User talk:213.170.207.96

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] An interesting aside for the non evolutionists.

Moved from Talk:Level of support for evolution. -Silence 07:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Would be to bring up the multitude of example's where the scientific community stood en block and aligned, and forcefully, spitefully and vengefully so, baking a certain scientific claim and how often they made complete asses of themselvses, often with the complete reversal of their initially held viewpoint. And I am not talking about say St. Hawking withdrawing his views on black holes say (which I have very rudimentary knowledge about). I am talking about the dsm in psychiatry up to the late seventies, early eighties classifying gay sexuality as a mental disorder, only to make a complet u-turn afterwards, or the much held, much heralded view in the fifties and sixties, and seventies that fibre was a useless best be done away with altogether part of nutrition backed by almost all the medical community which again was stood on its head, as "scientifically" as before. I am sure people in their respective fields can dig up tons of these. That's why i think the basis of this article is fallacious, although informative in parts. You take biological scientists as an example. It's obvious that if they 've been spoon fed an orthodoxy over their years studying evolution (and I am not saying the orthodoxy is right or wrong) they are bound to end up believing it in the end and form the large mass of supporters for evolution. I don't think that more than 0.01% of them have the broad understanding, as in every other field, to either question, replicate, research etc. etc. in whatever they are being taught. I would wager that no more than 5% can even properly understand it and just accept it as they do with say religion or philosophy. And I 'll also wager that this large voting sample of biologists can't be bothered to keep up with up to date research of the field, besides their daily mundane jobs as biologists, and that's what they should do ultimately. So to me, it's not really saying anything that someone comes up with some moronic "steve" survey, because the average steve doesn't give a toss anyway about evolution, and just got through a textbook to get through the exams, and couldn't care less. I mean it's a tautology to offer support for an already established scientific orthodoxy by mentioning how many within the scientific communinity are supporting it. That's what being an orthodoxy does, you know, no news in there to me. Like I said countless idiocies have been peer reviewed and propagated in science, and it won't be the first nor the last time, that such a think happens. You get md's with a psychiatric training still taking Freud seriously and believing ids, egos, and superegos are some solid blocks within people's heads, and that the oedipodal complex is some circuit in the brain. THAT's the amount of jucnk "scientists" believe without even questioning it. Why would it be any different in biology? The complexity of the subject matter not only doesn't render it more scientific, it renders it even more obfuscated to the average steve biology, if he doesn't second guess Freud not even nowadays, do you think he bothers with all the intricasies of evolutionary theory? So even if one could get every steve on the planet vouching for evolution, it wouldn't really mean anything, would it? Apart from making another relavtive and not unsympathetic encyclopedia entry on an ever expanding encyclopaedic beast such as evolution.

Let alone that some people that are self proffesed evolutionary experts and brilliant minds, and that I had the dubious priviledge of reading (and I am not taking a stance her oneway or the other) such as R. Dawkins seem very, well, how do i put it, I can't put it lightly, they seem very dim. Dawkins for instance with his failed pseudo sociological meme theory, completely oblivious and very obviously so of anything remotely sociological ventures out into social darwinism crap, and there where I for instance don't lack the academic background (As I do in biology) you can see that the guy is not only clueless, he's not even half bright. But he's so proud and smug of his "godly" all encompassing all exegetic little theory that if he could he'd apply it to every facet of human or non human endeavour. And because nowadays scientific enquiry has grown so vast and so deep that even within the same field you cannot grasp what the guy next to you is talking about, and the scientific community is getting more and more fragmented and having intercommunication problems, that causes so many problems. And I think its a testament to the little turf, territorial marking of some that a chemist or a mathematician when they touch upon evolution they are automaticall discredited. Oh they are not biologists, and somehow as in this article that's emphasized again and again, which it shouldn't really, if anything it should be commended. Because a scientist with differernt background is the one who usually sheds new light on an enquiry, not the mass produced evolutionary biologist I was talking before. And let's be frank too here, and blunt, because pc as you might have guessed it is not my favoured mode, most mathematicians I 've met are ten times more intelligent than most biologists, or doctors for that matter, but especially biologists. Biologists are good in rmembering a lot of minute details, and various arcana, but by and large they are not the most mentally astute. 213.170.207.96 06:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who are you to move my work from the evolutionary support page?

