See something you'd like to change or add, but you've never edited an open encyclopædia before? This overview was written to help absolute beginners get started.

User talk:Jaxe

From A Storehouse of Knowledge

Jump to: navigation, search

G'day Jaxe, and welcome to aSK. We are glad to have you contribute. For more information about aSK, see our About statement. Please see the rules and regulations as soon as you can.
The following links are also useful.

Hi Jaxe! ħuman Number 19 08:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice imagelink, I hope you'll be joining us at RationalWiki when it's back up in a day or two, if you aren't already one of us? ħuman Number 19 08:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm on there, but I've only made an edit or two. Generally I just read the WIGOs. Jaxe 08:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Contents

Formal notice

Jaxe, I have here instructed you to back up your accusation or retract it and apologise, or you will be blocked. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention of apologising for or retracting something that I believe is true. Read any of the following for more info on Martyr Sternberg, the flagship case for creationist discrimination: [1][2][3][4][5][6] Jaxe 16:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to make public accusations based on nothing more than your opinion. That is what you are expected to retract and apoligise for, and as such, you believing it is not an excuse for making a public accusation. Tossing a bag of bigoted web-pages at me does not constitute a defence of your actions, so you will be blocked as warned. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 21:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I see that you were already blocked by Bradley, although I suspect for something else. But I will check on that before I institute this block. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 21:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
No, that block preceded my instructions on this case. For failing to retract as instructed and repeating the accusation in your post above, you have been given a level 4 sanction. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
You are not entitled to make public accusations based on nothing more than your opinion. Good thing I based it upon a load of decent sources then isn't it? --Unsigned comment by Jaxe (talk)
No, you did not base your public accusations on decent sources. You did not base them on any sources. The only sources you gave were for the claim that Sternberg was not discriminated against. You gave no sources at all—decent or otherwise—for your reference to "sycophant creationists" and your comment "if you creationists spent more time doing science and less time manufacturing martyrs". Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 09:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
All of the above sources show that creationists do spend time manufacturing martyrs, exaggerating claims and perpetuating conspiracies. That time is wasted time if they are really interested in doing proper science. Jaxe 09:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Your claimed original purpose for supplying those references was for information about Sternberg, not as justification for calling creationists "sycophants" (which you still haven't claimed they were for) nor for claiming that creationists "manufacture" martyrs. And if time is wasted in not doing proper science, why do so many anti-creationists spend so much time on denigration, logical fallacies, insisting only their own view be taught, etc.? Is that the only way they have to win the argument? This encyclopædia has a biblical worldview. If you want to challenge that worldview, do so with facts and reasoned argument, not with name-calling and other ad hominem attacks. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Those links demonstrate both that Sternberg was not the victim of any creationist discrimination, and that he is a manufactured martyr. I never claimed those links had anything to do with creationists being sycophantic.
There is no creation-evolution controversy in science, it's purely a cultural controversy in the media and public arena (predominately in America). The only reason anti-creationists, AKA scientists, get involved is to correct the misinformation and protect the science class room from religion. Creationists are the only ones keeping the controversy going, no-one else is talking about it. The scientific community had the evolution-creation debate decades and decades ago. It's over. Evolution won. Jaxe 13:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I never claimed those links had anything to do with creationists being sycophantic. Then your previous claim, that "Good thing I based it upon a load of decent sources then isn't it?" was incorrect then, wasn't it? Because you said that in justification of the claims you made for which I blocked you, and that was one of them.
Those links demonstrate both that Sternberg was not the victim of any creationist discrimination, and that he is a manufactured martyr. They might claim that, but for one think, in so doing, several falsely claim that IDers are creationists, so they have no credibility. And of course all your sources are bigoted against ID, not even being prepared to consider it scientific, so they are hardly objective sources.
There is no creation-evolution controversy in science, it's purely a cultural controversy in the media and public arena (predominately in America). Pull the other one; it plays jingle bells. The link I gave you showed plenty of evidence of a controversy, and that included plenty of scientists; it wasn't just the media.
