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:Ace McWicked

From A Storehouse of Knowledge
Jump to: navigation, search

G'day Ace McWicked, 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.

Contents

WIGO

It is funny that you had mentioned in my WIGO at RW that I had "Run to the hills", considering our discussion on Iron Maiden a while back. WesleySSpeak 20:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hahahahaha it was subtle yes but I hoped you'd (or someone else would) remember! Ace McWicked 20:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Formal warning

Please take notice of the instruction I have given you here. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 04:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to Mr. McWicked, Sarfati is indeed a bit of a dolt, as is evidenced by the comment that Ace was referring to when he made the statement of which you complain. Further, to whom is Ace supposed to be apologizing? Has Sarfati complained? Or is he apologizing to you for insulting Sarfati? --Horace 00:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
If Philip wants to block he can, this is his site after all. Perhaps I could call Sarfati a "misguided and uneducated man who is either too stupid to understand what evolution actually is (hint - its NOT a philosophy and says nothing about the exsitence of god) or is willfully ignorant of the facts and chooses to lie instead". Ace McWicked 00:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, there you are! I think we can all be happy with that. Just goes to show what a little co-operation and a positive attitude can achieve. --Horace 00:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Horace! And my point was to demostrate that despite Philips claim that "Creationsts know more about evolution than most trained scientists evolutionists" many of the most vocal creationists do not know what it is. Ace McWicked 00:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The way to make your point is not to call people names. Neither of you have done anything to refute Sarfati's claim (and even if you could/did it would not justify the name-calling in the first place), so essentially you have called someone names because he expressed a view that you don't share.
Horace, you are also on notice to retract and apologise, else you will be sanctioned also.
Further, to whom is Ace supposed to be apologizing? To the same people to whom (not about whom) he made the insult to: the readers of that talk page. That was namecalling in a public forum, the retraction and apology should be in the same forum.
Perhaps I could call Sarfati a "misguided and uneducated man who is either too stupid to understand what evolution actually is (hint - its NOT a philosophy and says nothing about the exsitence of god) or is willfully ignorant of the facts and chooses to lie instead" This is another act of uncivil behaviour, and along with your repeat of the original insult and your refusal to retract amounts to four offences, which, according to the Proposed block guidelines, constitutes more than a one-month block.
That the statement itself cannot be claimed to be a true and factual description is clear from the fact that Sarfati is not "uneducated", having a Ph.D. This would also argue against him being described as "stupid". As for it not being a philosophy, anti-creationist Michael Ruse said:

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.[1]

As for it not saying anything about the existence of God, evolutionist William Provine said:

Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.[2]

Note: I am not quoting these to prove that Sarfati was correct, and therefore I hope that nobody takes issue with these quotes (here and now, at least). I'm quoting these to show that Sarfati's comment was in line with views of at least some prominent evolutionists, and to therefore call him a "moron" and "stupid" and "uneducated" is not in the least bit justifiable.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sanction

Even though you qualify for a level 6 sanction under the proposed block guidelines, I've given you a level 5 sanction: one-month block plus three-month probation. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What bothers me, is in all the preceding "trial", I see no link to Ace's transgression. Please to kan hav? ħuman Number 19 04:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe that this is what you seek. --Horace 04:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Apology to the users of this talk page for calling Mr. Sarfati a bit of a dolt

To all the persons who use this talk page and who were aghast (or even mildly disturbed) at my insulting Jonathan Sarfati in the above section entitled "Formal warning" by referring to him as a bit of a dolt, I hereby extend an unqualified apology.

In my defence I should indicate that I did sincerely mean what I said and I truly believe it to be the case. The statement was not, therefore, made as mere stirring of the pot or troublemaking.

Also, it would assist me if those of you who were actually insulted by my reference to Mr. Safati as a bit of a dolt would list your names below. It would help me with my future postings on this site and I undertake to take extra special care in discussions with you delicate types in the future. --Horace 04:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I am immensely offended that you would ever possibly to call Jonathan Sarfati a dolt. He is a wise, smart, handsome, intelligent Fide master( did I mention he is brilliant and good-looking?), who obviously deserves all of the Nobel prizes, plus the Presidential Medal of Freedom (or its equivalent) from all countries in the world. In fact, I also feel that he should be crowned Emperor of the World for his brave and bold action defending the evil, spiteful, hateful, Baby-killing, evil atheist liberal evolutioninst satanists who attempt to undermine Jesus Christ. Please be more careful with you language in the future, Horace, or I will be forced to send Stormtroopers after you. Godspeed!! The EmperorRise, my apprentice 04:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Safarti looks like an IDiot to me, what's the problem? ħuman Number 19 04:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
According to this very wiki, Sarfati is as much of a layman as I am in regards to evolution. I'm a dolt when it comes to evolution, so it stands to reason that he is too. -- Edgerunner76 12:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I find it quite amusing that some people on this wiki seem to delight in being offended. Lowkey/Bradley & Philip appear to have very low offence thresholds and are now imputing similar feelings to others. The odd insult is part of normal everyday existence especially when discussing topics which bring up deep rooted feelings. I for one could be insulted that anyone should consider me capable of crediting some "supernatural being" of creating the universe that we see all around us, but I do not take offence at the insult: I discount it. If you can't stand the heat .... User 11speak to me 13:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
(Thinking about it: I do take offence, but at the insult to the human race's intelligence; not to me personally) Surely anyone creating an open wiki on such a "controversial" subject can expect to be insulted from time to time. As long as no actual harm is done, what does it matter? If the skin is so thin then some amendment to editing policy should be made along the lines of: "anyone casting any doubt upon the abilities or beliefs of creationists shall not be permitted to edit"? Or making a class of articles where members only can edit? Face it, as long as it's open, you're gonna get ad homs from people who think that any creationist belief is by definition stupid. User 11speak to me 14:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Horace and Theresa, I don't think anyone has taken personal offence. The site management is simply trying to enforce basic standards of civility, an endeavour which I for one wholeheartedly support. Bandying around emotive terms like 'moron' and 'dolt' is not helpful, and is a barrier to rather than a signifier of constructive, lively discussion.--CPalmer 14:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
If, which it isn't - I don't know the guy, my opinion of Mr Sarfati is that he's a moron or dolt, shouldn't I be allowed to make that point. Surely it will explain my views of him better than all the point by point arguments in the world? BTW civility is for conversation: the internet is much more for shrieking. User 11speak to me 14:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Calling someone a moron isn't a point, it's an insult. And yes, you are allowed to insult people if you like, but not here - rule 2 of this site is to remain civil at all times, so please do so. If you don't have anything nice to say, why not maintain a dignified silence?--CPalmer 14:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
why not maintain a dignified silence? Probably because "somebody's wrong on the internet" and it's really annoying. User 11speak to me 15:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I can understand your annoyance, but you are more likely to persuade those who disagree with you if you avoid insulting them and their idols. Don't be a silly sausage!--CPalmer 15:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
(EC) I am NOT a sausage: I am a lump of finest Stilton! User 11speak to me 15:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Calling someone a moron isn't a point, it's an insult. Exactly. And there are several people in this discussion who are skating on thin ice.

The site management is simply trying to enforce basic standards of civility... Right again. Although I'll accept the apology offered by Horace this time, to qualify it in the way he did is poor form. I was not instructing him to apologise only because some may have been offended, but because this site has standards of civility that we must all adhere to. As such, the request for list of names of those offended is irrelevant.

I know I've said this before, but it continues to amaze me that people who consider themselves rational believe that name-calling, insulting, denigration, etc. is acceptable.

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I just wrote about 500 words, but thought "why bother"! Just forget it! If you want to carry on with your delusions of God and the Bible, please feel free, but don't be surprised if RATIONAL people think you're a sandwich short of a picnic and say so. User 11speak to me 15:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, why bother, when instead you can just throw out a bit if rhetoric without any substantiation? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
So, insinuating that Richard Dawkins is a liar and deceitful isn't uncivil, but this is. Hmm..... Sterile 15:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I did not say that, so please don't imply that I did. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a huge fan of Dawkins- I have no problem calling him a moron. The EmperorRise, my apprentice 17:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the management has no problem calling him "a nasty name-caller" (Philip) and saying his "credibility is at best doubtful" (Bradley) and that "At the risk of belabouring it, saying that Dawkins may consider deception acceptable and condemning him for the same are two separate things, and only the first is in the article" (Bradley). Sterile 18:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I did say, if you read my comments properly, that it's okay to use a descriptive term if it can be justified. I can justify accusing Dawkins of name-calling, and I'm sure Bradley can justify his comments. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Formal warning

Philip - Your allegation that I am guilty of poor form is grossly insulting. You attempt to justify your defamatory comment by stating that I qualified the apology offered above. I did not. I specifically stated that the apology offered was unqualified. The only part of the statement that could be construed as a qualification was the fact that I directed it to those users of this talk page who might have been offended in accordance with your instructions. My explainantion, that I truly believe Mr. Sarfati to be a bit of a dolt, was not a qualification of the apology.

