User talk:Ashley Pomeroy/Pre-2011
All discussion up to 23rd October 2005 is archived on this page here.
"Remember that this is a preview, and has not yet been saved!"
Technological Singularity
The technological singularity has reared its ugly head again, in the form of a new book written by Raymond Kurzweil. It was in researching the background info in preparation to read the book that I uncovered this bit of nonsense.--GraemeMcRaetalk 22:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- I am reminded of the computer experts from The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy, who first discovered the answer to life, the universe and everything, which was of course 42. They were crestfallen, because they knew that the public would lynch them for spending so much time and money in order to find a meaningless, useless answer of benefit to no-one. But the computer went on to tell them that they could make a fortune debating the answer on chat shows and in popular science books, making up controversies and pretending to feud between themselves. They lived their lives happily and wealthily thereafter, although they came nowhere near explaining the mysteries of the universe. And that is what Kurzweil et al remind me of. I imagine he is jealous of the people making money out of tossed-off 'peak oil' books or books about 'fairtax' or 'folksonomies' or the evils of the liberal left or the quest to build a sub-$100 laptop etc. It's just a lot of guff from people who want to appear clever and authoritative, whose ultimate goal is to run a foundation named after themselves and be a government expert because they crave recognition and power and respect and money. The irony is that if the modern world actually collapses they will be amongst the most useless and disposable elements of post-apocalyptic society, because there will be no place for psychics and fairground fortune-tellers in the ruins, at least not immediately. We will bury them, you and I. Graeme, we will strip the fat from their skin and burn it to make heat and light; their smouldering corpses will provide more illumination than their books. -Ashley Pomeroy 10:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- What you mean "we", paleface!—GraemeMcRaetalk 21:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Your RfA
User:Wiki brah nominated you for adminship. I removed your RfA from WP:RFA after he posted it there. RfA policy states that a nomination must be officially accepted prior to its posting at WP:RFA. It is also a good idea to answer the standard questions prior the posting at WP:RFA. Thanks, --Durin 03:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Not to worry; the user is a persistent troll. -Ashley Pomeroy 12:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Any disagreement then if I speedy delete your RfA? --Durin 15:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Cast it into oblivion.-Ashley Pomeroy 15:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Done. --Durin 16:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Good grief, you mean you aren't already an admin? I'd be honored to renominate you myself. BTW, I have to admit getting a chuckle out of the "comic relief" line. Helps not to take ourselves too seriously here. Anyway, leave word on my talk page if you're interested. - Lucky 6.9 06:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- I have no desire to be an admin. There's no real overt status boost, an admin's powers are very limited and constrained, and although several of the Internet Movie Database's unpaid helpers ended up with full-time jobs when the IMDb became a commercial concern, I'd be so far down the line when Wikipedia is bought or sponsored that it would be a forlorn hope. Furthermore, because I have no desire to be an admin, I don't have to be ridiculously polite to everybody all the time. I've seen people on the RfA page all sweetness and light until someone votes against them, at which point they show their true colours. As for the "comic relief" line, I can see you're trying to be polite about that, as well. -Ashley Pomeroy 14:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Ehhrm..
can you please not use such snide edit comments please thank youWiki brah 05:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)