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:Philip J. Rayment/Archive 8

From A Storehouse of Knowledge
Jump to: navigation, search

Previous archive

Next archive

Talk page archive
This is an archive of talk-page discussions. Do not add any discussion to this page.

If you wish to reply to comments here, start a new discussion on the current talk page.

If you believe that a discussion was archived prematurely, move it from the archive back to the talk page.


observed ?

would you please enlighten me on what you understand by the term observed. You have removed it from the dark energy item and replaced with deduced. Since the claim is taken from redshift readings over a period of time why do you feel that is not an observation. ? Hamster 15:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This question really should be on that article's talk page. The redshift readings are observations; the conclusion that dark energy must exist to explain those readings is a deduction. We can't "observe" electricity, but we know enough about it to be able to directly measure it, so it's fair to say that we "observe" electricity. But dark energy is not "observed" in any way at all, except as a deduction from other observations. Philip J. Rayment 11:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hell's Angels at Altamont

You've never heard of this [1]? Jim 11:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Can't say that I have, and the name (Altamont) rings no bells. Philip J. Rayment 14:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

lack of pictures in the aSK evolution article makes the article look rather drab, someone removed a relevant and important picture

The lack of pictures in the aSK evolution article makes the article look rather drab. In the aSK evolution article I added, a picture of the evolutionists Hitler but the picture was removed. I realize you cannot have a picture of macroevolution since it never occurs. I suggest since this is a biblical Christianity oriented wiki that the Hitler pic be restored as we don't want to wipe relevant and important historical facts under the carpet, but rather better emphasize important and relevant historical facts through the use of pictures. Ruylopez 08:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The standard procedure for article disputes is to discuss it on the article's talk page first. If this issue concerns you, please raise it here. π 08:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Hitler is just so passe. Perhaps Calligula since he did promote 'survival of the fittest' through his games, and he invented an important medical procedure as well. 8| Hamster 15:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a picture of Ted Haggard on the Homosexuality page? Ace McWicked 21:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't follow the Haggard issue closely, but I think he would be better classified as a bisexual. Give that homosexuality is volitional, the existence of bisexuality is not surprising. Ruylopez 22:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps put a Haggard on a page about hypocrisy and drug abuse? Ace McWicked 22:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It is well known that Ted Haggard Is Completely Heterosexual. π 23:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles by sexsex on human genitalia - keep and expand or remove ?

did you want the two articles Penis and Vagina expanded to decent biology articles or were you going to delete them , or I suppose leave as they are ? Hamster 02:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Leaving them as they are would make Ed Poor proud ;-). The front page says "We want A Storehouse of Knowledge to be family-friendly (no smut, and a careful approach to sensitive topics)." So whatever we do needs to fit into that. I'm not sure howe exactly we have defined "family-friendly." I don't know that they have to be deleted, but I don't know that we want a full article either. (definitely no pictures). We could redirect them to an article on reproduction, but that might not be a good strategy either. As it stands, they were created by a troll, and contain nothing of value, so we could delete them until we have something better to work with, but that would just put off this discussion until later. All that to say, I'm not sure what to do with it. --TimSTalk 11:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking along similar lines, and I have now deleted them. This does not mean that we can't have such articles in the future, and yes, in a sense I'm just putting off the discussion until later. I'll mention, though, that it was this sort of article that I had in mind with "a careful approach to sensitive topics". Philip J. Rayment 13:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
cool, that was my thinking as well. Doing a straight biology article would not be hard but that brings in the "family friendly" issue because you definately need a diagram. I asked because they seemed to be missed in the deleted user cleanup :) Hamster 14:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the user but left the articles, and my thinking was pretty much as per Tim'S. The articles as they stood contained no objectionable content, mainly because they almost contained no content. One thing I did think of in favour of leaving them is that it heads off just the sort of childishness that occurred in the first place. I would recommend that when we do re-create articles for these that they be locked articles (I know we don't want many, but these seem prime candidates) with a note in the talk page informing editors that they need to request unlocking if they want to work on them. LowKey 23:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I also initially left them, because, as Bradley said, they contained no objectionable content, and also because I wasn't sure what we should do about them. Your question sort of forced the issue and made me think about them, then TimS' comment reinforced the way I was leaning. I wouldn't agree, however, that they definitely need a diagram; I'm sure an article could be written without one. Philip J. Rayment 15:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


