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:Human

From A Storehouse of Knowledge
Jump to: navigation, search

G'day Human, 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.

Thank you for the warm and speedy welcome, TimS! Human 02:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello User 19 this is User 12. Π 03:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
When I look at the Creation Log, I make both those numbers one lower. Hello User 12. Am I reading the Log incorrectly? Perhaps you are counting the auto-user that MW installs to bootstrap operations? Human 04:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
When I look at my preferences I see 12, so I assume the generic User:Admin is always number 1. Π 04:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I am Number Nineteen in my prefs. Anyone care to give me the generic sig code for being a number, and not a free man? Human 05:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I was user 21. :'( I just missed being 22! --YossarianSpeak, Memory 07:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
That would have been classic! ħuman Number 19 21:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, is that better? Or should I use two templates? ħuman Number 19 21:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

ħuman Number 19 21:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Darn, how do I get my sig to just get left as {{user:human/sig}}??? I should know this... ħuman Number 19 21:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's because I edited my prefs on the wrong wiki... Ah yes, that's better. ħuman Number 19 21:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


Main page talk

I copied your "objection" (if that is what it was) from TOP's talk page to the main page talk, and attempted to answer it. I don't actually think it's much to object about (given my answer), but it is still an important point worth discussing in the right place.BradleyF (LowKey) 06:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for letting me know. I was "practising" at talk:ToP, I hadn't fully fleshed out my thoughts yet. I'll go check out the discussion at talk:main soon. ħuman Number 19 20:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


Are you thinking what I am thinking? Henry 01:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This place could certainly use an article on The Blekinge Street Gang, along with some high-quality writing about clogs. ħuman Number 19 04:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I was actually thinking about an article on sprinkles, but your idea is okay I guess. Henry 04:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I would love to copy over some of my better work from CP, but Philip has a very strong and difficult policy regarding copying one's own words from elsewhere to this site. I hope he gets over it. Sprinkles, among others... aw, I loved my series of articles for diabetics... ħuman Number 19 04:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
also the "DWG" stands for "done with greatness" as in "I am thinking about a sprinkles article dwg." Absolutely nothing to do with Danes or any other Norwegian impostors. Henry 04:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course. And the last thing this wiki needs is a full-fledged article on clogs, or clogging. Or blood clots. ħuman Number 19 04:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested

[1] this could help you with your issue. I tried to find something with elmo (I know how much you admire him) but that was all I could find. Henry 00:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks, it's already helping a little bit. ħuman Number 19 00:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
You already own it? I should have known. Henry 00:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What if the Bible was lost.

