Captivity (2007) Genre: Thriller Running Time: 1 hr. 38 min. Release Date: July 13, 2007 (wide) Distributors: After Dark Films Cast: Elisha Cuthbert, Pruitt Taylor-Vince, Daniel Gillies, Laz Alonso, Michael Harney Director: Roland Joffe Producers: Mark Damon, Leonid Minkovski, Sergei Konov
I would invite you to read WP:NEO in regards to your creation of the Caged Kids article. Thanks RichMac (Talk) 13:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I am just starting on this. I am trying to get the jist of how it all works. I did a short article called 'Gravelles' and it was immediately deleted. Well everything I have done so far has been deleted without any explanation. I chose your name at random just to get started somewhere. thanks
Hi. Sorry for the delay. As I said in my original message, Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet, and we can't accept articles about just anyone. You claim your article was deleted "without any explanation"... this isn't really true, if you read my message again you will find links to several guideline and policy pages that give you an idea of what you should be aiming for. The most relevant page in this case is the page about
notability for biographical articles. If your article is about a person or group of people it needs to say clearly why they are important or significant. This is done mainly to stop people writing articles about themselves or their family. If the person or people in question are living, then
additional guidelines apply, mainly for legal reasons. Essentially, your article failed to meet
these standards. You are of course welcome to create a more extensive article that provides an assertion of notability and otherwise meets the guidelines. Thanks –
Gurch
00:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Raspor wrote:
Hi, the best thing to do is add a comment to the discussion page of the appropriate article and after a while, if nobody objects, change the article (remembering to leave an informative edit summary). If anyone objects at that stage, suggest that they also explain their opinion on the discussion page. Hope this helps – Gurch 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, assuming you are referring to
this edit, it was not me that removed your edit but
JoeSmack; you may wish to bring the matter up with him.
The only edit I made was
this one, after an anonymous user removed the entire references section and the list of related topics without explanation –
Gurch
01:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Also in 1996 Dr. Tana Dineen published "Manufacturing Victims" in which she suggests that much of the 'psychotherapy industry' is more interested in financial gain than helping clients. She demonstrates that psychotherapy rarely does more than what the placebo effect, passage of time, and working things out on your own accomplishes.
Considering the very high cost of psychotherapy and the fact that most heath insurances are required by law to provide it seems to indicate that the economic value of psychotherapy is in question. Since health insurance costs are forcing many to be unable to afford it, indicates it might be time to review the lucrative incomes of some psychotherapists who have such insurance funds easily available. At least allowing people to opt out of the mandatory psychotherapy insurance requirements might help to lower health insurance costs without major harm to the mental health of most.
You said (in very strong terms) "Harun Yahya is a forceful, popular proponent of ID"
Yahya himself wrote "Intelligent Design Accounts Could Harm Individuals Sincerely Inclined toward Religion...Intelligent Design Is Another of Satan's Distractions" [1]
This is yet another reason why you have no credibility as an editor of the intelligent design article. Mr Christopher 19:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I've added a welcome to the top of your page. There's a lot of information there about how to get results in contributing to Wikipedia, and I'd particularly recommend reading Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research as soon as you can: you may feel you know something, but all facts and opinions here have to be properly attributed to a reliable source, as well as being properly balanced in terms of WP:NPOV. We're all learning here, and I'll be glad to help with any questions you have. Look forward to your future contributions, .. dave souza, talk 19:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Raspor, I've tried my best to stay neutral on this dispute and to be helpful to the newbies. The fact is, I don't see you as "an innocent victim", but I also disagree with some of the actions on "the other side" as well. Anyway, I think the best option for you right now is to look into the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. These guys are experienced in helping editors work together and helping newbies learn the ropes.- Psychohistorian 17:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Please read three revert rule before you get yourself banned from the intelligent design article. Mr Christopher 21:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
you have accused me of vandalism and have told me that if i revert one more time i will be banned
i believe both of these statements are untrue.
seems you are just threatening me so your biase POV will remain
explain your statements. they seem untruthfull to me
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Humps 21:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I spent hours discussing it. I did not make reverts I made addtions. I was unjustly accused of vandalism. I was libeled. The addtions I made were cited. You just did not like them.
Good. I look forward to a trial.
raspor 22:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, obviously there was not one. I did not have a chance to state my case.
I have mistreated since I started posting here. I made a change to an article and was falsely accused of vandalism. I added one sentence and it was reverted immediately which was against the guidelines.
And now I have been unfairly blocked. This just seems like a game where the bullies rule. I was told discuss what I wanted to change and I was told that it all has been discussed and you are wrong.
The Intelligent Design article is biased. I could go on and on about the one sidedness of it but one but cleary exemplifies this.
There was a sentence that stated that '10% of the US accepts Intelligent Design' It was cited. I looked at the cite and found it also stated that 3 times as many college grads accept ID as high school grads.
The article has overall has implied that ID is something that uneducated unscientific people believe. I added that comment and it was repeatedly deleted because it was 'irrelevant'.
I think there is a need for the some representation of the minority position in that article. Right now is is simplly a bash of the concept of Intelligent Design. I have used wiki as a reference many times and found it to be accurate, thorough and balanced. Until this and a couple of other articles.
This is a shameful example of how a group can hijack an article and ruin the wonderful balance wiki in general shows.
This is truly a disappointment to me to see how an article can be taken over by what appears to be thugs.
I dont see how I 'reverted' that many times. Are you saying I am not allowed to edit an article more that 3 times. Every change I made was deleted. So I can deleted others changes and then when they restore it claim that they are reverting??
And why is it that those that attacked me are not blocked for calling me a troll, ignorant, and libeling me by calling me a 'vandal'? why have they not been blocked??
raspor 12:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
how about being accused of vandalism??
so i can call people trolls and call them vandals with impunity?
raspor 12:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not being silly. I was called a troll and a vandal. Is that OK?
raspor 14:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
"I'm not sure that throwing polling data back and forth between the Evolution side and the Creation myth side does any good. Facts aren't proven by polls, they just show how uneducated and silly people can be. I forgot the exact numbers, but a substantial number of Americans believe they've been abducted by aliens. So, in the UFO article (and I'm going to check if that's considered pseudoscience, because if I'm going to stand on principle with Noah's Ark and ID, I'm going to do the same with Divining Rods and UFO's), does it qualify as NPOV information to state that in some Gallup Poll or something, 60% of Americans believe in Aliens? That just shows that 60% of Americans need to have their heads examined by a qualified psychotherapist. I don't care how many people believe in ID, it is pseudoscience, it is myth, and it is religion, but it is not factual and it is not science. If Raspor or whatever Mr. 3RR added to the revert war, I don't think Polling data belongs in an encylopedic article. Unless you're going to state how gullible some number of people are to mythology. I might buy that. Orangemarlin 04:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)"
unbelievable. I get blocked for taking out poll data comments and here orange says he is against it yet i was blocked for deleting it. Then when I added comments from the same cite those were deleted.
obvious, obvious bias
i found out that nice doesnt work here. thats how i started and was called a troll and vandal cuz i changed an article in good faith just as you did. i really didnt understand the 3R rule. i thought you could not revert and i edited.
i have been mistreated and am just shoot the crap back that i get. there is a mob mentality here. i tried for days to get just consideration and didnt get it. i was just called stupid and ignorant.
the mob here only knows force. they rule by intimidation and false accusations to discredit people.
i was unjustly called a vandal. i was told that they can do that with impunity.
i am new here and was treated like crap. no breaks no compromise. just this bitter attitude.
yes the poll comment was stupid. it was cherry picked. much info here is cherry picked.
look at britanica they are objective. this seems like a bunch of college students with a lot of time just goofing off.
raspor 18:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
the point is that the fossil evidence for whale evolution is a few bones. all up to interpretation.
and if we are looking for pure science without practical application why is ID criticized for not have practical applications. cant have it both ways
raspor 12:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Raspor now has 24 hours to reflect on the importance of 3RR, but I think he was referring to the table "SUMMARY OF KEY QUESTIONS ABOUT HUMAN EVOLUTION– BY EDUCATION" which shows ID support rising from 6% at HS or less to 15% College Grad and 17% Post Grad. Unfortunately enthusiasm for making a point seems to have overcome care with arithmetic or balanced description. Oddly enough, considering the much touted claim that ID includes creationism, Belief in creationism is shown as declining from 73% to 42% as educational attainment increases. .. dave souza, talk 23:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
yes that was my point. we can select positive and negative data from a survey. the darwinists here chose the negative with out showing the other side:
BIAS!!!
yes i am reflecting also on how mob rule works also too raspor 12:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
sorry psycho. i can see you have some balls and integrity!
just read their def of 'intelligent design' very balanced, fair, informative.
not just a bashing of the idea by people who are against it
wiki in this case is a failure
i hope people will realize wiki is not a real encyclopedia. there should be a disclaimer somewhere
i thought it was serious for along time. people use this as a source.
compare brits to wiki's on ID
what a joke wikis is
should warn people that its just a bunch what seems to me to be college student with time on their hands spouting off.
nothing can be taken seriously here
really i am with you on your edits. you are showing some integrity.
you are being objective. good going! really!
do you think you can get away with being unbiased in this article?
raspor 17:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Scott explains, "Once you allow yourself to say God did it, you stop looking for naturalistic explanations. If you stop looking, you won't find them
yep that sure stopped newton, pascal, pasteur, etc. etc. etc.
what a lame argument.
most of our science came from guys who thought 'God did it'
raspor 17:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
But you will notice that the only science that survived of theirs was the naturalistic science, not the deistic science or attempts they made. What does that tell you?--
Filll
00:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I will erase you rap sheet. You have some balls.