My insult was directed at a person who, so far as I am aware, doesn't even read this site and has no knowledge of any slight. Your insult was directed at me, a person who not only uses the site but who has posted on this very talk page. I must say I am both surprised and wounded.

I assume that an apology will be forthcoming without delay. --Horace 01:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I read your apology as having a deliberate attempt to qualify it, but I'll take your word that it was not meant that way. Regardless of what you intended, however, it was qualified in that it was directed only to those took offence, whereas my instructions were not so qualified. I retract and apologise for any insinuation that the qualification was a deliberate attempt to limit the apology. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "dolt"

Could we have an official ASk definition of "dolt"? It is possible that, upon investigation, it will be found that the description of Jonathan Sarfati falls within that definition and could be "fair comment". I'm not saying that he will fall within that definition of "dolt", but for future reference it would be best to have our terms clear.--Bob M 19:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

According to both Merriam Webster Online Dictionary and Oxford English Dictionary, "a stupid person". --OscarJ 19:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
How would one define a person who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old (or some other tiny number?)--Bob M 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
A "Young Earth Creationist". The EmperorRise, my apprentice 00:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
True, but I was thinking of more general adjectives associated with intellectual ability.--Bob M 07:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I double dare you. --Horace 07:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, if I were to be polite, then "mistaken", "confused" and "simplistic" would obviously be appropriate, although I suppose those are really descriptions of their opinions rather than evaluations of their intellectual ability. On the other hand, I suppose some might argue (not of course, I) that such opinions might be the consequence of an intellectual ability which was less then stellar. --Bob M 08:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
How would one define a person who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old You mean someone like Galileo, Kepler, Newton, etc.? Try seeing how they are normally described. "Stupid" or "dolt" are not terms usually used of such people.
I suppose some might argue (not of course, I) that such opinions might be the consequence of an intellectual ability which was less then stellar. They you might not be arguing it, you are clearly implying it, and I would stronly suggest, for no other reason than they are creationists. That is, they are of low intellect not because of any test of intelligence, nor for failure to succeed in society or industry, but simply and solely because they hold to a view that you consider unsupportable. Most people would recognise that is not a valid basis for claiming someone to be of low intellect, so it is reasonable to conclude that you are claiming low intellect as a form of insult rather than accurate description.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps you are right. Denial of evidence is not necessarily evidence of low intellect.--Bob M 06:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious

This page is getting hilarious. Dimension 08:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Persons of a sensitive nature might see that comment as an insult and take offense. William Gibson 08:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I, for one, am offended. But when an evolutionist is offended, it does not count. No one hears his pain as he falls to the ugly ax in the forest... ħuman Number 19 07:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Very philosophical Human. If nobody hears your complaint then does it exist? But about what, exactly, are you offended at this moment? Life itself - or do you have some more specific offense in mind?--Bob M 08:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Mostly PJR being doltish in his argument above. 17th century scientists took as a given a relatively young earth. But there was no other view, and the contrary evidence had not yet been unearthed (pun sadly intended). Does PJR really think that today Newton, Kepler, or Galileo would be young earthists? If so, he is stupider than I thought. ħuman Number 19 04:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice of sanction

Ace McWicked was given a one-month block with three-month probation on 3rd August. Within days of that block expiring, he repeated the uncivil behaviour (calling a person a "moron"). For that I am giving him an interim one-month block, to be reviewed to see if it should be made longer or permanent, as per the proposed blocking guidelines. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 07:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

He didn't repeat it, he only explained why he called that bad chess player a moron. Editor at CP 12:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
... he is - That's a repetition, not an explanation. While "bad chess player" is not an actual insult, it is certainly as inaccurate as "moron". BradleyF (LowKey) 00:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually neither is inaccurate. While there is no metric for "moronism", you can check by yourself Mr. Sarfati's FIDE ELO rating and calculate yourself the probability of him winning or losing against world class players. Editor at CP 11:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see how being a F.I.D.E. Master and being good enough to draw a game against Boris Spassky makes him a bad player. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not the first time you fail at seeing things, Philip. Editor at CP 14:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
And this is not the first time that someone would rather be condescending than explain. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
And this is not the first time... PJR, people have been banging their heads against a wall trying to explain to you that you can be a good Christian and still accept an old Earth. Eventually, condescension might be the result. As an old math teacher I had said, I can explain it three ways, after that I can only say it louder... ħuman Number 19 05:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
And people have been banging their heads against a wall trying to explain to sceptics such as you that some of your arguments are straw-man arguments (such as arguing that we think you can't be a good Christian and believe in an old Earth) and various other points. But for some reason the anti-Christians seem to resort to condescension far quicker, if they don't actually start with it, as does often happen. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 05:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Quit messing around with terms like anti-creationist and anti-cristian. You are throwing them around to describe anyone who disagrees with you and acting like a petulant child. Ace McWicked 06:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Then how about you quit criticising without offering a better term to use? And if you object to such descriptive language, how about stopping using terms such as "petulant child"? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 07:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Non-Christians? Non-Creationists? Stop being such a wound up little girl Philip. Ace McWicked 08:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
This is your formal notice. Withdraw the namecalling and apologise or be blocked. BradleyF (LowKey) 08:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
As you are not long off the last block for the incivility, which block was almost permanent, I will recommending long-term to permanent for the nect block. BradleyF (LowKey) 08:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You know what Bradley

You are by far and away the most passive/aggressive person I have ever dealt with on the internet. Secondly I am not anti-christian nor anti-creationist. This is an open society where you and Philip may pursue your ideals and ideas as far as they may go but when people start to call you up on it, when creationism is roundly beaten legally, scientifically and rationally and you have no place to go but resorting to implications that people are "anti-creationist" - then I'll call a spade a spade. So block away. Ace McWicked 09:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"non-creationist" and "anti-creationist" are two different things. The same for "non-Christian" and "anti-Christian".
You are not anti-creationist? You could have fooled me!
Creationism is not roundly beaten legally, scientifically, nor rationally. The only legal judgments against creationism that I know of were against making it a legal requirement to teach it in American schools, which is a far narrower thing.
Why is it that you can claim to "call a spade a spade", but I can't do the same by calling someone "anti-creationist"? At least my claim is literally true (unless I mistakenly misidentify someone).
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the term you are after is passive-aggressive, rather than the slashed oxymoron you used. Of course more unsupported accusations are no great surprise. You claim you are not anti-creationist, and follow it up with anti-creationist declarations. I either call people/statement anti-creationist or I do not. I don't imply that they are. For refusing to retract the insults and apologise I am blocking you for 1 month, with a view to evaluating whether it should be longer (as of now I think it should be). BradleyF (LowKey) 11:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
If you want to respond, email someone and ask for it to be posted if you wish. Leave the socks alone. BradleyF (LowKey) 11:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I received the following from Ace McWicked by email:

passive/agressive, passive-aggressive...to make issue with semantics/grammar (semantics-grammar) is a Schlafly technique.
And no, I am not anti-anything. People are fully entitled to have their own beliefs and I feel mildly concerned that some
people might wish that a site such aSK to not exsist. Free marketplace of ideas is a good thing however when you label 
detractors as "anti-(insert)" then you are bound to meet resistance. Be all means post this.