It's both relevnat, and it took me a long time writing it. You don't just go out and throw other people's work out of the window, esp. in the talk pages. I 'm bringin it back. Don't dare taking it out again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.170.207.96 (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Article talk pages are solely and exclusively for discussing the articles in question, and, specifically, how best to improve this articles. Please review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." I did not delete your comment, but rather moved it to your Talk page, so that if anyone wishes to discuss or respond to your comment they can, but such discussion will not get in the way of the important task of discussing and improving the article in question. I encourage you to review Wikipedia's policies and then make a new comment to Talk:Level of support for evolution that is exclusively focused on the article contents and how best to improve them, without any digressionary rants against public figures, organizations, or philosophies. I also encourage toning down your outrage, "Who are you to...?" and "Don't dare..."-type statements are needlessly hostile and aggressive, and are likely to lessen the productivity of a discussion. Wikipedia:Civility is encouraged: respectful and calm discussion is more likely to be productive for all sides involved. -Silence 07:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your action was needlessly hostile and agressive, I put a fair portion of my time and energies in my contributions and you just threw it to the garbage can. Not only that but you branded it as a rant too. I doens't get any more agressive than that. What I said was directly related to improving the article in question. Re-read what I said and you might grasp the relevance say, of support within the scientific community with respect to the actual validity of the theory in question, amongst other things. 213.170.207.96 08:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User Talk pages are not garbage cans. I transferred a block of text from an inappropriate location for it to an appropriate one. Neither location is any inherently better or worse than the other; one is just more suited to its contents, in that the other is solely for discussing directly article-related matters, not general thoughts or opinions. The same thing is regularly done with other users who do as you did; for example, there is a thriving discussion on User talk:Jorfer that was originally moved there from Talk:Level of support for evolution because it wasn't directly relevant to improving the article. What you said was not directly relevant to improving the article, and your claims could not be used to change the article because that would violate Wikipedia's official no original research policy. The "actual validity of the theory" is not relevant to Level of support for evolution, which only concerns how popular and widely-supported it is in various circles, not whether one group or another is right to support or oppose evolution. Your comments are thus outside of the article's scope, and inappropriate for that specific Talk page. -Silence 08:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed your rant again. Do not put it back. Talk pages are for discussing changes to the article, not for personal opinings on the subject matter, particularly if said opinings are poorly written, factually inaccurate, and generally insulting. Why not get a 'blog', then you can rant all you like? Rosenkreuz 08:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fuck you too. ANd stik that rosy cross up your fucking conspiratorial ass you arrogant shit. I know who you guys like that. 213.170.207.96 08:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

How very eloquent, a veritable Oscar Wilde, you are! Spare us your vulgarity, why don't you, and go and post your creationist drivel somewhere else. Rosenkreuz 08:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a warning. According to the WP:3RR policy, repeatedly introducing unwanted material to a page is likely to result in you getting blocked from editing. By my count, you have reached that limit. Rosenkreuz 08:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Rose, was it worth getting it up the ass to be a member of the rosy cross of petty little conspiratorial fucks?

  • Dear 213.170.207.96 - It is interesting to note your opinions, but they are simply not relevant to the discussion page you posted them on. Please desist. Snalwibma 09:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fist of all, let me say here that this has been turned into something by a bunch of people (yourself not included) who originated it because they happen to disagree with what I am saying. I 've spent countless hours in wikipedia and have browsed through take pages where everyone was literally talking about whatever on earth happened upon his mind at the time. Countless such pages, that had more to do with personal agedndas and vendetas than anything on the main article. I instead consider, and stand firmly by this, that my contribution is very relevant and very informative, it just so happens to be in cognitive dissonance with a couple of people who with nothing better to do they decided to take it off. Like I said before, and in view of the article's candidancy for deletion, the correlation between scientific validity and general support of the theory is crucial. As I mentioned in an example before, that went unrefuted of course, you don't see articles on the support for the laws of gravity or most other theories of physical or biological laws. Yet there is one on evolution. That proves that a pointer, and such was my contribution, a pointer, on what constitutes scientific acceptance, by whom and why, and how this correlates with the validity of the theory has everything to do with the matter at hand. I am making arguments here that no one's actually replying to, just to get my very worthwhile two cents in the talk pages in this in hindsight very acidious and polarized climate in this topic, and instead I get some cunt with the fraternal rosy cross up their loins telling me my opinions are "poorly written" and "factually innacurate". This climate of wiseass fascism is not what got wikipedia where it is right now, but if it continues as such, that as soon as someone posts his views in the talk pages a couple of zealot geeks with plenty of time in their hands jump on him or her, if this continues I am sure it will bring this whole project down before not too long. 213.170.207.96 09:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Nonetheless, it is inappropriate to post the sort of thing you did. And I honestly do not think your words were removed because people disagree with you - even though there were some comments from others which were perhaps as inappropriate as your own. You're right - you are quite entitled to post stuff which others consider "poorly written" and "factually innacurate" - though not, I would argue, to then describe those people as "cunts with the fraternal rosy cross up their loins" (whatever that means!). But the issue, I am quite certain, is relevance, not agreement or disagreement. One other thing: it would be a good idea for you to register and use a username, rather than an anonymous IP address. That way you will build up a "track record" and others will respect your opinions more. Snalwibma 09:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Have it your way, if for none other reason, because you are still avoiding the crux of my arguments because I m too tired, and you are being polite. I 've always meant to register, but I prefer the anonymity, and I know that had I registered I 'd be tempted to spent twice the usual time here I do now...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.170.207.96 (talk • contribs).

213.170.207.96, I find your curious obsession with butt-fucking and the use of religious symbols as sex toys to be more than a little weird. Do you have these sorts of fantasies often, or only when thinking about me? Either way, I'd appreciate it if you stopped exposing me to them, since they are rather disgusting. Thank you. Rosenkreuz 10:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on February 1, 2007 to Talk:Level of support for evolution

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 24 hours.

Please abide by WP:CIVIL or you'll get longer blocks

William M. Connolley 10:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/1/3/User_talk%7E213.170.207.96.html"