Talk:Andrew Paquette

Distortions
I have never claimed to see or be a fairy regardless of whether I have seen them or am one. Why am I, Andrew Paquette, so upset with my RationalWiki entry? 1) I am no fan of RationalWiki 2) the entries are quite noxious, defamatory, inaccurate and discriminatory (against gays in particular). Please delete this ignominious article and its ridiculous accusations. AndrewPaquette (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)AndrewPaquette

NOTE - I have tried three times to remove the word "see" and three times the page has been restored with the word "see" still apparent. This is typical irRationalWiki behaviour, mistakes can only be undone by RW supporters.Some things are as clear as a bright, sunny day.AndrewPaquette (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)AndrewPaquette
 * Note -- the claim at stake is whether ot not you claimed to "see" fairies. By removing that word, you deceptively make it seem as though there is a different claim being argued. someone says that you claimed to ave seen fairies, and provided a citation for that claim. Argue against that claim and its evidence all you want. Don't pretend there's a different argument happening. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 16:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

RationalWiki Fail
Now that I've done a show on the Wikipedia scandal regarding Sheldrake, I am pulling out the guns on RationalWiki as well. I'm biased on this, ever since they posted a defamatory and inaccurate page on me (written by a person at JREF for the purpose of using it to support a comment he wanted to make *idiot*) http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Andrew_Paquette

I took a look around and saw what appeared to be libelous articles about almost anyone you'd care to name from the field of parapsychology including my main man Alex Tsakaris, Sheldrake, Craig, Radin, MU!!, etc. My feeling is that the site should be shut down for the same reason the KKK shouldn't be able to have a legal license to exist: their sole purpose is to promote hatred of a group of people, segregated from others on the basis of their beliefs or sexual preferences.

RationalWiki FAIL AndrewPaquette (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)AndrewPaquette

P.S. This post was originally intended to be on the article about me and was moved here to save face at RationalWiki, to hide the truth they so often espouse.

Total BS. AndrewPaquette (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)AndrewPaquette
 * Alright, son, calm your jets. Putting your complaints on the talk page actually makes it more likey that they will go noticed and dealt with. Putting them in the article itself won't get you very far. I have also made a post at our lovely Saloon Bar asking for people familiar with Paquette -- whoever he is, I've never heard of him -- and his work -- whatever it is -- to check the article for inaccuracies. If you want to be useful, please tell us what specific claims are problematic, or why the documentation of those claims is lacking. I notice, for example, that the "fairies" claim is linked to a chat board post ostensibly by this Paquette character. Is that not the case? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 23:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am pulling out the guns on RationalWiki as well - Go nuts honey bunch. Acei9 00:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * the points made in this article seem to be adequately referenced. The article is merely repeating material sourced elsewhere. If any of it is untrue then please list the specific claim on this talk page. Hamster (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Not Playing Your Games
No thanks, nothing will change just like the inferences that I am gay because I wear a bow tie.

From what I can see unreliable and defamatory information seems to go hand in hand with not following materialism. If that is the case you are basically saying [Ir]RationalWikipedia is only a website that will allow Western culture observations; a lot of Eastern culture practice of course Eastern philosophy and sexual diversity.

I cannot possibly see why RW should be allowed to become the moral arbiters for what is right and wrong. Who are RW to say homosexuality is wrong.... or for that matter that all religions are rubbish.AndrewPaquette (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)AndrewPaquette


 * We do say all religions are rubbish but we do not say that homosexuality is wrong. Where the hell are you getting that from? Spud (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * we say most religions make claims unsupported by evidence Hamster (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "inferences that I am gay because I wear a bow tie" . PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 15:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * doesnt Bill Nye wear a bow tie. He is not gay. I dont see that claim in the article so where did you get it ? put a fact tag on anything you believe is unsupported. Hamster (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * there are several openly gay editors on this site. Nobody cares.Hamster (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Fairy claim
This link from member paqart leads to http://www.mundusvirtua.com/ and the bio link goes to http://www.paqart.com/578557/bio/  If this guy is not the subject of the article then the claim should be removed Hamster (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like a guy with the same name, indeed. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 00:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the skeptico bio links to the same site. Peter mqzp 00:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, can you fix the article so the links/arguments/citations are clear? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 00:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I get http://www.mundusvirtua.com/home/bio instead but the guy has the same bio and picture. I would reinstate the fairy bit since the guys identity seems solid. Hamster (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Fairies Are Real
I said: "For what it's worth, I saw loads of these on one occasion in my life, while camping in the Santa Cruz mountains back in 1977 or so. I watched what looked like almost a hundred of these guys as they did whatever they were doing in the forest. I watched for about 15-20 minutes solid, all the while trying to talk myself out of believing what I was seeing."

