aragon, Georgia. There may be a shorter way. Extra credit if you find the way back.Beligaronia 06:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They plan to speedily delete my duck category. Please send aid, and fast.Beligaronia 08:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried my darnedest, but to no avail. Also, replied on my talk re: userboxes ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 03:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar!

The Surreal Barnstar
I've never met you, but just by looking at your userpage, I had to give you this! Congrats! •Malinaccier• 22:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auckland Meetup 11/08/07

We were both unable to be there, but if you zoom in a bazillion percent on the man in the bottom right corner...

[edit] I got abused by an IP!!

See here. I feel so proud! ...in an odd kinda way. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 00:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Manawatu Standard

I had a once-over, fixed up some spelling mistakes and prose... the only thing I am unsure of is whether to italicize the names of the papers. Otherwise, feel free to move it to the mainspace! -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant the user subpage, which is what I removed it from. :D -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Ego inflation... and other matters

I only just got through the door into this user talk page, on account of my head being almost too large :D But I looked at the page and rewrote it. I think you'll find it is a significant improvement. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably. Feel free to correct, unless I get there first... -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:ES. Also consider marking edits, such as the recent one you made to Bayfield High School, Dunedin, as minor. These will make your edits easier to understand to other editors who see them on Recent Changes or in their watchlists. Enjoy the rest of your evening. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I see you've added ", New Zealand" to all your links as did the user who edited the M.Standard, but the articles are not always at these places. Fairfield, New Zealand is a dab (disambiguation) page, and several other articles just don't have the end bit coz they're the only place in the world. Any other problems you face may be solved by adding a #, followed by a section heading, to the the internal link Suburbs of Dunedin. Hope that helps! -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I found this last night; it might help: [1]. As for the Southland Times article, I think the only thing missing would be a citation for the first two paragraphs in the history section. Otherwise, everything you have there looks very good! -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 06:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Well you could reuse the citation several times, but to anyone that actually follows the link it should be clear... yeah, I didn't. The naming conventions link was something I happened upon by chance; I found it quite interesting and thought it might help you figure out your next lot of place name links. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)