The amount of evidence that exists for the accuracy of the text of the Bible as we have it today is very large. The number and age of the manuscripts in existence today shows beyond much doubt that the Bible that we have today exists in almost exactly the same form as when it was originally written. There are approximately at least 14,000 manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. Compare that to 10 for Julius Caesar's The Gallic Wars. And similar numbers for other historical texts. Also, the earliest manuscripts that remain for the New Testament are from around 100 years after the original writing. Other historical writings that are universally accepted by scholars are from around 1000 years after. Basically, we have WAY more evidence for the textual accuracy of biblical texts, than we do for any other historical text. --TimStalk 00:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would strongly dispute what you claim. We have partial texts of many of the greek versions of the NT, texts of the Hebrew OT, and texts of the *Latin* Vulgates of others. There is not in existence, anything that would constitute a "complete" bible as we know it. What has been found, the pieces that have been found, confirm that Hebrew scholars took great meticulous care in copying the text from one Torah to another, from one TNK to another so where we have texts, we think there are little errors. However, you mis-state or ignore the huge amount of editing and redacting done by the early latin church upon the Greek manuscripts, to produce the Vulgates. You also simplify the idea of a "complete" text with translation, as if, upon picking up any given translation today, you have the true picture of what was written 2000-4000 years ago. That's simplistic in its understanding of a very complex, very exciting history of a very old book--Godot 00:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC). (edit con)
If you are going to be that strict with the Bible, then you have to completely throw out works of Caesar, Plato, Heroditus, and many others that are universally accepted without question.
Read [this].
The difference is that few people run around telling others that these are the "exact words" of (plato, aerostotle, etc). Rather, academics are quite aware and accepting of holes in the texts, of translation issues, and of political corruption. When some Christian talk of the bible, they attempt to assert that what we have today, in King James, or in any English translation, or even in the Vulgates is *the words of the writers as they were written*, and that simply is not true. When Christians say "this is what is mostly true", i suspect most of us will not see a need to say "your bible has many errors and is not exact". Again, few if anyone attempts to say that what we have of the Ancients is Pure and True, inerrant, and without political input. Would you say the same, today, about the majority of the Bible?--Godot 00:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The evidence points overwhelmingly to the fact that the text of the Bible is in exactly (or nearly so) the same form as it was when it was originally written. Only counting the manuscripts in the original greek, there are over 5000 manuscripts. Except for 11 minor verses, the full text of the NT can be reconstructed from the letters of the early church fathers. The differences that do exist between manuscripts are extremely minor, and do not have any effect on any of the doctrines of Christianity. This is one subject on which a "rational" person definitely has to agree with me. --TimStalk 01:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, you are recreating the facts as you see fit, using things to put into your argument that a "rational" person (when told of the actual facts) would simply not accept. Your 5000 sources is on 5000 DIFFERENT parts of the bible. but your arument is that "if I find one part that is correct, the rest must necessarily be correct". this is where the argument fails in depth. No one arguing about Plato would say "This line is exact as this line copied 10 years prior, therefore all the writings of plato are correct and true". This is the main point of your argument. In the Nag Hammadi texts, again, the OLDEST texts we have for the NT, there are only about 2500-10,000 fragments of the work. Those correspond to a greater or lesser extent to what we can *reconstruct* from the latin. but there are many errors, there are many omissions, and entire books are simply missing. (Paul's Letters, as one great example... Several of Paul's letters do not appear even in fragment form in the Nag Hammadi.). Finding one fragment does not mean the text is without error or is complete. Finding one fragment does not justify the entirety of that book much less the bible.
--TimStalk 00:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you check on the authenticity of 1 Corinthians 14:34b-36? Also, the camel/rope translation question at Matthew 19:23-24? The passage in Corinthians has lead to many branches of Christianity not ordaining women as priests, which has significant impact on the doctrines of Christianity. --Shagie 01:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
EC) Imagine a nuclear winter reducing the world to the stone age. I think that H was saying that Science could be reconstructed from the world around us, The Bible etc relies on historicity(?). User 11speak to me 00:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
By teh way, that number 12000, or 24000 is a game of "gotcha" that includes modern texts, midevil texts, etc. The oldest surviving text we have of the NT come from the Nag Hammadi (and in one or two cases, Dead Sea). There are a few other fragments around that are of a similar time frame (100-300 CE), but that's it. mere fragments of piece of the NT. 10 fragments tops, per text prior to the Latin. --Godot 00:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
"Caesar, Plato, Heroditus, and many others that are universally accepted without question" Oh no they're not! Everyone accepts that History is Written by the Victors and previous history is filtered by the powerful. User 11speak to me 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone :) Theresa11 is correct. TimS, no offense, but you missed the point. In the absence of the texts ("the Bible" in my rough drafted question), how will the Good News be reconstructed? ħuman Number 19 01:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say that TimS was trying to answer your last question regarding how we know that what we have is the true Bible.
But regarding your main question, the problem is that you are comparing two entirely different thing: past and present. Science is a study of what's in the present, whereas the Bible is a record of what happened in the past.
If historical records were lost, how could science provide us with the name of the ship that Captain Cook discovered Australia in? How could science tell us what started the U.S. Civil War? How could science tell us when Columbus discovered America? For that matter, how could science provide your date of birth?
That's not to suggest that science cannot tell us anything about the past. It could be used, for example, to determine where the stones of Stonehenge were quarried. But science is only of limited use in determining historical events.
Of course, if the Bible is what it is claimed to be, it's likely that God would ensure that it's never totally lost.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 07:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Re TimS' answering (1b), that makes sense, thanks.
Science studies the past as much as the present - even to determine "g" with a pendulum requires the lapse of time. If only records were lost, some of your questions might still be answerable, but it doesn't matter if info like that was lost. I notice you didn't include "how could we tell how old a tree is?" or "how could we tell how many years a lake bottom has been accumulating sediment?" Anyway, I'm not sure how much "history" has to do with the question. All history could be lost, and the law of gravitational attraction (to use my example) could be worked out again from scratch, as could rates of nuclear decay, etc., etc.
Finally, an answer! Or at least, a partial one, which is reasonable - that God would ensure the information's survival. If I may, another one occurred to me as I was asking the question in the first place, which is that God would simply start over - that's quite acceptable, right? He could inspire the "re-discovery" of the Genesis story, generate a new version of the rest of the Pentateuch, etc., with a new tribe, help new prophets re-create what matters of the rest of the OT, on down to eventually incarnating Himself again when He deems the creatures ready, in order for the Self-sacrifice to illustrate the message of Salvation. Then He could inspire a new Saul/Paul to write a bunch of letters... ħuman Number 19 19:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
You say that science studies the past as much as the present, but your only example to support this point doesn't hold water. Scientists can't study how a pendulum swung in the past, they study how it swings in the present. Sure the "present" is continually passing through time, and they need to study it over a period of time, but all their observations of the pendulum are in the present, i.e. while it is actually swinging.
You claim that some of my questions might still be answerable if the records are lost, but without some explanation of how, that is merely hand-waving.
No, I didn't include how old a tree is, because I was trying to use indisputable examples to make my case. I already said that science could help with some information about the past, and perhaps this is one such example, although dating methods are not an exact science anyway.
History has to do with the question because you were raising questions about history—the Bible, to be specific. Much of the Bible is history, and much that science supposedly disputes in the Bible is its history.
As for God recreating the Bible, in one sense that is a possibility, but there are problems:
  • The Bible is largely an eye-witness testimony. A recreated Bible would not be (for things that are not repeated, such as creation itself).
  • The Bible says that Jesus died once for all people. So He wouldn't be doing it a second time.
  • Given the previous point, a repeated old-covenant relationship between God and a recreated tribe of Israelites does not make sense after the arrival of the new covenant with Jesus.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