The only reason anti-creationists, AKA scientists... More of your bigotry showing, essentially falsely claiming both that all anti-creationists are scientists and denying that creationists can be scientists.
...get involved is to correct the misinformation and protect the science class room from religion. Typical fallacious anti-creationist argument, as pointed out on the linked page.
Creationists are the only ones keeping the controversy going, no-one else is talking about it. Funny, none of those numerous links you gave me were from creationists.
The scientific community had the evolution-creation debate decades and decades ago. It's over. Open your eyes. It's not.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
You never asked me to justify the word sycophant (I didn't see it if you did), I was only responding the Sternberg claims with those links.
ID is not science, it's creationism re-branded. Both have been labelled as non-science by the scientific community and by various courts of law. How much more definitively non-scientific can you get?
There is a tiny, insignificant, minority of scientists, mostly non-biologists, that deny evolution, and none of them are debating the issue with mainstream scientists. For there to be a debate both sides have to participate, and the creationists are simply being ignored by mainstream scientists. They are ignored in the same way flat-earthers are ignored.
If evolution/creation was a genuine scientific controversy it would be THE hottest, most widely debated, issue in science. There would be entire weekly journals dedicated to it, with debates going back and forth arguing it out. There would be hundreds of conferences a year. There would be thousands of well funded experiments being carried out around the world and it would be the focus of higher education biology courses. It would be huge.
But, back in reality, we see none of that. We see... nothing. No debates going back and forth, no experiments to get to the bottom of it, no conferences, it's completely dead. Biologists are just getting on with debating the intricate details of evolution, while the creationists are attempting, unsuccessfully, to legitimise "creation science". There is no communication between these two group, except in the public arena. There is no scientific debate on evolution and there hasn't been one for over a century. The scientific community has moved on, a few stragglers does not mean it's an active issue. Jaxe 15:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
You never asked me to justify the word sycophant... Oops, you're right. You used it in the same post, and I would have had it in mind, but my actual demand was for the manufacturying martyr comment.
ID is not science, it's creationism re-branded. Wrong on both counts.
Both have been labelled as non-science by the scientific community and by various courts of law. The "scientific community" includes creationists and IDers, so that claim is only partly true. I'm also not so sure that "various" courts of law have done so; I think it's only one, and I'm not so sure that they did either (rather, they labelled it a religiously based because some of its supporters have religious motives!)
How much more definitively non-scientific can you get? Argument ad populum and argument by authority are valid arguments? I thought that science was supposed to be about the facts?
There is a tiny, insignificant, minority of scientists,... 100,000 is not insignificant.
...mostly non-biologists, ... Can you produce evidence of that other than a vague "one count"? Further, the list of creationary scientists on the CMI web-site is 50% life- and earth- scientists.
...none of them are debating the issue with mainstream scientists. Face to face? Perhaps not. But there are mainstream scientists debating the issue.
For there to be a debate both sides have to participate, and the creationists are simply being ignored by mainstream scientists. Rubbish. The linked article gives examples of mainstream scientists expressing views on it. That's not a case of ignoring it.
They are ignored ... Yes, to a fair extent, they are ignored, rather than the issue being addressed.
...in the same way flat-earthers are ignored. What flat earthers? For all practicable purposes, there's no such thing. Rather, the "flat earth" claim is a false claim manufactured by evolutionists to discredit creationists, as a typical unethical tactic.
If evolution/creation was a genuine scientific controversy it would be THE hottest, most widely debated, issue in science. That's a non-sequitur. "genuine scientific controversy" doesn't equate to it being the biggest controversy.
There would be entire weekly journals dedicated to it,... In a sense, there is. Those weekly and other journals are dedicated to evolution, and keep pushing it.
...with debates going back and forth arguing it out. There are debates going back and forth.
But, back in reality, we see none of that. No, we don't see hundreds, because, as you said, they prefer to ignore it. But it's false that there is none of it.
Biologists are just getting on with debating the intricate details of evolution, while the creationists... Again, your bigotry is showing. "Biologists" includes creationists.
There is no communication between these two group, except in the public arena. Incorrect again. But to the extent that it is true, this is because the anti-creationists have a tactic of trying to give the impression that creationism is non science by deliberately suppressing this from occurring. In other words, the reason that there is "no debate" is because the (very real) debate is suppressed in those venues. And that is documented.
