User talk:Toffeeman

Be sure to check my note for Jcane's block, too, for added amusement. Jinxmchue 12:46, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Normally I'd report such an edit to the Administrators ;-) but... the edit was factual! :-D Good luck with Standard Liege in UEFA Cup: this is the moment to show you don't need Extra Time as your red cousins did. SilvioB 17:12, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks - I did add something more substantive afterwards! The temptation to change the nickname of Liverpool to "Liverpool ("the red koppite ****s") almost proved too much.--Toffeeman 17:22, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Your previous socks Feyerabend, Billd, YoungA were removed; if you want to edit here it's one user name per account. Karajou 08:55, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

That's fine Karajou. --Toffeeman 08:56, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

I am sorry, but I am not sure what you mean. Yes, my English is good (I teach it and have an honours in the subject), plus if you look at the history, I was not the only contributor to that sentence. Dinsdale is English as far as I know. Please explain your comment. --KotomiT^{Hajimemashite!} 18:56, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

You're not English? I was so sure that I had found a fellow English person. The "winning isn't important, taking part is" is just so stereotypically English that if you can come up with it then you should be able to teach English perfectly. --Toffeeman 19:33, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

It is a long story, but I have lived outside Japan for the last 10 years, until recently, so was fortunate to become quite fluent (although do not ask me to say too many words containing the letter 'l' grin). As for the motto, I quoted the unofficial motto of the Olympics as best I could remember it. Hope that helps to clear things. Friends? --KotomiT^{Hajimemashite!} 19:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Friends? More - admiration! You have better than a masters - you have genuinely made me believe that English was your first language. --Toffeeman 19:44, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Thank you! I suppose it almost is in a way, as outside of home it is all I have really spoken for a long time - and it shows too. Very embarrassing now, when I have my Japanese corrected, or I just cannot think of a word, but I will get there. That is one of the reasons I wanted to teach - having English taught by Japanese people with bad English pronunciation just perpetuates the problem. I am probably not going to end up with a class of Eliza Doolittles, but hopefully they will be above the norm. As we say ganbaru, or "try my best." --KotomiT^{Hajimemashite!} 19:56, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Don't rant on my user talk page, and either limit your comments elsewhere to intelligent, substantive insights, or please leave. Thank you.--Aschlafly 10:35, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

This is a rant (deleted by me from your talk page):

Seriously, just get stuffed. We Wikipedians do not want you here on account of your foul slimy mouth polluting the minds of other people. You keep stating that you are concerned about the quality of modern historical and scientific research, yet you do not seem interested in upholding values essential to legitimate research in any field. You have said enough that your further rants are easily recognised. Therefore, get stuffed.

This, deleted by you, is not:

When you ask for “(s)ubstantive comments” and you mean “substantive comment(s) 'about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them” (my emphasis)', why not just say so in the first place?

If

1. “substantive” excludes anything that considers the PNAS response to be acceptable,

2. anything that disagrees with “(t)he math is wrong in the PNAS paper” is “nonsensical” and

3. “learn” excludes the discovery of any errors on your part,

then you should appreciate that other people use the terms “substantive”, “nonsensical” and “learn” in very different ways. Without clear, up front, guidance people are going to interpret these terms how they normally interpret them. They may well be wrong in doing so, but it seems only fair to let them know the correct , yet obscure, interpretation before castigating them for their mis-interpretation.

However, I would advise sticking to the conventional meanings of the words. “The issues raised by Mr. Schlafly are neither obscure nor subtle, but are part of everyday statistical analysis at a level too elementary to need rehearsal in the pages of PNAS.” That must have hurt, I winced when I read it. Yet it was hurt that could have been avoided by paying attention to the nonsensical and in-substantive comments by those who did not want to learn. I am particularly reminded of Stitch75 who bent over backwards to try and make the letter to PNAS the best possible. In a private email he revealed his motive for getting involved: “I want him to fix hix (sic) arguments a far as it is possible and present them in the best way possible.” He would have helped and could have helped, something those agreeing with you neither could nor did.

Remember Caesar, thou art mortal

--Toffeeman 09:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

It would appear as if it is you and I against the masses. Want to keep score? --KotomiT^{Hajimemashite!} 09:35, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I think I'm giving up for the moment - a sysop must come on soon and block them!--Toffeeman 09:42, 16 September 2008 (EDT)