The word you are probably after is "Strine", but then you wouldn't be expecterd to know that, what with your clumsy mastery :D. BradleyF (LowKey) 06:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. Thanks for the skolling. ħuman Number 19 05:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations/my though experiment

I try to help. I take photographs of books.

Congrats on your membership.

I put a thought experiment on my user-page. I was wondering what you thought of it. Sterile 14:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks, PJR or whoever decided I was "mostly harmless", it's nice being able to upload images.
And Sterile, I'll go read it... ħuman Number 19 19:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


You redirected Commandments to Ten Commandments? What about the Two, or the Levitical "Commandments", or the "New Commandment"? I can't seem to find time for the articles I altready know I want to write, and now you do this?  :D BTW, A funny thought occurred to me; on RationalWiki you (collectively) are "Rats" but here on aSK you are "Molerats" (well I thought it was funny, anyway).BradleyF (LowKey) 06:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I only did it because I created a red link to "Commandments", meaning the "Ten". I found that the 10 C article existed, so I made a redirect. Feel free to make Commandents a new article, I am only a servant here, not an expert. And if you are referring to Jesus' response to the Pharisees, I'm with you on that. I vastly prefer Jesus' new commandments to the Moses version... Anyway, it's a wiki. If I did something wrong, you - or anyone - can fix it. Sorry if I bunged things up? I tried to do well. ħuman Number 19 08:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I know; red links just beg for some kind of article on the the other end, and I created (all right, almost-copied) a new article that looks full of them. I just find the lack of time to create articles chafes a bit, (but to be busy building in other ways is satisfying too, paradoxically). Actually, Jesus' response to the Pharisees were two commandments-via-Moses. The new one was "Love one another as I have loved you." BradleyF (LowKey) 09:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Wait, here, we are ratmoles. Wait. No, we are rat moles on ASK. Wait, no. Oh, poop. We are the smelly inhabitants of Philips sock drawer ;) Sad to say. ħuman Number 19 09:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