BradleyF (LowKey) 13:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I genuinely was not sure that you were using the term as commonly used, so I was making my uncertainly plain. I have seen common terms used in uncommon ways enough times lately to consider it a possibility. It is still an unsupported (and unspecified) accusation. A detractor of x is anti-x to some extent, but we have explained that we are not using anti-creationist to simply mean those disagreeing with creationism but those actively opposing it in some way. In other words they are demonstrably anti. We use the term to speak of existing restistance, so the term comes from the resistance met, not the other way around. Part of the problem I see with your premise above, in the context of your own discussions here and at RW is that being entitled to our own beliefs seems to mean only as long as we agree that our own beliefs are invalid. To defend our beliefs, indeed even to claim that they are defensible, invites insults. (The preceding has also been emailed to Ace McWicked) BradleyF (LowKey) 13:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bradley.
I would say that a "Schlafly technique" is to pick on grammar etc. to the exclusion of all else, which is not what Bradley did. (Edit: I wrote that before I saw Bradley's comment above, with which I had an edit conflict.)
when you label detractors as "anti-(insert)" then you are bound to meet resistance. If I saw you criticising any of the following on the same grounds, I might start to take the criticism a little bit seriously:
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
It's all very well to say that you think people are entitled to whatever views they want, but when you mercilessly pillory and mock those who disagree with you, that claim rings pretty hollow. Ace, if you're reading this, perhaps you could demonstrate your laudable tolerance by being a little more polite?--CPalmer 13:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

RW

Did we break it already?! ħuman Number 19 04:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[deleted], not again for chri........deity's sake! Ace McWicked 04:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back. I hope you weren’t aiming for a block with the insult on your userpage. We have been much more tolerant of content on userpages than we have been elsewhere. Worse insults than that have gone uncensored.  :) BradleyF (LowKey) 02:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a pot-shot at my slippery deformed half-brothers over at RW. Ace McWicked 02:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Not deformed, just "differently designed" thank you very much! :P --The Egyptian 23:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Experiment participation

Please participate in my experiment. Thanks! Sterile 17:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Simpsons

I love how CPalmer answered me all serious and such. -- Edgerunner76 19:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere near as funny as when Ken responded to my Fawlty Towers quote. Which, unfortunately, was lost during the server crash. Ace McWicked 19:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any point to this any more?

How many obfuscations can they dish out? Without you, me, Horace, Hamsta, Jaxey, and Sally, it's a dead wiki. They'll sit here and stare at each other. Perhaps we should let it go, even if something is wrong on the internet. Sterile 02:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have even gone as far as to email Alan Guth! Might have to give this up. Ace McWicked 02:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Information has gotten absurd. We're back to analogies and information-is-not-biological-function-it's-(goalposts moved)-purpose now. UG! Sterile 03:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Block

I am blocking you for this as explained here. The length of the block takes into account your history of this sort of thing. And I'll be removing the insult on your user page. Philip J. Rayment 23:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Machismo

Do you really have to bring that here? --TimSTalk 23:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I haven't posted to Ken here and I don't plan to. You'll note that people have already mentioned to him specifically. Besides which I am stating a fact - I am super manly. Ace McWicked 00:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Besides which PJR is more than happy to defend Ken's ramblings so whats the problem? Ace McWicked 00:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying you are breaking any rules or anything. It's just useless and unnecessary. --TimSTalk 01:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
"It's just useless and unnecessary" are you talking about my posting or the essay itself? Ace McWicked 01:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to your post. I didn't actually read the essay (For some reason I can't access CP right now) so I can't judge it's usefulness, but I have my doubts. --TimSTalk 01:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I can reproduce it here if you like? Ace McWicked 02:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
no thanks, I'm not interested. --TimSTalk 02:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, Señor! Ace McWicked 02:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Aye que lindo Ace! Tienes mucho machismo. Olé olé olé!! Teh Terrible Asp 03:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Es Mucho Bueno!!! Ace McWicked 03:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Machismo theory

I have noted that you are very keen on quoting/referring to machismo (as in "Ace tiene machismo! Whoooooo!") but do you understand what machismo is/means and what Don Juan, the epitome of machismo, proposed? Let me explain why I ask – I could give you a calculus equation and technically it would be correct on the face of it however while the equation might be correct that doesn’t mean that I am correct. Unless I actually understand what the calculation means and what it explains or proposes and what the author was intending to convey with the calculation then all I am doing is talking out of my rear end. So let me ask, you enjoy throwing out phrases like "Ace tiene machismo! Whooooooo" but can you give me a definition of machismo, what it means and how it works? It’s one thing to say something, its total different to understand it. I look forward to your response. --CPalmer 15:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Please direct your question to Teh Terrible Asp. Ace McWicked 20:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
8| Hamster 16:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Machismo significa el actitud y comportamiento de las personas que consideran al hombre superior a la mujer. La Biblia es clara y convincente acerca del rol del hombre. Cada año estaremos celebrando el día del padre. Que buena oportunidad para honrar en nuestra congregaciones el concepto bíblico de la masculinidad. 1 Corintios 13:11 dice "cuando yo era niño, hablaba como niño, pensaba como niño, razonaba como niño, pero cuando llegué a ser HOMBRE, dejá las cosas de niño." Hoy, necesitamos reconocer en nuestras congregaciones un sentido bíblico del concepto del hombre de Dios. El machismo plantea la necesidad de buscar un modelo auténtico de la masculinidad. Esto es lo que llamo el lado bueno del machismo.
Aunque tengamos padres y orígenes diferentes, necesitamos la ayuda de la Biblia para definir la masculinidad. No podemos conformarnos con la imagen del hombre de aHollywood o de los comerciales de TV. Ser hombre no es una alternativa. Ser hombre es reconocer el tipo de legado que estamos dejando atrás. La presencia del hombre en la iglesia se ha desvanecido con los años. El ministerio de hombres en algunas iglesias parece casi inexistente. Cualquier domingo hay más mujeres en nuestras congregaciones que hombres. Necesitamos tocar el corazón, el alma y reconocer la importancia de los hombres en la iglesia y la comunidad. Teh Terrible Asp 17:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Sí, bien dicho Hamster 18:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Entonces, Ace, ¿es que tienes machismo en este sentido biblico, o en otro sentido? ¿¿Consideras San Pablo como autoridad en machismo?? Y dado esto, ¿le consideras como autoridad en otras cosas?--CPalmer 08:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Dos cervezas por favor. Ace McWicked 08:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Me parece que te equivocas, machito. Para comprar cervezas, hay que ir al "Saloon Bar". Desgraciadamente, no hay "Saloon Bar" por aquí...--CPalmer 08:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
yeah. no fun. Ace McWicked 08:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Next time we play this we'll need more beers. Ace McWicked 09:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
We could call it Machito Borrachito.--CPalmer 09:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I declare utter victory over CPalmer! Ole! Ole! Ole! Ace McWicked 09:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

inflation exist!

I just wanted to let you know that I think inflation coming from a foundation built on nothing is very credible. Based on my research, Barack Obama is creating inflation through printing money that is backed by thin air at best. Pretty soon Obamageddon is arriving with a big bang!

“We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750

““...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote concering the Milky Way galaxy: ". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506

On the other hand, the YEC model of astronomy is quite reasonable. Bottom line: YRC is true today and will be true forever and forever! You know the secularist are clueless and their models are unworkable. You can stop putting on a show because you are not fooling PJR and other YECS! Ruylopez 02:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I can safety ignore someone who uses cosmology to attack a political position. Ace McWicked 02:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
On that note, I once read a science-fiction book in which Congress narrowly defeated a bill to regularize the earth's axis after they found out it would destroy the seasons... Bottom line: they have some relationship. Second bottom line: Nice pun. :) --EvanW 03:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Ace, I wasn't aware that secularist "cosmology" qualifies as cosmology as it is not based on evidence. And last time I checked, the journal Science was respected even by secularists. However, feel free to ignore that even the secularists in respected peer reviewed science journals admit the secularist cosmological emperor has no clothes. In the meantime, I will sit back in my quite privileged planet knowing that secularist cosmological sandcastles are very fragile indeed! Please let me know when you are ready to face the fact that the evidence is not in your favor and even secularists are forced to admit in respected secularist science journals that your position is exceedingly weak. Ruylopez 03:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
You do that, ok bye now. Ace McWicked 03:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to user page on inflation.

This is a response to your diatrabe on your user page.

Your opening paragraph is a series of accusations against me. I have "no understanding", I use "quote mines" with "breathtaking ignorance". I "willfully (sic) misuse science". I have "closeted" views. I "spout nonsense". I have "failed to demonstrate any knowledge on the topic at hand" (my emphasis). All I do is "duck and weave". Yet what is noteworthy here is that none of these accusations are supported in any way. They remain accusations, not demonstrated truths. Okay, the one about ducking and weaving does have a link, but that's a link to a conversation where I am declining to answer your question because you have steadfastly refused to respond to comments I had previously made!