This billboard appeared outside my office this morning. Thoughts? Ace McWicked 00:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I like this alternative. Also, see here. Philip J. Rayment 03:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, the reason its "probably.." is because the bill boards are to spur discussion not to convert. It is a weak atheist position as opposed to outright atheism. Secondly I asked for your thoughts, not CMI's. Do you think they should be taken down or disallowed? Do you think its a good idea? etc. Ace McWicked 04:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The billboard is self-refuting. First, it pretends to be bold and asserts that in the beginning man created God. Then, it immediately retracts its pseudo-boldness by declaring there is probably no God. The billboard is illogical/contradictory. Verdict: The billboard has a very low word to machismo ratio.  :) Ruylopez 05:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I find the slogan to be less than cogent, since God is a source of peace, not worry, and a Christian (or, for that matter, other religious) life can be highly enjoyable.--CPalmer 10:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Secondly I asked for your thoughts, not CMI's. And you could at least have commented on my first link! Actually, your question was just "Thoughts?". You didn't specify they had to be uniquely mine.
Firstly, the reason its "probably.." is because the bill boards are to spur discussion not to convert. No, it was because it would be inaccurate without the word and it might breach advertising standards.[2]
It is a weak atheist position as opposed to outright atheism. So Richard Dawkins is only a "weak atheist"? He agreed with a qualifier, although he did prefer "almost certainly".
Do you think they should be taken down or disallowed? Do you think its a good idea? etc. I can't see that they should be disallowed. Of course, they are not a good idea, as they provide incorrect information, and are built on a false premise, as CPalmer has clearly pointed out.
Philip J. Rayment 13:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
These ads also recall Carlsberg's slogan 'Probably the best lager in the world' - an almost equally bold claim which I find to be equally counter-factual. I could name two dozen lagers that are categorically better than Carlsberg (even excluding Hoegaarden, which I think is technically a Weiβbier).--CPalmer 13:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
You didn't specify they had to be uniquely mine. You should ask yourself what a thought that's actually uniquely yours would look like. You've lost yourself to CMI. I feel very badly for you.
So Richard Dawkins is only a "weak atheist"? Yeah, he's a weak atheist because he's not prepared to deny the existence of a god. Perfectly consistent strict rationalist position. That he's also an antitheist says nothing about his own belief in a god. I'm an antitheist too, but was one back when I was getting beaten by robed sadists at the Catholic schools I went to, and I do believe in a god.
Conscience 17:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I woke up this morning (four minutes later and it would be afternoon) with an almighty hangover. I had a brilliant evening with friends last night...booze, clubs, fistecuffs and, after checking my bank balance, several hundred dollars worth of good times. Had I known what hilarity you were to provide me with though I could have just stayed at home. I read the responses on this page with shaking head in my hands wonder. Philip can't answer himself without first checking its CMI compliant, while making my two points into four, then some dunderhead loon starts jabbering about machismo. And what does Dawkins have to do with this? Ho ho ho what fantastic gibberish! Ace McWicked 00:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, your comment about advertising standards is completely and utterly irrelevant because I live in NZ not the UK. Ace McWicked 01:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Philip can't answer himself without first checking its CMI compliant... Nonsense. I linked to CMI simply because I knew that they had already written a response, and so it saved me the bother of writing something myself. That you twist this into "checking its CMI compliant" sayss more about your agenda than it says about me.
And what does Dawkins have to do with this? He supported the original campaign with dollar-for-dollar funds, expressed an opinion on the wording, and helped launch the original (UK) campaign.
... your comment about advertising standards is completely and utterly irrelevant because I live in NZ not the UK. Ah, okay. If that is your point, then I'll reply your earlier claim again: Firstly, the reason its "probably.." is because the bill boards are to spur discussion not to convert. No, it's "probably" because in New Zealand they copied the UK idea. (Of course this raises the question of why the UK worded it that way, but that is what I answered.)
Philip J. Rayment 07:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Silly hand waving. When will creationists make a proper argument? Ace McWicked 09:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Ha! Philip J. Rayment 09:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Ha! Non sequitur. Ace McWicked 09:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