Hi! :-) Are you still working on logos for the site? I don't think anyone else has come up with anything yet. I would be interested in seeing anything you've made, and I'm sure other people would be too, thanks! Taj 21:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I started one but it went awry. The intention was a globe with the Middle East towards the top with lots & lots of movement lines curling up & forward out of Israel (roughly)& ending with Alphabet (Greek, Latin, Cyrilic ETC) letters But there isn't really room in the size available. Anyhoo - it went A over T so no worries. User 11speak to me 23:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
A couple sections up is a clumsy mock-up I did of someone's "books on a Bible" idea. I am mostly waiting for lightning to strike me with a better way to implement it, then I'll do a re-shoot. So, I'm not really actively working on it, just dabbling. As far as the "books" thing, I was thinking of moving the textbooks up to shelf (probably glass so it doesn't show), and lighting it so the Bible appears to be the source of illumination of the others. Which I think is a good idea for "something", but perhaps not for the ASK logo. ħuman Number 19 01:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Federal Head

I have been looking for a nice simple definition or explanation for Adam being the "federal head" of humanity. Unfortunately it looks like it's one of those jargonny terms that enjoy common use withing a group, but are rarely explicitly defined. I know what it means, but I want to provide a properly sourced (and succinct) explanation. I will keep looking for a nice simple explanation or definition. We probably should have an article for it anyway, or at least a section in Adam and Eve. BradleyF (LowKey) 00:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts - I'm sure they will eventually result in me learning something interesting - and for the update. ħuman Number 19 00:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I never did find a nice simple explicit definition. I will keep an eye out, but I am officially putting this on the backburner for now. BradleyF (LowKey) 08:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
There's a discussion of it here (third section down), which I wouldn't call a nice simple definition but which gets close to what is meant. Like most similar doctrine, it's based on commentary on Genesis in the Epistles rather than anything explicit in the Genesis story itself.--CPalmer 09:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for trying, Bradley - and thanks for the link, CPalmer. I think it does explain to me what is meant by the phrase. ħuman Number 19 00:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Sproul! I really should have found that. I think I was approaching it too directly (looking for references to to things like "federal" and "representative") which is actually not my usual approach. When I should have just been digging into Fall doctrine. Thanks CPalmer. BradleyF (LowKey) 12:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"My" statement

