Fuck corporate whitewashing.

Jump to: navigation, search
Ceiling cat.jpg W A R N I N G

You are not logged in. Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history, and will be visible to anyone. See our privacy policy for further information. To protect your privacy, please log in or create an account

 

Please note that all contributions to RationalWiki are considered to be released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0, or any later version (see RationalWiki:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work unless you have permission.

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)
Your changes will be visible immediately.

Please note:

Thanks for the mental image...

In case there was confusion, that edit summary was aimed at our resident industry apologist, not you.

SuspectedReplicant retire me16:07, 25 March 2011

I have no problem with GMOs, but I do have a problem with Monsanto.

ТyTalk.16:08, 25 March 2011

I've got minor concerns about GMOs, big problems with Monsanto, but that's not really the issue here. Tweenk has single-handedly turned the site's position on nuclear power around 180° and is now doing the same on Monsanto. It's getting ridiculous.

SuspectedReplicant retire me16:15, 25 March 2011

I know, but he is occasionally useful, and I won't ban/desysop someone for ideological reasons. I'd say Loya Jirga or vote, but those never seem to accomplish anything, so let's do what we can to debate and revert.

ТyTalk.16:18, 25 March 2011

He makes ListerX look like Noam Chomsky. I wanna go on the record and say no ban/desysop/LJ/vote is required. Just call him on all his nonsense and revert w/better evidence.

P-Foster (talk)16:21, 25 March 2011

Oh I'm not calling for ban/desysop; a good blow to the head with a two-by-four would get my vote. I'm pissed off with the way he almost never provides sources and when he does they're all from the institution he's supporting. Any contradictory sources are just called wrong with no evidence.

SuspectedReplicant retire me16:24, 25 March 2011
 
 

I don't think there's been a 180 degree spin. RW shouldn't have a POV to spin around like that. You want to fight it on the basis of actual evidence and reason, not claiming that someone is forcing a particular POV.

Scarlet A.pngtheist16:30, 25 March 2011

I'm going to have to disagree. He created Nuclear paranoia and that bloody awful Essay:Arguments against nuclear power (as an article, of course); unilaterally changed around the Environmentalism page, despite being reverted by more than one editor, expanded the Radioactivity and Depleted uranium pages with utterly one-sided views and done similar things on other pages. Then we have the Genetic modification and Monsanto pages also being filled up with yet more unsourced/bias-sourced apologetics. He's a one-man wrecking team.

SuspectedReplicant retire me16:41, 25 March 2011

Then go forth and refute.

Scarlet A.pngtheist17:35, 25 March 2011

I've been doing that on the talk pages instead of unilaterally switching back.

SuspectedReplicant retire me17:52, 25 March 2011
 
 
 
 
 

I knew who it was aimed at. Unlike this raging erection.

P-Foster (talk)16:09, 25 March 2011
 
 
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support