User talk:Paddy Dignam

Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page.

Templates

Do you have a crush on my soon-to-be girlfriend Gina? Advertise it with this template:

	Gina Semple
	This user has a crush on Gina Semple.

Have I flirted with you? Tell everyone how hot you are with this:

	Paddy Dignam
	This user has rejected the amorous advances of Paddy Dignam

Extinction

• My militant zombie alt Zombuddha finds you to be a worthy opponent. BARHAH! Buddhagazelle 14:17, 29 May 2007 (BST)

• I must concur with Zombuddha. Your comment to me is immensely flattering, although I'm afraid I cannot claim coordination with blackthornwhatsit. (I do hope he's not zerging--that's a sad state of affairs if he is.) Hope to see you next time I'm in your neck of Malton! --Vandr 22:04, 18 July 2007 (BST)

COL

Got your message. I'm interested in what you may have in mind. You got a link to your brainstock threads, or posts? --The Envoy 00:20, 24 July 2007 (BST)

Yup. You can check out the thread here. The general idea is in the first post, but there are some good questions down the line if you feel like wading through all the bullshit. What I'm trying to do now is come up with a framework and get some support from independent parties and smaller groups (non-egomaniacs interested in the bigger picture). If you know anyone who fits that description, by all means pass the word. --Paddy Dignam 03:28, 24 July 2007 (BST)

I'll mention it around my digs, but really I think you and Sonny are talking about the same thing, just Sonny's a bit more authoritarian or a badge-fetishizing, while you think the job can be done with no stinkin' badges. I don't see how either system improves upon the way things are coordinated via Brainstock or the New Malton Collossus. There's a shared mindset you and Sonny have that this game can somehow be "won". Maybe back in Sonny's day when there were far less players, and comms were limited to just a few boards, areas could be heavily secured. Then isn't now.--The Envoy 06:31, 26 July 2007 (BST)

Anybody who thinks the game can be won is delusional. This isn't about winning, it's about getting more people involved. It's about paying less attention to "glorious battles" and more attention to the suburbs without Blackmore Buildings. How many groups are in the NMC? Would the NMC ever respond to a crisis in, say, Starlingtown? Having another board isn't the point. Hell, Brainstock would probably work just fine, although I don't think it's secure enough for this sort of thing (and I think having a neutral site is wiser). The idea is to get folks to think, at least in part, beyond the 10x10 square they grew up in. --Paddy Dignam 19:35, 26 July 2007 (BST)

DRRP Template

I've started working on a group template for the DRRP in my sandbox Paddy, if you want to take a look and tell me what you think I can set it up as a normal template really easily. Drop me a line either here in reply or on my talk page to let me know what you think. the one, the only, sushiknight ^{(talk contribs HARD E.N.D.)} 17:07, 25 July 2007 (BST)

Gah, almost didn't see your comment hidden -in- my sandbox like that. Henh. Easier to leave a message on my talk page next time :D. I moved the template into the template userspace already! Template:DRRPsmall Call it with {{DRRPsmall|User=Your Name HERE}} to get what's below.the one, the only, sushiknight ^{(talk contribs HARD E.N.D.)} 01:59, 2 August 2007 (BST)

	Danversbank Relief and Reconstruction Project
	Paddy Dignam likes to get drunk with the DRRP.

Under the My preferences tab you can set it to see anything that was posted on one of your pages you have watched or made. I do this just so I don't miss any msg.--XxPale HorsexX 12:43, 2 August 2007 (BST)

DvEM

What you saw was my shotgun, and I'll chalk that up to your optical nerves being chewed up too many times. --ZuluDeacon 00:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Revives

Thank you, kind sir. --Fdarsafarg 23:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Love the profile. --Paddy Dignam 21:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Props from the Feral Undead

We are well met! As someone who has stuck around this goofy game for awhile, it’s refreshing to find groups who still play the game with a sense of humor - it is what makes this whole thing fun. I am glad we stumbled across you fine folks and am more than happy to play along. R33F3RM4N mentioned the possibility of a zombie karaoke session - I am sure that would generate interest within the Feral Undead.--Priapus 02:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Signature

Fonts? Hmm, I don't all of the ones that work. It depends on the browser though. They work in some, but not others. Here are a few I know off the top of my head:

Zapfino

Cracked <-- no work in IE

Arial

Courier New

Georgia

Times New Roman

Verdana

Trebuchet MS

Lucida Sans

Sans-Serif

Serif

Monospace

Cursive

Fantasy

Anything else? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I copied from Wikipedia. :P You could try some others from MS, but I don't know how many would work. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's an IE thing, probably just a "What fonts does the user have installed?" thing. So you can only be guaranteed the stock stuff under stock names. "Cracked" works for me, because I have it installed, however, it's under the name "Crackhouse" and so you have to call it by that name to get it to work. I can get one of my custom fonts to show, but I doubt anybody else would have it. So yeah, stick to stock otherwise your font will default to TNR. --  RoosterDragon  19:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I found a font I like and will now see how long it takes me to make a signature without (1) pulling out all my hair, or (2) blowing up the wiki. Thanks again. --Paddy Dignam 19:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This

It's only fair that you know. Linkthewindow  Talk  06:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know what happens after two weeks, to be honest ;). There's no way we usually do this (it's nearly always done by discussion, with maybe a straw poll, but no binding votes, which is why I linked to the Wikipedia policy.) It looks like it's whoever gets the most votes wins, now. I don't really think you need an impartial party to do the tally - you don't have to be impartial to see which has the most numbers below it :P.

