User talk:Bongolian

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Response[edit]

I didn't change anything you edited. All I did was add a warning label to the website. Aurelius (talk)23 February 2016 (EST)

EvoWiki redirects[edit]

Don't change the capitalisations - those are literally the capitalisations that got hits - David Gerard (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

OK Bongolian (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

For the love of God please use bot for EvoWiki redirects[edit]

pls FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 11:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems excessively complicated to me for the task at hand. I have to install and learn Python to do this it seems. Also, the wiki documentation leaves something to be desired. I have done some substantial Perl programming, but unless there's some remunerative reason, I'm not too keen on learning a new programming language.
If it would drive you less nuts, I could cut down the EvoWiki redirects to something more modest like say 10 per day maximum. Bongolian (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Learning a new language should take a day or two if you already know one.—CheeseburgerFace (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
No one's paying me to do that. I've got other things I'm doing. Bongolian (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I was unclear -- you don't need PyWikiBot for this. Just go to your user rights and select "bot" to have your edits not show up on Recent Changes (by default). TLDR: Click "bot" so you don't spam RC. Unclick when done. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 01:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, much better. Will do. Thanks! Bongolian (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
And could you check that you're not redirecting to a redirect? There are currently 9 double redirects. Christopher (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
OK Bongolian (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Response to your inquiry.[edit]

Nothing more than a shared pet peeve as far as I know. User:GrammarCommie

Do You Read "Order of the Stick"?[edit]

I have a metaphor based on it. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

No Bongolian (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
OK. So the point is, one of the kingdoms the main characters come across is ruled over by a fat, idiotic red dragoness who's obsessed with eating and "looking awesome." However, it's revealed that the kingdom is actually run by a charismatic general who is also an adventurer (like the main characters), and his reptilian cleric friend. He (the general) says that it's easier to let the dragoness look like she's running the show, but the dragoness is only one ruler in a long line of petty despots, all of whom are/were under the general and cleric's thumbs.
See, I too thought the Republicans were spineless cowards letting Trump hold their balls in a vice. Then I realized the truth. Trump is a puppet. The Republicans never bent the knee to him for power because Trump had no real power to give. Trump's a fat idiot who'll sign anything Ryan and/or Pence put in front of him, and Trump has a hold on Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (edit:,traditionally Democratic states that have now entered the GOP fold). His antics and our panic over his (highly unrealistic) agenda distract from the fact that banking regulations are being rolled back, environmental protections are being destroyed, and that our country is far more likely to become a Gilded Age corporatocracy than a neo-Third Reich. Trump himself is too distracted by the glamour of his office to either notice or care that he's a puppet. Totalitarianism is coming, but not from Trump. Rather, any totalitarian American state will be masterminded by the people accused of letting it happen. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

A Question[edit]

On 23 June 2017 you added this quotation from Henry Gee:

"When confronted with stories in the Daily Nimbyist Bungaloid Curtain-Twitcher I murmur words such as 'this', 'touch', 'with', 'don't' and 'bargepole'. However, when alerted to the following gem by my correspondent B. C. of Swindon, I really had to investigate. The headline is enough to make one gasp and stretch one's eyes:'Humans evolved after a female chimpanzee mated with a pig': Extraordinary claim made by American geneticist"

to this page (which is about me). Could you tell me please, why you did? In doing so, you're just adding to Rationalwiki's misrepresentation of me and my ideas because, although the Daily Mail did have that headline referring to me, the Mail never contacted me, so their descriptions of my ideas are largely erroneous. In particular, I do not, and have never, CLAIMED that. The most that can be accurately said is that I have written up a discussion that considers the evidence relating to the hypothesis that humans arose from hybridization of that type. This is very different from my claiming that such a thing occurred. To actually make such claim would be ridiculous. But as I say, I merely consider a hypothesis. Is RationalWiki now playing the same game as the Daily Nimbyist Bungaloid Curtain-Twitcher? That is, are they now simply making things up rather than contacting the parties concerned for correction/confirmation? 162.197.60.142 (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

