How to call somebody a god in a very insulting manner.

Oh, hey, want to refer to somebody as a very enlightened person, with all evidence pointing to yes, this person is in fact the enlightened Kung Foo master and all? Yet, still have everybody around you, see this as you completely tearing a strip off this person, while calling him highly enlightened?

Here is one way:

*blinks* well between the complete English fail here on presenting what you mean, this discussion was pretty much over already.

I mean, while I understand that this has been discussed to death (hence why I kind of dropped it in a form of agreement)... you DO realise that you said, "the talk page is to talk about X. Not to talk about X." to most people? I mean, unless you mean, that we are only to talk about the spelling, grammar and literary value of the article, I cannot have any clue as to what you just suggested as the policy in place here.

I mean, unless we go uber-meta, how can you talk about the article without talking of the context that the article is in, that is, the article's subject.

To bring up a summary, you just jumped into a discussion that ended, and said a confusing statement that talking about your article is a rather schroedinger's status here. As in the Talk we can both talk about the article and not talk about the article. Darklord, do you perchance have dog qualities? And if so, could you regale what the sound of one handed clapping is? --KatrinaTheLamia 19:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

See! I just called a site admin a rather enlightened Buddha type figure... and... I got banned for it.

As here, I pointed to a policy in question that was confusing as a form of enlightened Koan of sorts. That is, something along the line of "I am Buddha. I am not Buddha.". In this case, "You may not used the Article Talk page. You may use the Article Talk Page."

To clear this up further (brown is such a clear state of mud, you know?), I tried to support that it was a Buddhist Koan type reference here, by referring to a specific (an near lunatic status) school of Buddhism, that asks if dogs have Buddha qualities.

Essentially, I just told somebody that

A) His policy does not make any sense.
B) Opened a line of question to explain it.
C) Called him an enlightened admin
and
D) The admin felt rather insulted in the process

I mean, yes, I was rather impatient with him--but looking at previous articles, I am usually on edge in various communities dealing with Wikis. As typically, the admins of these places, are the exact sort that use to admin /M[UO].*/ of yesteryear. Typically as it is the only way they can get a power trip. It is, in short an outlet on life, where they still have some power.

Mind you, I do not hate them for it--no, this is merely a symptom of another worse situation. As the solution SHOULD be, looking into why they have gotten to the point, that the only place they think they have power is online. That should be what is disliked--not the power tripping admin.

Also, further more, it was cleared up, after I was blocked, that the talk page is for pointing out typos and broken links. Only confirming what I had long since suspected: complete and total misuse of MediaWiki software on a news portal.

As the whole point of having a software that anybody can edit, is that, well, anybody can edit it. And removing that "anybody can edit" by having them required to go through several steps of well--redundant department or redundancy stuff--to edit it for valid reasons to just do it (typos and bad links)...

Well--this is why I really hate wikis. The software and product itself is manageable, however, this is another Internets that I hate on the grounds of, "DAMN SCOTS! THEY RUINED SCOTLAND!"

This goes along with sprite Comics, Fan Fiction, Vampyr Communities, FPS, MMORPGs, Flash and PHP--that I really am leery about entering. As the concept of these communities really is not bad in and of themselves--it is the idiots using the concepts that I hate.