There is no scientific debate on evolution... When you have scientists on both sides arguing from scientific evidence (as the anti-creationists occasionally do, and the creationists often do), there is a scientific debate.
...a few stragglers does not mean it's an active issue. It's far, far, more than a few. You anticreationists try and make your case in part by marginalising the opposition by pretending there's not many of them. It's a false claim, and not a valid argument.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 22:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I find it ironic that Philip uses so much the word "bigoted". Editor at CP 07:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Where did you get 100K creation scientists from? No-where sensible obviously. The number of active scientists, who are also young earth creationists, and write about evolution/creation in the scientific literature is in the double figures. Maybe even single figures. Behe is really only almost notable person, and his ideas were thoroughly debunked. The field is completely, 100% dead. There is no active scientific literature discussing it. Those 100K creationists couldn't even scrape together one peer reviewed journal. And when I say peer reviewed, I mean reviewed by scientists, not other creationists. Can you name one mainstream scientist, who accepts evolution is a fact, that is debating the issue with creationists in the scientific literature (that doesn't include pop. sci. books, websites or blogs by the way)? I'll save you some time looking: They don't exist. Jaxe 08:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I find it ironic that Philip uses so much the word "bigoted". I find it sad that anti-creationists tend to be so bigoted. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Where did you get 100K creation scientists from? It's explained on the main page of this encyclopædia, but with more detail and reference here.
No-where sensible obviously. Of course not. You ask the question, but don't wait for the answer before dismissing it. An example of bigotry.
The number of active scientists, who are also young earth creationists, and write about evolution/creation in the scientific literature is in the double figures. That might have something to do with the deliberate suppression of creationist views in the scientific literature.
Behe is really only almost notable person... Probable question begging with the "notable" in that claim.
...his ideas were thoroughly debunked. In you mind.
The field is completely, 100% dead. Yet the dispute goes on. Which shows that it's not dead.
There is no active scientific literature discussing it. False, as the article demonstrates, and you've not refuted.
Those 100K creationists couldn't even scrape together one peer reviewed journal. Isn't three more than one? Yes, I thought so.
And when I say peer reviewed, I mean reviewed by scientists, not other creationists. Creation scientists are creationists. Even, for example, the head of the NCSE admits that.
Can you name one mainstream scientist, who accepts evolution is a fact, that is debating the issue with creationists in the scientific literature...? Given that you are presumably not talking about a formal organised debate, please define "debating the issue". And also justify why you are limiting your question to the scientific literature.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
When I say scientific literature I mean anything that is written by scientists, for scientists, in a professional context. This can be anything from private emails/letters, to peer review journals/articles to discussion papers at organised events/conferences. The important point is that generally anything for public consumption doesn't count, pop. science books, public websites, blogs, documentaries, etc.
The creationist journals you mention do not count as scientific literature. They are pretending to do science, without actually doing any. The sole purpose of them is an echo chamber for creationists to praise each others nonsense. Here's another challenge: find a creation scientist who is critical of another creation scientists work. And here's another: Find a real scientist who has given a favourable review of a creationist scientists work. (Try not to use the 'massive conspiracy!' excuse). In fact, can you even find a real scientist who has reviewed a creationist scientists work... at all?
Having a PhD in science doesn't make you a scientist, it makes you someone who knows something about a particular field of science. To be scientist you actually have to do some science, which is where creation scientists fall down. Here's a third challenge: What experiments are creationists currently running to attempt to falsify their own ideas? This is fundamental to doing science, so this should be an easy question.
Your "creation science" charade may have fooled the media and general public, but the scientific community (and the legal system) sees through it. Jaxe 19:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(OD) can you even find a real scientist who has reviewed a creationist scientists work... at all?, right there you confirm the charges of suppression and bigotry. After a lengthy ramble about findng Creationist papers in "real" science journals you then admit that your idea of a "real" scientist wouldn't review them. Bigoted suppression. If you knew a little about the scientific research published in creationist journals you would know that they are in fact 'not about praising each others ideas and there is critical commentary on papers. The fact that you are unaware of this shows that you are not qualifies to make any kind of judgement about the purpose or content of creationist scientific journals. BradleyF (LowKey) 12:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