Yes the point is to be accurate. It does not take a lot of brains to see how fugdet this ID article is.
remember the animal house movie: "bob job" cough::"bob job" cough::"bob job" cough::
the bias stinks like a 5 day old fish wrapped in newspaper out in the august sun for 3 days
felon doesnt think people can see it?
if you present a cleaner case pro-IDers will be more likey to be more objective also
we should stop the bob-job here
raspor 18:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I will help you.
I am for accuracy, truth and non-bias. Even if it helps my oppostion.
Hang in there you are showing some tuff stuff.
(Actually I am suprised finding a Darwinist that has some gonads)
raspor 18:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
hang tuff!
I only have about 20 more hours in the hole
raspor 18:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
i would like proper decorum here. i am trying to figure out how to get it
was it OK for me to be called a vandal??
this seems like a big bob job. all the requests for input by pro-IDers has been ignored
an article on ID completely written by anti-IDers: a bob job
raspor 01:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Humps 23:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
yes i am against personal attacks also. i have been called many names
someone called me a vandal. do you think that was ok?
i talked to wiki about it and they said they could do nothing
raspor 00:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Your actions are the subject of a user conduct request for comment: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raspor You can give any justifications for your actions there. FeloniousMonk 00:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
i dont know what you want. i have been attack continuously by many of your group. but that does not seems to bother anyone
raspor 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
i talked to someone and they said it was ok to be a little sarcastic. i complained about being called a vandal
look felon,
was it ok for one of your mob to call me a vandal???
raspor 01:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
According to our Founding Fathers, democracies were as dangerous as any form of government. Benjamin Franklin defined democracy as “three wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch,” and explained that true liberty is “a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” In sum, any rule of man system, whether mob rule or rule by the elites, is destined for failure.
IF YOU ANTI-IDERS ARE NOT WILLING TO LET THERE BE SOME SORT OF INPUT BY THE PRO-IDERS THEN THIS ABOVE CONCEPT TRULY APPLIES HERE
According to our Founding Fathers, democracies were as dangerous as any form of government. Benjamin Franklin defined democracy as “three wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch,” and explained that true liberty is “a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” In sum, any rule of man system, whether mob rule or rule by the elites, is destined for failure.
IF YOU ANTI-IDERS ARE NOT WILLING TO LET THERE BE SOME SORT OF INPUT BY THE PRO-IDERS THEN THIS ABOVE CONCEPT TRULY APPLIES HERE
MOB RULE—Preceding unsigned comment added by raspor ( talk • contribs)
Raspor, how many times Do you have to be invited to write something? Or are you just a troll and nothing else?-- Filll 01:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Look i went thru the procedure as stated in the rules. i was polite. i was submissive. i brought up my ideas on the talk page. i wrote a sentence. very innocuous and it was deleted immediately and i was called a vandal.
yes i love that quote about the lambs and wolves voting for dinner
if your mob has any sense of fairness it will allow some input by pro-IDers. jeez after all the article is about ID. cant those who support it have just a teensy weensy say it what the artilce says
this is how good law making works and this is how good article making should work. not dictatorship thru numbers.
the minority should be represented. how can an article on ID be written objectively by people who hate it?
the opposition has used procedural tricks on me since day. no real effort to get me involved. so i see this as a no compromise situation. winner takes all. very unamerican. more nazi or communist
raspor 01:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
well like a big dummy i actually presented my ideas in the talk section where i was told how stupid i was. then i looked thru the archives and saw many before me had wanted the same changes
so then i figure you just have to change it. i made a change in good faith and was called a vandal presumably because it was not acceptable by the ruling regime here.
so then i realized this is all a bob job. its an article on ID completely written by those who hate it. how objective is that. its a bob job. i dont see it any other way
and fellatio knows that
raspor 02:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
no the point is that no matter now much logic is presented to the anti-IDers it is ignored. they have hijacked this article. no input from pro-IDers on ID will be allowed. it is mob rule in it most obvious form. reasoning is useless. they use insult tactics and get upset if anyone returns their impolities in kind. they have brought this down to a a might makes right situation
it is a wiki failure
raspor 12:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
i wrote a paragraph and put it here or under ID talk. its gone.
OK i have asked this question a dozen times and no anti-IDer has answered. was it OK to call me a vandal?
the anti-IDers here have a big agenda. anti-DI. they have linked ID with DI and that is illogical since ID has been around for thousands of years. this article is being used to promote anti-DI hate. where is the coolness. look at the beginning of the ID article. you might as well call it: 'Evil ID exposed' really isnt that a better title?
raspor 12:31, 3 January 2007 (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 may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!
HagermanBot
14:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
raspor 15:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
raspor 16:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
i think you better read it. changing an article is not vandalism.
your full of it
raspor 19:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
raspor 00:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The reason astrology is not falsifiable is that even when you show it is wrong, people still believe it fervently. So it doesnt matter if you still believe even when it is shown to be incorrect. That means, astrology is not falsifiable. And I refuse to believe you ever taught college.--
Filll
02:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow!! That shows a complete misunderstanding of the term 'falsify'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsify (an excellent article)
"Falsifiable does not mean false. For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be possible in principle to make an observation that would show that the proposition was false, even if that observation is not actually made."
study much, much harder.
I can see what I am dealing with here. And people all over the world are relying on your expertise.
Read that definition over and over and over and over till you get it.
Astrology is falisifiable. It has been falsified. It is a scientific theory that has been invalidated.
Geocentrism is falisifiable. It has been falsified. It is a scientific theory that has been invalidated.
Heliocentrism is falisifiable. It has not been falsified. It is a scientific theory that has been validated.
Darwinism is not falsifiable. It is not a scientific theory. It is a philosophy.
Really I must ask every Darwinist here if Astrology is falsifiable. It they all say no they have no right to be here making an article on a scientific subject.
OK Darwinists. Chime in.
raspor 12:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
"From this point of view the question of the scientific status of Darwinian theory—in the widest sense, the theory of trial and error-elimination—becomes an interesting one. I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories."
"Theories of history or politics which allegedly predict the future course of history have a logical form that renders them neither falsifiable nor verifiable. They claim that for every historically significant event, there exists an historical or economic law that determines the way in which events proceeded"
Darwinism is a historical theory. As such cannot be falsified and is not scientific. Sorry to burst your bubbles.
There is no Santa Claus. So grow up please.
raspor 12:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that you asked for my help regarding the intelligent design article, and I just wanted to let you that I think I understand some of your objections. At first I misinterpreted the way you edited as being kind of trollish, but then I realized that you are a very new editor and not familiar with lots of things here on the Wikipedia project. A couple of the most important things here are the environment of civility and WP:NPOV that Wikipedia encourages all editors to take part in, and being unfamiliar with some of the expectations of those often lead to mistakes by new editors which can bring the rest of the community crashing down on them. If you're interested in learning a little more about this stuff and advice from me, just leave me a message here on on my talk page. Like I said, I'd be glad to help you learn editing and how to talk to other users and make yourself heard, and correct errors in a neutral fashion in articles- every editor was new once. :) -- HassourZain 21:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Just curious; I've seen you using that term and never heard of it (but then maybe my generation is too old to have heard of it). You can reply here. - Amatulic 00:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
i dont think we are allowed to say the b word raspor 00:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
ok i will take a chance. did you see animal house?
raspor 00:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
a bobjob was when the conservative fraternity tried to get the animalhouse frat off campus and they made a lot of trumped up charges and planted evidence but the frame up was so poorly done that even the judges thought it was ridiculous. its like we know this is BS but sort have to a long with it cuz you own the bats and balls and if we want to play with have to give you 5 stirkes every inning. everybody knows its like a set up or a frame up but everybody goes along with it... raspor 00:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
needlemyer?? reminds me of c a real bobjob type. it can be applied to people to like f
raspor 00:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Your welcome. doesnt this aricle and those editors just really come of like bobjobs. it is so obvious. raspor 00:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
"Part of the issue the scientific community has in opposition to ID is that it in no way assists this process of better understanding what the processes are, but instead uses speculated probabilites to reason to speculative conclusions."
