User talk:BruceGrubb/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 4 March 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)


New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, BruceGrubb!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

If you are interested in contributing, please read what our articles are intended to be.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

Hi and thanks for joining. I'm sure that you'll fit right in.  :-) --BobSpring is sprung! 16:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Sysop

Yep. P-FosterCan't we talk about this, baby?Moderator 15:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Jesus

You nearly done adding more stuff to this article? I suspect it's getting fat enough to start separating out sections into new articles with all the detail - David Gerard (talk) 07:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Pasting your talk page comment into the article

Why? SophieWilderModerator 14:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify? Why what?--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Try not to be an ass.

Blocking a regular for a day and calling him a vandal over an editorial dispute is unproductive, against the guidelines, and indicative that you don't quite understand how the place works. Please don't do that again. Hugs and kisses, Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You did see Miekal protect to his preferred version then say "let's discuss it lol"? - David Gerard (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Nope. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Well that is what he did. Also he ignored the point of reading the talk page.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
That wasn't cool of him. But it's also kind of irrelevant. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
He's a cretinous, incompetent editor but his heart is definitely in the right place, so cut him a little slack. Always good to try not to be an ass, but if you fail then you are in august company, and no one will hold it against you. Tielec01 (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Posting that the claim "Zeus and Heracles were regarded as one living people eventually deified" is "Bad. Wrong" here rather in the article's talk space IMHOshows that Miekal is trying to get his way rather then have a meaningful discussion. Otherwise he would have posted it to the article's talk page now wouldn't he?--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
No doubt. But it still ain't a reason to ban him. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Thing

But "Zeus and Heracles were regarded as one living people eventually deified", No. Bad. Wrong.--Miekal 05:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Not bad and not wrong. From the article itself:
In fact, Euhemerus himself stated that Zeus had actually been a mortal king who was buried on Crete (Zeus Is Dead: Euhemerus and Crete, S. Spyridakis, The Classical Journal, Vol. 63, No. 8, May, 1968, pp. 337-340.) and Eusebius in the 4th century CE accepted Heracles as a flesh and blood man who by birth was an Egyptian and was a king in Argos (Preparation of the Gospel (10.12) "from the reign of Hercules in Argos to the deification of Hercules himself and of Asclepius there are comprised thirty-eight years, according to Apollodorus the chronicler: and from that point to the deification of Castor and Pollux fifty-three years: and somewhere about this time was the capture of Troy.")
Also stuff like this belongs on the talk page of the article in question NOT in my talk page which is where I put this.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually it wouldnt belong there, because it was completly off topic from that discussion. Also work from a 1968 article, basing itself on an ancient historian with a specific philosophical bent he looked at everything under is not going to make me believe zeus was a king on crete who later became a god. --Miekal 05:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)--Miekal 05:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry that is now how things work here. ALl future comment son this matter will be copied to the main article page.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
You have fun with that, but it isn't relevant to that discussion so your really just wasting your time.--Miekal 06:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
That is NOT your call to make and I have demonstrated on the article's talk page how it is totally relevent to the topic at hand.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I think you need some sleep, you seem stressed to high hell.--Miekal 06:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
You options don't matter here but your continued posting to my talk page has been greeted with a 3 month ban on it regarding posts by you.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to re-iterate my suggestion you get some sleep, because you really are over stressing over all this. Either way, this got completely derailed from what i wanted this topic to be about so, lets just end this.--Miekal 06:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Three month Bans

Thats not how we do things, but if you'd like to keep giving out abusive length blocks you can find out what it's like to not have those fancy powers anymore. --Miekal 06:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit] stupid question

Why anthropology AND accounting? Are you trying to show when accountants first evolved.  ;-) Oh, ps. i'm starting to study "theory of mind" (science, not philo) to help with my studies of language evo. Any suggests from an anthro point of view, of books about physical evo of the mind (brain) or language production features... just curious--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 16:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I took accounting when thanks to government cutbacks the three subfields I had expertise in (contact anthropology, archeology, and museum science) all got clobbered. I don't know of books on the physical evo of the mind but I do know of a book that can be best described as the anthropology of archeology; it's Bruce Trigger's A History of Archaeological Thought. It is arguable the best book on the views of archeology (and therefore anthropology) through the years as it shows how the views of the time the researchers lived in shaped how they saw the world.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Gratitude

You've been doing some really good work on the evidence for Jesus article, and you deserve a really big thanks for it. I greatly appreciate all the work you've been doing. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 08:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Cheers and seconded. Shadow of Lords talk 17:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support