User talk:NotAnEditor/On Hold

I've cleaned your talk page of harsh words and such, to make way for a new beginning.

AG, I Forgive You and I Hope you Forgive Me
AgentGenius, the following has been long overdue from me, and I've finally decided to do it. Dicipline can only go so far, and I think it's time to let the past die.

I wish to formally state, on this page, that I forgive you. All of the trials and toil you brought in my early career? Gone. Crisis I and II on the CPW? Consider it to have never happened. Forum Restrictions? What's that? Lawsuits will be eradicated from my mind and I will withhold posting any and all evidence I've gathered over the years, like it never even happened.

I've decided to move on, and judging by your brilliant story suggestions, you seem to want to do so too. I look forward to having you as a productive editor, and I'm sure that you will make a far better friend than a burden, as I used to consider you as.

So, for all the actions I've held to you, for all the multpile Crisis which I reference and the harsh terms I use on you, I apologize. You may have been doing wrong, but I had no right to be mean right back, and for the words I've caled you, I am sorry.

Does that mean the laws that say what you can't do will be lifted? No, but it does mean that I no longer hold anger on you and nor will I attack you on the Shout Box, talk pages, or otherwise.

For every bad thing I've done to you, I am sorry. I hope you accept this apology I extend to you, because I want to erase my mind of all of the things I hold against you. Most importantly, I'm sorry for calling you a terrorist. That was wrong, regardless of your actions. That still doesn't make it right to do what I did to you.

I also forgive you for any and all things that you have done to me. I forgive you for suing me, for calling me a bully, for battling in Ooogleclump and Ban (who will not speak Old English since you have won), and for all the battles that have blown through.

I hope to extend a hand of friendship instead of anger, and I wish to put our past behind us and look forward to a future free of battles, rule-questioning, etc. I'm through with battling you, fighting you, calling you names. I am sorry for what I have done and I hope that you can forgive me just as I have forgiven you.

So, I request this. Let's put our pasts behind us. Let's agree to not battle each other, not to fight or call names, and not to mess with stability, and that includes me fighting, since it destabilizes a lot too. This is something we'll have to do together, and I hope to be your friend.

I forgive you, and I am sorry for what I have done in the past. Let us start on a new slate.

Your Friend,

-- † कछुए मशरूम! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :) DON'T YOU DARE QUIT BECAUSE OF WHAT I JUST TYPED!!!!!!!! † 01:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Where?
Which house?

Ignorin COC
Actually, TS is just doing his job. Explosions are ILLEGAL. If you add that it one more time, admins will protect it. --HappyfaceWantsToTalk 22:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Demon Penguins
First off, there is no such thing as a good demon. That's Biblically impossible, as demons (and their parodies) are minions of Satan (or what ever entiety the demon parodies serve), which makes them automatically evil. "Good demon" is an oxymoron and also un-Biblical, because that would also mean evil angels. Note that the statement doesn't include Satan himself, as he was a fired angel because he sought domination over God, nor does it count demons (called the devil's angels in Revelation). When I say evil angels, I mean messegngers of God such as Gabriel.

Okay, next: Free will doesn't apply to demons. The Bible says demons, and thus demonic parodies, are evil, and though most everything in a parody can be rewritten, I'm afraid I'll have to override that this time. Demons are evil, they will be evil today, tomorrow, and they were evil yesterday. Demons are bad, plain and simple. It is anti-Biblical for demons (or demon parodies) to be good, because they are DEMONS (or demon parodies).

You may call this hypocracy since I'm being anti-Free Will and allowing head explosions, but in religious cases, faith triumps the COC.

Head exposions are fine and dandy on demons, because as stated, they are DEMONS and thus the embodiment of all things sin and lust in this world. Spin-offs of demons are also evil because their parodee are DEMONS.

THERE ARE NO GOOD DEMONS, THEREBY ELIMIANTING THE CHOICE TO BE GOOD. ALL DEMONS ARE EVIL. SINCE DEMONS ARE EVIL AND ARE DESTROYED BY GOD AND CLEARLY STATED AS ENEMIES OF GOD, IT IS LAWFUL TO BLOW THEIR HEADS UP (WITHOUT BEING DESCRIPTIVE). DEMONS ARE THE VILLAINS OF CHRISTIANITY, AND GOOD DEMONS ARE BLASPHEMY.

DEMON PARODIES ARE STILL PARODIES OF DEMONS, THEREBY MAKING THEM ALL EVIL AND WORTHY OF HEAD EXPLOSIONS.

