User talk:Sterile/Archive4

Display panels
Really? I mean, fucking really? Display panels at the Melbourne Museum. Unbelievable. Acei9 18:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an evolutionist source, and hence it's suspect. Creation Museum panels are authoritative! [[File:Sterilesig.svg]]talk 01:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * PJR's wife: Good morning sunshine. Would you like some coffee?
 * PJR: No time, hen. I'm skewering evolutionism on the internet! Did you know that evolutionists have to admit they were wrong and change their stories? Ho ho ho!
 * PJR's wife: That's nice, dear.
 * PJR: Aha! This evolutionist just shot himself in the foot! He doesn't read sources!! He said a museum panel was not a good source and that made fun of me because there is no MLA citation format for one! Checkmate!
 * PJR's wife: Oh honey. He's ridiculing you because it really is a stupid source.
 * PJR: He's ridiculing you because it really is a stupid source. Utter nonsense. Nothing but a throwaway insult. It's peer reviewed and there's an MLA format for citing informational plaques and cards. Therefore it is a good source and nobody has shown that it is not.
 * PJR's wife: What does it mean when you make mustaches with your fingers and repeat me in a nasty tone?

13:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There was a bit of controversy when they opened the Giant's Causeway visitor centre last year because it had some display panels which put the Creationist view. Northern Ireland is of course home to some of the nuttiest religious types in the UK. Генгис silverbrain.png 13:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you what. I'll send you an e-mail or write something here, and then you can cite it at ASK. Authoritative! [[File:Sterilesig.svg]]talk 14:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * perhaps the Godess Maratrea could appear at aSK ? I dont think PJR would appreciate the humor of Terror Taba or Bacu.
 * Just where did this museum panels bit start ? I didnt see it in the article itself or the talk page ?
 * make sure you cite it properly as personal correspondance. Hamster (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Philip's getting slow at reverting, but it's here. I'm not sure the Goddess wants to go over there. Christinsanity and all. [[File:Sterilesig.svg]]talk 02:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Suck it


01:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Turns out Inkscape has a wireframe sphere extension. Who knew? [[File:Sterilesig.svg]]talk 01:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean it has a tits extension. You'll get the hang of it. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 01:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ironically, I was considering how to make spacefilling molecules in svg, that would look like tits. [[File:Sterilesig.svg]]talk 01:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ( o )( o ) and if you want them to spin, keep hitting the E&J. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 01:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I forgot you're an ASCII connoisseur. [[File:Sterilesig.svg]]talk 01:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I got in a fist fight yesterday. Now I know what engaging such a despicable prick was building up to. Creationism is really depressing. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 01:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I was going to take off the axes, but it's more fun this way. Creationism is depressing. Even more so the amount of time I spend on it. [[File:Sterilesig.svg]]talk 02:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Those would be hideous attached to a person. You're terrible at drawing boobs. So yeah I've been reading reformed theology responses to creationism that were written by "world class hebrew or OT scholars." The actual learning is fun. Engaging nasty people who are bad to their cores is not. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Boobs are probably more ellipsoidal and tilted. More work. The religious studies folks I know are cool. I'm ready to give it up again, although I await his nastiness as a response. [[File:Sterilesig.svg]]talk 02:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well. Come over and help me finish this Daisy Cutter. Ghostbusters is on. Goonies next. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have the urge to watch the Lost Boys. [[File:Sterilesig.svg]]talk 12:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Watching/listening to it right now while I'm working in another window. We're the greatest generation of all time. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It's possible it's not that great after all. 19:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the one most people remember. I used to have this soundtrack on cassette tape. [[File:Sterilesig.svg]]talk