"Evolution properly refers to a process of adaptation through cycles of diversity generation and selection characterized with inheritability. It is not restricted to biology[2]. However, in the common parlance, evolution refers to the biological process in which inherited traits become more or less common in a population over successive generations - what is technically referred to as "Evolution as the Theory of the Origin of the Species". Over time, this process can lead to speciation, the development of new species from existing ones. All extant organisms are related by common descent, having evolved over billions of years of cumulative genetic changes from a single ancestor.[3][4]"
OK now if I believe in the biological process in which inherited traits become more or less common in a population over successive generations but do not believe that all species were created thru natural selection and someone asks me do you believe in evolution, what am I supposed to say?
well the thing that got me is someone said there was a 'plethora' of fossils which simply is not true.
and darwinism should not be compared to gravity. maybe econ or archae. the theory is full of holes. more and more people are saying that. molecular bio is killing it. the wagons are being cirlced as is evident here. raspor 20:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Tarinth 02:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
i just wanted to let you know that I see the RfC as grandstanding. G e o. 07:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
What is your definition of an atheist?
Raspor, can I give you some advice?
Do you remember being told as a child to ignore bullies, and they will go away? In certain circumstances, it is still good advice, and ignoring some of the comments people are posting on this page may prove useful.
When you do criticise, make sure that you get the criticisms correct. Putting unwanted comments on your talk page is not necessarily spamming, nor is it vandalism. It was wrong of you to be called a vandal for re-editing Intelligent design; don't make the same mistake of calling others vandals unless they really are.
Colons are used to indent paragraphs on talk pages. You should use one extra colon for each reply you make. That is, if you are replying to someone who used two colons, you should use three colons for each paragraph you type in reply. Don't use four, five, or six; use three (if they used two). Also, sometimes the indents get excessively large, and it is then acceptable to start again from the left margin (i.e. have no colons). Sometimes people will include a comment saying that this is what they are doing, but not always. It is also proper to use no colons if it is not a direct reply, but a new comment or question, such as this post of mine, or Filll's question about atheists above (although I don't really know why he asked that).
Finally, show some more tolerance, even when they aren't showing tolerance of you. Don't go down to their level. Be the better man. Two wrongs don't make a right. And all other applicable clichés. :-)
Philip J. Rayment 01:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I feel they are both biased maybe we can convince some atheists who have at least some sense of fair play that it needs to be change
But how can we stop the disruptive spamming of my talk page?
That has to be the first thing taked care of. Some these editors will troll, spam, harrass, and insult so that people who have a diff POV will not be heard.
How can we stop this spamming and stalking??
raspor 15:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
phil did you see this?:
they are saying ID and i guess creationism is in opposition to bio science. there is no cite for this. and ID believes and supports most of present biology as does creationsim. acutally most biology was developed by creastionists. i dont see how they can say thing which are simply true. is there anything we can do about these inaccuracies?? raspor 18:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
As I've said on my user page, I'm not wasting my time with endless arguments with anti-creationists/anti-ID people, because I haven't got the time nor the patience (and I'm a patient person). Also, if I was going to take them on, I would not pick the Intelligent Design article, because I'm not as familiar with ID arguments as with creationist arguments, and neither would I pick the evolution article because the opposition would be far stronger there (numerically and by motivation; not by strength of argument). So if you want to take on either fight, you will have to do it without me, I'm sorry. Philip J. Rayment 01:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2][3] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the evil Discovery Institute,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] assert that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[11]
The scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,[12] as pseudoscience[13][14][15] or as junk science and as evil.[16][17] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own and if their idea gets popular acceptance we will be back to the dark ages and all progress will stop.[18]
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature therefore evil.[19]
Read WP:POINT. Please do not continue disrupting this article. FeloniousMonk 02:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
and the DI was misquoted. they never said anything about driving a wedge into a 'heart' vert dishonest quote raspor 02:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I said you cannot put the supernatural in science without ruining it. And creationists want to put the supernatural in science. If I mistakenly implied something else, then I apologize.-- Filll 16:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Telepathy has been tested repeatedly and found not to have any scientific basis or to be demonstrable. Telepathy is supernatural, and its study is pseudoscience, to me.-- Filll 17:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Look at my article on Harry Rimmer. Comments?-- Filll 16:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding telepathy (which I'm not about to argue for), I find it strange logic that if science has been unable to support something, it is therefore pseudoscience or supernatural. If science was able to test it, it was falsifiable, so doesn't qualify as pseudoscience, if falsifiability is the definition of pseudoscience. It may be wrong, but its not automatically pseudoscience just because science has been unable to confirm it. It appears that "pseudoscience" is a label you stick on anything that science hasn't shown to be correct, regardless of why. Philip J. Rayment 10:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to challenge anyone to find me 5 creationist scientists that are currently prominent scientists. The requirements are:
Define supernatural as an operational defintion raspor 17:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
He rejects all dictionary definitions and operational definitions. Because of his belligerence, I am thinking the RfC is quite warranted.-- Filll 17:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I have had enough. You just want to fight. I guess next stop, community ban. Maybe IP block.-- Filll 17:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stop trolling and disrupting the project. FeloniousMonk 19:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Though first a reminder: this page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for telling each other ghost stories. Anyway, if raspor's correct about the "citation" from the wedge document, that's a valuable point and the statement should be revised to match what the document actually says. Thanks for picking that up, raspor. .. dave souza, talk 18:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Damn. Raspor made a valid point here. I did a LexisNexis search and I couldn't find where a Discovery Institute document or interview ever said drive a wedge into the heart. Orangemarlin 15:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
raspor
19:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
the lead is a bobjob. fel****** must have wrote it. thats why he wont change it. its been this way for years and nobody wanted to change it? you got to be kidding me raspor 20:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing, currently for one week, per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Raspor. Jayjg (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Phil you made some great points
I am in the gulag now. Typical of what happens when one dissents in a dictatorship. 1984 thought control. "how many fingers do you see?? i see three. no you dont there are four" he ended up loving big brother. i read your comments about the Ark.
yes the Ark theory is not scientific. why? becuz it is wrong? why? becuz we have proved it. then it is scientific isnt it. shut up. how many fingers do you see. you see three becuz your are sick
the same old story. interesting how trumped my my charges and trial was. this is is such a great study in oppression. and Fel**** stole my credit. how many times has this happened in history? keep up the good work Phill.
i will still be working on things here in the joint. but please write and tell me how things are on the outside
keep up the good work,
rasp.
raspor 13:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
now what did i do that was wrong?? i dont remember a trial. i was unable to confront my accusers. where was the judge? it was all trumped up.
raspor 13:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
""""" From what I read at Talk:Discovery Institute#i just read the wedge document it appeared to me that raspor started that section by stating two points. Accepting the comments on the page without further checking, the first seemed to accurately describe a problem with citing quoted words – that's a point worth raising, and it appears to have helped the article. The second point was nonsense, but unfortunately that was the first thing responded to, and the discussion rapidly went off topic. I'm always happy to give praise for constructive edits, and did so at the same time as trying to get the discussion focussed on improving the article. If my assessment was wrong in any way I apologise. Unfortunately raspor's continuing arguing and point scoring present problems. They divert editors into trying to provide personal tuition or debating issues, which is not what Wikipedia's for, and so disrupt community work. They also damage raspor's reputation. Here, your reputation is what you have to go on. Effectively, raspor has been a very disruptive troll and thus damaged his/her credibility. Given that the definition of trolling involves motives or intentions, I am unable to say whether this is trolling, but it's had the same effect. Although raspor could be effective in researching and questioning points in articles, his/her argumentative approach has to end to make these contributions worthwhile. .. dave souza, talk 21:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Raspor"
""""
yes dave you showed integrity when you stood up for what was right. the quote was wrong and biased.
now what was this second point that was 'nonsense'?
and this thing about accusing me of 'arguing' well it takes 2 to argue. if i am guily of arguing then the person who argued with me is just as guilty...