'Bigot' means utterly intolerant to different opinions. Scientist became scientists to make new discoveries and to change the way we view the world. There is no greater reward for a scientist than to overthrow a long held paradigm and replace it with something better. If there was any chance evolution could be overthrown then real scientists would be all over, trying to be one to make the breakthrough. They'd be up there with all time greats, the heroes of science, if they could take down a theory as well supported as evolution. So scientists are completely tolerant of new ideas, that's how science works, it thrives on new ideas and new ways of seeing things. It's actually hard to think of a mindset that is more anti-bigoted than the scientific method.
What scientists aren't tolerent of is people masquerading as scientists to futher some religious or political agenda. That doesn't make them bigoted. Jaxe 12:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Close. Not "utterly". "Scientists are completely tolerant of new ideas." Having read several journals over a long period of time, I have to say that the only new ideas that scientists in general are "completely tolerant of" are their own. Almost every scientist has their own bailiwick that they will defend against novel replacements. True the scientific method is not bigoted, but so few scientists practice it. It doesn't pay. BradleyF (LowKey) 13:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I noticed that you simply attempted to justify the suppression as "not bigoted". BradleyF (LowKey) 13:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
'Bigot' means utterly intolerant to different opinions. That seems to fit you and other anti-creationists to a tee.
I disagree that scientists became scientists to change the way we view the world, and if their goal is to overthrow other views, then they lead a sad life. On the contrary, scientists originally (and I presume for the most part even now) became scientists to learn about how the world works, regardless of whether that means changing views or confirming them.
If there was any chance evolution could be overthrown then real scientists would be all over, trying to be one to make the breakthrough. This is blatantly false, as shown by the criticism that is heaped upon anyone who dares to question it.
So scientists are completely tolerant of new ideas, that's how science works... On the contrary, it gets locked into paradigms which are hard to buck, and this fact has been complained about by scientists who are not creationists, including anticreationists. For example, Ian Plimer, an ardent anti-creationist who was hailed in his battle with creationists as a "real scientist", also disagrees with the global warming alarmists, and has complained that sceptics of global warming are discriminated against.
It's actually hard to think of a mindset that is more anti-bigoted than the scientific method. You confuse the method with the mindset of the scientists who are only human, and can be bigoted.
What scientists aren't tolerent of is people masquerading as scientists to futher some religious or political agenda. That doesn't make them bigoted. It does when those allegedly "masquerading" as scientists are real, actual, scientists, and when they use "furthering an agenda" as an excuse, which is the case because they don't similarly reject atheists using science as part of their agenda to further atheism.
Having a PhD in science doesn't make you a scientist, it makes you someone who knows something about a particular field of science. To be scientist you actually have to do some science, which is where creation scientists fall down. Yet another example of changing definitions to suit your argument (and it fails anyway, as creation scientists do do science). For example Project Steve is a list of scientists who support evolution, and to qualify, they don't say that you "actually have to do some science", but that you "have a Ph.D. in biology, geology, paleontology, or a related scientific field". So this seems to be a case of one criteria for evolutionists and another one for creationists.
Here's another challenge: find a creation scientist who is critical of another creation scientists work. Bradley has already answered this, but I thought that I would emphasise the answer by giving some examples. I am, however, going to assume that by "critical" you mean that he disagrees, not that he criticises the other scientist for being unscientific or etc. That is, I'm assuming that you won't reject the examples solely on the grounds that they respect each other's views whilst disagreeing on conclusions. I've selected an old example, showing that this has long been the case, and a relatively recent example. The former (albeit not on-line), can be seen in the very first edition of the (now) Journal of Creation[7], where there were several papers disagreeing with each other. The latter is in a recent edition[8] where two scientists disagree about when the Green River Formation formed.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