You said: "'Is it funny to have their heades explode just 'cos they were born Demon Penguins?'"
 * Absolutely! They're demon penguins, and real demons are enemies of God. I don't know about you, but I would LOVE to see Lucifer's head explode.

You said:"I thought you were the one who was always going on about free will, and how a creature isn't automatically bad and all that."
 * I did and I do. However, all other creatures are not DEMONS. Demons are all evil, they were and always will be. That's in the Bible (and not under the God is Darth Vader Fallacy either), so if you want to take it up with God on what He thinks about demons (and their parodies), be my guest.

You said: "'I am going to make good Demon Penguins very soon'"
 * That's also OOC. You can't make good Demon Penguins because they are parodies of DEMONS and are AUTOMATICALLY EVIL BECAUSE DEMONS ARE EVIL. Demons can't be good, regardless of being parodies or not, because that's un-Biblical.

There is an exception to every rule, and Demon Penguins, because they are demon parodies, happen to be the exception. You don't seem the grasp the concept of what demons are. They are absolute evils, no good in them. Real demons serve Satan, and their parodies are still demonic in a way.

Have you ever wanted to see Satan's head explode? I sure have.

Demon Penguins are an exception because they are demon parodies. We alread had to bend the COC like a U-Turn to let them in. All demons are evil, and as the ultimate evil (and their parodees being Satan's henchmen), it is perfectly okay to have their heads explode.

I'm not changing my mind, and I have no sympathy to Demon Penguins.

-- † कछुए मशरूम! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :) DON'T YOU DARE QUIT BECAUSE OF WHAT I JUST TYPED!!!!!!!! † 02:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Your Request
Try uploading it on http://tinypic.com then give me the link. That is happening to some, especially Hat Pop. --   ¤   (  User page! ) (  The Cookie Master, bow! ) 11:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright
You, NAE, you copied my card system. -- Firmato per Il Dirigente  Conversazione verso Il Dirigente  12:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Very well then. -- Firmato per Il Dirigente  Conversazione verso Il Dirigente  13:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: "FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND WHY RULES DON'T HAVE EXCEPTIONS "
Oh really, they don't?

I've got two words: "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE".
 * Grandfather clauses are abundant. In fact, read the opening sentence to the article! A grandfather clause is an exception' that allows an old'' rule to continue to apply to some existing situations, when a new rule will apply to all future situations.

If that's not enough to overthrow your conclusion, here's one in linguistics: In words, the letters "I" and "E" are to be placed as "IE", unless after C (like peice) or if the word makes the long "A" sound. What about the word "weird"? Is there a C or an A sound? No! None at all! Yet, it's spelled weird, an exception to the grammar rule

Next flaw! "'I'm sorry, but if someone grew wings would you suggest they couldn't do bad things, being an angel?'"


 * You're incorrect on both accords. If a man grew wings, they could continue to sin, since wings do not make a man an angel. In fact, angels are not humans. Angels are specially appointed Messengers of God and were created by Him some unspecified time in Genesis (though God often appeared in person billions of years ago). Furthermore, only some angels have wings. Sariphims, I believe, have wings, while Chariphims do not. If I didn't confuse the two, then Sariphims covered God in the book of Isaiah and sang on the first Christmas, and a Chariphim came on Easter Sunday and said that Christ had Risen.


 * The Bible says that those who die and are Saved get to live with God forever, and are given white robes (it's in Revelation). Those in Hell are tormented forever, they recieve nothing and do not become demons.

To continue: "'Besides, there is a word for people who try to break the law for their religion, and though I wont say it, I suspect you're smart enough to guess.'"


 * You mean Hypocrite, Sinner, or lier? First off, the COC is not a doctrine of faith. I treat it as if it was hallowed, but it is not. The COC is based off of generic censorship concepts, and decency standards which are coupled, interestingly, with nods to the Ten Commandments in Judaism and the Christian Faith (thou shall not kill/murder for instance).


 * Second, how is making a fictional demonic parody's head explode a sin or an example of religious hypocracy? It's not, and if you want to be specific, it's Biblically acceptable. In Revelation, God and his angels fight Satan and his demons. The angles, so says the Bible, have swords and other weapons, but I shall not go any farther than that. If God Himself allows for demons to be slaughtered by the sword, then He would probably be okay with a fictional demon parody's head explode in a non-graphic and instant manner. As in, POOF, his head is gone, and his body turns to dust a few seconds after.

It's rather annoying having to endlessly respond. They're holding a vote on who will keep their writings on the Demon Penguin article, so go vote!