If he goes ahead anyway, you could take him to arbitration and get it solved there. I understand that he doesn't really know what he's doing here - he's ether an idiot (per him trying to change the barricade plans the first time,) or trying to be bold but going about it the wrong way. Like you've suggested before, I think he's just young. We've got people like that in MCM - one must be careful when taking them aside and telling them off for something.

He's been doing similar things over the past few weeks - such as putting the Dead up for a historical nomination, his promotion bid and this deletion request. I think he's trying to become active in the community but doing it the wrong way, and rubbing people the wrong way while doing it.

Anyway, enough with my rambling :P. Contact me if you need any more help or have any questions. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:18, 29 March 2009 (BST)

Revives

Hey, I've been standing around in Angerstein cemetary for little while now and I saw you pass by.. could you revive me please?? =) Thanks - I also requested a revive using the tool but someone has yet to come by. --ScaredPlayer 15:33, 11 April 2009 (BST)

YOUR BURB

Is falling into disrepair! The bastion of survivor hope, VOSS LANE PD is like dead, as are many of the surrounded dark and generator-less buildings. I've spent the last couple days looking for generators in Whitemore Auto repair (the closest source of fuel/gennies to danversbank, correct me if im wrong), but I've found no generators yet. BTW can I add my group affiliation as DRRP? I've decided to settle down permanently here. I really like it, especially how the barricade plan is almost always followed. And now, in Danversbank's time of distress I'm glad to help out. Most people don't care about fixing the burb though, more like they just sit around in dark buildings then spend their days worth of AP whaling on zombies. --ScaredPlayer 16:13, 23 May 2009 (BST)

I need to talk to people more...

...because this is the first time in a couple days I've found a user talk that I needed to edit that I've never edited before. At least as far as I can remember. I'm a bit tired right now. And I've edited a lot of the active users at one point or another. I just wanted to remind you of this funneh quote I found of you.

"God help me, I have recently discovered the delicious crack called Recent Changes"

:D

--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:23, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Hello and request

Wondering if you would mind dropping by my page for a chat. Would like to possibly work with your group. Excellent profile page by the way-really enjoyed it! Regards,--Belisarius17 18:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings! This isn't about taking back a fort, right? Because we don't do that sort of thing. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 23:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

rootin tootin kabootin

matootin smootin putin footin bootin --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 18:37, 29 May 2011 (BST)

--Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 11:22, 8 June 2011 (BST)

Still alive and kicking I see

Received your message, dropped by your room at the Davey Motel but it was empty. Still in the area? Its been a while, how have you been doing? -- Sabanya 10:14, 3/6/2012 UTC

Nammah!

Pleasure to meat you! (It's been far too long!) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:34, 29 May 2012 (BST)

Maybe regular hordes don't check banks, but this is the MOB. We generally eat everything silly enough to be in our vicinity.
Also, I admit I recognised you and Gina Semple and ate you first— because I consider you friends, and friends don't let friends breathe. Disgusting habit, and one you're well rid of. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ

"their" vs. "his or her"

As a fellow grammar nazi, I feel compelled to point out that third person plural is acceptable in cases dealing with indeterminate gender. This whole idea of it being considered improper was the result of a few grammarians who forced that idea into some textbooks around the turn of the last century. Prior to that the usage was commonplace, and despite it having fallen out of favor for most of the 20th century, it never fell out of use, with a number of authors regularly relying on it, even though textbooks were saying it was incorrect. Much to my pleasure, the usage has been making a recent resurgence in response to all of the idiocy that political correctness has inflicted on the language, and it's now starting to once again be taught as acceptable. Thank God. —Aichon— 17:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Acceptable, but, in my opinion, illogical. "User" is singular. "Their" is plural. I admit the his/her is awkward, but it's still the norm in academic and journalistic writing. (The politically correct shit--s/he, for instance--drives me nuts as well.) -----Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 17:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, quite true, but, when you think about it, it's really no more illogical than "you" (singular) and "you" (plural). Except that in this case it's with the third person instead of the second person, and it only applies as a singular in one particular case. Unusual, to be sure, and certainly illogical, but nonetheless acceptable in everyday speech. As for academic writing, you are definitely correct, but that has more to do with what's appropriate for formal writing, rather than what's correct. That's a whole other topic that I had to deal with way too much when I was teaching classes and grading essays for a senior-level ethics course at my university. Anyway, I suppose you could argue that policy writing should be formal, in which case "his or her" would be appropriate, but I've always figured that this is a wiki for a game, so there's no need to be unnecessarily stuffy with the language we use. ;) —Aichon— 17:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Dude, you can't play Anal Retentive Chef with wiki policy on a daily basis and then use the "it's just a game" cop out. Come on, now. In any event, yes, I was suggesting that his/her is more appropriate for policy writing, something that I unfortunately have to do frequently. But it was just a suggestion. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 01:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Wikilaw is srs bzns. And like I said, I could see an argument in support of "his or her" being more appropriate on that basis. I'd disagree, but only mildly so, and certainly not enough to argue about it. :P —Aichon— 04:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This article sums up your argument, I think. I'm stuck on the "illogical" objection, obviously. I don't really think the plural `you' is fundamentally strange, because the implication, in my mind, is `you all'. The best thing to do is to avoid the bloody construction entirely--in writing, at least. In speech, there's really no way around it. I just heard myself say "Nobody knows what they're doing" about an hour ago, and I regularly butcher the language when among friends. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 18:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

