User talk:MinorProphet
This is (unsurprisingly) my talk page. MinorProphet (talk) 06:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Knights for the body
[edit]
Hello, MinorProphet. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Knights for the body".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 17:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Try again?
[edit]Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13
- Hi, I'm MinorProphet, and I would like to request the undeletion of this draft, which was deleted under CSD G13. You might consider restoring the page so that I can make edits to it. Thanks for your kind assistance. MinorProphet (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- Yay, Draft:Knights for the body is back, thanks. Now, about those other 20 un-finished drafts (ahem) ... MinorProphet (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
Welcome back!
[edit]And happy new year! Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: Thank you, much appreciated. Have you read any more Iain M. Banks? HNY to you too. MinorProphet (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
- Made it half way through Matter (the eighth book in the ten book series) and stopped and never picked it up again. The writing was kind of boring and predictable but visually a feast. He tends to reuse words and phrases over and over again and that bugs me. I hope to pick it up again soon. Viriditas (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, I just figured out why Banks writes this way, and it makes perfect sense. He isn't writing for people like me, who are going to read all ten books in the series. He's writing for someone who is going to pick up one book and read it, and decide later if they are going to read others. This is why each book stands alone in the series (I think). In other words, you can pick it up at any point in the series, so Banks isn't worried about repeating himself or going over the same ideas. Also, maybe it is expecting too much. There are about 1.4 million words in the series, so some repetition is likely. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: I bought it in 2009, read it once and haven't really thought about it since. I just hauled it off the bookshelf (not a slim volume, eh?) and realised I didn't remember a single character or anything that happens in it. Next on the list, then. I do most of my reading on the bus (30 minutes each way into town), but it will barely fit in my bag... MinorProphet (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- My copy has 593 pages, with an additional ten pages of extras (an interview with the author). However, quantity has never been an issue for me. If you like the material, it goes fast. I think the Three-Body books (Remembrance of Earth's Past trilogy) took me a month, as it was highly enjoyable. It was around 1700 pages or so. Viriditas (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: I bought it in 2009, read it once and haven't really thought about it since. I just hauled it off the bookshelf (not a slim volume, eh?) and realised I didn't remember a single character or anything that happens in it. Next on the list, then. I do most of my reading on the bus (30 minutes each way into town), but it will barely fit in my bag... MinorProphet (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, I just figured out why Banks writes this way, and it makes perfect sense. He isn't writing for people like me, who are going to read all ten books in the series. He's writing for someone who is going to pick up one book and read it, and decide later if they are going to read others. This is why each book stands alone in the series (I think). In other words, you can pick it up at any point in the series, so Banks isn't worried about repeating himself or going over the same ideas. Also, maybe it is expecting too much. There are about 1.4 million words in the series, so some repetition is likely. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- Made it half way through Matter (the eighth book in the ten book series) and stopped and never picked it up again. The writing was kind of boring and predictable but visually a feast. He tends to reuse words and phrases over and over again and that bugs me. I hope to pick it up again soon. Viriditas (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: So I made it to page 100 or so, and still reading. It appears to be an expanded digest/compendium of every space opera ever written, with knobs on. Vast amounts of intense detail, apparently deliberately irrelevant to 'the plot' (usurped heir to the throne etc.), perhaps just excessive info for the sake of it (super-detail being in itself a plot device of modern fiction) but since the reader can't confirm or deny the truth or otherwise, you have to go along with it... PS No hint of an unreliable narrator so far, since it's all in the third person... Help? NB No spoilers, plz. MinorProphet (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Fun fact: turn randomly to any page in any Culture series book and you will likely land very close to a character standing on a balcony or parapet of some kind. Banks is obsessed with that and it drives me crazy. Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Yup, thanks for pointing this out, I've already come across the idea several times in Matter without consciously being aware of it. But thinking about it–which I normally don't do–isn't this the essential viewpoint of the disinterested narrator/novelist, directing our gaze over the entire panorama from afar (as in the first few pages) either with the ancient binoculars of Djan Seriy Anaplian or equipped with the multiple vidscreens which the tuttingly deprecating Turminder Xuss deploys to reveal in HD the carnage dealt to the approaching war-party? Similarly, the Ambassador and the Oct (or something, or someone) look down on Sursamen, which allows Banks to explain what shell-worlds are for ten or twenty pages. It's just a narrative device. Why not write your own novel if so unhappy...? Have you watched Primer? Just as unsettling in its own way. MinorProphet (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not unhappy. But whenever I think of the Culture series, I'm immediately on a balcony surrounded by a parapet looking out over the view of the landscape. He does it so much it's kind of silly. Does North Queensferry have a lot of balconies and parapets? I bet it does! Also, why do I have to read to the exact middle of every book to find out the meaning of the title? Maybe I'm just simple-minded, but at least tell me what the title means before I'm finished reading the damn book. Oh, and if you want to find out what Matter means, open the book exactly in half. You're welcome. Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Isn't that half the fun, *not* knowing what the title means? It's a little puzzle, you are meant to be intrigued, I suspect. You plough your way through a book, often almost to the end, and suddenly *there* is that telling phrase, the very nub of the matter which you had almost forgotten about but which has been slowly explained with maybe a subtle clue or two along the way. Isn't that part of the skill of the novelist? Anyway, it's only a diversion from boring reality. I can't believe that you prefer Dan Brown, who tells you on almost every page what's just happened, and what's going to happen next. I can't speak for North Queensferry, never having been there: but wherever there is a view, people will build a house which overlooks it just so they can entertain guests who gaze out of the window/balcony/parapet and think "Aaaah, isn't that lovely, you're so lucky", etc. MinorProphet (talk) 09:37, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're right. I'm not going to defend Dan Brown's writing style. What does interest me is why Brown's writing didn't translate to film so well; you would think the simplicity of it would have made for an easy adaptation. But the films are pretty poorly done. Poor Tom Hanks. Anyway, can you imagine a film adaptation of The Culture? That would make for like 7 seasons of 70 episodes. They are trying something similar with Foundation on Apple TV, and it did have some successful episodes and characters, but something got lost on the way to the writing room. Lee Pace is pretty much the only reason anyone watches the show. His transformation is remarkable. But if you watch the show closely, you can see a ton of Culture references, and maybe Banks got them from Asimov in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Brown's books are horrendously, clunkingly bad, and trying to imitate them on screen only makes them seem even more ham-fisted than you might ever have imagined. Asimov, of course, is the grandpa, and H. G. Wells had even more imagination, but slightly more thinly spread. Sleep beckons. MinorProphet (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Okay, I just re-watched Primer, the second time since it was released in 2004, which was more than 20 years ago. I'm sorry to hear about Shane Carruth's recent personal problems, as this film demonstrates Carruth was a budding auteur at the time, having unbelievably written, directed, produced, edited, scored, and acted in the film. Has anyone ever done that before? Anyhoo, I'm aware of the cult-like obsession people have with this film, as I've followed most of the zany discussions about it on Hacker News, which border on religious worship. With that said, some things stand out to me on the second watch which I never really noticed before on the first: the Super 16mm format naturally produces some interesting scenes that are mostly digitally created today, and the reality is that the modern digital version of this kind of thing lacks a kind of veritas that Primer brings to the foreground. (But I'm not the first person to notice this; Tom van der Linden talks a lot about this limitation of digital film on his YT channel, Like Stories of Old. If you haven't seen it, do check it out, it's one of the best film channels out there.)
- As I've said, I'm familiar with the many different discussions about this film, about the technical aspects of the time looping, and the hacker or engineering culture that people find attractive. But for me personally, there's two major things that turn me off from this film the most, and while I'm not a contrarian by any means, it's not a favorite film of mine. For one, the dialogue is terrible. Not just the writing, but the timing. Also the derivative nature of the overdubbed, analog recording of the narrator sounds a lot like a homage to Fight Club or The Matrix, which makes it trite; I can get past that, it's not a dealbreaker. But having hung out with a lot of hackers and engineers in the deep past, I wonder if my personal experience was different because it was in California and not Texas. This film seems to have a Texan aesthetic that just doesn't speak to me. Which brings me to the second major thing that turned me off: I found the characters unlikable, shallow, and frankly uninteresting. And perhaps, that's written into the story, so that's of no surprise. Maybe my reaction was expected.