NO ONE HAS TO RESPOND TO ME!
if you think i am a troll dont feed me. if you feed me then you must not think i am a troll
if you think i am 'arguing' dont respond. otherwise if you respond you must think i have a valid point
are these things that hard to understand???
you guys know self-defense has limits. if i attack you and you attack me back you are just as guilty
raspor
13:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Am I allowed to say he can fuck off yet? No? Kindly fuck off? No? Oh well. I'm off to make a new award, the Banstar, for banning those who are obviously not here to help. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Yes, in this case you're allowed to say that. God knows I've been saying it under my breath a lot lately. FeloniousMonk 02:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
raspor 20:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the long response time. If a user has used up the Community's patience, an admin can ban them from Wikipedia, provided that there is Community support. You should probably get an Advocate who can give you advice, unless you have already found someone to advise you. G e o. 20:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
This will probably take the steam out of their "raspor is evil" train. Also you may want to fill your userpage with content about yourself. G e o. 20:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
i dont know why. guy was the one that made the fuck off commnent not banstar.
why is it he can say that and i cannot say fellatio. come one fellatio is not vulgar
raspor 21:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Raspor, you know that I've argued at length that you've been provoked, that is, that your opponents are in no position to criticise when they do similar things. However, one thing that I have not seen them doing is twisting your user name. In this particular point, you are at fault in a way that they are not. I suggest you take a bit more effort (I'm assuming it's laziness or carelessness as much as anything) to ensure that you type others' user names correctly when you refer to them. This will also give them one less thing to criticise, and especially one less criticism that is valid. Personally, if the user name is complex or long, I will often simply copy and paste it (mouse to select, ctrl-C to copy, go to the insertion point, ctrl-V to paste—on Windows machines at least). Also, apologies for getting their names wrong in the past would be helpful. Philip J. Rayment 02:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I have spent the past hour and a half reading your edits and the context surrounding them, including the incident report at WP:ANI and the RFC filed. And, given the fact that your block has not caused you to cease making personal attacks or causing disruption, I'm inclined to think that you do not want to abide by Wikipedia's rules and are therefore not willing to be a part of this community. Claiming that calling someone by the name of a sexual act is deserved because his name is ... well, I'm not even sure what your justification is for that. Because it's an adjective that refers to a person who has committed a crime? Whatever: it holds no water. You're backpedaling to justify your name-calling. The only reason you feel attacked and persecuted is because you are deliberately agitating people while claiming to be a blameless victim. If you're going to spend your time while blocked continuing the very behavior that got you blocked in the first place, I will protect the page to prevent further disruption. When the block is lifted, the page may be unprotected. I would not be surprised if the block were extended, though: you have yet to show any signs of reform, or even remorse. It's up to you: you can learn about Wikipedia's policies, make an concerted effort to behave in a civil fashion and contribute constructively, or you can engage in name-calling and disruption. At any rate, one more puerile comment will result in this page being protected until the block is lifted. -- Merope 19:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
now really is calling someone the first part of their name name-calling. yes i admit calling FM fellatio was name calling. i was wrong OK? he just made me mad when he insults me. and geo just told me to go to the republic. we were talking about meatpuppets and hassour, one of the few people i trust here told me not to. i didnt even know what a MP is
and i did not revert over 2 times. i still cant figure that out. even dave souza praised me for catching an error in an article.
OK so i should not be talking to anyone at all while i am locked up?
remorse: i am sorry for calling FM fellatio. i was wrong. OK? and i wont call people by the first parts of their names. OK? is that reform?? but do i have to let FM take credit for my ideas? i dont think that is fair.
i think 99% of the articles here are great but can i say what i think of the ID one? is calling it a bobjob wrong? how can i in good faith try to improve it if i have to lie and say i think its great.
i did get off to a bad start here. i really just didnt understand this consensus thing. i thought there would be a minority right. and i asked about banning and nobody answered. i didnt know if they were just trying to scare me. what do i know. i thought FM was just trying to get me to not criticize the article. am i allowed to say i think it is bad?
"Neutral point of view says that for articles that deal with issues that have two sides, both of them should be fairly represented"
see the ID side is not represented. i really thought FM was wrong and was trying to scare me. i thought the authorities would see how he was disobeying this rule. then he took credit for my idea. really in a court of law FM could not get away with what he is doing. and i did not revert over 2 times. i made sure of that. i thought the judge would see that. but it seems like as long as say 8 people say you are wrong you are wrong despite the facts. right now i am involved in the gravelle cagekids case. the judge thru out felony counts that he view has not supported by the evidence. i thought something like that would happen here with me. i thought it was petty that my trivial rearrangements of names would be more important than NPOV or taking credit for someone elses ideas.
Raspor keeps objecting to the claim that he violated the WP:3RR, and although I can't find it at the moment, I believe that someone said that he had reverted eight times. I include here a listing of what actually happened, for clarification. along with my comments. Sorry it is so long, but I wanted to be thorough.
That was the end of that sequence of edits.
In summary, Raspor clearly DID violate the 3RR rule, but just as clearly, his concerns noted in the edit comments were initially simply dismissed out of hand with incorrect claims.
Philip J. Rayment
02:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
While your documenting raspor's victimhood and how he was ignored by most of the community, would you mind noting every single insult to the editors and disparaging remarks about the article and Wiki itself made by raspor? You might as well document every single instance where someone tried to help him and he ignored or told them to fuck off and every single instance where he was given links to policies or policies were explained to him that he also ignored. Thanks in advance, Phil, for being so fair and unbiased in your thorough investigation. I'm looking forward to you documenting the whole series of events and not just the ones that paint raspor as a victim. Mr Christopher 03:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
now i want to talk about this again. am i allowed to????
please someone tell me before i am charged with a violation??
raspor 12:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
y:Always glad to oblige: Whether ID is Science. Please read carefully. .. dave souza, talk 13:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
(1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. """
<unindent>Raspor, please do not edit my own comments as you did above. I'm changing them back to how they were prior to your edit.
I can't speak for the lamarkism article, the editors there may be able to answer your question(s). "Intelligent Design is an argument..." is cited. If you read the lead you'll note we say ID is an argument (with a cite) and then we outline what that argument actually constists of (with numerous cites). Mr Christopher 16:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
More - > Here is how the opening sentence reads:
Intelligent design (ID) is an argument[1] that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[2][3][4]
The [1] is a cite, and [2][3][4] are all cites (that link to sources that verify the claims being made). So you can see it is in fact cited. Mr Christopher 16:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
this is the complete quote:
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. " raspor 16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
DEVOLUTION Why intelligent design isn’t. by H. ALLEN ORR
this is cite #17 saying that ID is junk science. it is from the new yorker magazine. is that really reliable source for science. and how is allen orr? raspor 18:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) Those are theories because they are falsifiable, not because they're accepted. ID is not falsifiable, therefore it's not capable of being a scientific theory. That in and of itself doesn't make it "false"; it just means it's not science. -- Merope 18:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
""The marginalist theory of price level runs counter to the classical theory of price being determined by the amount of labour congealed in a commodity.""
I am not allowed to aske these questions? I asked at the beginning if I could. So I am not allowed to bring this up correct?
Regarding Orr, have a look at http://www.tsujiru.net/?p=209 Guettarda 19:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Good day sir. A Guy
FM am I allowed to respond to any of the above? If not I wont. I just wondered why phrenology was referred to as a science but ID was not. If I am not allowed to ask these questions please let me know. I do not see how the theory in my mind that aliens seeded the earth during the cambrian times is unscientific. It does not involve the supernatural and it can be tested just as much as if the phyla arose thru natural selection. But if I am not allowed to talk about this I will not. Many ecomonic theories cannot be falsified but they are referred to as theory. I did not say ID was science just that it was a theory. Sorry if I brought up something not allowed raspor 21:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
raspor 18:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The amount of space and time the Anti-IDers have put into trying to discredit me far exceeds all of my comments and supposed rants. If they really think I am a troll and stupid why don't they just ignore me.