That article was a great read. Wish I had seen it earlier, since they said what I was thinking, and did so better than I could have. Broadly speaking, I tend to arrange grammatical constructs along two axes in my head: appropriateness and correctness. In this case, I'd put "their" as fully correct but at the origin point in terms of appropriateness. I do agree that it should be avoided in formal writing (after all, with that sort of writing you should always seek to avoid constructs that will cause your reader to stumble), but in everyday writing, I think it's fine most of the time. Of course, I regularly tailor my writing for my audience, so, for instance, if I'm writing to someone over the age of 50 I tend to use "because" in places where I could have substituted it for "since", simply because "since" — to many people in that generation and prior — is solely intended to refer to events that took place after a point in time (e.g. "since the last time"). And I'm certainly guilty of butchering the language as well, both in intentionally and unintentionally (e.g. I love starting sentences with "and", "but", and the like). To be honest, I don't really check myself except when engaging in formal writing, other than to ensure that what I've said is understandable. Also, I do agree that there is an implied "all" (hence "y'all"), but it still stands by itself, despite the implied "all". —Aichon— 03:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Using "they" as a "neutral singular" had actually (as Aichon mentioned) been in widespread use for centuries until the Victorian era, when grammarians tried to make English "more like Latin" through a number of rules (Latin, of course, being the ideal, perfect language that all others should strive to emulate.) This is also where we get my least favorite rule, the "no prepositions at the end of a sentence" one, also borrowed straight from any elementary Latin book. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 05:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, Latin is the perfect language. And I put prepositions at the end of sentences all the time. There's nothing illogical about doing that. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 15:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

XD I'm supposed to disagree with you, but imho English is one of the less well-done languages out there. For the "perfect language" award, I'm partial to Ancient Greek myself. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 05:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm more partial to Koine Greek, which immediately followed Ancient Greek. Precision at its finest. Gotta love it. —Aichon— 16:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it bad that I'm enjoying that link and this conversation so much? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the kind of people interested in the intricacies of wiki operation probably has a lot of overlap with the kind of people interested in the intricacies of grammar operation. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 05:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's pick up where Aichon left off above. I'm still not buying the correlation between the plural you and the plural they. Wouldn’t there have to be an example of you plural accepting you singular? If so, can we think of any? It’s true that you is both singular and plural, as the article's author says. He or she (or should I say they, since I don't know the gender of R.L.G.?) also says that they is "normally" plural, but isn't they always plural except in one grammatical construction? --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 18:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I see the generalization of plural pronouns to cover their singular equivalents to be a long, slow process ongoing in the history of English. "You" originally covered only the plural, but was expanded to take over the singular from "thou" - this is just a parallel process. I've never seen the singular form used to cover the plural meaning, but the opposite is definitely prevalent (for the remaining person, see "Royal We"). My thinking is that in several hundred years we may have a system where the singular pronouns are "We, You, They" and the plural ones "Wy'all, Y'all, Thy'all" or the equivalent. We're just in the process. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 19:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting a correlation. I'm merely pointing out a counterexample to the assertion that pronouns must be handled logically. Also, for an example of ambiguity between singular and plural second person, consider a phone call such as the following: "Paddy, is Bob with you? Could you swing by my office?" The first "you" is clearly singular, but the second could either be plural or singular, depending on if I was asking for you to bring Bob along. I may have been asking you if he was there so that you could grab him, or I may have been asking you if he was there so that I knew where he was while you and I talked about him. We might commonly rephrase that as "Could you both swing by my office?" if I had intended it to be plural, but it can stand alone as grammatically correct without "both". As for what they meant by "normally", I'd rather not argue that. I agree with you that it always is except in one case, but maybe that's all they meant by "normally". —Aichon— 20:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

On the "Softness" of Philosophers

Well, Mr. Dingham, I have been waiting for a reply, but it seems you have abandoned our conversation. You can't make a comment like that and expect to slip away without a good debate. Had you merely said you preferred Schopenhauer, I could let things lie, but your comment about SK cannot go unchallenged.

So if you believe your comment that Kiekregaard is noncommittal and 'soft' has any truth, do provide the premises that justify your opinion, that we may continue. You should realize that you are entitled to hold any opinion, but expressing those opinions, especially of an extreme nature, to others, will bring questions. --  FOXLION    01:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Be with you shortly, Foxy. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 17:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)