- The initial scenes of invention in the garage are compelling and shot really well. You get the sense that you are standing right there next to them, and I notice that Carruth does it throughout the film, from the self-storage hallway shots to the scenes outside the storage unit in the dirt field, to the confined space of the device itself, to the scenes looking out of the balcony of the industrial park. The film is shot as if you are a participant, and that's a great way of facilitating immersion. But I couldn't really suspend disbelief with the device, as I could see it was just cheap PVC and maybe just plastic. But who cares, this film is more of an idea that you are supposed to work out, and the actual tech doesn't really matter. But at the end, it just feels like a mind fuck of sorts, bordering on some kind of hyperfocus that is taken to an extreme level. And that's interesting, as it keeps people coming back to the film to find out more and see what they missed the first time around, contributing to its success. Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Brown's books are horrendously, clunkingly bad, and trying to imitate them on screen only makes them seem even more ham-fisted than you might ever have imagined. Asimov, of course, is the grandpa, and H. G. Wells had even more imagination, but slightly more thinly spread. Sleep beckons. MinorProphet (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're right. I'm not going to defend Dan Brown's writing style. What does interest me is why Brown's writing didn't translate to film so well; you would think the simplicity of it would have made for an easy adaptation. But the films are pretty poorly done. Poor Tom Hanks. Anyway, can you imagine a film adaptation of The Culture? That would make for like 7 seasons of 70 episodes. They are trying something similar with Foundation on Apple TV, and it did have some successful episodes and characters, but something got lost on the way to the writing room. Lee Pace is pretty much the only reason anyone watches the show. His transformation is remarkable. But if you watch the show closely, you can see a ton of Culture references, and maybe Banks got them from Asimov in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Isn't that half the fun, *not* knowing what the title means? It's a little puzzle, you are meant to be intrigued, I suspect. You plough your way through a book, often almost to the end, and suddenly *there* is that telling phrase, the very nub of the matter which you had almost forgotten about but which has been slowly explained with maybe a subtle clue or two along the way. Isn't that part of the skill of the novelist? Anyway, it's only a diversion from boring reality. I can't believe that you prefer Dan Brown, who tells you on almost every page what's just happened, and what's going to happen next. I can't speak for North Queensferry, never having been there: but wherever there is a view, people will build a house which overlooks it just so they can entertain guests who gaze out of the window/balcony/parapet and think "Aaaah, isn't that lovely, you're so lucky", etc. MinorProphet (talk) 09:37, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not unhappy. But whenever I think of the Culture series, I'm immediately on a balcony surrounded by a parapet looking out over the view of the landscape. He does it so much it's kind of silly. Does North Queensferry have a lot of balconies and parapets? I bet it does! Also, why do I have to read to the exact middle of every book to find out the meaning of the title? Maybe I'm just simple-minded, but at least tell me what the title means before I'm finished reading the damn book. Oh, and if you want to find out what Matter means, open the book exactly in half. You're welcome. Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Yup, thanks for pointing this out, I've already come across the idea several times in Matter without consciously being aware of it. But thinking about it–which I normally don't do–isn't this the essential viewpoint of the disinterested narrator/novelist, directing our gaze over the entire panorama from afar (as in the first few pages) either with the ancient binoculars of Djan Seriy Anaplian or equipped with the multiple vidscreens which the tuttingly deprecating Turminder Xuss deploys to reveal in HD the carnage dealt to the approaching war-party? Similarly, the Ambassador and the Oct (or something, or someone) look down on Sursamen, which allows Banks to explain what shell-worlds are for ten or twenty pages. It's just a narrative device. Why not write your own novel if so unhappy...? Have you watched Primer? Just as unsettling in its own way. MinorProphet (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Fun fact: turn randomly to any page in any Culture series book and you will likely land very close to a character standing on a balcony or parapet of some kind. Banks is obsessed with that and it drives me crazy. Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: So I made it to page 100 or so, and still reading. It appears to be an expanded digest/compendium of every space opera ever written, with knobs on. Vast amounts of intense detail, apparently deliberately irrelevant to 'the plot' (usurped heir to the throne etc.), perhaps just excessive info for the sake of it (super-detail being in itself a plot device of modern fiction) but since the reader can't confirm or deny the truth or otherwise, you have to go along with it... PS No hint of an unreliable narrator so far, since it's all in the third person... Help? NB No spoilers, plz. MinorProphet (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
@Viriditas: "But I couldn't really suspend disbelief with the device, as I could see it was just cheap PVC and maybe just plastic." Hey, It's a super-low budget indy film: the budget was $7,000 in 2004. It's genuinely filmed in a garage - a bit like Rick and Morty. The box will do, the science is nonsense anyway. Have you seen John Carpenter's Dark Star? Also PVC and duct tape, and the hilarious alien.