I have a quick question, for which you may not even have the answer. Do you know why so many Rats attribute the athiesm/morality statement in the Dawkins article to me? The latest from Kels is that I started the "conversation" with that statement (As far as I can recall my first post on the matter was replying to Ace's broadside about the statement). The statement is not actually mine, and I entered into discussions well and truly after they had already started. I do support the statement as true (but not in the form that several Rats keep casting it), and I have also supported its removal from that particular article. What gives? BradleyF (LowKey) 08:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like sloppy reporting to me on some people's part? I guess the best "defence" in a case like this is a few diff links. I doubt anyone at RW is out to tar and feather anyone for things they didn't do or say, but all it takes is a momentary carelessness and entire threads can be hijacked. I think this happens less with RW watching CP because so many people are doing it, editing WIGOs, etc. that there is fairly decent "peer review" of claims. You don't seem to get hounded or ganged up on when you visit RW, maybe a few appropriate diff links would show your place in the "conversation" and in editing the article more clearly - I guess it wouldn't matter which wiki you put them on, of course, since there is free travel between our fair lands, with the only major customs "obstacle" being that we must check our more "adult" language at the border. That said, where the accusations are being made is the best place to counter them, if you have time. ħuman Number 19 00:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, Kels has obviously seen this and checked, although my agreement about its removal is characterised as a "vehement defence" of it. Oh well. One takes what one can get. BradleyF (LowKey) 01:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the best defence is a few diff links. But the onus should be on the accuser to get their facts right, not on the defendant to prove their innocence. Kels has a history of throwing accusations without backing them up, even when challenged on them. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 06:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Any diff links to back up this accusation? :-) Berichtigen 10:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I can supply them if needed. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
You filthy swine! How dare you lob accusations, sordid and tawdry accusations, at the fine woman that is Kels. She is an asset to our entire organisation and your god will surely punish you for your charlatan and muck slinging ways. Repent or face the pit. Ace McWicked 12:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I never did get an irony meter, for which I am glad, as I would now be looking for another one. ;) BradleyF (LowKey) 12:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree, PJR, that the accusation should be backed up with accuracy. However, in a case like this - if it's easy to do, as I noted - a quick defence can clear the muddle. As it was, I took Bradley's question and defence of himself at face value, and didn't really know where to look for 1) exculpatory evidence, and 2) where the accusations were being made. If I were his wiki-lawyer on retainer, of course I could have researched and found them I suppose, but at my pay scale all I could do was guess at what might have gone wrong and offer the equally valuable advice to counter the accusations with a factual response. Of course, in reality, the activity here on my talk page was apparently enough to get it at least partially sorted out. In the end, let's face it, some people at RW are going to take a very strong stance against some of what they see pop up here. I find it amusing to see you guys slowly building your "case" for your belief system, other people just get angry. ħuman Number 19 20:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought this through more after I asked and here is what has occurred to me. To be honest I don't think that whether any particular accusation is true is less of a concern to some than how it can be made to look. Also, given how often Kels et al include "deliberatley" in accusations, and I am pretty sure no-one's been reading my mind lately, the accusations are not credible in the first place and don't deserve a defence. Also, those who choose to believe them do so because they want to, and diff links would probably just generate a "Well maybe you didn't do that but it is still your fault" (take Kels' response to this discussion as an example). I mentioned (in passing) probably 4 or 5 times that it was not my statement, (the truth of the statement is another matter entirely) but this was apparently not noticed. (Especially odd when those were the same posts that apparently were considered a "vehement defence"). Considering that Kels at least was watching closely enough to kick off the r/Rats bun fight, I find it hard to believe she read none of those other posts. The partial retraction occurred only after I involved another Rat (MoleRat!) who then mentioned sloppy reporting. Also, I don't have the time to "lodge" a defence every time Kels or another RWE accuses me of something.BradleyF (LowKey) 23:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(UI) Bradley, I understand your frustration. If someone was misquoting me, or alleging motivations to me I did not agree with, I would be angry - nay, furious. However, regarding this weird cross-wiki conversation, I do think that most RWers (the preferable term, "Rats" is a term of endearment that perhaps you are not intimate enough with us to use) are stable and sensible enough to check the evidence and make their own decisions based on them. Yes, Kels has always had it in for PJR, and now it seems ASK as well. OK, well, that's as may be. I can't defend her accusations or "WIGO" posts. But - you can both (are there really just two of you so far?) vote on those WIGOs. Voting is free and cheap. You can also waste your time adding stuff tot he talk page - "waste" on the terms of why you're here, but there is a place to defend yourself. We (RW) don't delete talk page comments. In the end, you guys are building a project here. What it will be, will be. If you are concerned that "someone on the internet lied about me", at least in this case you are welcome to make your case. Kels is never going to cut you an even break. Neither is Susan (what's her name here?). Heck, really, I am not going to, either, but I prefer to say why on RW, rather than waste space on ASK. Also, see the new section I am going to make after I save this... (I realize this post is almost incoherent, sorry) ħuman Number 19 03:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The Special Relationship

This phrase is used to refer to the modern relationship between the US and the UK. In the case of ASK, there is a strange and special relationship between ASK and RW. Normally, one would expect a project like ASK to start off small, with its founder trying to get a few people on board to help get the project launched and alive, to maintain its health, to build a base of information. However, in this case, a band of people who are pretty much adamantly opposed (in various ways) to the "mission" of ASK amount to 80-90% of the founding members. This creates a very strange environment for the "founders", in that most of the early contributors are diametrically opposed to the assumptions this site takes.

Also, it is now obvious that many discussions on this site are partly taking place on RW, and, to be honest, vice versa - an outsider could never figure out what is going on in some of these conversations, without the background information that some of you, and we, have.