This paragraph also displays a typical anti-creationist debating tactic of applying "spin" to creationist argument to make something good sound like something bad. Specifically, when I quote secular cosmologists in support of my argument, this is caricatured as my "quote mining" them, as though quoting what they actually say is somehow something bad. Quotes can, of course, be taken out of context, whether deliberately or inadvertently, but typical of accusations of "quote mining", no effort was made to demonstrate any lack of context, let alone any deliberate attempt to misrepresent. No, simply throwing the accusation is sufficient argument, it seems.

The second paragraph includes more of the same. I'm "deficient on the subject of cosmology" and I'm "unable to give a coherent dissertation on the subject" and I've "failed to demonstrate any understanding of the topic" (both of which are anti-creationist-speak for "I didn't agree with what he said"). You had previously accused me (on my talk page) of merely quoting ("All you are doing is repeating what someone else has said"), and I had responded by pointing out that I had not merely quoted, but had put together an understanding of what they were saying. I used a term which I was not happy with, of "reading between the lines", to indicate that I was not merely quoting. You siezed on this as something bad, but despite me pointing out to you what I meant, you repeated the accusation here as though it was something unanswered. Isn't that being deceitful?

You then go into an extended description of quantum processes, inflation theory, and what the "nothing" really is.

After that, you return to maligning me. This includes further assertions that I'm wrong, yet nowhere in all your posts have you ever explained precisely what I got wrong. I made an argument about what Guth believes the "nothing" is based on an article about his views. You've pointed out that the article was in a "pop science magazine", thereby implicitly questioning it as a source, but have done nothing to point out any errors in my argument. Did the article misrepresent his views? Did I misunderstand what the article said? I have absolutely no idea what your answer to those questions would be, because you've not even bothered to refute my specific argument, despite me repeatedly pointing out your failure to do so. But you freely accuse me of "ducking and weaving"!

You say that I will "turn around and claim that no one has ever given you a proper argument! The arrogance!". I don't say that no one has ever done this, so the arrogance is in you suggesting that I would. You claim that you've seen me debate with people who work in specialist areas, as though it's ignorant, uneducate, me against these experts, but you overlook that most of the "argument" I get is worldview-based (naturalistic), ad hominem, vilification, logically fallacious, and/or bigoted and hypocritical nonsense (such as creation scientists not actually being scientists, or the Journal of Creation not being peer-reviewed because it's (supposedly) reviewed by other creationists, despite evolutionary papers in evolutionary journals being reviewed by other evolutionists). Yes, there is some "proper" argument, but it's often hard to find it amongst the sea of improper argument. So you pretending that its me versus expert argument is gross misrepresentation. Therefore, it's not a matter of me having or not having "equal intellectual talent".

I refer to you quote on Wikipedia “I find it quite annoying and frustrating that there are so many sceptics that argue vehemently against the Biblical record of creation and the flood, yet are so grossly ignorant of the idea that they argue so strongly against.” You are the worst violator of this than anyone else Philip and the above just goes to show that. Actually, no. If you read the rest of that section on my Wikipedia user page, it lists some examples of what I was talking about. And note that every item I list are basic fundamental facts about what creationists believe. I'm not talking about less-well-known areas, nor am I talking about who is right. I'm talking about what anyone would learn from a cursory reading of the Bible and/or creationist material. Compare these two sources and claims:

Source Understanding
The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. Creationists argue that secular scientists believe that the universe formed from nothing.
Dr Don Batten: Ph.D. in Plant Physiology

Dr Pierre Jerlström: Ph.D. in Molecular Biology

Dr Mark Harwood: Ph.D. in science/engineering

Dr John Hartnett: Ph.D. in Physics, fulltime university Research Fellow

Some evolutionists argue that creationists are not scientists.

See the difference? You can argue that creationists have misunderstood Guth's argument if you wish, but you can't argue that they are ignorant in the same way that some evolutionists are ignorant of basic creationist claims. So your accusation of me being like those I criticise is incorrect as you are not comparing like for like. See this sentence of yours: "you argue vehemently against it without showing one iota of deeper understanding on what it is you are arguing against." Note the word that I emphasised? What I accuse people of is of having almost no idea at all; not of lacking a deeper understanding.

You said that you were not trying to argue for inflation, but just to explain what it was. Similarly, I don't intend to dissect your explanation which may well be essentially correct. However, you continue to ignore a significant point I make, and even to misrepresent me on it.

First let me draw an analogy. If I say that the glass has nothing in it, I probably mean that there is no drink in it, or perhaps that there is no visible object in it. I'm not meaning that it is devoid of air, energy, electromagnetic radiation, and so forth. So I fully except that "nothing" does not have to mean absolutely nothing at all. That is, I accept that when a cosmologist says that the universe came from nothing, he might not be meaning absolutely nothing at all.

However, despite you giving the impression that my claim was based on a single pop-science article, I actually quoted several different secular sources to back the claim. Not only that, but several of those sources—as I pointed out—emphasised the nothingness of the nothing. That is, that it was absolutely nothing. Even then, I was prepared to accept that this absolutely nothing may not be quite that, and explained that what Guth was arguing was that it wasn't quite absolutely nothing at all—there was a very small (but important) something there: the laws of physics themselves. I can understand how absolutely nothing but the laws of physics could be described not only as "nothing", but as "absolutely nothing". Mind you, I don't think that even if this was the case (I don't believe that, as I believe that God created those laws), it really changes the argument at all that Guth and others believe that the universe popped into existence from nothingness and without cause. But that's a separate issue. What is at issue is that you persistently claimed that I was wrong to interpret absolutely nothing as, well, absolutely nothing. Yes, you offered to (and have now) explain(ed) what you understand the "nothing" is, but have failed to explain why those several secular sources I quoted stressed the nothingness of the nothing.

Then there's the matter that you've hardly made your case. For one thing, you describe "nothing" as a "zero sum" as though this somehow makes a difference. But how are two people being means tested any different simply because one has no assets and the other has as many liabilities as assets? In both cases, their worth is zero, and that's the relevant point. The other thing is that your explanation has "particles - popping in and out of existence." If they are popping into existence, that means that prior to this they didn't exist. That is, they were nothing. So even your explanation has something coming from nothing (and apparently for no reason). So isn't that just what I was claiming anyway? The only difference is a story about there being a theory that this is what happens.