-- † कछुए मशरूम! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :) DON'T YOU DARE QUIT BECAUSE OF WHAT I JUST TYPED!!!!!!!! † 20:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: You Using My Name to Claim that HF is False
HappyfaceWantstoTalk is indeed the real Happyface. Where you got that theory that I doubted him and/or showed doubts in any manner is beyond me. Speak for yourself and not for others, for those others may not share your views.

I don't have any doubts, and I don't think Explorer does either. The next time you message someone with that sort of thing, speak for yourself and not me or anyone else. Much like your fail-tastic "The Users of the CPFW V.S. Bugzy", better known as "AgemntGenius V.S. the RV Clan", you assumed the identiy of someone that is not you and did not side with you. I reccomend you speak for you and you alone, since I don't doubt HF. Using me as a tool is prohibited. If you want to use me or my name when providing evidence, I must verify it. Claiming I doubted HF, when I do not, can hurt your reputation drastically. Plus, hate mail to HF or anyone is illegal.

-- † कछुए मशरूम! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :) DON'T YOU DARE QUIT BECAUSE OF WHAT I JUST TYPED!!!!!!!! † 21:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC).

I saw a comment on his Talk that suggested you doubted him. I'm sorry if I misenterperted you comments. Explorer, however, clearly doubted at some point, as he suggested lies were a possibility. He did not state if they were a probability.-- N   ⊘    tAnEditor  20:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Stuff I'm making while I'm blocked to stop me talking about HappyFaceWantsToTalk. I wasn't planning to talk about him *anyway* but...

 * See Mess.

Parody of chess?
Um, we don't need a parody of chess. Penguins already play plain old CHESS. We don't need to parody everything. Like how we don't need a parody of cars when we can just use plain old cars. And besides, already on some pages have they mentioned the usage of chess. So if you create Mess, all those articles would be OOC. --Icmer In Nyc http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/clubpenguin/images/6/6c/Smile_spin.gif (Don't eat the yellow snow!) 16:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, so? They can play both! Those articles would be fine, I'm not planning to claim it's actually chess.-- N   ⊘    tAnEditor  18:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

See Mess, I already moved it to mainspace. Dancing Penguin  http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/clubpenguin/images/6/6c/Smile_spin.gif (Talk!) 19:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank You! I've created a full ruleset, but I need to type it out and work out some details first.-- N   ⊘    tAnEditor  19:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright... Dancing Penguin  http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/clubpenguin/images/6/6c/Smile_spin.gif (Talk!) 20:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I Surrender
I surrender. I still believe that HFWTT is an imposter, but I have no more right to complain then Sheepman has the right to sue NASA for faking the Moon Landings (he thinks that you know) so I apologise. I retract my claims that he is a bad admin, as I see that it would be almost as distressing if he was HF, since he has had to deal with doubters befor in the case of Fluffy and is probably sick of it by now. Therefore, I surrender, and acnowledge that it is at least a distinct possability that he really is HF. I will no longer mention this unless really covincing proof appears, at which point I will point it out, being me. But only really convincing stuff. Deal?

Your Surrenderously,

N   ⊘    tAnEditor

20:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have proof I'm HF. Firstly I was blocked on December 31, 2008, right before New Years. Also, Toughpigs once blocked me for reasons unknown. Plus I joined the FOP. --HappyfaceWantsToTalk 20:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW Deal.

OK. I consider that incionclusive, but then I know how stubborn conspiracy theorists can be, NASA is a very hard subject to talk about with SM. So, Deal. Thank you.-- N   ⊘    tAnEditor  09:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

NASA MOONED AMERICA (and the rest of the world too)! -- Sh ee p m a n ! Wheeeeeee! 19:53, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

My truce with TS
Now I have a truce with HF, it's time for a truce with TS.

Firstly, My point with the 'winged man' idea was this: so would you do the opposite for a man with horns, and a tail? Because you're doing that to the Demon Penguins. Anyway, Demon Penguins have no real similarity to Demons. Demons don't have horns. They don't really carry tridents. Demon Penguins are parodies of the popular perception of Demons, not Demon's themselves. Demon's are pure spirit, they don't look like anything.

The same goes for the underworld. Demons don't really live underground, after all. I also tried to cut down on the fire, just to keep it further appart from Hell.

Secondly, Diss. Why did you delete Diss? I think it was because of the immmortal prisoners. Fair enough. I actually ment non-aging, not truly immortal, because that's the sort of idea a Demon Penguin would think up: Life sentance? What could be the worst life sentance ever? A life sentance and immortality.

