User talk:Suicidal Tendencie

First
Heya. Had fun archiving? :) --- -- (contribs)  &emsp;(talk)  17:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Great fun, thanx. --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 17:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Late spam.--[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]El_Nazgir 18:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All Meh TalkPage R Belong To U! =/ --> Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 18:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Any reason...
...why you blanked your userpage? I hope you're not planning on leaving again.--El_Nazgir 08:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My stamp :( Random Time  09:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I stated when renewing the UserPage that I was not back for good.
 * 2) I asked for RTPoints and you didn't even reply, so I'm not inclined to feel bad for you :P --> ST [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 15:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User Page
Before you say anything, remember I was... asked... to change my UserPage when it mentioned a fact about another user. So don't go telling me throwing the f word around at people on your UserPage is generally deemed suitable. --> ST 23:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You have "fuck" on your own userpage though. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 23:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a quote, I talk about something that exists on the site. --> ST [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 00:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Viper seems to agree with you. Maybe.  Or maybe it's a coincidence.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 19:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it is a coincidence, if not, he's doing it wrong. --> ST [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 19:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I edited that to "fuck" because of something you don't need to know about (so don't ask); hadn't read your userpage when I did that. Also felt the need to replace that text with something. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  11:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you weren't saying Fuck User:Random_Example, so I didn't really believe they were connected. --> ST [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 12:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I made a skill for you!
And it's right here. No wait, sorry, it's here. Hope you like it :P --El_Nazgir 05:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why thank you. However I believe you made it for him, not me. John finally kept true to his word that he'd stop using this site. If you wish to talk to him, follow the link, I'll just pop on occasionally.
 * He let me keep using this account (that's okay with everyone?) and asked me to sign with "-->~" . I won't be on much, however. --> ST [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 11:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, he never told me he gave away his account here. Oh well, now at least I know his first name :P --[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]El_Nazgir 14:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * He told you he wasn't back here for good *points at this page*
 * And hope ya don't mind me editing the skill :P --> ST [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 16:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm perfectly ok with the edit. But John also said he'd still be available on his talkpage, and din't say anything about giving away his account.--[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]El_Nazgir 16:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well so far all I've done wrong is fuck up the date :P Go ask him if you don't believe me if you could avoid telling him about my mess up I'd be grateful... --> ST [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 16:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't even see any date getting fucked up. And ofcourse I believe you. I mean, why not? (although, if I would ask him, he would say he gave it away anyway, especially if he is you! :P ) --[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]El_Nazgir 17:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I get the point of another account by me and saying it's someone else. But... lying about this account? Must you insult John? --> ST [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 17:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What, I was just joking! Didn't you see the smiley? --[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]El_Nazgir 17:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Tiresome argument about meaning of "misspelling"
Transposing this here along with a portion of the previous discussion from User talk:El Nazgir/skills/Greedy Was Me for easy contextual reference.

[...]
 * Well, take heart... as linguistic history well proves, if enough people misspell it, it becomes the new correct spelling! [[Image:Green thumbs up.png|16px]] -- AudreyChandler 07:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a misspelling. It's an organization in a series of books. They're not the same tbh --> ST [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 16:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * He was not intentionally referring to that fictional organization, and did indeed mean to refer to a "leprechaun", the folkloric being... so, yes, it is a misspelling, by the very definition of that word. -- AudreyChandler 18:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One word. Context.
 * He spelt it wrong. However, it is not a misspelling for Google, as the word does exist. --> ST [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 16:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Eh, it's not really a contextual issue, even with Google. It is a very common misspelling of "leprechaun", and typing it into Google just now, the first page of results is entirely dominated by websites referring to little men in kelly green outfits with that spelling. Hence, yes, it is and was a misspelling. Did you check any of this out before arguing about it?


