Sorry, I should have explained why I reverted this to Grandfather paradox, but the reasons were: it was original research, did not belong in the lead section, and was not in a correct style for Wikipedia.-- Henry talk 18:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
or
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk) 04:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, PcGnome. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! Shearonink ( talk) 14:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Just a general note... When you reply to someone else's post on a talk page, to keep everything visually straight, it is helpful if you indent your reply which is done by typing a : (a colon) before your statement, for instance:
This is an example of the first/original post in a thread.(that poster's signature)
This style looks like the following when it is all typed into the editing window...
This is an example of the first/original post in a thread. (that poster's signature)
:This is a reply. (this poster's signature)
::This is another reply.(another poster's signature).
Hope this helps,
Shearonink (
talk) 15:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi PcGnome
your discussion on the
talk:sexism page rests on your belief that "Before there was "society", it seems obvious that we're only here because men could chase women, catch them and fu ... fornicate with them forcibly". It's really not that simple:
here's some interesting reading I found with a quick google around:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-ryan/always-breaking-news-chim_b_623844.html
http://harvardmagazine.com/1997/01/right.chimp.html
http://sfsbiology.edublogs.org/2011/03/28/rape-amongst-animals/
http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/despicable-yes-but-not-inexplicable
As you will see- some of it supports your "obvious" belief, but lots doesn't as well.
As I said on the talk page, if we can improve the article, let's do so- but the talk page is not a forum, so please avoid this in future. WotherspoonSmith ( talk) 03:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
{removed indents so this is easy to find ... hopefully}
OK, I've had a good long think on all of this, and it seems to me I can turn this discussion away from contentiousness on the one hand and much like herding cats, I think I can narrow the focus and point out how this should be handled on the other hand and with any luck, what seems to make pretty obvious sense to me stands a fair chance that many and hopefully most will agree with my structuring of this discussion so it's easy to understand and I will leave you with a clear path where all agree that this makes the most sense.
1) back to simple, not dozens (hundreds?) of ideas and cross connections, but one simple question, my (again) one simple answer (as I see it, an opinion, not any facts to be cited). And the only thing I ask is if you don't like / agree with my conclusion, then address the initial question and provide an alternative theory. I don't care if you've a lot to cite or just your gut opinion. Just please don't reject my answer because you don't like it. I think this would be a "zero-point" underlying allegory to Occam's Razor (all things being equal, the simplest solution is probably the best). But my point is simpler even than that - the only solution, lacking ANY alternative has to be more correct than no solution and certainly better than pretending the question doesn't exist.
================================ Starting Fresh (take one):
The question that (maybe to just me) BEGS to be answered is - Why are Women smaller, slower and weaker than men?
My answer is and has remained constant - I may not have phrased it well (natural selection clearly does NOT have the capacity to want men to do anything to / with / for women [but God and alien DNA tinkerers might]), but so far only I have asked the question and thus far, only I have posited an answer.
All I can think is that this is too toxic to handle. That men lust after women and (happenstance?) has provided them a clear title on the question of who can best see their intentions realized. I clearly am now leery of slapdash comments as goodwill towards trying to understand my point seems so far below ebb that none can see that far down.
But, if no one will reference this question and that void denies any alternate answer to mine (however imperfect my phrasing) ... it would seem my work is done here and lacking any taste for contesting it by presenting an alternative ... my position is without challenge ... so I win?
pcG PcGnome ( talk) 19:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Your recent posts at WP:Teahouse/Questions complaining about the use of non-free knowledge are becoming tendentious. Non-free knowledge includes not only knowledge located behind twenty-first century paywalls, but also knowledge that was published in the twentieth century and located in books that are in libraries. It appears that, by restricting Wikipedia only to on-line free sources, you would impoverish Wikipedia; but maybe you aren't stating your case well. In any case, if you continue to complain without addressing other comments seriously, your posts may be collapsed, or someone may request to topic-ban you from posting to the Teahouse. Please either explain clearly what you want, or stop complaining. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have explained why I reverted this to Grandfather paradox, but the reasons were: it was original research, did not belong in the lead section, and was not in a correct style for Wikipedia.-- Henry talk 18:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
or
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk) 04:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, PcGnome. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! Shearonink ( talk) 14:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Just a general note... When you reply to someone else's post on a talk page, to keep everything visually straight, it is helpful if you indent your reply which is done by typing a : (a colon) before your statement, for instance:
This is an example of the first/original post in a thread.(that poster's signature)
This style looks like the following when it is all typed into the editing window...