Philip J. Rayment 13:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing here outside of self justifications, continued arrogance and a complete inability to understand the argument. Even going as far as to call my well thought out explanation a "diatribe" which only goes to show you have no respect for anyone who thinks differently to you. Typical behavior from you Philip which betrays a complete lack of internal and objective dialogue with yourself. The few points worth responding to, in order to clarify and not to support you in the position that you have really said anything meaningful, are as follows-
I provided two other links which show you arguing a position you know nothing about (even positively asserting ..my words in italics..Alan Guth does not believe the universe came from nothing. On the contrary, he does.) Where you consistently try to claim the big bang and it's theorist claim "it came nothing". If you had known the topic at hand you wouldn't have continued on this line.
I "steadfastly refused to respond to comments (you) had previously made" because you made comments but did not make an argument despite my repeated attempts to elicit a coherent understanding from you. As I pointed out several times I couldn't answer your questions because I had no idea of what you understand the topic to mean. It is completely and utterly justified for me to ask you to clarify. It took me two months to get clarification and even then it was barely coherent.
You say you provided secular scientists to support your argument but, again, you didn't make a properly formed argument and quoted sentences you thought agreed with your position when position was flawed in the first place and didn't have, or at least show, any understanding of what the sources were supporting.
While I am sure you didn't deliberately attempt to use quotes out of context you still used quotes without understanding what it actually means or relates to and without investigating further.
Your "anti-creationist-speak for "I didn't agree with what he said" - is laughable in the extreme. No I didn't agree with what you said because it was wrong. So saying your wrong, when you are demonstrably wrong, is now "anti-creationist speak"? Is it all anti-creationist speak until I agree with you? Again, laughable that you'd attempt to use this as a rebuttal and offensive in that you assume to know what I am thinking. Poor thinking on your part but again it only bolsters your sheer arrogance in that everyone, expect you, is incorrect. When anyone tries to demonstrate the opposite and suggests that you are incorrect it is "anti-creationist speak" and can then be discarded.
I have shown you the errors in your argument. Because you can't see it and are unwilling to step down and admit deficiency on subject doesn't mean I have failed. This is your arrogance again - "Its not me, it's the anti-creationists".
The whole paragraph that ends with "equal intellectual talent" is a complete joke. Your arrogance again. Just because you think someone is arguing a "worldview" does not mean that you are able to stand toe to toe with them. Someone arguing biology isn't arguing a "worldview" they are arguing biology and these logical fallacies you point out are merely constructs of your misunderstanding, poor education and inability to properly weigh arguments that don't agree to the narrow and strict guidelines you have imposed upon your own intellect.
When discussing your wikipedia quote you make mention of examples you are referring to. I fail to see how this makes a difference because this whole inflation/Guth "debate" is an example in itself of you arguing over something you have little to knowledge in outside of creationism.
I am sorry your table doesn't make any sense to me and I can argue that not only do creationists misunderstand Guth but, like you, they do so willfully thinking that he supports their contentions all the while probably knowing that, on closer inspection, it doesn't. Creation.com proudly displayed that "evolutionists say the universe comes from nothing!", again without deeper knowledge that it isn't the case. What does that say about creation.com? How good are their fact checkers and do they even bother?
Finally, on the topic of inflation and "nothing" you attempt to make an argument and to display what your understanding was 2 months after I asked. But you make so many flaws. First you say you accept that cosmologists might not mean "absolutely nothing" which is totally different to what you were saying before. Secondly you note "my understanding" despite my understanding being taken from several techinical books on the subject. You are attempting to muddy the waters, as if this is open to interpretation. It isn't.
Those several secular sources you mention are what? Magazines? Or technical tomes? It is irrelevant what those sources say, what is relevant is you based your argument entirely on a few sources without ever once delving into the nuts and bolts of it. Again, arrogance on your part.
Zero sum does make a difference Philip. It means the balance of energies is equal, 100 parts to 100. Take one away you 101 to 99. And yes they are popping in and out of existence but that doesn't mean they come from nothing. The pain you feel when I smash you in the face and the heat against your cheek was all once kinetic energy in my arm. Are you saying that the transfer of E=MC2 is something from nothing also?
Nothing here goes to justify your opinion of yourself and your "arguments". All I see is arrogance, bitterness and an inability to admit where you are wrong or not qualified to comment. Ace McWicked 01:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
All I see is arrogance, bitterness and an inability to admit where you are wrong or not qualified to comment. I've been watching this farce from the sidelines for a while now and I see that too, but I think you have the parties mixed up. What I see is Ace not understanding what Philip is saying and blaming it on some imagined lack of understanding on Philip's part. The whole "I can't respond to x until you explain your position on y" was exceedingly silly. The whole thing seems to have come because Philip said that secular cosmologists (specifically mentioning Guth) say that the universe came from nothing, and you disagreed on the basis that Guth's theory doesn't state that. Instead of dealing with he fact that those are two different things you seem to be insisting that Philip has conflated them, or you are conflating them. It's hard to tell which. I honestly think you have fundamentally misconstrued Philip's point, in a similar manner to what was happening regarding Dark Energy. It's not a case of one party being wrong and the other right, but of two parties addressing two related but distinct and separate points. I suggest taking a deep breath, going back to the beginning (i.e. the actual initial statement) and see if it meant what you think it meant. Personally I still struggle with the semantics whereby non-existence <> "nothing", but I will talk about that in my attempt to address the Dark Energy orbiting conversation, as it is somewhat related (that's turning into quite a lengthy essay).LowKey 06:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
That is extremely dishonest Brad. I never said "I can't respond to x until you explain your position on y". I couldn't continue because I needed clarification, Philip had made no argument and I couldn't respond to him without him defining his terms. This debate was spread over several pages and I was then blocked for a month. I then returned and, to continue the debate, asked Philip to relay his understanding from where we left off. It is extremely dishonest of you to state it any other way when I have been explicit on this point. Ace McWicked 06:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Nothing here outside of self justifications, continued arrogance and a complete inability to understand the argument. On the contrary, I have pointed out your fallacy of making accusations and not substantiating them. So you make more, and still fail to substantiate them.
Even going as far as to call my well thought out explanation a "diatribe"... No, I called the post a "diatribe". The part that justified that term was your unsubstantiated accusations, not the explanation of inflation itself.
...which only goes to show you have no respect for anyone who thinks differently to you. The part that fails respect is the unsubstantiated accusations, not the different thinking.
Typical behavior from you Philip... Granted; given the typical unsubstantiated accusations, my response is therefore also typical.
I provided two other links which show you arguing a position you know nothing about ... The only two other links in that first paragraph (the focus of that part of my comments) were to your opening comment that "This all began because Philip was quoting ... that the universe came from nothing as this is what evolutionists believe", a comment that I did not list as one of the accusations you made. I will concede to some lack of clarity on my part here, but the accusations you made which I listed were insulting ones. Your opening comment, whilst potentially false, was not insulting, and I did not include that in my list and did not dispute it. I did not mention the supporting links because they supported something that I wasn't objecting to.
I "steadfastly refused to respond to comments (you) had previously made" because you made comments but did not make an argument despite my repeated attempts to elicit a coherent understanding from you. I cannot understand how you can consider that I made no argument in that post. I specifically made the argument that Guth was arguing that the "nothing" was the laws of physics.
It is completely and utterly justified for me to ask you to clarify. You had refused to answer several times before asking for clarification, and even then it wasn't in direct response to that post.
It took me two months to get clarification and even then it was barely coherent. You never did get clarification. The "clarification" you got was merely a copy and paste of my original post, sans quotes. Ignoring your "barely coherent" slight, this shows that the original post was clear enough to respond to, but you had refused.
You say you provided secular scientists to support your argument but, again, you didn't make a properly formed argument and quoted sentences you thought agreed with your position when position was flawed in the first place and didn't have, or at least show, any understanding of what the sources were supporting. I agree that in those cases I merely quoted. But then you ignored those quotes, even denying that they existed, rather than attempt to point out any flaw in my use of them.
While I am sure you didn't deliberately attempt to use quotes out of context... Until now, you have not even suggested that they were out of context, let along explaining how they are (beyond your standard response that I don't mean what they mean).
Your "anti-creationist-speak for "I didn't agree with what he said" - is laughable in the extreme. It seems pretty accurate to me, given that such comments usually have no substantiation.
No I didn't agree with what you said because it was wrong. So saying your wrong, when you are demonstrably wrong, is now "anti-creationist speak"? It is when you don't demonstrate that I am wrong. As you have still not done, as I pointed out in my previous post. That is, you have explained what Guth apparently means, but you haven't tried to show any flaws in my use of the quotes or my reasoning.
Is it all anti-creationist speak until I agree with you? No, it's anti-creationist-speak when you don't address the argument but disagree anyway.
...offensive in that you assume to know what I am thinking. I'm describing what it amounts to rather than your thinking.
I have shown you the errors in your argument. Where? All I've seen is accusations of ignorance and arrogance, and an alternative explanation.
Because you can't see it and are unwilling to step down and admit deficiency on subject doesn't mean I have failed. Your failure is not (in this case ate least) because you haven't convinced me, but because you haven't even tried (to show the flaws in my reasoning).
Just because you think someone is arguing a "worldview" does not mean that you are able to stand toe to toe with them. Given that I've studied worldviews quite a bit, why not?
Someone arguing biology isn't arguing a "worldview" they are arguing biology... Agreed. But an evolutionist, for example, is arguing a worldview, not biology. If he is describing how plant work, he is arguing biology. If he is describing how he believes the plants originated, he is arguing a worldview.
...these logical fallacies you point out are merely constructs of your misunderstanding, poor education and inability to properly weigh arguments that don't agree to the narrow and strict guidelines you have imposed upon your own intellect. More unsubstantiated accusations. And my education, although not to university level, was not "poor".
When discussing your wikipedia quote you make mention of examples you are referring to. I fail to see how this makes a difference... Then would you please re-read what I said, because I explained the difference. In a nutshell, the difference is that I was talking about the basics of creation such as how long the flood lasted, not more esoteric aspects such as inflation.
I am sorry your table doesn't make any sense to me... What part doesn't make sense, or in what way doesn't it make sense?
...they do so willfully thinking that he supports their contentions all the while probably knowing that, on closer inspection, it doesn't. See, right there is one of the key differences: the "on closer inspection" bit. I also note that you are making an argument on what they "probably" know.
What does that say about creation.com? How good are their fact checkers and do they even bother? Well, given that they have highly-trained and very knowledgable scientists on tap, I wouldn't be at all surprised that they might know more about it than you.
Finally, on the topic of inflation and "nothing" you attempt to make an argument and to display what your understanding was 2 months after I asked. No, I merely expanded my earlier argument in the light of your new post.
First you say you accept that cosmologists might not mean "absolutely nothing" which is totally different to what you were saying before. Again wrong. It was that post two months ago where I wrote that Guth apparently meant "absolutely nothing" to mean "the laws of physics". How did you not pick that up?
Secondly you note "my understanding" despite my understanding being taken from several techinical books on the subject. You are attempting to muddy the waters, as if this is open to interpretation. It isn't. Well, given that there are highly trained and knowledgeable scientists who have a different view, I think my characterisation was fair. You seem to have the attitude that you have the right understanding, contrary to those other scientists. Yet you accuse me of being arrogant.
Those several secular sources you mention are what? Magazines? Or technical tomes? I provided links with the quotes. But given that you denied I provided the quotes, I guess you didn't look at them.
It is irrelevant what those sources say, what is relevant is you based your argument entirely on a few sources without ever once delving into the nuts and bolts of it. And you attempt to refute them by impugning the source rather than show any fault in my use of them or their understanding.
Zero sum does make a difference Philip. It means the balance of energies is equal, 100 parts to 100. Take one away you 101 to 99. If you take away one you get 99, so I get that bit. But where did the extra one come from to make 101? In any case, you are no longer talking about a zero sum then.
And yes they are popping in and out of existence but that doesn't mean they come from nothing. Because....? I already pointed out that if they pop into existence, then they didn't exist before. That means that nothing became something. Your response is to simply claim I'm wrong, but not to explain why I'm wrong.
Are you saying that the transfer of E=MC2 is something from nothing also? Huh? Your example was the transfer of E, not of the whole equation. And I fail to see how even this is something from nothing, given that you had something (kinetic energy) to begin with.
That is extremely dishonest Brad. I never said "I can't respond to x until you explain your position on y". I fail to see how this is "extremely dishonest". At best, he is mistaken.
Philip had made no argument... Given that I had made an argument, and had pointed that out several times, can I call your comment "dishonest" also?
...to continue the debate, asked Philip to relay his understanding from where we left off. I had explained what I believed Guth was getting at (i.e. my "understanding") two months ago. Your request was not about my specific understanding of Guth's comments about something coming from nothing, but my understanding of his inflation hypothesis.
Philip J. Rayment 15:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
As you appear to not to be able to to see youself objectively or have the capacity of self reflection I'll put aside my "accusations" (read as:Identifications of your character flaws) and focus on the science aspect for the time being. Firstly -
given that they have highly-trained and very knowledgable scientists on tap, I wouldn't be at all surprised that they might know more about it than you. If that is that case then they are purposely misrepresenting Guth, and his theory, to satisfy their own views via presenting a few qoutes on the topic without given the reader the context.
I am not sure how you are misunderstanding the zero sum bit but I'll explain. You broke up my sentence into two different points above instead reading it as a whole, I know that's your stratergy but it caused you to miss the point. It is a balance of energies. Say the feild has 100 parts of energy. Because it is zero sum when a particle is created it goes from 100 to 99 + 1 particle. The virtual particle uses the energy from the feild to create itself then immediatly dissapates back into the feild renewing it to 100 parts again. So it is all equal, 100 energy, 100 particles. When a new particle is created it goes 99 to 101 and back again, a balance of energy. Energy into mass, mass back to energy - E=MC2. So your I already pointed out that if they pop into existence, then they didn't exist before. That means that nothing became something. Your response is to simply claim I'm wrong, but not to explain why I'm wrong. was already explained. The energy already exsisted but just transfered from enegry to mass and back again. Simple.
Finally - Well, given that there are highly trained and knowledgeable scientists who have a different view Which ones? Show me which ones disagree. Ace McWicked 22:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
As you appear to not to be able to to see youself objectively or have the capacity of self reflection I'll put aside my "accusations" (read as:Identifications of your character flaws)... That's an interesting way to put aside accusations—make more!
If that is that case then they are purposely misrepresenting Guth,... Perhaps so, but not simply because you say so. It could equally be that you are purposely misrepresenting Guth. Or that you are unwittingly representing Guth. Your sole stated rationale for saying that they are wrong is that they disagree with you and you believe that you are right.
You broke up my sentence into two different points above instead reading it as a whole, I know that's your stratergy ... It's a methodology, not a strategy. It's simply to help make clear what point I am replying to.
Regarding your explanation, first let me say that it's great when you do explain something properly, rather than spend so much time on denigration, or rather than give summary statements and expect me to fully understand. Secondly, again because of that better explanation, I now understand what you are saying regarding the zero sum process. However, I now have a new question. The "zero sum" that you now describe is not, as far as I can see, really a zero sum at all. Rather, you have 100 parts energy. One part becomes a particle, so you have 99 parts energy and one part particle. Fine, the sum hasn't changed, but the sum is 100, not zero. That is, in both cases you have something, not "nothing" (zero). I'm sure you're not trying to say that before there was matter there was (conventional) energy. So how does this relate to Guth's ideas of "nothing"?
Which ones? Show me which ones disagree. The CMI ones. For example, John Hartnett.
Philip J. Rayment 04:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
It could equally be that you are purposely misrepresenting Guth. Or that you are unwittingly representing Guth. Your sole stated rationale for saying that they are wrong is that they disagree with you and you believe that you are right. Errr, what? I am quoting Guth, Hawking etc (you know, those pesky refs I gave showing where I was getting my information?) So I know they are wrong and, if you did any of the suggested reading or watching then you'd know it too. This is not a matter of my interpretation vs. theirs. This is a matter of the actual theory vs. CMI's misrepresenting of it. I can't stress enough that my explanation of Inflation theory is the current scientific explanation with no spin of my own. They don't just disagree with me - they disagree with Inflation theory (this was what the whole debate was about remember?)
zero-sum describes a situation in which a participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other. As there are two different competing energies that are exactly balanced then they cancel each other out. In the pre-universe, as stated, this was a very unstable balance. The number could be 100 energy, 100 particles or whatever - pick a number, but it is a balance and they zero out. I Don't understand what you are getting at here - That is, in both cases you have something, not "nothing" (zero). I'm sure you're not trying to say that before there was matter there was (conventional) energy. So how does this relate to Guth's ideas of "nothing"?.
How is Harlett relevant here? That article says nothing about Guth or inflation? Ace McWicked 04:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Errr, what? I am quoting Guth, Hawking etc... No, you were not "quoting" Guth, etc. Almost nothing in your user-page explanation is direct quote. You were, rather, explaining your understanding of their ideas in your own words. That's not to say that your explanation is incorrect, of course, but you can't say that your explanation is incorrect and CMI's is not on the basis of you "quoting" them. CMI was also "quoting". They actually quoted Discover's description of Guth's views, and while that's not, of course, the same as quoting Guth himself, you've never once explicitly claimed that Discover got it wrong.
Regarding zero-sum, that's a situation where the change is zero, because a gain in one is a loss in the other. But we are not talking about a change, but a starting amount. Guth describes the universe as coming from "nothing", and you are trying to say that this "nothing" is a "zero sum". But if "zero sum" is the amount of change, and what they universe came from is a quantity, then we are talking about two different things, surely?
Hartnett is relevant as an example of a scientist who disagrees. The article says that "they accept by faith that the big bang happened, that ‘nothing exploded’...".
Philip J. Rayment 07:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
After everything I said, the links I produced to videos and books so you can learn about this, you continue to argue while displaying a blatant and utter ignorance of what you speak. Philip, you're an idiot. Ace McWicked 07:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
This and other personal comments have earned you another block. See next section. Philip J. Rayment 08:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Another warning