That's not the point and RW knows it. The point is that RW makes the assumption that since I saw fairies I am a fairy, you know, homosexual. It's none of your business which genders I prefer. AndrewPaquette (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)AndrewPaquette
 * Nobody is saying you are gay. That suggestion exists only in your head. Anyway, this is not an anti-gay site. Far from it. Have you got us confused with Conservapedia? Spud (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please quote the exact text in the article that says you're a fairy and point out the crucial words for this statement. Nullahnung (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, deary me. No one is "accusing" you of being a "fairy". Indeed, there is nothing in the article about your sexual orientation whatsoever. What is more, the use of derogatory terms for same sex orientation is generally frowned upon here. No, the reason that we laugh is the concept that you believe you saw creatures not normally seen outside of childrens tales. Placeholder (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that your world is so limited. Mine isn't

As far as the homophobic behaviour here, there's a rampant history of administrative stupidity on this site. One of the more mainstream issues involves transgender advocates getting banned from editing for the crime of pointing out that RWikipedia's own policy was being violated by trans-phobic editors, who refused to use a transwoman's female name despite policy dictating that biographies were to use the names a person preferred used. Advocates of RWikipedia's own policy were told they were simply having a "battleground" attitude. Skeptic edits are just an extension of systemic stupidity inherent to this site, sadly.

So, who here has the manliness to admit they are gay? Hmmmm? AndrewPaquette (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)AndrewPaquette
 * (EC)Where's your evidence? This site has always used and endorsed the use of transwomen's female names. Also, there are plenty of RW editors who are gay and are manly enough to say it. Nullahnung (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please provide links to back up your assertions. Thanks. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 15:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe you have confused us with "Wikipedia," which is as trans-phobic as they come. This site is unrelated to Wikipedia. Hipo crite 21:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

All Roads Lead To Rome
And, Brother, does he tear RWiki a new one.

http://www.skeptiko.com/236-rome-viharo-wikipedia-we-have-a-problem/

AndrewPaquette (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)AndrewPaquette
 * To save others the bother or reading this rubbish the relevant bit includes

In addition to that, I was exposed on Wikipedia—me personally. They outed me as a person and now they have created this hit piece on me on RationalWiki. I’m sure you’re familiar with RationalWiki. It’s everything but rational, right? There probably isn’t that many editors involved in RationalWiki but they’re these really aggravated people who adhere to this specific worldview and they use it to basically abuse people.

There’s this very abusive, libelous piece on me on RationalWiki right now. It shows up really high in searches. It’s harmful to me professionally. What it says to me is if this philosophy–or however it’s referred to, these people who are part of this—I really don’t know what to call it, Alex. Is it a skeptical movement? Are they Atheists? I have no idea. But if they’re simply promoting science, which is based on empiricism, logic, rationality, why do they need to do all these dirty tricks to get their point across? Why do they need to abuse people? Why do they need to defame people to make their point?
 * Splendid stuff. Placeholder (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and every word of it is true.

You make my point succinctly. By paraphrasing and cherry-picking what I posted, you are trying to divert from the full exposure I was making. Good luck with that bit of transparent treachery. AndrewPaquette (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)AndrewPaquette


 * Quoting in its entirety the everything relevant to RatioanlWiki on an otherwise irrelevant page is hardly, paraphrasing, cherry-picking or treachery. Spud (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Considering you didn't read my entire thread, how would you know? I'll leave room for you to lie and claim that you did.AndrewPaquette (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)AndrewPaquette

Healing Mice
Since it is "all out on the fag Paquette" day, here is a bit more for you to use to make fun of me. I heal mice psychically.