In fact, that is what might be done. You might get banned from certain articles, or Wikipedia altogether. I can't say you didn't ask for it. A. Guy
Captivity (2007) Genre: Thriller Running Time: 1 hr. 38 min. Release Date: July 13, 2007 (wide) Distributors: After Dark Films Cast: Elisha Cuthbert, Pruitt Taylor-Vince, Daniel Gillies, Laz Alonso, Michael Harney Director: Roland Joffe Producers: Mark Damon, Leonid Minkovski, Sergei Konov
I would invite you to read WP:NEO in regards to your creation of the Caged Kids article. Thanks RichMac (Talk) 13:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I am just starting on this. I am trying to get the jist of how it all works. I did a short article called 'Gravelles' and it was immediately deleted. Well everything I have done so far has been deleted without any explanation. I chose your name at random just to get started somewhere. thanks
Hi. Sorry for the delay. As I said in my original message, Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet, and we can't accept articles about just anyone. You claim your article was deleted "without any explanation"... this isn't really true, if you read my message again you will find links to several guideline and policy pages that give you an idea of what you should be aiming for. The most relevant page in this case is the page about
notability for biographical articles. If your article is about a person or group of people it needs to say clearly why they are important or significant. This is done mainly to stop people writing articles about themselves or their family. If the person or people in question are living, then
additional guidelines apply, mainly for legal reasons. Essentially, your article failed to meet
these standards. You are of course welcome to create a more extensive article that provides an assertion of notability and otherwise meets the guidelines. Thanks –
Gurch
00:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Raspor wrote:
Hi, the best thing to do is add a comment to the discussion page of the appropriate article and after a while, if nobody objects, change the article (remembering to leave an informative edit summary). If anyone objects at that stage, suggest that they also explain their opinion on the discussion page. Hope this helps – Gurch 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, assuming you are referring to
this edit, it was not me that removed your edit but
JoeSmack; you may wish to bring the matter up with him.
The only edit I made was
this one, after an anonymous user removed the entire references section and the list of related topics without explanation –
Gurch
01:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Also in 1996 Dr. Tana Dineen published "Manufacturing Victims" in which she suggests that much of the 'psychotherapy industry' is more interested in financial gain than helping clients. She demonstrates that psychotherapy rarely does more than what the placebo effect, passage of time, and working things out on your own accomplishes.
Considering the very high cost of psychotherapy and the fact that most heath insurances are required by law to provide it seems to indicate that the economic value of psychotherapy is in question. Since health insurance costs are forcing many to be unable to afford it, indicates it might be time to review the lucrative incomes of some psychotherapists who have such insurance funds easily available. At least allowing people to opt out of the mandatory psychotherapy insurance requirements might help to lower health insurance costs without major harm to the mental health of most.
You said (in very strong terms) "Harun Yahya is a forceful, popular proponent of ID"
Yahya himself wrote "Intelligent Design Accounts Could Harm Individuals Sincerely Inclined toward Religion...Intelligent Design Is Another of Satan's Distractions" [1]
This is yet another reason why you have no credibility as an editor of the intelligent design article. Mr Christopher 19:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I've added a welcome to the top of your page. There's a lot of information there about how to get results in contributing to Wikipedia, and I'd particularly recommend reading Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research as soon as you can: you may feel you know something, but all facts and opinions here have to be properly attributed to a reliable source, as well as being properly balanced in terms of WP:NPOV. We're all learning here, and I'll be glad to help with any questions you have. Look forward to your future contributions, .. dave souza, talk 19:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Raspor, I've tried my best to stay neutral on this dispute and to be helpful to the newbies. The fact is, I don't see you as "an innocent victim", but I also disagree with some of the actions on "the other side" as well. Anyway, I think the best option for you right now is to look into the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. These guys are experienced in helping editors work together and helping newbies learn the ropes.- Psychohistorian 17:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Please read three revert rule before you get yourself banned from the intelligent design article. Mr Christopher 21:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
you have accused me of vandalism and have told me that if i revert one more time i will be banned
i believe both of these statements are untrue.
seems you are just threatening me so your biase POV will remain
explain your statements. they seem untruthfull to me
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Humps 21:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I spent hours discussing it. I did not make reverts I made addtions. I was unjustly accused of vandalism. I was libeled. The addtions I made were cited. You just did not like them.
Good. I look forward to a trial.
raspor 22:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, obviously there was not one. I did not have a chance to state my case.
I have mistreated since I started posting here. I made a change to an article and was falsely accused of vandalism. I added one sentence and it was reverted immediately which was against the guidelines.
And now I have been unfairly blocked. This just seems like a game where the bullies rule. I was told discuss what I wanted to change and I was told that it all has been discussed and you are wrong.
The Intelligent Design article is biased. I could go on and on about the one sidedness of it but one but cleary exemplifies this.
There was a sentence that stated that '10% of the US accepts Intelligent Design' It was cited. I looked at the cite and found it also stated that 3 times as many college grads accept ID as high school grads.
The article has overall has implied that ID is something that uneducated unscientific people believe. I added that comment and it was repeatedly deleted because it was 'irrelevant'.
I think there is a need for the some representation of the minority position in that article. Right now is is simplly a bash of the concept of Intelligent Design. I have used wiki as a reference many times and found it to be accurate, thorough and balanced. Until this and a couple of other articles.
This is a shameful example of how a group can hijack an article and ruin the wonderful balance wiki in general shows.
This is truly a disappointment to me to see how an article can be taken over by what appears to be thugs.
I dont see how I 'reverted' that many times. Are you saying I am not allowed to edit an article more that 3 times. Every change I made was deleted. So I can deleted others changes and then when they restore it claim that they are reverting??
And why is it that those that attacked me are not blocked for calling me a troll, ignorant, and libeling me by calling me a 'vandal'? why have they not been blocked??
raspor 12:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
how about being accused of vandalism??
so i can call people trolls and call them vandals with impunity?
raspor 12:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not being silly. I was called a troll and a vandal. Is that OK?
raspor 14:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
"I'm not sure that throwing polling data back and forth between the Evolution side and the Creation myth side does any good. Facts aren't proven by polls, they just show how uneducated and silly people can be. I forgot the exact numbers, but a substantial number of Americans believe they've been abducted by aliens. So, in the UFO article (and I'm going to check if that's considered pseudoscience, because if I'm going to stand on principle with Noah's Ark and ID, I'm going to do the same with Divining Rods and UFO's), does it qualify as NPOV information to state that in some Gallup Poll or something, 60% of Americans believe in Aliens? That just shows that 60% of Americans need to have their heads examined by a qualified psychotherapist. I don't care how many people believe in ID, it is pseudoscience, it is myth, and it is religion, but it is not factual and it is not science. If Raspor or whatever Mr. 3RR added to the revert war, I don't think Polling data belongs in an encylopedic article. Unless you're going to state how gullible some number of people are to mythology. I might buy that. Orangemarlin 04:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)"
unbelievable. I get blocked for taking out poll data comments and here orange says he is against it yet i was blocked for deleting it. Then when I added comments from the same cite those were deleted.
obvious, obvious bias
i found out that nice doesnt work here. thats how i started and was called a troll and vandal cuz i changed an article in good faith just as you did. i really didnt understand the 3R rule. i thought you could not revert and i edited.
i have been mistreated and am just shoot the crap back that i get. there is a mob mentality here. i tried for days to get just consideration and didnt get it. i was just called stupid and ignorant.
the mob here only knows force. they rule by intimidation and false accusations to discredit people.
i was unjustly called a vandal. i was told that they can do that with impunity.
i am new here and was treated like crap. no breaks no compromise. just this bitter attitude.
yes the poll comment was stupid. it was cherry picked. much info here is cherry picked.
look at britanica they are objective. this seems like a bunch of college students with a lot of time just goofing off.
raspor 18:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
the point is that the fossil evidence for whale evolution is a few bones. all up to interpretation.
and if we are looking for pure science without practical application why is ID criticized for not have practical applications. cant have it both ways
raspor 12:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Raspor now has 24 hours to reflect on the importance of 3RR, but I think he was referring to the table "SUMMARY OF KEY QUESTIONS ABOUT HUMAN EVOLUTION– BY EDUCATION" which shows ID support rising from 6% at HS or less to 15% College Grad and 17% Post Grad. Unfortunately enthusiasm for making a point seems to have overcome care with arithmetic or balanced description. Oddly enough, considering the much touted claim that ID includes creationism, Belief in creationism is shown as declining from 73% to 42% as educational attainment increases. .. dave souza, talk 23:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
yes that was my point. we can select positive and negative data from a survey. the darwinists here chose the negative with out showing the other side:
BIAS!!!
yes i am reflecting also on how mob rule works also too raspor 12:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
sorry psycho. i can see you have some balls and integrity!
just read their def of 'intelligent design' very balanced, fair, informative.
not just a bashing of the idea by people who are against it
wiki in this case is a failure
i hope people will realize wiki is not a real encyclopedia. there should be a disclaimer somewhere
i thought it was serious for along time. people use this as a source.
compare brits to wiki's on ID
what a joke wikis is
should warn people that its just a bunch what seems to me to be college student with time on their hands spouting off.
nothing can be taken seriously here
really i am with you on your edits. you are showing some integrity.
you are being objective. good going! really!
do you think you can get away with being unbiased in this article?
raspor 17:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Scott explains, "Once you allow yourself to say God did it, you stop looking for naturalistic explanations. If you stop looking, you won't find them
yep that sure stopped newton, pascal, pasteur, etc. etc. etc.
what a lame argument.
most of our science came from guys who thought 'God did it'
raspor 17:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
But you will notice that the only science that survived of theirs was the naturalistic science, not the deistic science or attempts they made. What does that tell you?--
Filll
00:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I will erase you rap sheet. You have some balls.