This is an example of the first/original post in a thread. (that poster's signature)
:This is a reply. (this poster's signature)
::This is another reply.(another poster's signature).
Hope this helps,
Shearonink (
talk) 15:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi PcGnome
your discussion on the
talk:sexism page rests on your belief that "Before there was "society", it seems obvious that we're only here because men could chase women, catch them and fu ... fornicate with them forcibly". It's really not that simple:
here's some interesting reading I found with a quick google around:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-ryan/always-breaking-news-chim_b_623844.html
http://harvardmagazine.com/1997/01/right.chimp.html
http://sfsbiology.edublogs.org/2011/03/28/rape-amongst-animals/
http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/despicable-yes-but-not-inexplicable
As you will see- some of it supports your "obvious" belief, but lots doesn't as well.
As I said on the talk page, if we can improve the article, let's do so- but the talk page is not a forum, so please avoid this in future. WotherspoonSmith ( talk) 03:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
{removed indents so this is easy to find ... hopefully}
OK, I've had a good long think on all of this, and it seems to me I can turn this discussion away from contentiousness on the one hand and much like herding cats, I think I can narrow the focus and point out how this should be handled on the other hand and with any luck, what seems to make pretty obvious sense to me stands a fair chance that many and hopefully most will agree with my structuring of this discussion so it's easy to understand and I will leave you with a clear path where all agree that this makes the most sense.
1) back to simple, not dozens (hundreds?) of ideas and cross connections, but one simple question, my (again) one simple answer (as I see it, an opinion, not any facts to be cited). And the only thing I ask is if you don't like / agree with my conclusion, then address the initial question and provide an alternative theory. I don't care if you've a lot to cite or just your gut opinion. Just please don't reject my answer because you don't like it. I think this would be a "zero-point" underlying allegory to Occam's Razor (all things being equal, the simplest solution is probably the best). But my point is simpler even than that - the only solution, lacking ANY alternative has to be more correct than no solution and certainly better than pretending the question doesn't exist.
================================ Starting Fresh (take one):
The question that (maybe to just me) BEGS to be answered is - Why are Women smaller, slower and weaker than men?
My answer is and has remained constant - I may not have phrased it well (natural selection clearly does NOT have the capacity to want men to do anything to / with / for women [but God and alien DNA tinkerers might]), but so far only I have asked the question and thus far, only I have posited an answer.
All I can think is that this is too toxic to handle. That men lust after women and (happenstance?) has provided them a clear title on the question of who can best see their intentions realized. I clearly am now leery of slapdash comments as goodwill towards trying to understand my point seems so far below ebb that none can see that far down.
But, if no one will reference this question and that void denies any alternate answer to mine (however imperfect my phrasing) ... it would seem my work is done here and lacking any taste for contesting it by presenting an alternative ... my position is without challenge ... so I win?
pcG PcGnome ( talk) 19:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Your recent posts at WP:Teahouse/Questions complaining about the use of non-free knowledge are becoming tendentious. Non-free knowledge includes not only knowledge located behind twenty-first century paywalls, but also knowledge that was published in the twentieth century and located in books that are in libraries. It appears that, by restricting Wikipedia only to on-line free sources, you would impoverish Wikipedia; but maybe you aren't stating your case well. In any case, if you continue to complain without addressing other comments seriously, your posts may be collapsed, or someone may request to topic-ban you from posting to the Teahouse. Please either explain clearly what you want, or stop complaining. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)