The only way that Bongolian's edit impliex that you claim apes and pigs mated leading to humans was adding a quote that quoted the Daily Mail as saying you do. That isn't the same as saying you claim it unless you treat the Daily Mail as a reliable source of information. Christopher (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I did not quote the Daily Mail directly, as we know it is generally not a reliable source. I quoted Henry Gee, a senior editor at Nature. If you have a gripe with this in RW, then you also have a gripe with Gee. Did you reply to or attempt to reply to Gee's article? If so please give us the citation. Bongolian (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
"...generally not a reliable source" being the understatement of the year. ^^ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Bongolian, I would have no problem with your quoting Henry Gee quoting an accurate statement. But you are quoting Henry Gee quoting the Daily Mail. Therefore its hard for me to see how you could not yourself be quoting the Daily Mail. I'm not sure what your point is when you say "directly," given that always, if B quotes A and C quotes B, you can be sure that C is quoting A. So again, if you know that the Daily Mail is unreliable and you now know, moreover, that they are misrepresenting me, why quote their misrepresentation? They published that article about me without bothering to consult me to see whether they were representing my opinions correctly. Why spread their lies and defame me further? What is your intent? It seems that to do so only extends their misrepresentation to a new setting (i.e., to RationalWiki). As for your question (Did you reply to or attempt to reply to Gee's article?), I considered it, but Gee raised almost no substantive objections that didn't already appear in Myers' article, and I had already rebutted Myers at length here. In general, I think you could say Gee defers to Myers (even though Myers seems to know almost nothing about hybridization that couldn't be read in any high school biology text). As for the unique element in Gee's blog, his non-substantive objections (e.g., "If you were a pig, would you actually want to be related to us?"), I suppose they're marginally funny, but I saw no reason to address them. But if you can find any serious objection raised by Gee not addressed in my rebuttal of Myers, I'll be happy to reply to it, if you'll just let me know. Perhaps I'll even write an article specifically addressing Gee. 162.197.60.142 (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

Response to Christopher:

Christopher, when Bongolian quotes Henry Gee as follows,

"'Humans evolved after a female chimpanzee mated with a pig': Extraordinary claim made by American geneticist",

it seems to me that his/her edit doesn't merely imply that I claim it, but rather essentially states that I claim it, unless you're going to argue that the second part of the quotation (Extraordinary claim made by American geneticist) somehow doesn't refer to the first part of the quotation (Humans evolved after a female chimpanzee mated with a pig), which I don't think you can reasonably do. If Bongolian wants to paint me as some sort of fanatic who makes such a claim, then I'd suggest that he/she do it in an honest way by finding a place where I actually say it, and not sneak around by the backdoor, by quoting misrepresentations. 162.197.60.142 (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

P.S., If I don't get a response by, say, Monday, I'd like to go ahead and remove this inaccurate quoted headline (unless there's some objection and you want to discuss it further). 162.197.60.142 (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

1) Saying "the Daily Mail said this" ≠ saying "this is true". 2) You appear to claim it on this page where there is a blue box entitled "the theory in a nutshell", I'll copy it here:
The theory in a nutshell: Specifically, I suggest that the facts we have from observation best fit the supposition that a chimpanzee- or bonobo-like animal anciently crossed with a pig to produce an offspring that then mated back ("backcrossed") to a chimpanzee. The theory then posits that further backcrossing to chimpanzee occurred in subsequent generations, so that the amount of pig in the descendant hybrids was greatly diluted so that they became much more like chimpanzees than pigs. However, as might be expected, certain traces of pig would remain. Humans, it proposes, emerged from the resulting highly variable hybrid population.
You use "theory" (as a scientist discussing biology, it's fairly obvious which definition of theory you mean) and say "the facts we have from observation best fit the supposition that [pigs + apes mating etc]." Although you do also use "supposition" to describe the pig/ape stuff in the quoted text. Christopher (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

New comments about your recent addition to the Eugene M. McCarthy page[edit]

Just added another section to the bottom of the talk page. It explains what's wrong with some of the material you just added to the Eugene M. McCarthy page (at least, from the fossil record, I believe it was you). I'm going to go ahead and write up another section explaining some problems with the rest of what you wrote, so please look for that later. 162.197.60.142 (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

I just added two more such sections to the bottom of the talk page (both marked with triple arrowheads). 162.197.60.142 (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

I just added an additional rebuttal of your argument (see the bottom of the talk page). It, too, is marked with triple arrowheads. 162.197.60.142 (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

I just responded to your comments at the bottom of the talk page. Have a good weekend. 162.197.60.142 (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

I just added some more responses for you. To make them easy to find I've marked them with a double-hyphen ("--"). 162.197.60.142 (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

By the way, I've figured out now how to ping you when I respond, so I'll be doing that instead from now on. 162.197.60.142 (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

There is no need to ping me at all I get notified when your page changes. Bongolian (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)