I'm not sure that you deserve one, but this is a warning to cut out the accusations of dishonesty (unless you can prove them) or you will be blocked again. Philip J. Rayment 15:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You said it yourself fail to see how this is "extremely dishonest". At best, he is mistaken. He is either purposely misrepresenting the situation or, frankly, incompetent. But I won't make any further accusation. Ace McWicked 22:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't address your points unless I know you are not misunderstanding the theory you are trying to counter - by Ace. The "points" were about what Guth said where they not? Philip was not at the time trying to counter Inflation Theory (at least as far as I could tell). You later went on to draw the link (or rather a disctinction) between what Guth said, and what Guth meant. Maybe I am seeing a distinction here that you are not. Maybe Philip doesn't see the distinction either, in which case I withdraw my comments above. I assure you that I was not purposely misrepresenting anything. The distinction I saw is that Guth's statements about the beginning of the universe are not Guth's theory on Inflation - Philip focussed on the first (which I called x), and you focussed on the second (which I called y). There is a link, but there is also a distinction. I do see this as another aspect of the problem we had discussing Dark Energy. Philip: at this stage I would rather avoid blocking Ace. I called it like I saw it, and then he called that like he saw it. Ace has been skirting incivility, but actually attempting productive discourse. Of course, a repeat of the accusation now that I have responded would be a different matter, but Ace has already said there won't be a further accusation. LowKey 11:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The distinction I saw is that Guth's statements about the beginning of the universe are not Guth's theory on Inflation A strange conclusion to come to considering the article Philip was quoting Guth from was all about Guths inflation theory. Ace McWicked 20:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Not so strange, in light of the fact that you criticised the use of that article for the details of the theory (that's merely an observation, not a criticism). I have decided to post my thoughts on these orbiting discussions as an essay, rather than an article talk page, as the article topics are really just examples. One thing I have found useful in intentionally gathering my thoughts is that I now understand and appreciate a point you have been making (although I still don't fully agree with it). If I can find the time to finish off, I intent to post it in the next few days. I would then welcome your comments in particular. LowKey 23:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
And which point was that? Ace McWicked 23:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
That any model needs to account for accelerating expansion. A second (related) point was that theories can describe factors without explaining them. Like I said I can appreciate your points, and can agree to some degree (e.g. that all models need to account for same observations), but I also disagree with them somewhat (e.g. that the "accounting" will necessarily be an individual factor for each model, or that there is necessarily an equivalency of some sort in how different models account). LowKey 23:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I feel happy that I have helped someone to think about something differently than they had before. Ace McWicked 00:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't actually requiring Ace to prove the accusation of dishonesty; rather warning him to not do so again. So I wouldn't have blocked him unless he did do it again. However, my warning wasn't intended to be specifically regarding LowKey; any similar unproven accusations will count. I agree that he has been "actually attempting productive discourse", and I'll comment further on that in the section above, but that doesn't excuse throwing unwarranted accusations about. Philip J. Rayment 02:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