Yes the point is to be accurate. It does not take a lot of brains to see how fugdet this ID article is.
remember the animal house movie: "bob job" cough::"bob job" cough::"bob job" cough::
the bias stinks like a 5 day old fish wrapped in newspaper out in the august sun for 3 days
felon doesnt think people can see it?
if you present a cleaner case pro-IDers will be more likey to be more objective also
we should stop the bob-job here
raspor 18:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I will help you.
I am for accuracy, truth and non-bias. Even if it helps my oppostion.
Hang in there you are showing some tuff stuff.
(Actually I am suprised finding a Darwinist that has some gonads)
raspor 18:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
hang tuff!
I only have about 20 more hours in the hole
raspor 18:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
i would like proper decorum here. i am trying to figure out how to get it
was it OK for me to be called a vandal??
this seems like a big bob job. all the requests for input by pro-IDers has been ignored
an article on ID completely written by anti-IDers: a bob job
raspor 01:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Humps 23:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
yes i am against personal attacks also. i have been called many names
someone called me a vandal. do you think that was ok?
i talked to wiki about it and they said they could do nothing
raspor 00:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Your actions are the subject of a user conduct request for comment: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raspor You can give any justifications for your actions there. FeloniousMonk 00:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
i dont know what you want. i have been attack continuously by many of your group. but that does not seems to bother anyone
raspor 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
i talked to someone and they said it was ok to be a little sarcastic. i complained about being called a vandal
look felon,
was it ok for one of your mob to call me a vandal???
raspor 01:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
According to our Founding Fathers, democracies were as dangerous as any form of government. Benjamin Franklin defined democracy as “three wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch,” and explained that true liberty is “a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” In sum, any rule of man system, whether mob rule or rule by the elites, is destined for failure.
IF YOU ANTI-IDERS ARE NOT WILLING TO LET THERE BE SOME SORT OF INPUT BY THE PRO-IDERS THEN THIS ABOVE CONCEPT TRULY APPLIES HERE
According to our Founding Fathers, democracies were as dangerous as any form of government. Benjamin Franklin defined democracy as “three wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch,” and explained that true liberty is “a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” In sum, any rule of man system, whether mob rule or rule by the elites, is destined for failure.
IF YOU ANTI-IDERS ARE NOT WILLING TO LET THERE BE SOME SORT OF INPUT BY THE PRO-IDERS THEN THIS ABOVE CONCEPT TRULY APPLIES HERE
MOB RULE—Preceding unsigned comment added by raspor ( talk • contribs)
Raspor, how many times Do you have to be invited to write something? Or are you just a troll and nothing else?-- Filll 01:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Look i went thru the procedure as stated in the rules. i was polite. i was submissive. i brought up my ideas on the talk page. i wrote a sentence. very innocuous and it was deleted immediately and i was called a vandal.
yes i love that quote about the lambs and wolves voting for dinner
if your mob has any sense of fairness it will allow some input by pro-IDers. jeez after all the article is about ID. cant those who support it have just a teensy weensy say it what the artilce says
this is how good law making works and this is how good article making should work. not dictatorship thru numbers.
the minority should be represented. how can an article on ID be written objectively by people who hate it?
the opposition has used procedural tricks on me since day. no real effort to get me involved. so i see this as a no compromise situation. winner takes all. very unamerican. more nazi or communist
raspor 01:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
well like a big dummy i actually presented my ideas in the talk section where i was told how stupid i was. then i looked thru the archives and saw many before me had wanted the same changes
so then i figure you just have to change it. i made a change in good faith and was called a vandal presumably because it was not acceptable by the ruling regime here.
so then i realized this is all a bob job. its an article on ID completely written by those who hate it. how objective is that. its a bob job. i dont see it any other way
and fellatio knows that
raspor 02:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
no the point is that no matter now much logic is presented to the anti-IDers it is ignored. they have hijacked this article. no input from pro-IDers on ID will be allowed. it is mob rule in it most obvious form. reasoning is useless. they use insult tactics and get upset if anyone returns their impolities in kind. they have brought this down to a a might makes right situation
it is a wiki failure
raspor 12:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
i wrote a paragraph and put it here or under ID talk. its gone.
OK i have asked this question a dozen times and no anti-IDer has answered. was it OK to call me a vandal?
the anti-IDers here have a big agenda. anti-DI. they have linked ID with DI and that is illogical since ID has been around for thousands of years. this article is being used to promote anti-DI hate. where is the coolness. look at the beginning of the ID article. you might as well call it: 'Evil ID exposed' really isnt that a better title?
raspor 12:31, 3 January 2007 (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 may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!
HagermanBot
14:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
raspor 15:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
raspor 16:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
i think you better read it. changing an article is not vandalism.
your full of it
raspor 19:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
raspor 00:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The reason astrology is not falsifiable is that even when you show it is wrong, people still believe it fervently. So it doesnt matter if you still believe even when it is shown to be incorrect. That means, astrology is not falsifiable. And I refuse to believe you ever taught college.--
Filll
02:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow!! That shows a complete misunderstanding of the term 'falsify'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsify (an excellent article)
"Falsifiable does not mean false. For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be possible in principle to make an observation that would show that the proposition was false, even if that observation is not actually made."
study much, much harder.
I can see what I am dealing with here. And people all over the world are relying on your expertise.
Read that definition over and over and over and over till you get it.
Astrology is falisifiable. It has been falsified. It is a scientific theory that has been invalidated.
Geocentrism is falisifiable. It has been falsified. It is a scientific theory that has been invalidated.
Heliocentrism is falisifiable. It has not been falsified. It is a scientific theory that has been validated.
Darwinism is not falsifiable. It is not a scientific theory. It is a philosophy.
Really I must ask every Darwinist here if Astrology is falsifiable. It they all say no they have no right to be here making an article on a scientific subject.
OK Darwinists. Chime in.
raspor 12:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
"From this point of view the question of the scientific status of Darwinian theory—in the widest sense, the theory of trial and error-elimination—becomes an interesting one. I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories."
"Theories of history or politics which allegedly predict the future course of history have a logical form that renders them neither falsifiable nor verifiable. They claim that for every historically significant event, there exists an historical or economic law that determines the way in which events proceeded"
Darwinism is a historical theory. As such cannot be falsified and is not scientific. Sorry to burst your bubbles.
There is no Santa Claus. So grow up please.
raspor 12:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that you asked for my help regarding the intelligent design article, and I just wanted to let you that I think I understand some of your objections. At first I misinterpreted the way you edited as being kind of trollish, but then I realized that you are a very new editor and not familiar with lots of things here on the Wikipedia project. A couple of the most important things here are the environment of civility and WP:NPOV that Wikipedia encourages all editors to take part in, and being unfamiliar with some of the expectations of those often lead to mistakes by new editors which can bring the rest of the community crashing down on them. If you're interested in learning a little more about this stuff and advice from me, just leave me a message here on on my talk page. Like I said, I'd be glad to help you learn editing and how to talk to other users and make yourself heard, and correct errors in a neutral fashion in articles- every editor was new once. :) -- HassourZain 21:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Just curious; I've seen you using that term and never heard of it (but then maybe my generation is too old to have heard of it). You can reply here. - Amatulic 00:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
i dont think we are allowed to say the b word raspor 00:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
ok i will take a chance. did you see animal house?
raspor 00:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
a bobjob was when the conservative fraternity tried to get the animalhouse frat off campus and they made a lot of trumped up charges and planted evidence but the frame up was so poorly done that even the judges thought it was ridiculous. its like we know this is BS but sort have to a long with it cuz you own the bats and balls and if we want to play with have to give you 5 stirkes every inning. everybody knows its like a set up or a frame up but everybody goes along with it... raspor 00:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
needlemyer?? reminds me of c a real bobjob type. it can be applied to people to like f
raspor 00:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Your welcome. doesnt this aricle and those editors just really come of like bobjobs. it is so obvious. raspor 00:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
"Part of the issue the scientific community has in opposition to ID is that it in no way assists this process of better understanding what the processes are, but instead uses speculated probabilites to reason to speculative conclusions."