"I found the characters unlikable, shallow, and frankly uninteresting." I think that's part of the charm - they aren't meant to be profound, just a couple of ornery college grads who stumble on something astounding. The documentary style is deliberately off-putting, same sort of feel that Louis Theroux engenders. Again, I feel the dialogue/soundtrack is fairly confusing for a reason - it's very much like real conversation: interruptions, random thoughts, people speaking out of turn when the camera isn't even on them. I'm fairly sure it owes something to Brecht's technique of audience alienation. I enjoyed the way the characters slowly get pulled inside the monstrous mess they have almost unwittingly created. It *is* clunky, laboured even. Maybe I'll watch Upstream Color next.
I'm still making my way through Matter, at p. 200 or so. Enjoying spotting the 'balcony conversations', must have been about ten up till now. No-one is particularly interesting: perhaps the drone Xuss is more 'sentient' than any of the humanoids. But it seems hugely conventional thus far, much less intricately plotted than, say, Excession - I really enjoy having to make lots of notes to understand who's with who - another hugely complex book I had to makes notes for is William Gibson's The Peripheral. Have you read it, or watched the single-run TV series? May have mentioned it before... I don't think I've ever seen any adaptation of any book that so successfully recreates exactly how I imagined it to be. MinorProphet (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- FYI... I'm not ignoring you. It's just that I'm going to have to re-watch Dark Star, brush up on Louis Theroux, check out Upstream Color, and read Gibson's The Peripheral and watch the show just to respond to you. Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Fair play, I still have to watch Upstream Color and re-watch Dark Star. Matter proceeds, although it's barely even interesting most of the time. Sentient Special Circumstances knife missiles disguised as dildos barely make me smile. Sometimes writers just go through the motions, and I'm still not convinced Banks is doing anything else. A friend of mine from what you would call 'high school', 6th Form for me, went to Jesus College, Oxford to read English, and her tutor was William Boyd. He told her that once he became an 'established novelist' he would churn out three or four pot-boilers to keep to the publishers happy, and occasionally he would produce one of the books he really wanted to write. I think Banks is guilty of the same thing, just to pay the mortage. I know that other people's recommendations often don't work for other people, but for me The Peripheral is one of the most intense and involving sci-fi books ever. MinorProphet (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Actually, the uninterrupted view from a high hill, especially if you have climbed up there yourself, can be utterly stunning: and maybe Banks likes to remind his readers of this 'Top of the world, Ma' feeling. MinorProphet (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: Just re-watched Dark Star which I apparently first downloaded in 2008 (possibly via eMule?) when I was simultaneously warning everyone I spoke to about sub-prime (self-certification of your own mortgage agreement, even in the UK...???) ("In 2010, it was estimated that there were 800,000 dial-up users in the UK" (see Dial-up), I was probably one of them @56 kbit/s.
- Bow down ye, heathen, and believe. I saw the entire financial crisis coming. I read all the news feeds, told everyone, and no-one quite got it. Ah, well... Maybe I had a been a bit too OTT re the Y2K bug. MinorProphet (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: Just re-watched Dark Star which I apparently first downloaded in 2008 (possibly via eMule?) when I was simultaneously warning everyone I spoke to about sub-prime (self-certification of your own mortgage agreement, even in the UK...???) ("In 2010, it was estimated that there were 800,000 dial-up users in the UK" (see Dial-up), I was probably one of them @56 kbit/s.
- So many parallels between Primer and Dark Star. MinorProphet (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
You said: "I'm sorry to hear about Shane Carruth's recent personal problems, as this film demonstrates Carruth was a budding auteur at the time, having unbelievably written, directed, produced, edited, scored, and acted in the film."
Well, I managed to get through about 45 minutes of Upstream Color before switching off for good. Quite frankly, that was some of the most appalling genuine horror material I have ever subjected myself to. Even if you hadn't drawn attention to Carruth's 'personal problems', I doubt that I would have gotten any further: the whole thing seems like a real-time template for how to conduct a horrendously, thoroughly abusive relationship.