Your recent personal attacks[3][4][5] have earned you another block. Philip J. Rayment 08:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Any further creation of accounts by you will result in your block being extended. Philip J. Rayment 02:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Pyramids

I have put up dates for pyramid of Djoser and the final pyramid built 2630 and 1525. The Book Philip is quoting is a text by two Australian creationists. Dunno when he did anything in Egypt because he claims digs in Isreal for 22 years. Some egyptian dynasties will be a bit short :) Hamster 22:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Warning for incivility

This is formal advice that you have been warned about incivility, as mentioned here. A one-second block will be imposed to provide a record of this warning. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Given your response (bad enough to be deleted), and your record of earlier blocks, you are hereby blocked for two months. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 06:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Membership nomination

Ace McWicked was nominated for membership, and was voted in. Voting is now closed. The voting can be seen by showing the box below.

I count 7 votes. Ace McWicked 19:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
You count funny! I see 9. LowKey 11:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Seven (now eight) votes in support Bradley, not in total. I believe I have the required votes now. Ace McWicked 16:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know. I was pointing out (trying to be subtle, but maybe it was just obscure) that both ayes and nayes count for something. Nevertheless, see above. LowKey 22:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
What do the rules say about "oppose" votes? Ace McWicked 22:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Nevermind, I found the rules. Ace McWicked 22:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