"Evolution properly refers to a process of adaptation through cycles of diversity generation and selection characterized with inheritability. It is not restricted to biology[2]. However, in the common parlance, evolution refers to the biological process in which inherited traits become more or less common in a population over successive generations - what is technically referred to as "Evolution as the Theory of the Origin of the Species". Over time, this process can lead to speciation, the development of new species from existing ones. All extant organisms are related by common descent, having evolved over billions of years of cumulative genetic changes from a single ancestor.[3][4]"
OK now if I believe in the biological process in which inherited traits become more or less common in a population over successive generations but do not believe that all species were created thru natural selection and someone asks me do you believe in evolution, what am I supposed to say?
well the thing that got me is someone said there was a 'plethora' of fossils which simply is not true.
and darwinism should not be compared to gravity. maybe econ or archae. the theory is full of holes. more and more people are saying that. molecular bio is killing it. the wagons are being cirlced as is evident here. raspor 20:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Tarinth 02:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
i just wanted to let you know that I see the RfC as grandstanding. G e o. 07:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
What is your definition of an atheist?
Raspor, can I give you some advice?
Do you remember being told as a child to ignore bullies, and they will go away? In certain circumstances, it is still good advice, and ignoring some of the comments people are posting on this page may prove useful.
When you do criticise, make sure that you get the criticisms correct. Putting unwanted comments on your talk page is not necessarily spamming, nor is it vandalism. It was wrong of you to be called a vandal for re-editing Intelligent design; don't make the same mistake of calling others vandals unless they really are.
Colons are used to indent paragraphs on talk pages. You should use one extra colon for each reply you make. That is, if you are replying to someone who used two colons, you should use three colons for each paragraph you type in reply. Don't use four, five, or six; use three (if they used two). Also, sometimes the indents get excessively large, and it is then acceptable to start again from the left margin (i.e. have no colons). Sometimes people will include a comment saying that this is what they are doing, but not always. It is also proper to use no colons if it is not a direct reply, but a new comment or question, such as this post of mine, or Filll's question about atheists above (although I don't really know why he asked that).
Finally, show some more tolerance, even when they aren't showing tolerance of you. Don't go down to their level. Be the better man. Two wrongs don't make a right. And all other applicable clichés. :-)
Philip J. Rayment 01:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I feel they are both biased maybe we can convince some atheists who have at least some sense of fair play that it needs to be change
But how can we stop the disruptive spamming of my talk page?
That has to be the first thing taked care of. Some these editors will troll, spam, harrass, and insult so that people who have a diff POV will not be heard.
How can we stop this spamming and stalking??
raspor 15:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
phil did you see this?:
they are saying ID and i guess creationism is in opposition to bio science. there is no cite for this. and ID believes and supports most of present biology as does creationsim. acutally most biology was developed by creastionists. i dont see how they can say thing which are simply true. is there anything we can do about these inaccuracies?? raspor 18:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
As I've said on my user page, I'm not wasting my time with endless arguments with anti-creationists/anti-ID people, because I haven't got the time nor the patience (and I'm a patient person). Also, if I was going to take them on, I would not pick the Intelligent Design article, because I'm not as familiar with ID arguments as with creationist arguments, and neither would I pick the evolution article because the opposition would be far stronger there (numerically and by motivation; not by strength of argument). So if you want to take on either fight, you will have to do it without me, I'm sorry. Philip J. Rayment 01:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2][3] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the evil Discovery Institute,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] assert that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[11]
The scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,[12] as pseudoscience[13][14][15] or as junk science and as evil.[16][17] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own and if their idea gets popular acceptance we will be back to the dark ages and all progress will stop.[18]
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature therefore evil.[19]
Read WP:POINT. Please do not continue disrupting this article. FeloniousMonk 02:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
and the DI was misquoted. they never said anything about driving a wedge into a 'heart' vert dishonest quote raspor 02:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I said you cannot put the supernatural in science without ruining it. And creationists want to put the supernatural in science. If I mistakenly implied something else, then I apologize.-- Filll 16:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Telepathy has been tested repeatedly and found not to have any scientific basis or to be demonstrable. Telepathy is supernatural, and its study is pseudoscience, to me.-- Filll 17:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Look at my article on Harry Rimmer. Comments?-- Filll 16:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding telepathy (which I'm not about to argue for), I find it strange logic that if science has been unable to support something, it is therefore pseudoscience or supernatural. If science was able to test it, it was falsifiable, so doesn't qualify as pseudoscience, if falsifiability is the definition of pseudoscience. It may be wrong, but its not automatically pseudoscience just because science has been unable to confirm it. It appears that "pseudoscience" is a label you stick on anything that science hasn't shown to be correct, regardless of why. Philip J. Rayment 10:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to challenge anyone to find me 5 creationist scientists that are currently prominent scientists. The requirements are:
Define supernatural as an operational defintion raspor 17:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
He rejects all dictionary definitions and operational definitions. Because of his belligerence, I am thinking the RfC is quite warranted.-- Filll 17:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I have had enough. You just want to fight. I guess next stop, community ban. Maybe IP block.-- Filll 17:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stop trolling and disrupting the project. FeloniousMonk 19:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Though first a reminder: this page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for telling each other ghost stories. Anyway, if raspor's correct about the "citation" from the wedge document, that's a valuable point and the statement should be revised to match what the document actually says. Thanks for picking that up, raspor. .. dave souza, talk 18:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Damn. Raspor made a valid point here. I did a LexisNexis search and I couldn't find where a Discovery Institute document or interview ever said drive a wedge into the heart. Orangemarlin 15:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
raspor
19:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
the lead is a bobjob. fel****** must have wrote it. thats why he wont change it. its been this way for years and nobody wanted to change it? you got to be kidding me raspor 20:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing, currently for one week, per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Raspor. Jayjg (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Phil you made some great points
I am in the gulag now. Typical of what happens when one dissents in a dictatorship. 1984 thought control. "how many fingers do you see?? i see three. no you dont there are four" he ended up loving big brother. i read your comments about the Ark.
yes the Ark theory is not scientific. why? becuz it is wrong? why? becuz we have proved it. then it is scientific isnt it. shut up. how many fingers do you see. you see three becuz your are sick
the same old story. interesting how trumped my my charges and trial was. this is is such a great study in oppression. and Fel**** stole my credit. how many times has this happened in history? keep up the good work Phill.
i will still be working on things here in the joint. but please write and tell me how things are on the outside
keep up the good work,
rasp.
raspor 13:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
now what did i do that was wrong?? i dont remember a trial. i was unable to confront my accusers. where was the judge? it was all trumped up.
raspor 13:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
""""" From what I read at Talk:Discovery Institute#i just read the wedge document it appeared to me that raspor started that section by stating two points. Accepting the comments on the page without further checking, the first seemed to accurately describe a problem with citing quoted words – that's a point worth raising, and it appears to have helped the article. The second point was nonsense, but unfortunately that was the first thing responded to, and the discussion rapidly went off topic. I'm always happy to give praise for constructive edits, and did so at the same time as trying to get the discussion focussed on improving the article. If my assessment was wrong in any way I apologise. Unfortunately raspor's continuing arguing and point scoring present problems. They divert editors into trying to provide personal tuition or debating issues, which is not what Wikipedia's for, and so disrupt community work. They also damage raspor's reputation. Here, your reputation is what you have to go on. Effectively, raspor has been a very disruptive troll and thus damaged his/her credibility. Given that the definition of trolling involves motives or intentions, I am unable to say whether this is trolling, but it's had the same effect. Although raspor could be effective in researching and questioning points in articles, his/her argumentative approach has to end to make these contributions worthwhile. .. dave souza, talk 21:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Raspor"
""""
yes dave you showed integrity when you stood up for what was right. the quote was wrong and biased.
now what was this second point that was 'nonsense'?
and this thing about accusing me of 'arguing' well it takes 2 to argue. if i am guily of arguing then the person who argued with me is just as guilty...