 * OTOH, when the number of supposed "misspellings" reaches a volume like this, I think it can safely be upgraded to an "alternative spelling" and people can stop being nagged about it. There's clearly a popular mandate going on. :P -- AudreyChandler 18:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Did I check anything out before arguing about it? Well... I managed to read this whole page, can you say the same?
 * I've a very simple point which is for some reason best left unknown, going over your head, I'll try again. His usage, and that of others can be a misspelling but the word is not a misspelling, as it is used in that spelling.
 * I never said that "using that spelling referring to the Irish myths isn't wrong" merely that "the word is not a misspelling because it does exist for a reason", namely, the books.
 * Why do you refuse to accept that the word is in fact used with that spelling? --> ST [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 18:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So far you have made the following statements to me:
 * "It's not a misspelling. It's an organization in a series of books. They're not the same tbh"
 * "One word. Context. He spelt it wrong. However, it is not a misspelling for Google, as the word does exist."
 * "His usage, and that of others can be a misspelling but the word is not a misspelling, as it is used in that spelling."
 * "I managed to read this whole page, can you say the same?"
 * "I never said that "using that spelling referring to the Irish myths isn't wrong" merely that "the word is not a misspelling because it does exist for a reason", namely, the books."
 * "Why do you refuse to accept that the word is in fact used with that spelling?"


 * So let's address these in sum, since your intended message seems to be straying each time you respond.
 * As I've already addressed, whether or not the word exists in the "leprecon" form (or rather, "LEPrecon") has nothing to do with it being a misspelling based on the imagery and concept El Nazgir intended to communicate.
 * You claim it's about context, yet confusingly, your argument is entirely about whether the word is a misspelling when taken out of context. The discussion partially on this page was about whether "leprecon" was a misspelling of "leprechaun" on El Nazgir's part. Furthermore, it is a "misspelling for Google", because as I've clarified, the results that appear on Google under "leprecon" all refer to mythical leprechauns and thus it is displaying page hits corresponding to the common misspelling.
 * You're indicating somewhat of a lack of understanding in what you mean by "misspelling". Whether or not a given word is a legitimate word in its own right has nothing to do with whether it is a misspelling in a given context. This is easily demonstrated with commonly-confused homophones, such as "their" and "they're". Both are legitimate words, but in no case is "Their going to the zoo." grammatically correct. In that sentence, "they're" is misspelled as "their", and this is a misspelling regardless of whether "their" is actually a word that can be the correct spelling in certain contexts. Furthermore, a Google search of "their going to the zoo" produces 4 results with that usage. It's inane to argue that "is not a misspelling for Google" based solely on the knowledge that "their" is, in fact, a word.
 * Respectfully declining comment on this rhetorical question of yours.
 * See my answer to #3, which covers this erroneous point.
 * To whit I have not once refused to accept it and, ironically if you "managed to read this whole page", you should have been well aware of the parts where I: a) linked to a Wikipedia disambiguation page listing LEPrecon among its options, and b) mentioned "He was not intentionally referring to that fictional organization..."; both of these strongly imply that I acknowledged the existence of the word but was merely arguing that the term "misspelling" still applied to El Nazgir's use. In fact I don't see anything I've yet said which states or implies that I do not believe LEPrecon to be a legitimate noun, but I have explained that its existence does not ultimately support or bear upon your argument. -- AudreyChandler 21:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(RI) Why bring this to my talkpage to keep it going, especially if you find it "tiresome"? 1) Considering I've been replying the whole time shows there was no need to spam it all over my talkpage. 2) Don't keep spitting the same points at me time and time again if I've already adressed them. You say this is tiresome? So do you want a response to each and every point? If so, I'll comply, and contemplate your meaning of tiresome. If not, you should not have posted an entire section on my talkpage. --> ST 21:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's on your talkpage because the issue doesn't belong on the Nazgir's page, and Audrey could hardly have put it on hers and expected you to notice.
 * Use your own judgment to determine which points to respond to, or whether to respond at all. Thank you. :) -- ◄mendel► 21:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize if my usage of "tiresome" proved offensive to you. I am often clinical and somewhat blunt with my feelings, and I do acknowledge that I can come across as crass or dismissive when I don't intend to. If you do not wish to continue the discussion, that is of course your right and discretion to exercise; however, as Mendel correctly pointed out, this seemed by my judgment to be the most appropriate location to continue it.