member

Shouldn't I be granted member rights now? Ace McWicked 21:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No. The requirement is seven votes. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
point of order Mr Chairman, are there 7 active members ? of not the Chairman should exercise his quorum rights and declare members with less votes. I would vote for Ace but my nomination 8is stuck as well. Hamster 03:53, 5 December 2010 (UT
Philip dislikes me personally and nevermind the strength nor rightness of what I say he'll always be opposed to any argument I mount regardless of scientific rigour. Ace McWicked 04:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't dislike you personally. It is your approach that is the problem. I expect that there are at least seven existing members who still either edit here or watch here and could vote, so that shouldn't be a problem. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 04:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
["I don't believe him" - replacement by umpire LowKey 04:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)]. Ace McWicked 04:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Demonstrate at least some intent to respect the rules by retracting your accusations both here and on your userpage, or be blocked for incivility. LowKey 08:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
"I expect that there are at least seven existing members" You should know the number , I cant identify 7 active member users from the recent changes list. A requirement that cant be met, and which you previously stated would be waived if there were not sufficient members seems just very convenient. I myself have two senior members and two active members voting for me , and yet am not a member because it seems there are not enough active members. anyhow I vote for ACE, if and when some voting members appear from somewhere. :( Hamster 16:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
@Lowkey - I have removed the accusation on my userpage however I actually do think that Philip dislikes me personally so that I will not retract. It's not incivility - its my opinion. Ace McWicked 19:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
It is possible to have an uncivil opinion, or to express an onion uncivilly.--CPalmer 10:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Ace, thank for the one removal. However, you are not simply expressing your opinion about Philip's regard for you. You have made an accusation which you cannot support (being based on your opinion of the contents of another's head). Retract it or I will block you for incivility. I have levied a 1 second block to officially record this as a warning. LowKey 12:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
"I expect that there are at least seven existing members" You should know the number , I cant identify 7 active member users from the recent changes list. Quote mining! I specifically said "who still either edit here or watch here".
... express an onion uncivilly. Errr, I don't like the sound of that vege juice! (Express: to force a liquid out of something.)
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
@LowKey, I find Philip's behaviour toward me to be deliberately obtuse and, in some cases, unnecessarily aggressive. See his talkpage under the heading AiG where I have a simple query which he has lept on as if I was making a specific argument against him. That's why I think he dislikes me personally. I am sorry if you think that's uncivil but how can my feeling surrounding Philips attitude be considered uncivil? Ace McWicked 19:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
In fact, I find his behaviour extremely uncivil and he almost completely assumes bad faith. Particularly surrounding my education in cosmology. Philip assumed such bad faith on my part I had to go to the library and quote a specific chapter from a book he hadn't even read in order to prove I knew what I was talking about. The is assuming bad faith in the extreme - to such a degree that Philip automatically assumed I was wrong without him even reading the text which I had read. Ace McWicked 19:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
What I am saying is that I don't believe him. That's my opinion. Ace McWicked 23:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Ace,I accept that final post as true. I have struck the earlier comment, but I have quoted this later post instead. I don't have time for more discussion on this at the moment (I am travelling and have found the mobile reception patchy at best). I will add that if you want Philip to assume good faith on your part, perhaps you should assume good faith on his. LowKey 04:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Philip continually told me I was wrong about material I had read that he hadn't. I had to go to the library myself to show him. I am now supposed to assume good faith to Philip? Please, Brad. You are embarrasing yourself. I have provided nearly 30 references to support my position, he provided 4 (2 of which I have already shown to not mean what he thinks they do). Ace McWicked 07:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(OD)Ace, my comment still applies. You allow that you may have reasons to assume or conclude bad faith but disallow that Philip may have reasons to assume or conclude bad faith. I have not followed your rather lengthy argument (over a single talk page comment), but I am speaking of the principle rather than a specific incident. LowKey 11:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It was my birthday yesterday Brad, I am truly a triumph of Darwinian Evolution! You, on the other hand, can only sob at your degenerate mutated self. Ace McWicked 11:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Voting is designed, on the principle of there being wisdom in numbers, to only promote people we consider to not be vandals. It is not on the basis of views (else I would have voted against many people that I have in fact voted for). [6] Sterile 21:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Trust you to dig that out! However, it is a valid point to raise here. I would respond that your quote of me was to distinguish between vandalism and views, whereas the opposition here is based on behaviour, a point I didn't cover in that quote. Also, the fact that the opposition is from two senior members will carry considerable weight. On the other hand, I already had in mind (before CPalmer's vote) that if Ace gained the required seven votes, I would discuss the very point you quoted with Bradley before making a decision. That is, I would not automatically reject Ace's membership simply because Bradley voted against it. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
(EC)Sterile, there are two "oppose" votes above. Both refer to actions; neither refers to views. To what do you refer? LowKey 12:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I am mindful that my opposition is not due to vandalism. It is still however due to damaging behaviour. Since aSK's launch (roughly 20 months), Ace has been blocked for a total of 8 months and 1 week - for incivility and unacceptable language. In other words for about 40% of the time Ace has not even been allowed to edit as a result of his own actions. Either Ace is in some fashion incapable of editing withing the rules, or he is unwilling. Supporting membership while seriously considering another block - indeed considering whether a permanent block is warranted - does not seem wise (or even consistent). Of course, if Ace's actions change then so will my opinion. LowKey 12:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Alright now listen, brass tacks time...Firstly, aside from 1, maybe 2 (or 3), egregious incidents I have never shown a propensity to abuse any rights I might be granted. If blocked I'd not unblock my self, I don't vandalise nor do I really have any intention of causing any specific damage to this site. I argue viciously yes but I am a fair and honest man. I just want Skip Captcha because its a real pain. Ace McWicked 12:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Ace, you're looking at this all wrong! By using the Captcha mechanism, you're actually doing a good deed in helping society![7] Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I do like to help. Ace McWicked 13:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
And I think society needs people like me. Otherwise where would we get our fun? Ace McWicked 13:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I like how you guys ignore the first sentence. Is Ace a vandal? Sterile 13:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sterile, why is that when asked a question about your post, you ignore it and ask a question of your own? LowKey 22:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I think this site benefits enourmously from having ACE here. He is like the gefilte fish of lunch meets where otherwise all you have is ham :( He can be abrasive at times , but this site does have a double standard where civility is concerned. The referrees are NEVER uncivil, even when referring to ithers in loaded terms, but others of divirging views are. Ace not a member in my view shows the bias against non-creationists , and confirms Philips comment that discrimination is fine, when its not his views being discriminated against presumably. I also object to CPalmers comment on his opposing vote. ACE is correct in his position on cosmology, I suppose being more correct than Philip is a punishable offense. Philip can quit arguing about his incorrect position anytime he wants, he will edit the article to contain his own view anyway Illustrious member Hamster 16:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I like how you guys ignore the first sentence. Is Ace a vandal? I did not ignore it; that's why I said that it was a valid point to raise here. Bradley did not ignore it either; he specifically addressed that point.
The referrees are NEVER uncivil, even when referring to ithers in loaded terms, but others of divirging views are. Nobody claimed that the umpires were perfect, but your comment is unsubstantiated and, I reckon, fails to distinguish properly between different cases.
...Philips comment that discrimination is fine, when its not his views being discriminated against presumably. I said no such thing. You've taken my comment completely out of context and put your own spin on it.
...I suppose being more correct than Philip is a punishable offense. Nonsense. The problem with Ace is his incivility, not his views nor the correctness of them.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 20:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
ace would not be brusque , if you were honest in your own views. Ace has explained many times how you are failing to understand that 'nothing' is not a common english nothing, but you refuse to accept that , and continue to argue, in uncivil terms, that it is. Of course no referee is going to disagree with the site owner. You stated recently that descrimination was ok, but failed to qualify when its ok. Your site policy shows you favor descrimination against non-creationists, and you use the uncivil terms of AIG and CMI to describe them , although you disclaim that view when you can. Saying 'no I dont' just doesnt wash Philip, and your sidekicks are not reliable witnesses either. You have clearly demonstrated that no one who is not your brand of young earth creationist is simply a filthy unmoral liar, and anyone from CMI is honest and highly moral, no matter what the factual record says. You accuse others of misrepresenting you and spinning your words when all that is done is quote you in context. That is easily substantiated in the talk pages of this site, except the bits you removed and oversighted. Its a pity that you delude yourself on your actual honesty and fail to see yourself as others do. Beware the grand athiestic science conspiracy, Have a nice day.
unquenchable Hamster Hamster 22:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Word. Ace McWicked 00:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
ace would not be brusque - you apparently do not read talk pages at RW.
no referee is going to disagree with the site owner - you apparently don't read talk pages at aSK, either.
...except the bits you removed and oversighted. - Hamster, you have suggested this before. Either support your insinuation or cease making it. LowKey 21:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Ace has explained many times how you are failing to understand that 'nothing' is not a common english nothing, but you refuse to accept that , and continue to argue ... that it is. That's an over-simplification of the issue. I did accept that it wasn't a "common" nothing, but refused to accept that it wasn't nothing, as Ace was claiming.
You stated recently that descrimination was ok, but failed to qualify when its ok. I stated it in a particular context, which doesn't give you licence to accuse me of believing it to be okay in unrelated contexts. Further, my comment quite clearly didn't apply in the very circumstance you tried to apply it to (...Philips comment that discrimination is fine, when its not his views being discriminated against presumably.). My comment was in response to your comment that You might as well say he [Dini] discriminates against students who only manage a B .... That is, you were trying to argue that an accusation of "discrimination" is meaningless because, to be consistent, Dini couldn't "discriminate" against someone who doesn't do well in class. My response (Discrimination itself is not wrong, but discrimination on the basis of not believing one hypothesis over another is.) draws a distinction between acceptable and unacceptable discrimination, conceding that yes, Dini not writing a letter in support of a poor student could indeed be called "discrimination", but that that sort of discrimination is okay. Further, I added the contrasting point that discrimination on the basis of views is not okay. So your response is to accuse me of believing that it's okay to discriminate on the basis of views (as long as they are your views, not mine). So your accusation is contrary to my comment, and your claim that I "failed to qualify when" it is okay is irrelevant, as I gave you enough information for you to know that your claim about me was wrong.
You accuse others of misrepresenting you and spinning your words when all that is done is quote you in context. As I've shown here, it most certainly was not "in context".
Your further accusations about me are false and unsubstantiated. Watch yourself, or you will be blocked.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
And yet you just quote mined hamster. He actually said "ace would not be brusque , if you were honest in your own views". Big difference. Just saying. Hey, maybe you should rename the tq template to qm? CrundySpeak! 08:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you are referring to where I quoted Hamster. It wasn't a quote mine, it was an indication of what comment I was responding to. The original comment was right there above mine. Also, my comment would have been the same even with the whole sentence. The fact is Ace is plenty brusque at RW, so either the statement is incorrect or many Rats are not honest in their views. LowKey 11:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, it was you. I was foiled by indenting problems. Ace is very "blunt", but he raises interesting points and questions after doing extensive in-depth research into the topic at hand. If you learn to take the harsher comments with a pinch of salt then you would have an easier time. Just my 2c and certainly not a criticism of you or Phillip. CrundySpeak! 11:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

"Obvious poe"

Possible? LowKey 06:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I reckon. I have seen a few. Ace McWicked 06:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Would that be obviously indistinguishable or indistinguishably obvious?  :) Maybe obvious to some and poe to others. LowKey 13:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sunday / Sabbath

Sorry Ace but everyone knows the Sabbath is saturday. Shalom. Perhaps you could ask that same question on the proper article ? Hamster (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll just keep rewording until I get an answer as I am genuinely curious. Ace McWicked (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
One of Philip's blog posts says the 10 commandments don't apply to christians and Holding is such a mush-mouthed clown that he admits what everyone instinctively knows: there's no such thing as this "absolute morality" some christians yammer on and on about. I don't think Philip understands christianity if he thinks his article on Mosaic law answers anything other than that the bible is a mess. Few christians do understand their faith. After all, things get very complicated when its built on years of zealots and apologists making things up about incoherent nonsense that people made up from the Second Century back to when the bible was redacted by desert savages from disparate sources based on the myths of yet other desert savages. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Mustache

I'm growing one. I look like a pedophile. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm beardy, blurry eyed and look a little bit like a hobo. Ace McWicked (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Meet me under the bridge. Look for a homeless man. Don't tell your parents about me. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll bring the tq's, you bring Philip's ego. Ace McWicked (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Block and warning

Given your history of incivility and this comment, you are hereby blocked for one month, and also hereby warned that further incivility will very likely earn you a permanent ban. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
visitor navigation
contributor navigation
monitoring
Toolbox