The fact is, psychic healing is quite ordinary and literally anybody can do it with a bit of training. People have done it with no training at all. Someone from this site might could do it, you don't have to be gay, it's that simple.

I use a technique developed with my psychic healing abilities that involved the use of personal positive image visualization mixed with an attitude of detachment. Mice who are sick are not only healed (cancer, flu, nerve disorders, etc.) but they remain without recontracting the diseases for the rest of their lives. Have fun with that.AndrewPaquette (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)AndrewPaquette


 * The smell of Poe's Law is getting stronger here. Can you confirm that you are actually Andrew Paquette? Something like "I am currently engaged in a discussion on RationalWiki" posted in your own name at the internet forum that you moderate would suffice. Leuders (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As Head Forum Moderator and next in command behind main man Alex Tsakiris, I will personally DELETE any post by Andy who has told you he will NOT play your silly games. Further, I have confirmed this is Andy so that ends that!Michaellarkin (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)MichaelLarkin

"Since it is "all out on the fag Paquette" day,"
Where on RW did somebody call you that? Do you know how to find and post links to edits on the wiki so that you can document your claims? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 16:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The above AndrewPaquette is an impersonation account by Larkin
The user above posting as "AndrewPaquette" is not the real Andrew Paquette, he is an impersonate account trying to make him look bad (mentioning gays etc and posting abuse). If you want this confirmed you can easily contact the real Andrew from his website or on the forum. Andrew is NOT an abusive person and it is easy to see this impersonation. I recently spoke to the real Andrew and this person is not him. The impersonator has copied the real Paquett's comment here onto this talk-page but edited it, note where the real Paquette wrote "I took a look around and saw what appeared to be libelous articles about almost anyone you'd care to name from the field of parapsychology including Alex, Sheldrake, Craig, Radin, etc" the impersonator on this page added "MU" onto the end, this is because the impersonator is MU doing this. MU an associate of Rome Viharo was banned from the forum on his account 'Michael Larkin' so has a personal vendetta against Paquette. Once again the above Paquette account is NOT the real Paquette it is Larkin/MU. Raspberry (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This appears to be correct. Hipo crite 22:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * How many times in one day can you be wrong? I stand by every single word I have posted and if you wish, you can contact me via my website for any additional information. AndrewPaquette (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)AndrewPaquette


 * And exactly what is this garbage?

"You are unable to edit because you have been placed into the vandal bin. You were put in the vandal bin by ZooGuard and the reason given was: "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Eveshi". The reason given for Eveshi's block is: "useless troll" ". While we hope you had fun, we had to do something, so you can only make one edit every 30 minutes now. If this is a mistake or you have turned a new leaf please alert any sysops. You will be able to edit again in 26 minutes. The block ID is #2042. Please include this in any queries." Shame on you, RationalWiki, blatant censorship based on nothing. AndrewPaquette (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)AndrewPaquette

Denying The Jon Donnis Lies Above
I deny this allegation, RW editors are MUch too smart to fall for such a ruse. This is obviously the work of one Jon Donnis, sychophant. I am not MU or MU!! or Tyler Snotgern or anyone else except The Michael Larkin, sidekick of Alex Tsakaris and replacement for jacob who was exiled for not defending Alex's data sufficiently. I do so with my life.Michaellarkin (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)MichaelLarkin

Banning My IP Address
As another in an endless line of attempts to quell TRUTH, the Moderators (Censors) of this wiki have tied my IP to "Eveshi" who is known by any and all as "MU!!". Why not get your censorship efforts right instead of flailing away like a bunch of loons? Michaellarkin (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)MichaelLarkin

OBE paper
Isn't that more likely to be this one.? ("A New Approach to Veridicality in Dream Psi Studies") Peter mqzp 00:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Redirect
Huh? Peter mqzp 23:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I see he's a psychic who got a book published by a vanity press. Is there something more significant about him? Leuders (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * He's also a sysop at a marginal blog. Maybe we should have an article about PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * He's written books, published papers, and appeared on skeptico. That's a lot more than, and since when did we have notability rules anyway? mqzp 02:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)