Thirdly, that message should have been titled 'Failure to Understand Why Some Rules Don't Have Exeptions'. Frankly, why are explosions illegal? Because they could disturb people who had relitives die from explosions. Therefor, Triskelle is the one to ask here. Go on, ask him if he minds their heads exploding. However, even if he said yes it might not count (since some people might not see it that way.) Indeed, it would disturb me, and that was reason enough to change and Ban, after all.

However, I doubt this will have been convinced yet, so it's time for a deal.


 * 1) Diss is restored. OK? But without the whole immortal prisonars thing. Frankly, it does seem rather appropriate to have evil guarding evil, thus stopping either of them attacking us. Sice your only objection is the prisoners, that should be OK.
 * 2) No exploding heads. Sorry, but no. However, anything that exploded their heads can make them crumple to dust. Actually, if you still want to torture the Demon Penguins, then think about the fact that they get time to realise their crumbling to dust befor they do. Also, they can't even go to heaven (as if they could, but who knows) because they don't properly die, they stay trapped as dust forever (or until another Demon Penguin restores them with it's trident, dut that can only happen for a brief period of time (until some of the dust gets blown away) and after that they get all eternity to contemplate just how wrong they were. I hope that satisfies you?
 * 3) The image. You still seem to dislike my image of the Demon Penguins, so on that front I surrender. However, can I create a new picture, so that the objections between both our images get resolved. B oth images continue to exist, both are authorised as what Demon Penguins really look like, but niether gets used in the article?
 * 4) The latin name. Now, here I can't offer a compromise, but I hope that you only changed that by accident.

So, is this a deal? Is it? Please respond soon with acceptance or at least requests for changes.-- N   ⊘    tAnEditor  10:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Venom Parody
Ok, The "Venom Symbiote Parody" was a purple blog that emerged from the Shadow Amulet. I already made Arachnid Boy's suits. If you need help parodying Venom look Eddie Brock. --HappyfaceWantsToTalk 14:57, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Hey Agentgenius (Now NotAnEditor)... I am Sk8rbluscat (now MetalBluscat)

-- Sk8r bluscat 18:27, September 10, 2009 (UTC)

CPFFW
I was just wondering if you wanted to join, because you seem pretty interested in it and all.

I also made a forum (Forum:Ideas for the Club Penguin Fan Fiction Wiki). I'd appreciate it if you posted on there.

Thanks!

I am da bomb! 20:08, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

Penguinian Translations
Penguinian is actually just Norwegian, so you can use google translate or something.

-- Triskelle3 16:01, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Not an editor.
I made an article based on two of your articles (Demon Penguins and Vampenguism) on my character. Could you check that out a bit so that it fits what you want or something?

Thanks. Citcxirtcem 18:27, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

and another thing
I made this article. It doesn't really interfere with Demon Penguins, but I think you should check it out.

Citcxirtcem 23:10, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

Lisbon
Eirigi is socialist, I just like some of their flyers. I just don't want a President of the EU council, I'm for majority voting. Besides, the EU is too big already, and, we wouldn't have much say in stuff because we have a small population.

-- Triskelle3 '''Happy Hallowe'en! 17:07, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

We'd have approximately 0.8% of voting. Also, wages would be lowered (not to 1.85 though, that's just silly), farms would be unionised, and education and health care would be privitised, like the USA.

-- Triskelle3 '''Happy Hallowe'en! 16:25, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

This is my opinion: The Lisbon Treaty was a bad deal for Ireland when it was presented to the people last year and it remains the very same bad deal.


 * 1) It is a bad deal for Ireland and has already been rejected by the Irish people.
 * 2) It reduces Ireland’s power in the EU – we will lose our permanent commissioner and our voting strength on the Council will be cut by half while the bigger states double their strength.
 * 3) It will make the economic crisis even worse by forcing through policies that caused the recession, reducing the Irish government’s ability to take essential decisions, driving down pay and conditions and further undermining our public services.
 * 4) It erodes neutrality by drawing us into a common defence and obliging us to increase military spending.
 * 5) It removes our automatic right to a referendum on future changes to existing treaties.

-- Triskelle3 '''Happy Hallowe'en! 16:34, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

I think we just signed a contract without any idea of the contents. -- Sh ee p m a n ! Wheeeeeee! 11:17, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that most of the population of ireland didn't. -- Sh ee p m a n ! Wheeeeeee! 19:51, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Aether Amulet
I think you should make this, as opposed to death. After all, like 99.9999999% of the universe is made up of nothing, and nothing is generally related to death.