(Personally, I'd prefer to see you ASKers build your site for a while so we can mock and refute your eventual results, not your attempts to build it. Attacking you now is like saying "that's an ugly baby" - I want to wait and see the juvenile, the adolescent, and eventually, the adult version of the site)

Feel free to discuss. ħuman Number 19 03:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I particularly enjoyed the "ugly baby" simile. I agree it is very early days in the life of aSK, but I have actually been impressed at the willingness of some RWEs to actively help build the site, including counter-vandalism. Although even RW is a pretty heterogenous community, and several that fetched up there seem to have also settled in here comfortably. One suggestion I would have for this early growth phase is for editors to remember that although aSK has an explicitly Biblical world-view, it is still intended to be a general encyclopædia, and needs general articles. "On mission" is not really relevant to selecting WHAT articles to create (apart from a a few obvious ones, such as the redlinks that were on the mainpage). Common sense should not be abandoned when choosing topics (TomMoore's early efforts come to mind), but "general" should be taken seriously. If we stay away from the articles that are likely to get us bogged down in endless "discussions" that the site will grow better faster. BradleyF (LowKey) 14:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


Capped "Biblical" is actually my convention more than Philip's. There are several reasons, not least of which is the "biblical" technically means "of books" whereas "Biblical" means "of the Bible." By the way I usually use a capital H, too  ;) . BradleyF (LowKey) 13:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was just the convention of language? (Not sure what we're referring to here, but that doesn't matter). When referring the Book that tells the story of God's Son being born on the earth as a Man, the Book of the story, and conjugations of the word, should be capitalized. Just like the various pronouns used when referring to Him. Especially on this site. Heck, I cap "Biblical" when I find it uncapped (expect for some more obvious contexts) on RW. Did you ever see the mess Proxima Centauri made on RW when she decided that Jesus should not be referred to as "Jesus Christ" (on any wiki she knew about)? ħuman Number 19 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, there are several reasons. I wasn't criticising, just explaining in case you thought it was some set-in-stone rule here. I think I persuaded PJR about capitalising, but I can't recall if it became official policy (I better check). BradleyF (LowKey) 07:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I suspect I would be OK with using it uncapped as a slightly generic adjective ("disasters of biblical proportions"), but capping it when it pretty much refers to the Book Itself ("in this Biblical passage, we read..."). I suppose some people would also do what I just did, and also capitalize pronouns or substitute words, as one does when referring to Him or His Father. But I suspect that wouldn't be good grammar, it would be more for effect. ħuman Number 19 00:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Some people think they are supposed to capitalize pronouns or common nouns, when they refer to God. But why should we do it, when the KJV Bible does not do it?
"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." -- Matthew 1:21 (KJV)
Is Australian English (aSK:Style_manual#Language) that much different from the King's English?
--DavidCary 13:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Often it is not, but sometimes it is very different. Sometimes we use the same words with different meanings. Creek and paddock spring to mind. You could have a dry creek crossing an 80 acre paddock in inland Australia, but I undertand that that's an impossible situation in the Untied Kingdom. All beside the point, but interesting. BradleyF (LowKey) 00:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, Matthew 1:21 (NIV) doesn't do it, either. What about later usages, like in the Epistles? Other versions? (How many versions does the magic Bible verserator support?) ħuman Number 19 00:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Philippians 2:8 (ESV) also doesn’t capitalise. The capitalising is a relatively common practice in general usage (rather than Biblical translation), and is done to show respect (likewise the ancient Hebrews often used Elohim rather than YHWH to avoid disrespect). Given that for earthly rulers we capitalise the likes of “His Majesty” (which although now a title, was a kind of specialised personal pronoun), capitalising personal pronouns when referring to God is not unreasonable. BradleyF (LowKey) 01:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm starting to suspect that this common practice of capitalising pronouns is, like Wikipedia: grocer's apostrophes, completely unnecessary, done (as you already said) "for effect". "in the Epistles"? The first pronouns I see there are lowercase: "... Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures ..." -- Romans 1:2 (KJV) "to show respect"? Are you implying that the editors who set the capitalization in the KJV or the NIV don't respect God? --DavidCary 14:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be up to individual editors - as Ecclesiastes 3 says, there is a Time to Capitalise and a time to leave in lower case. Personally I am fond of capitalising relative pronouns when they refer to the Divine, eg our heavenly Father, Who so loved the world etc.--CPalmer 14:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(OD) Like I said, capitalisation is my personal convention. My respect for God prompts me to do so, but that does not mean that those who do not are lacking in respect. BradleyF (LowKey) 00:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What fun! Glad my talk page could be a place for intelligent discourse, as long as I stay away ;) Personally, I defer to "when in Rome". IE, on RW, I usually cap "Biblical" due the reference to a particular book, but I ignore the "god, he, she, him", etc. Here, I cap the pronouns out of respect for the fundamental assumptions we essentially agree to when editing this site - not just respect, but pronounced respect, for the pronouns referring to the Deity taken to be the only One by this site's worldview. I do it mostly so I won't be seen as disrespectful in an alien land. ħuman Number 19 05:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