Criticism is not a personal attack, nor is it incivility. One who fails to understand the difference will always fail at leadership. Sterile 20:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I never said that criticism was a personal attack, nor did I claim that criticism is incivility. Therefore your second sentence is pointless. However, pretending that personal attack is merely "criticism" is to pretend that wrong is right. Philip J. Rayment 02:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Constructive criticism

If I may offer some advice on your style of discourse, when noting that an objection/example has been raised without specifics (as you opened here), it is good etiquette to explicitly ask for those specifics because without such a request (even if you believe it was implied), it appears as if you're more interested in than dismissing your critics than finding the truth. I hope this helps. NormalChristian 16:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You may be right there. Philip J. Rayment 23:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks

First and foremost, thanks for the welcome. Secondly, thanks for cleaning up the mess I made with the refs. I don't know what happened, every time I tried to fix it, it just made it worse! NormalChristian 00:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened either, but I had problems fixing it too and I suspect that it was due to the server issues the site has been having. Philip J. Rayment 07:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Creationist scientist

I don't believe referring to someone as a "creation(ist) scientist" is rhetorically beneficial. A pillar of the creationist ideology is that the scientists and the science are the same as everyone else's, but the conclusions are different. As an adjective, "creation(ist)" is at best as qualifier and at worst a modifier. It doesn't help to distinguish the scientists who (or science used to) arrive at YEC-compatible conclusions from the science we all use to arrive at any other conclusion in our lives. NormalChristian 06:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess I made the change because I didn't agree with your edit comment that "there is no such thing as "creationist science" or "evolutionist science" there is only science;". Yes, the scientific method is the same, but the underlying assumptions (e.g. naturalism) are not. However, thinking more about it, it's not useful in that particular case. I'll remove it. Philip J. Rayment 07:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to reconsider. You could call the science which confirms creationism "creation science", but I think you still have a rhetorical problem associated with a perceived modification/qualification of the science itself. For bonus rhetorical points, in the article in question, you could refer to Baumgardner as a "geophysicist and creationist" rather than "creationist and geophysicist" (implying that he's a scientist first and that science led him to creationism, or just stressing the science part because that's usually the part people are interested in). Food for thought. NormalChristian 20:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Your wiki appears to be working again.

Test. Test. π 11:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Philip J. Rayment 12:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry everyone, for the problems. I'm still not sure what the ultimate cause was or why it's working again now, although I know that the problem was with my service provider and/or the server farm, and my service provider has been looking into the problem. Lacking further information, I assume he did something to fix the problem. Philip J. Rayment 13:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


Is there any chance I can get this turned off? Jim 17:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to become a member for that. I have just nominated you for membership. LowKey 00:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Rayment, it has come to my attention that certain atheists are trying to find out where I live....

Mr. Rayment, it has come to my attention that certain atheists are trying to find out where I live. Mr. Rayment, did you know that when I was younger, I worked as a debt collector? Ever try to track down a former debt collector? It's pretty hard!!! :) Second, if you did by some miracle you were to find a former debt collector and hassle them, you know what they would probably do. They would probably call some churches and get funded to go after atheism twice as hard. That's just the way former debt collectors think. They don't cave in. They are pretty resilient people. And those Baptists, man are they ever against atheism! You know I have talked to some Baptists preachers and similarly minded preachers and they are rather fond of my material. If some person with phone skills and other skills, were to call Baptists and similar thinking people and give a good presentation, I bet that person would get funded! That's something for atheists to ponder, isn't it? By the way, now that my health is much better, I could go after atheism twice as hard. Today, I am working out for the first time in a long time due to my health being better. Ruylopez 15:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ruylopez. Do you have evidence of "cyber-stalking"? And to be honest, there are a lot more charitable causes for the Baptists than to give you money. If you really feel threatened, just ask them to stop. I'm sure the evil, conniving conspirators will listen.--Centimeter 22:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi Philip,
Just wanted to ask if you got my email, and if so if you were thinking of following it up. If no (to the former) then I can send it again somewhere else if required. If Yes and no, then just say and I'll leave you alone. Otherwise please do let me know if you want any further assistance. Nothing in private communications will be published on RW. I presume you haven't noticed (or indeed care) that I've retired from there permanently anyway. CrundySpeak! 21:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I did get it, and I have now replied. Philip J. Rayment 12:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
@Crundy: I shall prepare a haiku to lure you back immediately. EddyP 17:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools

visitor navigation
contributor navigation