21:29, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

But death isn't really an element. It is just something that happens. (there isn't a life element either) Citcxirtcem 20:42, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Congrats
Congratulations, you are now a sysop because I nominated you and you had the votes...! You're a BOSS now Dancing Penguin  (Talk!) (Contribs) (Edits) 22:30, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

RE: Dear Webmaster
Never in all of my messages have I heard such a smart-alecked post.

"Restore my discussion. Now."

I could actually think of people who would smack you for such snotty behavior. If I acted like that to my parents, I would get scolded quite harshly. If my parents did that to my grandparents, they may have recieved a spanking.

Now, I'm not the kind of person who would smack you, but I liken your message to something Mabel would say when she wanted to annoy someone.

AG, you probably know enough about me to know that I value manners and respect, and I appreciate people saying "Please" and "Thank you".

I can tolerate rudeness and most any kind of message online, and I have been known to dish equally rude messages to others. The Internet emboldens and strengthens anyone using it.

Yet, there is just SOMETHING so bratty about that remark, its title, and your past that actually eminates from this computer. It's as if I can actually hear your tone over the Internet.

Just because you despise me does not mean you have the right to act like a smart-aleck and post rude remarks on your page. I appreciate respect as much as anyone else around here, and I normally do not demand respect because of the setting, but I'm making an exception. Rudeness like that is demeaning.

Besides, even if today was National Kiss Up to Your Boss Day (November Twelth),your blog posts are in violation of your Stability Doctrine.


 * Section two, bullet one, and I quote: "AG can not vote in Congress or Senate, nor can he Debate."
 * That Discussion thing IS debating. Under the Literal Clause of the COC (directly above the big purple text), you must use common sense. Changing the word "debate" to "discussion" to weasel your way out of a rule is NOT common sense. It's just plain slick, as my family would put it. It's a low and cheap way to stir up trouble.


 * Section two, bullet five, and I quote: "AG can not destabilize this wiki in any manner."
 * You should have KNOWN BETTER than to apply for adminship! YOU CAN NOT GET PROMOTED, IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT THERE IN THE COC! Do you enjoy annoying me, AG? Do you like to feast on the Lulz generated when I snap at you and your tricks? What you are doing here makes you no better than a Walrus. You intentionally requested a promotion even though you KNEW it was banned. I happened to be offline at the time, so it sneaked by. When "the votes" came in, you campaigned to get promoted and nearly destabilized the wiki.
 * I think you ENJOY making others frustrated. You seek Lulz, just like a Walrus. The New York Times defines Lulz as: "The joy of disrupting another's emotional equilibrium."
 * Well, you've disrupted my equillibrium. I advise you strongly to not mess with me again, and even moreso not to debate and cause a ruckus. You're lucky I'm bound to never block you by the Doctrine. Only other folks can do that.

Your item was "undesirable" because it posed a threat to the site's stability. It was a violation of the Doctrine AND it is just plain annoying.

I've said this many times, and I shall repeat it. 'Quit stirring up trouble, silence yourself, and do something productive, like EDITING or helping others! The system is broke, DEAL WITH IT!'

I will NOT restore your discussion, and if they GET restored, I will try and delete them again!

 -- † This is Serious Business! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :) Oooh, Yertle is performing his signature Bible Bashing Move! † 20:10, November 20, 2009 (UTC)  

BOSSmastership
You should make a forum instead of a blog. Anyways, it should be if we should retire your stability doctrine and make it so that you are like any normal user, with the right to be pr0moted. This is also more than just you and Explorer.

Citcxirtcem 21:48, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Did I say That?
''Besides, Explorer agreed to it. I think that would prove to you it was stable.''

No, I never agreed to it at all. Stop trying to interpret other people's actions too extensively, it kinda gets annoying. And you can't debate. You may be free to debate elsewhere, but the Stability Doctrine locked that here due to the fact that at least half your "logical discussions" have wrenched the wiki apart.

I think the problem is that you always try to go against the populous. Why do you have to disagree with everything, start a "logical discussion", and then have it all erupt in flames? Haven't you learned your lesson from Crisis II?