MMA Question

I forgot to add this on my talk page: would you mind writing the WEC article? You obviously have more experience with that particular promotion than I do. --JY23 22:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Urgh, I could try, but I really don't "know" much about WEC, other than that they emphasize the lighter weight classes (the little guys tend to put on a better show), and vague familiarity with a bunch of the top-level fighters due to seeing many matches on Versus (tv). I'll see if I can draft up a paragraph or two in my head and give it a shot. With RW down for the next week or so I might need to stay in practice with my wiki-editing! ħuman Number 19 22:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Parody? Vandalism? Point-scoring?

Regarding Planned_Parenthood, I have a hard time believing that you created that in good faith, especially considering the snarky tone of the summary and the general tone of the stub itself. If you want to make a point, make it in the appropriate talk page. That article would have got you blocked on WP. I recommend you fix it yourself. BradleyF (LowKey) 09:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be absolutely honest, I had read a few articles here, then came upon the red link, and wrote it in the style of what I had just been reading. Is that parody? No. Vandalism? No. "Point-scoring"? No. I wrote it in the style of, say, Influence of evolution. Is there any problem? If I write an article here, I will try to adhere to the tone I see in other articles. I think my PP stub comes close to that. If you disagree, well, it's a wiki. Feel free to improve. ħuman Number 19 05:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
By the way, this is far from WP. ħuman Number 19 05:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Influence of evolution Planned Parenthood
Style (very subjective) Introduction, detail, supporting quotes/references Single sentence, no quotes/references
References 12 (excluding multiples) none
Bibliography 10 items none
Paragraphs (excluding quotes) 20 one
Quotes 10 none

Yep! I can see the similarity!

And yes, this is far from WP. Here we don't suppress the Christian worldview.

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh-ho! PJR, eh? Something of a card, he is! SuperJosh 10:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I think Human was referring to the content (the "meaningful information") of the article. That is independent of these mere statistical measures according to the creationist view (or, at least to my understanding of it). Sterile 17:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Was that just a cheap shot, or does that mean that you do actually understand the difference between meaningful information and statistical measures? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 21:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Um, that is the argument that you give on the information page: Shannon information, which is statistical, is not useful, but your "meaningful information" is. It's your argument, Philip. Not mine. Sterile 21:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I realise that, but I was asking if you which way you were using it before I commented further. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 08:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes the words (that represent objects, actions, qualifiers and abstractions) have meaning. Sterile 23:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Is RW borken?

Or is it just me? Ajkgordon 09:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. and Nx 09:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Ta. Ajkgordon 12:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Theresa's block

I don't mind my decisions being question. I do mind my decisions being unilaterally overturned by people without the authority to do so. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 21:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Next time I'll ask first. It seemed a bit strong to go one month when she was only irritating you. So I reduced her block to 3 days - more than the first two blocks. Sorry if I broke the rules. PS, where are the rules? (or guidelines) ħuman Number 19 09:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Apology accepted. The nearest thing we currently have to guidelines are proposed ones here. In this case I felt that the guidelines didn't adequately address the situation. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for voting for my membership! --JY23 21:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. When I saw the MMA stuff I knew you were the "real" JY23 and PJR should let you into the inner circle ;) ħuman Number 19 01:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"Unreadable" formatting

What was so "unreadable" about the formatting? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 08:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That pet editing thing you have of starting every sentence on a new line. It is insufferable to edit. So I deleted the carriage returns. ħuman Number 19 09:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
So it wasn't "unreadable" at all? Do you know why I do it that way? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Is it because you've caught KenDoll's disease of being unable to compose a flowing paragraph of text? That's what using that silly tq template'll do to you. --Jeeves 14:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
It was "unreadable" in the sense that it used a different paragraph format than every other published use of the English language. No one else hits "return" after every full stop. Anywhere, or anywhen. I did read once that you do that, but I can't remember what your "reason" was. Other than to make life difficult for all other native English writers? ħuman Number 19 03:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
My reasons are here. Wiki text does use different syntax than every other published use of the English language, and we are talking here about the source text, not the formatted text, so the fact that it is different to normal English is irrelevant. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Membership