 * As I noted at the heading, I only transposed so much data so that it would save time cross-referencing the original talk page. Feel free to delete it, or remove my use of "tiresome", if the length or wording are sufficiently bothersome to you. It seemed based on your tenacious replies that you were vested in arguing with me about the issue, so I merely intended to bring it to a page where the discussion could continue unimpeded as long as was necessary for you to feel you had addressed the issue sufficiently. -- AudreyChandler 21:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Offensive? Not at all.
 * I'd like to thank you for what you said about your attitude, I'm the same.
 * Now, I've spoken with Max (who has decided to not bother with this site, hence me being back rarely) and this is what I think is his viewpoint. I'd like to make the small point that, if I'm correct in this, I'm in agreement with him.
 *  You claim it's about context, yet confusingly, your argument is entirely about whether the word is a misspelling when taken out of context. The discussion partially on this page was about whether "leprecon" was a misspelling of "leprechaun" on El Nazgir's part. Furthermore, it is a "misspelling for Google", because as I've clarified, the results that appear on Google under "leprecon" all refer to mythical leprechauns and thus it is displaying page hits corresponding to the common misspelling.
 * I'd like to make the point we both concur that someone misspelling and a series of letters in the wrong order aren't the same.
 * Let's see... NOTE: Before I continue I'd like to say I'm not being "dismissive" I'm just showing my views on the point in question. Regardless of if Max did or did not want a nice long discussion on it, I do not.


 * 1) Nobody is denying that El Nazgir did not mean to refer to LEPrecon. It is not disputed and does not need to be "countered" for want of a better term.


 * 2) I did not know it was a common misspelling. However, I'd like to make a distinction. You said "it is a misspelling for Google" somewhere if I remember correctly. I got it from Max in school that his main reason for posting all this was that he took issue with that statement specifically. Here is a point he made regarding it on MSN a few minutes ago (school talking time is limited) ...other websites spelling things wrongly does not mean Google itself has a misspelling... correcting the spelling of websites owned by various people is not their job.


 * Frankly I agree with him here... search the internet and using a spellchecker aren't one and the same, as you seem to have missed. El Nazgir misused the search engine... but Google does not have a misspelling, it is a minor point but one Max evidently feels strongly about.


 * 3) Each of you have points here. I'd like to draw your attention to how you persist in mistaking search engines for spellcheckers. Not everyone on the internet typing English has it as a first language, and even those that do... often act as though they do not. There is no reason to confuse the two, and forgive me, the amount of thought I'll put into points proven so weakly is somewhat limited.


 * 4) This is what Max was asking about. If you're not responding to a point, there is no reason to quote it on this talk page, and then mention you're not going to talk about it.


 * 5) Saying something is just a misspelling is wrong if it does in fact have a function be it in fact or in a work of fiction is besides the point. Agree or disagree the fact is this is getting way off track.


 * 6) Back to the Spellchecker ≠ search engine point. Want me to continue on this one? The Search Engine lists what's on the internet, and that's the purpose of the aforementioned search engine. You seemed to imply that searching the internet on Google for "LEPrecon" should have no results... although neither me nor Max understand your argument well due to you being whole heartedly set on using search engines to prove points they are simply not capable of proving by both design and function.


 * I wandered a lot trying to cover all bases when I wasn't the one making the points in the first place... if you're confused here, read point two again. It's the part where I'm most sure of what I'm saying... and why :-) --> John [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 16:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, about google as spellcheck: Google is a great spellcheck for most things but, like practically everything, has it's flaws. If something is misspelled (or if the "misspelling" is used as a name for things) enough, Google will just think that that was what you were looking for if what you typed in was closer to that instead of the "correct" spelling. So... I just use google as a spellcheck, I mistyped a bit too much and ended up with the wrong term. Case Closed, no need for more wikidrama over a petty thing like this. Do not reply.--[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]El_Nazgir 17:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying something and not giving others the right to reply is generally looked down upon, and in my view, makes you a hypocrit you talk to that person, but tell them not to talk to you . Also I may add I do not take kindly to someone telling me not to reply on my talkpage. --> John [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 17:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)