Sagacious Himself — brevity in circumlocution: never blague — suffering genius

August 9, 2006

why verizon pricing sucks

Filed under: category euthanized,Righteous Rage — Sagacious Himself @ 7:19 pm

sobering reminder of just how unbelievably slow (and, at the same
time, expensive) broadband services are in the US and many other
countries. Here’s a brief list:

BIGLOBE NTT East B-Flets VDSL (East Japan):

NIFTY NTT West B-Flets VDSL (West Japan)

BB. Excite NTT East B-Flets VDSL

USEN broad-gate 01 LAN type:



KDDI Hikari Plus-Net DION (VDSL):
100Mbps/ 35Mbps

USEN broad-gate 01 VDSL type:
100Mbps/ 50Mbps

Average: $41.00 for a 100Mbps/85Mbps line.

For a list of Verizon’s FIOS prices, click here.

this is exactly why wikipedia has little value — infested by liberalists and hypocritical deviants

I am confused. If we aren’t holding words to their literal meaning, why are we writing encyclopedia entries about them?   — bikeable (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The pedophiles and liberalists have on many occasions deleted WORDS like “moralphobe” and “moralphobia” calling them neologisms all the while wrongly tolerating the entry on the colloquialism “homophobia”.  Double standard?  The talk article even linked to “Moralityphobia“.  It was swiftly delted in a state of frantic moralphobia.

Moralphobia APTLY describes the fear driving the deletion of the word itself.  As commented above there’s no place in wikipedia for the colloquialism “homophobia”.

wikipedia moralphobia — deletion log filled with moralphobic comments


Neologism, nonsense. Rhobite 08:21, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • In a world where there can be homo”phobia” there can certainly be
    moralphobia. Motivation to delete this article is self referential:
    caused by moralphobia. Comment by User:Crushthem

    • Unfortunately I have no idea what “moralphobia” is. Neither does the OED or Webster’s. Rhobite 08:29, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • fortunately “homophobia” hasn’t long been in the OED. We’re
        witnessing an evolution of language here on wikipedia. Moralphobia is
        quite real as evidenced by the irrational desire to censor the new wiki
        article. Where is liberalisms oft touted tolerance now? Comment by User:Crushthem

        • I think the “oft touted tolerance” left the building at the precise
          moment you started ranting about “moral deviancy.” And don’t call me a
          liberal. Rhobite 08:38, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

          • And how much ranting is in this article:
   Is it the word “deviant”
            that has set you off? Why don’t you move to delete the previously cited
            article? Comment by User:Crushthem
        • We’re witnessing an evolution of language here on wikipedia. — No, we’re witnessing an example of Newspeak. Delete. Uncle G 12:26, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. –Carnildo 08:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • right because that argument didn’t apply to this article: What are you people
      ‘afraid’ of? Comment by User:Crushthem

      • “Neologism” means “new word”. A word that only gets 8 Google hits
        and isn’t in any dictionary doesn’t need an article on Wikipedia. As
        for what I’m afraid of, I’m afraid of Wikipedia becoming a collection
        of trivia rather than an encyclopedia. –Carnildo 08:47, 21 Jan 2005

        • So then wikipedia articles need only be grossly redundant to
          google? Moralphobia applies to essentially the same minority compsed by
          those who claim to be homosexual. Comment by User:Crushthem 1:54a PST, 21 Jan 2005
  • Delete. Not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. JibJub 08:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete – Considering the only real “absolute truth” is
    death, this is a poorly constructed agenda trying to pass as insight.
    Such fun. In any case, neologism, non-notable, and probable eternal pov problems. Arcuras 09:22, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and refer User:Crushthem to Wikipedia:Don’t disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Dbiv 10:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • We’re witnessing an evolution of language here on wikipedia.Delete as poor attempt at neologism. — Asbestos | Talk 11:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. Even if it was a well-established word,
    it’s still just a dictionary entry, and would get deleted either way.
    See Wikipedia is not… Andrew Lenahan – Starblind 11:59, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this POV neologism with extreme prejudice – because I
    never claimed to be open-minded or tolerant. Kael 12:31, 21 Jan 2005
  • Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article. This is unmitigated twaddle. –Zarquon 12:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well, I see the point of the neologism. But what I feel could define it would be something like not
    liking to be told something is good/should be done, even though it is
    commonly accepted as beeing good in a specific cultural context. The
    same for “bad”
    . An example: It would be stupid from me to reject
    all teaching of the bible on the basis I am not christian. Indeed some
    moral teaching from this book are actually good, common sens ( as in
    other religions, philosophies…) but the catch… It’s all too relative. Good/bad/moral are not absolute concepts. As absolut truth
    concept is not either. Even in a spcecified culture, variations can be
    mind-blowing, to the extent that it blows away the basis of this
    neologism. Shorthand: fundamentaly POV. So: delete. Gtabary 12:58, 21
    Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The argument based on the claim that there could be a word like this is preposterous. Josh Cherry 13:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not the place for coining neologisms nor a platform to promote their use. — Curps 21:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the nonsensical neoligism. — ckape (talk) 00:59, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, because we here at VfD suffer from POV-phobia. What criterion for deletion doesn’t this article meet? Szyslak 03:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • comment: – original research? =P Arcuras 04:14, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • That’s what I’d say, but there was no “research” involved. It’s
        more of an “original rant.” Szyslak 10:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) (it still
        falls under Wikipedia’s definition of original research, but it’s my
        opinion that the word “research” is too good for this crap. –Szyslak)
  • Delete, unless citations can be made showing actual usage of
    this “word” outside the mind of the article creator. –Dtobias 04:10,
    23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like
some other VfD subpages, is no longer ‘live’. Subsequent comments on
the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be
placed on the relevant ‘live’ pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live.
Further comments should be made on the article’s talk page rather than
here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:27, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Blog at