Following this, I am going to remove your membership status for one week. Bradley is correct; you are repeatedly abusing your blocking rights. Not seriously abusing, so it's only a temporary removal of rights. But you are also to be on your best behaviour. Insults and pushing boundaries as in your linked post may be tolerated up to a point, but you've reached that point. Any further incivility in that period, even that which would be tolerated in other circumstances, will result in either your membership status remaining removed for a longer period, or some other sanction. And even after that period is up, I might be a bit more tolerant, but not much, so be careful. (By the way, I can't make restoration of membership status automatic, so I may need reminding to restore it.) Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Do as I say, not as I do.

It works for some people. Sterile 02:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you just recently find that? Regardless, if you have a point to make, make it. Otherwise this just smells like trolling. BradleyF (LowKey) 02:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
So I'm not allowed to comment on a user's talk page now? Are redefining that as trolling? Great. Degrading wiki.... Sterile 02:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not redefining anything. I have noticed you have posted links to "I Was a Conservapedia Administrator" several times quite recently, without any additional comment apart from section headings and the piped text. I am saying spit it out. You normally have no trouble expressing your disagreement (whether with content or with conduct) in a reasonable manner. These recent posts come across as critical but cryptic (i.e. negative but not constructive). BradleyF (LowKey) 03:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not the only one here that makes negative but not constructive comments, my friend. Sterile 11:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


I pretty much rewrote the thing. If you have objections to the new version, let me know, and we can discuss it. Christopher Henry 06:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I don't care one way or the other, although a mild argument could be made for adding what you wrote to what I wrote, rather than overwriting it. But like I said, I don't really care :) Thanks for bringing it up, though, that was very polite. ħuman Number 19 20:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Notice of sanction

Please see here regarding you being instructed to substantiate or to retract and apologise for an allegation you made. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 06:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Formal Warning

I have reverted the personal attack that you posted to your userpage. Personal attacks and insults are not acceptable, and any more will result in a block. I have blocked you for 1 second to formally record this warning. BradleyF (LowKey) 08:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That a personal attack? That a user's honest, and not even insulting, opinion, which the user expressed in his User page. Do you realize where you are bringing this site with your baseless reversions, TK LK? not a member! 09:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
4 sentences, 3 of which were personal attacks, so yes. Opinion - may well be. Honest - I wouldn't know. Not insulting - nonsense. The fact that it was posted to a user page does not protect it, and so far you have not given even a little bit of rationale why it should. The warning stands. It seems your main gripe seems to be that the inch given has not been successfully stretched to the full mile. Btw, although RW uses strikethrough to intentionally include some innuendo, it generally (i.e. pretty much anywhere else) is used to withdraw a statement. The way you use it here (i.e. the RW way) is disengenous. BradleyF (LowKey) 11:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no formal instruction on the use of strike though, is there? Not that you respect your own rules and regulations. I never spoke of inches or miles, I prefer the metric system. And I stand by what I wrote above. not a member! 12:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I protest. Bradley, you are simply wrong, the statement on my user page is simply true. Warning is hereby formally withdrawn. You, however, are guilty of a personal attack on me ("the personal attack that you posted to your userpage"). The site owner does not understand science in any way, and I think he also intentionally misrepresents it in order to defend/justify/promote his religion, which is based on a very-well written work of... fiction. ħuman Number 19 05:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing has been offerred to support statement, so it is not only a personal attack, but an unsupported personal attack. That you believe it to be true does not change that. I have blocked you for 1 day. BradleyF (LowKey) 23:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Make that 1 week. The extension is for the additional attack on the site-owner above (which I initially misread as being after the "I think") and the namecalling in your edit comment. BradleyF (LowKey) 23:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Bodily fluids

Now I know what gets you started. 06:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Theresa Wilson


You're in trouble. Ace McWicked 05:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oversighted....oh well. Did you hear Noah's Ark has been found? Ace McWicked 05:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
No that's not Oversight. LowKey 09:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
A few hundred times, apparently, yes. ħuman Number 19 07:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools

visitor navigation
contributor navigation