"I disagree that scientists became scientists to change the way we view the world, and if their goal is to overthrow other views, then they lead a sad life. On the contrary, scientists originally (and I presume for the most part even now) became scientists to learn about how the world works, regardless of whether that means changing views or confirming them." This is very intelligent. Creationists should listen to these wide words more often. Christian 13:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The rest is obviously idiotic rambling by this Philip. Christian 13:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
If it's so obvious, you shouldn't have any problem demonstrating that the rest is idiotic, should you? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Project Steve. Did you not understand that Project Steve was a JOKE ! Hamster 16:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
a woman researcher fairly recently (as things go in science) had several papers published that went against the current beliefs about soft tissue in fossils or even bone. The majority of her peers were convinced that she was wrong, but that wasnt an issue in peer review. She had done her work, and wrote her papers laying out her facts and findings and was published in the peer review journals. It happens all the time. It is true that in some fields new ideas are examined at conferences and either amended or with flaws identified discarded. Hamster 16:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
So you're saying that Project Steve was not trying to make a point that "the status of evolution within the scientific community is secure"[9]?
Typical PJR. Idiocy, dishonesty or both? not a member! 09:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
As for that woman, I presume that you are referring to Mary Schweitzer? I fully agree that scientists are able to publish things that go against current beliefs, but so long as they don't threaten evolution too much. Schweitzer is a committed evolutionist, and didn't question evolution.
Philip J. Rayment 02:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
do you understand what you are discussing ? (serious question) Mary is a fundamentalist christian but manages to keep her science seperate from her religion. The soft tissue discovery had the potential to turn paleantology upside down and require a reevaluation of all fossilization processes and timelines. Its potential impact was HUGE and would have impacted evolution and yet there was no real question about her findings being published BECAUSE she had done her work to the standards required. She also didnt seem to be a particularly notable scientist at the time so it wasnt a case of a nutty paper by a top expert being tolerated.
project steve was the NSCE Eugene Scott(i think) not wanting to give the opposition any more attention than they could, because they were preparing for something else and they were not inclined to begin contacting everyone named on the list, while making the point that you can get signitures on almost anything. It did show support for evolution but the main point was how quickly they did it and that everyone was named Steve. It was really funny. A couple college students later did a paper on the people who signed the dissent petition and its been published several places on the net and on youtube. Hamster 15:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe that I do understand what I'm discussing. I've seen Schweitzer described as an "evangelical" Christian, but not as a "fundamentalist" one. I don't even know whether to believe the "evangelical" label, given that I've heard even Bishop Spong described in terms like that. In any case, nothing you said refutes my comments about her.
Your explanation of how she got published sounds nice, but is speculation. Further, it seems to be arguing that creationists would also be published if they did their work to the standards required, and there is therefore no evidence of discrimination. However, the fact is that creationary scientists who have been published (hence know how to do the work properly and to write acceptable papers) have been refused publication once their creationist leanings became known, and at least one journal has publicly stated that they will not publish ID papers. Not "will not publish unless to the standards required", but "will not publish". So the discrimination is clear.
Regardless of your description of Project Steve, it was trying to make a point by using numbers.
Philip J. Rayment 02:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