Any comments? MinorProphet (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
- I got myself a copy of Gibson's book, and because I couldn't wait, I watched the first episode of the series. I have to say, Moretz is a delight, and a true professional. I was thinking at first I would hate it, but I was genuinely surprised at how it made every effort to keep my attention. Viriditas (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
- I remember the series being being tightly directed - will have to re-watch. There are a number of significant differences between book and series: the book is considerably more complex, and the series skates over how and when the apartment death happened. Which, I think, is the whole point. Hey, it's an adaptation, and none the worse for it. I really would stick with the book first. Have you come across Fallout? It's really not too bad up to S02E06, and then it falls apart, setting the viewers up for S03... Which is why I hate most series. At least it doesn't deteriorate into a relationship dramaaaaa. MinorProphet (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
- Re sub-prime: "First-time buyers enjoy biggest choice of low-deposit mortgages in UK since 2008". (The Guardian, Friday 13 February 2026). Best of luck, eh????
- Made it to the second ep. A bit disappointed they resorted to the quantum tunneling angle, as I thought that was pretty played out at this point. But the acting isn't bad, and Moretz is a great actor. I wasn't aware of her before this. I finished Fallout last week. I enjoyed it. I feel like both shows are trying to re-capture the Westworld magic, but I think that was a one-off. Anyone who says they stopped watching Westworld after season one is a silly person. And I do want to say, as someone who watched the entire Westworld series, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The chemistry between the actors is something the writing, directing, and music, cannot bring to the table alone. That's the magic, as it isn't something tangible you can point to or even describe. And this brings me to Theseus's Paradox. It's no longer a paradox, it's been solved. The ship is not the same if you replace the parts. Original art works are original precisely because the people and ideas are uniquely positioned in time and space and can never arise in the same way again. Derivative culture advocates just don't get it. We don't need any more reboots and re-imaginings. We need new, original content, not from the "mind" of an LLM or some yet-to-be-invented AI, but from the minds of humans. I think everyone knows by now that LLMs are a backdoor attempt to undermine human labor and ingenuity and to rollback democracy and regulations to solidify power and money in the hands of an elite technolibertarian class, while reducing everyone else to feudal serfs. Anyone who hasn't realized this yet is about 20 years behind. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Anecdote
[edit]You said "I would rather herd cats for free than organise even five wiki-editors to do anything" in a recent discussion.
Awhile back, I encountered an editor/article subject who needed help with "his" WP-article. He was refreshingly polite, reasonable, patient and cooperative, so me and another editor put some effort in, re-wrote it mostly from the ground up, even spoke to a couple of admins on his behalf. A bit into the exercise, I noticed he was the author of Herding Cats: Being Advice to Aspiring Academic and Research Leaders. Based on how he "handled" Wikipedians, it's a pretty good book. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thanks very much for your thoughtful message. Similarly, a few months previously I came across a comment somewhere that WP has–in a certain way–become an unacknowledged interface between academia and the general public: and that the more scholarly (?better-reffed?) articles reflect this interchange of concepts. In connection with a question on the Ref Desks a year or more ago, I was privileged to have a zoom call with a Professor of Medieval German, and he said that he was a regular contributor on WP in other subjects than his own. Personally, I think that the Wikipedia Library is one of the greatest advantages open to us mere mortals (failed B.A. in Russian, Hull University). If I cite an article on jstor it is often supplemented by someone/a bot{?) with a doi, for example. I'll hunt around for the publication you mention. HNY, MinorProphet (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Sorry to disappoint, but it's the sort of thing you would find in an airport bookshop, aimed at grasping, aspiring HR wannabes. I spent too much time with corporate types who would sell their granny's soul at a profit if it would improve their chances of slithering up that greasy pole. I have to admit I gave up after 50 pages or so. Too many university vice-chancellors for my liking. Academics are famous for their back-stabbing tendencies (what, who, me?) and I strongly disagree with even the premise of the book. Maybe you can persuade me otherwise. Best wishes as usual, MinorProphet (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Ignoring Sock
[edit]I saw your comment about ignoring the sock, but that isn't common. For example, everyone is very happy to answer questions from vChimpanzee. I know the kid. He is almost 20 now. He gets his kicks by asking weird computer questions, usually involving computers at his library (which is a blatant falsehood), and when anyone answers, he tries to see how long he can stretch out the interaction. Nobody is willing to ignore him and they chastise anyone who suggests doing so. ~2026-29536 (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words. Was it you who posted this? The Computing Ref Desk currently seems to be taken up by either said vMonkey or that supposed computer programmer Robert McC who would apparently have difficulty programming the timer on a VCR, and whose sole purpose of existence is to fall prey to Micro$oft's marketing strategy: and then to be confused when its latest so-called operating system fails, and then to complain without giving full and comprehensive details. I gave up some time ago. These people are immune to sarcasm, let alone irony. Ah well.. :> MinorProphet (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- @~2026-29536, why do you keep coming back across multiple TAs (e.g. @~2026-91009-6) to just keep posting on multiple user's talk pages (including mine) about Vchimpanzee and Robert McClenon in negative ways? Yet you haven't done anything else but post in the Reference Desk, the place you criticize? Stop it. I fail to understand how you haven't been blocked as WP:NOTHERE.