Please, just stop. The wiki was much more peaceful when you were being productive and editing. Don't you understand how much more I have to worry about a Crisis III happening when you start a "logical discussion" like that?  Yours "Falsely",   Explorer 767 ( <span title="Ya dares talk teh me, eh? Speak up, then, yeh young whippersnapper!">Logic OWNS You!  )    <span title="Click if you dare!">View this template   14:27, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

You're assuming that if someone accepts a request/command to do an activity, they agree with the existence of the activity. I beg to differ. And since I beg to differ, your criteria for whether someone agrees with an activity or not does not apply to whether I agreed with your debate or not. <span title="MINE!!! NO TOUCHIE!!!"> Yours "Falsely",  <span title="ME!!!"> Explorer 767 ( <span title="Ya dares talk teh me, eh? Speak up, then, yeh young whippersnapper!">Logic OWNS You!  )    <span title="Click if you dare!">View this template   17:18, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Crisis II was the one where you, Trisk, and Sheep sued me and TS. Then Sheep said something bad about TS, who lost it and surrendered. Meanwhile, I, being busy working on my science fair project, came back, reverted all the edits to the COC and the Main Page, and demanded a say in the situation. After that, the lawsuit fell apart and I believe you got temporarily blocked. No, I still don't hold a grudge against you, though I'm still wary of what happened. <span title="MINE!!! NO TOUCHIE!!!"> Yours "Falsely",  <span title="ME!!!"> Explorer 767 ( <span title="Ya dares talk teh me, eh? Speak up, then, yeh young whippersnapper!">Logic OWNS You!  )    <span title="Click if you dare!">View this template   20:02, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

By What Warrent is Your Authority
What authority gives you the nerve to try andget rid of me. Just because you disprove of my actions does not give you the right to suspend me. Besides, you do not have such authority. You are not my boss or my BOSS.

If there's one thing I can not tolerate, it is a smartmouth. You have absolutely no authority to suspend me, and even if you did, I would NEVER follow your commands. Now, if it was of a reputable BOSS or a person who deserved respect, or one who did not have a criminal record twenty miles long, I would gladly stand down. If someone such as Tails, Anniemoose, Triskelle, any BOSS, any at all, possibly even Sheepman or Dancing Penguin, gave me such an order, I would consider and, most likely, with their wise reasoning, obey.

AG, I try not to be a disobediant man. I pray to God Himself to help me submit to authority whenever I don't get my way or am denied a reason. Without a computer as a medium, I have trouble submitting to those who rightfully control me. I argue with my parents despite great remorse. I disobey direct orders and scream at those who mean the absolute best for me. I need to stop that, and I pray daily for Him to help me make the right choices to submit and obey.

I don't know if I will be whalloped with guilt for this, but I have chosen to completely ignore your statement and continue my current directive. I defend my position on the demotion of Sheepman and of his hypocracy: "Explorer is awesome but he is a tyranical dictator who must be stopped! I hate to rebel... let's start a controversial blog!". I also defend my opnion of also of his buttering up: "I looked up to you TS. I thought you were so awesome... HOW COULD YOU DO THIS TO ME? HAVE MERCY ON ME! I THOUGHT YOU WERE AWESOME! YOU ARE MY HERO!".

I regret nothing in my actions toward Sheepman. He was pushing Explorer, a normally calm person, over the edge, and I was able to detect emotional stress over the Shout Box. AG, that kid doesn't use All Caps as much as you think he does.

So, I shall conclude. I will NOT obey your order, I will NOT restore Sheepman's authority, and I will NOT refrain from my action on demoting Sheepman. You are not my boss, nor my BOSS, you are not my authority, colleague, you're not even a good user. In my mind, you're a nuisance who just gets in the way of my productivity. I await the day that you decide to walk out of this site forever, as you make few edits few and far in between. I believe that Ban was your last MAJOR contribution to this site. That may need verification, but you are an annoying and overly counterproductive villain who just can't SHUT UP and SUBMIT to the COC and Stability Doctrine. Pardon my language, but you are too annoying and a waste of my time. So shape up, because, unlike you, I am bound by the COC. I uphold my part of the Stability Doctrine by never banning you, you uphold yours and obey.

You can not Project:Debate, but you can debate, you claim. That is an example of weaseling your way out of the Doctrine and is a violation of the COC's Common Sense Clause. You can not debate period, so get that through your thick skull. You have no authority over me or anyone here, and you are NOT wanted here.

It disappoints me that I must result to such blatent rudeness in a message, and I may be out of order in doing so, but you have to get it through your head that a good size of us here don't want you on this site. Please, go find another wiki to bother.

-- † This is Serious Business! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :) I eat wiki revolutionists like I eat a Thanksgiving meal. † 22:02, December 1, 2009 (UTC) <BR /> <BR />