My question

Jaxe, since you're here, could you answer my question on the Adolf Hitler talk page? It's the last comment in the section Hitler was a creationist. --OscarJ 10:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Civility breach

Given your insulting tone in this post ("you silly person", "You're very confused aren't you? Perhaps if you hadn't exploded the discussion into nonsense yet again", " you're just trying to derail the discussion some more") on top of other posts, I'm declaring that a Civility breach and giving you a one-day block accordingly. Learn to discuss respectfully or don't bother discussing. Philip J. Rayment 14:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a complete lack of respect on both sides. Your hands are no cleaner than anyone else's in this discussion. As for Jaxe, I believe each of the statements you take issue with was justified according to your civility policy and that this is nothing but ideological bullying because Jaxe backed you into a corner. You might try resurrecting a small amount of credibility by providing some basis for your belief about those statements. They look like exactly the kind of thing I've seen you! Teh Terrible Asp 15:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Teh, you're about the least civil 'contributor' on this site, so perhaps you should keep your brass neck out of this.--CPalmer 15:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Pot. Kettle. Black. NONE of us has clean enough hands to spout off the way Phillip did. And for the record, I aim to be the least civil contributor here. Teh Terrible Asp 16:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
For someone who uses the word "bigot" with no compunctions when there is no evidence of the motivation to block someone, I find this block repulsive. Sterile 20:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
If you hadn't been saying such silly things I wouldn't have had to call you on it. Learn to discuss sensibly or don't bother discussing. Jaxe 16:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a complete lack of respect on both sides. Your hands are no cleaner than anyone else's in this discussion. Evidence? Critics accuse a lot, but provide evidence not so much.
For someone who uses the word "bigot" with no compunctions when there is no evidence of the motivation to block someone, I find this block repulsive. I don't see what "motivation to block someone" has to do with using the word "bigot".
If you hadn't been saying such silly things I wouldn't have had to call you on it. That's the fallacy of begging the question.
Learn to discuss sensibly or don't bother discussing. I was, and you have not shown that I wasn't.
Philip J. Rayment 03:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
More silliness right there. Jaxe 12:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Given your very recent offence and this additional accusation as an assertion without any explanation/justification whatsover, you've just earned yourself another block for a civility breach. Philip J. Rayment 13:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow. not a member! 13:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Silly. Ideological. Block. Teh Terrible Asp 15:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Blocking people for calling you silly makes you a very silly person. Jaxe 16:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Silly. Ideological. Block. There's nothing ideological about it. For one thing, I do not block to avoid answering his questions. I answer them as well as blocking.
Blocking people for calling you silly makes you a very silly person. That's a silly comment. Because the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Philip J. Rayment 02:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Not being able to see why blocking people for calling you silly is silly makes you silly. Stop digging Philip. Jaxe 16:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Apology for filling up yor talk page

Sorry to add to your talk page. You can probably archive a lot of it. Hamster 16:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Fill her up, see if I care. Jaxe 16:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism, formal warning

This is a formal notice that this edit is vandalism. I am giving you a 1 second block to formally record this warning. Repeat offenses will result in longer blocks. BradleyF (LowKey) 01:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I was finishing Philip's thought. But you're correct; my future vandalism will be more mature, sorry for this momentary lapse in subtlety. On your way, cretin. Jaxe 01:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I have blocked you for a week for namecalling. You have already had 2 recent blocks for civility breaches. BradleyF (LowKey) 02:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I nominate Jaxe for senior member upon his return from exile. Teh Terrible Asp 13:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Another warning of a civility breach.

This is formal notification that you are required to substantiate claims you made, or face censure, as explained here. You will be given a one-second block as a record of this warning. And given your record of civility breaches, don't assume that any penalty will be short. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Look, I've said before, I'm not playing your childish games. If you want to ban me from commenting on your blog, then just do so. Hiding behind rules you've specifically written to save-face in situations like this just makes you look even more dishonest. Do you really think people can't see through it? You're only fooling yourself.
I've just been reading my user page since the last time you flipped out for being called out on your dishonesty. You don't seem to have learned. Jaxe 06:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Given your complete failure to substantiate or withdraw your claims, and given your further baseless insults here in refusing to do so, on top of a history of this sort of behaviour, you have been blocked for three months. You can still edit your user page, but you will also be blocked from that if you make any further insults. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 09:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Gosh that's tempting. Does calling you a silly person still count as an insult? Jaxe 10:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Aha. Now I see why you wanted me banned. So you could have the last word, and then in 6 months time claim I never responded to your "rebuttals". Very sneaky! And you complain when people call you dishonest... Jaxe 12:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
That constitutes another insult, so your block will be extended to your talk page. All you need to do in order to reply to my rebuttals is not get yourself blocked. You were warned, and chose to re-offend. The responsibility is your own. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/User_talk:Jaxe"
Personal tools
visitor navigation