- And @MinorProphet, I'd like to remind you to assume good faith. Not everyone is old enough to know what a VCR is. Not everyone is as tech savvy or as you or me. TheTechie[she/they] | talk? 15:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- @TheTechie: Oi, This my talk page, and I would appreciate it if you could limit your negative comments about other users to elsewhere. I happen to be in complete agreement with User:~2026-29536, and my comments about VCRs (I even linked it for the retards) were intended for readers of this page alone, and not for a load of technologically ignorant Gen Z AI script kiddies. Thank you for your recent contribution, it's taken you nearly a month to find this. I worked in IT for 20 years. Everyone goes on and on and on about good faith, but I have been reading the computing help desk and answering posts for many years: and in the end you are drawn to the inescapable conclusion that you are dealing with fuckwit assholes who do not deserve an answer. Some people are right off the scale. Trolls, don't you just hate'em? MinorProphet (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Gen Z AI script kiddies
you are dealing with fuckwit assholes who do not deserve an answer
Again, making stereotypes. You are free to agree with a user, but I would reconsider how you view other users who aren't tech savvy. TheTechie[she/they] | talk? 18:53, 10 February 2026 (UTC)- @TheTechie: I'd like to make it plain that I was having a conversation with a specific user. How I feel is immaterial unless I put it into words against a specific user. This is not a help desk or mainspace. Thanks for your concern. I don't know why you are raising these issues here, since I haven't accused anyone of anything since I was banned last June, with good reason. I consider this exchange of views closed, since I have nothing more to add. Very best wishes, :> MinorProphet (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- @TheTechie: Oi, This my talk page, and I would appreciate it if you could limit your negative comments about other users to elsewhere. I happen to be in complete agreement with User:~2026-29536, and my comments about VCRs (I even linked it for the retards) were intended for readers of this page alone, and not for a load of technologically ignorant Gen Z AI script kiddies. Thank you for your recent contribution, it's taken you nearly a month to find this. I worked in IT for 20 years. Everyone goes on and on and on about good faith, but I have been reading the computing help desk and answering posts for many years: and in the end you are drawn to the inescapable conclusion that you are dealing with fuckwit assholes who do not deserve an answer. Some people are right off the scale. Trolls, don't you just hate'em? MinorProphet (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
January music
[edit] | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Mozart music for today - good to see you back! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
You've joined the club
[edit]Greetings, O MinorProphet. I've just spent some time enjoying your user page, and feeling very much at home. I award you immediate Full Membership.
I've stolen a couple of bits and pieces to use in something I'm working on. I hope you don't mind, but I don't really care either way: what's done is done. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:05, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
 |
The Like-Minded Persons' Club | |
| For displaying here common sense and uncommon good taste by agreeing with me or saying something I would have said if only I'd had the presence of mind, I hereby bestow upon you Provisional Membership of the Like-Minded Persons' Club. To qualify for Full Membership, simply continue to agree with me in all matters for at least the next 12 months. (Disagreements are so vulgar, don't you think? And, as Bruce Chatwin said, Arguments are fatal. One always forgets what they are about) |
- @JackofOz: Honoured, flattered, etc. As I'm sure you know, literally everything on WP is editable, free to use and up for grabs. I'm glad you found something of use. Best wishes - or as they are rumoured to say on your side of the globe, bloody bonzer, mate! :> MinorProphet (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- Long time since I've heard that, but it used to be a thing. My great-uncle Norbert used to say it a lot. I bet he said it when he discovered the East Pole. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- Is that anywhere near East Damboring? MinorProphet (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- Long time since I've heard that, but it used to be a thing. My great-uncle Norbert used to say it a lot. I bet he said it when he discovered the East Pole. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)