NO ONE HAS TO RESPOND TO ME!
if you think i am a troll dont feed me. if you feed me then you must not think i am a troll
if you think i am 'arguing' dont respond. otherwise if you respond you must think i have a valid point
are these things that hard to understand???
you guys know self-defense has limits. if i attack you and you attack me back you are just as guilty
raspor
13:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Am I allowed to say he can fuck off yet? No? Kindly fuck off? No? Oh well. I'm off to make a new award, the Banstar, for banning those who are obviously not here to help. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Yes, in this case you're allowed to say that. God knows I've been saying it under my breath a lot lately. FeloniousMonk 02:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
raspor 20:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the long response time. If a user has used up the Community's patience, an admin can ban them from Wikipedia, provided that there is Community support. You should probably get an Advocate who can give you advice, unless you have already found someone to advise you. G e o. 20:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
This will probably take the steam out of their "raspor is evil" train. Also you may want to fill your userpage with content about yourself. G e o. 20:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
i dont know why. guy was the one that made the fuck off commnent not banstar.
why is it he can say that and i cannot say fellatio. come one fellatio is not vulgar
raspor 21:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Raspor, you know that I've argued at length that you've been provoked, that is, that your opponents are in no position to criticise when they do similar things. However, one thing that I have not seen them doing is twisting your user name. In this particular point, you are at fault in a way that they are not. I suggest you take a bit more effort (I'm assuming it's laziness or carelessness as much as anything) to ensure that you type others' user names correctly when you refer to them. This will also give them one less thing to criticise, and especially one less criticism that is valid. Personally, if the user name is complex or long, I will often simply copy and paste it (mouse to select, ctrl-C to copy, go to the insertion point, ctrl-V to paste—on Windows machines at least). Also, apologies for getting their names wrong in the past would be helpful. Philip J. Rayment 02:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I have spent the past hour and a half reading your edits and the context surrounding them, including the incident report at WP:ANI and the RFC filed. And, given the fact that your block has not caused you to cease making personal attacks or causing disruption, I'm inclined to think that you do not want to abide by Wikipedia's rules and are therefore not willing to be a part of this community. Claiming that calling someone by the name of a sexual act is deserved because his name is ... well, I'm not even sure what your justification is for that. Because it's an adjective that refers to a person who has committed a crime? Whatever: it holds no water. You're backpedaling to justify your name-calling. The only reason you feel attacked and persecuted is because you are deliberately agitating people while claiming to be a blameless victim. If you're going to spend your time while blocked continuing the very behavior that got you blocked in the first place, I will protect the page to prevent further disruption. When the block is lifted, the page may be unprotected. I would not be surprised if the block were extended, though: you have yet to show any signs of reform, or even remorse. It's up to you: you can learn about Wikipedia's policies, make an concerted effort to behave in a civil fashion and contribute constructively, or you can engage in name-calling and disruption. At any rate, one more puerile comment will result in this page being protected until the block is lifted. -- Merope 19:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
now really is calling someone the first part of their name name-calling. yes i admit calling FM fellatio was name calling. i was wrong OK? he just made me mad when he insults me. and geo just told me to go to the republic. we were talking about meatpuppets and hassour, one of the few people i trust here told me not to. i didnt even know what a MP is
and i did not revert over 2 times. i still cant figure that out. even dave souza praised me for catching an error in an article.
OK so i should not be talking to anyone at all while i am locked up?
remorse: i am sorry for calling FM fellatio. i was wrong. OK? and i wont call people by the first parts of their names. OK? is that reform?? but do i have to let FM take credit for my ideas? i dont think that is fair.
i think 99% of the articles here are great but can i say what i think of the ID one? is calling it a bobjob wrong? how can i in good faith try to improve it if i have to lie and say i think its great.
i did get off to a bad start here. i really just didnt understand this consensus thing. i thought there would be a minority right. and i asked about banning and nobody answered. i didnt know if they were just trying to scare me. what do i know. i thought FM was just trying to get me to not criticize the article. am i allowed to say i think it is bad?
"Neutral point of view says that for articles that deal with issues that have two sides, both of them should be fairly represented"
see the ID side is not represented. i really thought FM was wrong and was trying to scare me. i thought the authorities would see how he was disobeying this rule. then he took credit for my idea. really in a court of law FM could not get away with what he is doing. and i did not revert over 2 times. i made sure of that. i thought the judge would see that. but it seems like as long as say 8 people say you are wrong you are wrong despite the facts. right now i am involved in the gravelle cagekids case. the judge thru out felony counts that he view has not supported by the evidence. i thought something like that would happen here with me. i thought it was petty that my trivial rearrangements of names would be more important than NPOV or taking credit for someone elses ideas.
Raspor keeps objecting to the claim that he violated the WP:3RR, and although I can't find it at the moment, I believe that someone said that he had reverted eight times. I include here a listing of what actually happened, for clarification. along with my comments. Sorry it is so long, but I wanted to be thorough.
That was the end of that sequence of edits.
In summary, Raspor clearly DID violate the 3RR rule, but just as clearly, his concerns noted in the edit comments were initially simply dismissed out of hand with incorrect claims.
Philip J. Rayment
02:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
While your documenting raspor's victimhood and how he was ignored by most of the community, would you mind noting every single insult to the editors and disparaging remarks about the article and Wiki itself made by raspor? You might as well document every single instance where someone tried to help him and he ignored or told them to fuck off and every single instance where he was given links to policies or policies were explained to him that he also ignored. Thanks in advance, Phil, for being so fair and unbiased in your thorough investigation. I'm looking forward to you documenting the whole series of events and not just the ones that paint raspor as a victim. Mr Christopher 03:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
now i want to talk about this again. am i allowed to????
please someone tell me before i am charged with a violation??
raspor 12:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
y:Always glad to oblige: Whether ID is Science. Please read carefully. .. dave souza, talk 13:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
(1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. """
<unindent>Raspor, please do not edit my own comments as you did above. I'm changing them back to how they were prior to your edit.
I can't speak for the lamarkism article, the editors there may be able to answer your question(s). "Intelligent Design is an argument..." is cited. If you read the lead you'll note we say ID is an argument (with a cite) and then we outline what that argument actually constists of (with numerous cites). Mr Christopher 16:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
More - > Here is how the opening sentence reads:
Intelligent design (ID) is an argument[1] that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[2][3][4]
The [1] is a cite, and [2][3][4] are all cites (that link to sources that verify the claims being made). So you can see it is in fact cited. Mr Christopher 16:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
this is the complete quote:
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. " raspor 16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
DEVOLUTION Why intelligent design isn’t. by H. ALLEN ORR
this is cite #17 saying that ID is junk science. it is from the new yorker magazine. is that really reliable source for science. and how is allen orr? raspor 18:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) Those are theories because they are falsifiable, not because they're accepted. ID is not falsifiable, therefore it's not capable of being a scientific theory. That in and of itself doesn't make it "false"; it just means it's not science. -- Merope 18:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
""The marginalist theory of price level runs counter to the classical theory of price being determined by the amount of labour congealed in a commodity.""
I am not allowed to aske these questions? I asked at the beginning if I could. So I am not allowed to bring this up correct?
Regarding Orr, have a look at http://www.tsujiru.net/?p=209 Guettarda 19:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Good day sir. A Guy
FM am I allowed to respond to any of the above? If not I wont. I just wondered why phrenology was referred to as a science but ID was not. If I am not allowed to ask these questions please let me know. I do not see how the theory in my mind that aliens seeded the earth during the cambrian times is unscientific. It does not involve the supernatural and it can be tested just as much as if the phyla arose thru natural selection. But if I am not allowed to talk about this I will not. Many ecomonic theories cannot be falsified but they are referred to as theory. I did not say ID was science just that it was a theory. Sorry if I brought up something not allowed raspor 21:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
raspor 18:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The amount of space and time the Anti-IDers have put into trying to discredit me far exceeds all of my comments and supposed rants. If they really think I am a troll and stupid why don't they just ignore me.
In fact, that is what might be done. You might get banned from certain articles, or Wikipedia altogether. I can't say you didn't ask for it. A. Guy