1,033 reputation
618
bio website evancarroll.com
location Houston, TX
age 28
visits member for 2 years, 8 months
seen Jul 16 at 15:40

I AM AWESOME.

"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One man thinks himself as in control with thousands of exp, but remains more of a slave than ♦ are." - Jean-Jacques Rousseau talking about the doomed future of Stack Exchange; 1748-10-01


Aug
2
awarded  Talkative
Jul
26
comment
@Flexo it was stupidly dismissive, I didn't start my campaign for justice with ELU. I started it on day 1 on MSO.
Jul
25
comment Why should I use “ought to”?
That's an argument I'm willing to accept; however, I have a decent understanding of the term morning and astronomy, and so at least for most populated climates, there is no probability that the sun will not come up short of a solar catastrophe of an unforeseen magnitude.
Jul
25
comment Why should I use “ought to”?
@Carlo_R. if you use the term "ought to" you're making an implicit statement about the present condition. You'd never say the sun "ought to" come up at 8 AM: firstly, the sun can't react to instruction, secondly the sun already rises at 8 AM. Ought to implies the condition is mutable and it's not currently that way. Your replacements should and must don't carry that burden.
Jul
25
awarded  Cleanup
Jul
25
comment Why should I use “ought to”?
Neither should nor must imply anything about the current condition.
Jul
25
revised Why should I use “ought to”?
rolled back to a previous revision
Jul
25
revised Why should I use “ought to”?
added 324 characters in body
Jul
25
comment Why should I use “ought to”?
It's additional information. What's wrong with that, where is that against the rules?
Jul
25
revised Why should I use “ought to”?
deleted 6 characters in body
Jul
25
answered Why should I use “ought to”?
Jul
23
comment
@balpha That's rude, offensive, and unnecessarily dismissive; please remove that comment. Wanton personal attacks and libel should not be welcome on english.stackexchange.com. To others that observe this, this is precisely what we need to address as a community. Calling people a "troll" is unbecoming of useful discourse -- we can do better than that. I'm not a troll. I've never trolled, ever.
Jul
23
comment
@Tim What you are seeking, or what the community is seeking? This is another boldface presumption. Let the people decide what they perceive as a bigger problem. Let's take it to a vote. I'll help out with the mundane matters too; my agenda -- the people's agenda -- is where I'll stand out.
Jul
23
comment
Nice call on that correction! See, if I was a moderator I'd probably nominate you for a badge -- even I make petty mistakes, but when I do I fess up to them. Anyway, to address your other concerns yes -- I think corruption here is rampant and if Wikileaks wouldn't publish these documents (and, they would) I'd simply take them elsewhere. Wikileaks has a section for these matters. It says, WikiLeaks accepts ... censored or otherwise restricted material of ... political or ethical significance.
Jul
23
comment
@balpha that's an unfair allegation. Jeff stalked me using Google. Then he called twice to make sure I was a real person. I didn't pick up the phone the first time. If he didn't get the confirmation he would have banned me right then. After hearing the sound of my voice he invited me to have hot cocoa with him. I resoundingly turned down his solicitation. I had no choice to but to confirm my real-ness so I could continue to raise awareness to issues that matter to the userbase.
Jul
23
comment
I have quite a history on StackExchange and while I don't explicitly recall posting to the specific meta for english.stackexchange.com, I can't say that I haven't posted either. There would be no trustworthy authority on this. Most of my posts have probably been deleted, and I think there is good reason to believe Jeff had meta.english.stackexchanged.com censored in anticipation of my appointment to moderator. I can only aver a firm understanding of the dynamics of this site, a passion for Q/A, and a desire to fight tyranny and rebel against injustice.
Jul
23
comment
@jcolebrand No, I won't make that promise. You can't have "fair morals and ethics" in secrecy. All you can have is a junta that rules without accountability. We've already got that now. Perhaps you should cast your vote for one of my candidates running for the establishment. Yes, "the public always has a right to know." They can't make an educated decision if you deprive them of that information.
Jul
23
comment
How many people get banned not by the system's algorithm, or the community, but by Jeff personally? It's clear my interests and his our different. I've always fought for the people. He even implemented a new system to explicitly stop me from asking questions on MSO after I was unbanned. I think it's safe to say he fears those he governs, and realizes I speak for them.
Jul
23
comment
Can you ever truly trust anyone? If you can craft the criteria I'm sure I'll satisfy it. Firstly, I've never worked for SE -- if I was I wouldn't be complaint in its current condition. I'd say that makes me specifically more trustworthy than, say, you. I've also survived many bans on MSO and the community has clamored for my return, perhaps in light of my formal nomination you could request Jeff to declassify those old posts and conversations? I've also always been consistent in my approach for transparency and democracy.
Jul
23
wiki