Well there ya go guy. 4k of hand waving nothing and saying you've misrepresented him. So, he apparently does understand that allegedly failed predictions that get revised by methods that better conform to the research are not evidence agains evolution because they don't make us less certain of the overall theory. Except the do because they all add up to show that therefor creation because for the most part one would only expect similarities under through creationary model. What is this model other than therefor design? Does it have better explanatory power than extensive genetic research that even baraminolgists rely on to show common descent to one degree or another? Who even knows what the creationary model is other than because design therefor craation. So he admits scientists may use a new theory to better explain the evidence but like with the amber example, without explaining how, the new methodology represents a failed prediction. What's weird is that he doesn't appear to dispute the general utility of phylogenetics if he's saying both appearance and genetic similarities are better explained by a model that, at the end of the day, is the one that has no explanatory or predictive power. How does the creationary model predict we will find some similarity that confirms a phylogenetic model excepts when it does, therefor creationism? Science can ust physical similarities as a loose heuristic to guite research, but once you have robust enough data on genetic markers common to specific lines of descent organism by organism, you can even track bifurcations, for which we don't have any extent organism, in order to make strong predictions about similarities between and within parallel branches. Now that sounds like science to me! It's no longer reasonable to ascribe this persistent behavior as resulting from ignorance, however deliberate. He lies about the facts and methodology, and his rhetorical style is calculated to obfuscate. It's skulduggery. 14:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I know. You gotta wonder what the predictions of baraminology are. Actually, I can include that. [[File:Sterilesig.svg]]talk 14:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and it's not clear why genetic evidence would be better for creationism. An omnipotent Designer can do anything, not constrained by natural selection and genetic variation. [[File:Sterilesig.svg]]talk 14:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, it actually does attempt to describe things according to actual evidence. It uniformly fails because of its goal, but it is one of the few creationist arguments that at least tries to be evidence-based, rather than a purely negative argument. Only a few other creationist models are susceptible of empirical investigation: aspects of flood geology and these cosmologies come to mind. And why can't this guy fucking address arguments without tq's? They're mostly throwaway shit, but this level of parsing shows that he really is intentionally obscuring the overall discussion in favor of all these nit picks that sometimes assume everything he seems to want to prove without any justification, are white rabbits, or are simply pointless meta discussion. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think he actually told us how he interprets the evidence, and showed how in the amber discussion. It's an ad hoc proclamation that creation better explains it. QED. Never mind an extraordinarily concordant body of evidence that lends itself to limitless meaningful predictions. Creation better explains the similarities you'd expect among organisms on large and small scales. Remember, he's simply asserting that the amber is similar enough that "evolutionists" are only saying it's not angiosperm because they're dogmatically adhering to their atheistic worldview. I guess you might say "good enough for jazz" when it comes to the evidence he'll claim supports his view and refutes the extremely coherent consensus of a vast majority of qualified scientists doing actual evidence-based work. Ho hum. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * When Darwin described the evidence for evolution, genetics as a field did not exist. No one knew that variation and inheritance of traits was through molecules. And genetics is a field within its own right, describing more simply how these qualities are passed on. What's truly amazing is when they came together in the Modern Synthesis, it all works into the bigger picture; the genetics of populations, a conglomeration of the genetics of individuals, so greatly enriches evolution. Creationism is so bleh to that. Baraminology is an utter failure at separating kinds—it's trivial to say that two species aren't too directly related, but far more powerful to say when they are. That genetic similarity could be design or just a coincidence ignores that DNA leaves a history, and that history is powerfully consistent in the observations. [[File:Sterilesig.svg]]talk 19:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Strawman. Begs the question. Evolutionist storytelling. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mewonders what it would be like to take all the greenified Philip out. I wonder if it would make any coherent sense. Actually, I know the answer to that question, since it already doesn't make sense. [[File:Sterilesig.svg]]talk 20:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Chalk and cheese


16:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Board nomination
I have nominated you for another term to the RMF Board of Trustees. Please go here to accept or decline, and thank you for your service. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you broken aSoK ?
I get a bandwidth exceeded error ? Hamster (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I clicked that much. Seems to be in perpetua. [[File:Sterilesig.svg]]talk 19:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * maybe down till his monthly renewal date Hamster (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Shrugs. I was tired of 509 bandwidth exceeded ASK anyway. [[File:Sterilesig.svg]]talk 15:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I see your deadasp svg fine Hamster (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see it now. He's not just dead. At this point he's martyred. I'll draw one of his glorious lifeless corpse draped over something appropriate like a throne or cross. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Pretty? It never occurred to me that the golden ratio is probably in the design of the cross. [[File:Sterilesig.svg]]talk 01:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That golden ratio rubbish is anti-christian evolutionist atheist propaganda, uncritically passed along from evolutionist to evolutionist. It's not much of a surprise that someone so hostile to God would indulge that kind of superstition. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 03:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Bald assertion, uncivil, elephant-hurling, depraved minded evolutionist! [[File:Sterilesig.svg]]talk 03:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If I could just find an SVG of the Game of Thrones throne for the Starks..... probably not so hard to make, but it would take more time. [[File:Sterilesig.svg]]talk 11:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * God you're a nerd. Also, apparently this. I don't know how to describe it. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

!!!
Save Ferr Aspis!!! 20:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

aSK
So, did you buy aSK from PJR? 11:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nah. I don't know where he is. I'm just doing home improvements while he's away. [[File:Sterilesig.svg]]talk 15:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawal


Im ready for more PJR. This has been a long break from writing an encyclopedia for him. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't remember when your time is up. I have a lot of LGBT issues to deal with, and some cretinism ones as well. [[File:Sterilesig.svg]]talk 14:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OOoo.... you can edit in a few days. And he's still not dealt with your insolence. Geez! [[File:Sterilesig.svg]]talk 19:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Odd time to block brx or whatever.
He hadn't done anything against the rules in a while, right? Didn't he agree to stop? Ikanreed (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't about wiki rules. It's about jeopardizing the foundation legally. (Although inasmuch as the wiki is supported by the foundation, it jeopardizes that as well.) Sterile (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we have something to use as a cite; just to use when/if unblock him, especially down the line when it's "why is brx blocked again?"-- Mie kal  19:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Cite the block reason. That and Sterile's board chair authority are all you need. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I missed the invite to post to your talk-page about the block reason for Brx. Do you have any documentation of the reason behind your decision? I would like to see it if possible, regards Tielec01 (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean, the deleted and hidden diffs? No, not a thing that is sensible - David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No of course not, although just an FYI not all the diffs appear to be deleted and hidden, email me if you like and I can show you one that I think might have slipped through.
 * I guess I would expect some sort of justification for the decision. Banning people has historically been a very difficult thing to do, it has even been hard to ban a person who borderline promoted pedophilia. It's a decision that shouldn't be taken lightly. Furthermore, I can't remember an occasion when the board has banned anyone, so this is an extraordinary circumstance. Presumably you have a record of the discussion that lead up to this event and the reason for the 6 month ban (as opposed to a warning or a 12 month ban)? If not maybe Sterile can shed some light as to the reason behind the decision here. This could be in the form of meeting minutes, a summary of the conversation or whatever is at hand. Tielec01 (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So, nothing then? Tielec01 (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do people usually give you things you're not entitled to after you call them liars? Nutty Roux (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. When they are committed to open and transparent decision making.
 * I see there's no point in continuing to pursue this issue. Nutty, you are the person I am most disappointed with. The Greeks had it right, a tragedy is more cathartic when the person who falls starts off as a decent person. Nothing I could say will make you reflect on your behaviour it seems, so I'll just observe with interest as you treat the community with contempt and become more authoritarian with each test of your character. Tielec01 (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * While I'm not sure what the RMF is up to, it's worth noting that if the Foundation has engaged with legal counsel, there may be very good reasons why you're being met with silence. I wouldn't necessarily jump to any conclusions here. - Grant (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately in this instance I don't think that "just trust us" is a good enough response Grant. Tielec01 (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When legalities are involved there often isn't much of a choice. Sometimes there are gears turning behind the scenes that make any attempted explanation or justification problematic. - Grant (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Grant, hear what you are saying but this is a board that hasn't released minutes for over 2 years. When asked why they responded by excoriating the user that asked (look at the RMF talk page). When I asked why they made this banning decision my post was promptly removed from the saloon bar, in violation of community guidelines. When I came here and asked Sterile for the reason behind the decision (as he invited us to do) I have been met with abuse from the Secretary (presumably acting in a board capacity). I have an email address that is easily accessible if someone would like to inform me in private of what is going on; needless to say I have not recieved any emails except a few from Brx. Nutty has a long history of abusing his powers when it comes to Brx (false block reasons, removing user rights for no reason) and at first blush this seems like a continuation of these abuses.
 * It's not pleasant having to be abused by people that you previously respected but someone has to try and hold the powerful to account, especially when they are banning the powerless and even more so when the reasons doesn't seem to make sense (what little they will elucidate). Tielec01 (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh, wikis with relatively small userbases (as this one has become, sadly) always end up authoritarian. Nothing remarkable about it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, RW is certainly tracking a well worn trajectory; for the moment it's still interesting to watch. Tielec01 (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Knock off the smug act, dude. I'm having to hold my nose to get through your posts, and I don't intend that to be "abuse". You've just got things desperately wrong, Tielec. You're asking for the details of a corporation's discussions of a legal issue. You're certainly not entitled to that, and I'm not sure you could even get it in discovery in a lawsuit. If you want to understand more about my decisionmaking process, as well as get some background, email me, I'll give you my number, and you can feel free to call me. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good - I'd rather not call though. Tielec01 (talk) 03:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then you're not getting any more from me. Maybe someone else will hold your hand through the insults and misinformation. I'm happy to explain quite a lot, but I don't have the time or energy to wade through this cesspit. Why is RW always about "winning"? Nutty Roux (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok then, I thought you were asking me to email you, which I just did with a bunch of questions. Feel free to ignore it. Tielec01 (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You can call me or not get a response. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Your purpose here appears to be to make your judgement of the board's action, which you've already done, calling it "deceptive" and "poor". I'm sure you had enough information to back up those claims, in which case whatever information I have and can or am willing to share is extraneous. There is nothing else to talk about. Sterile (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The exact quote:
 * ::Can I also say that I value our board's contributions, but in this case they have acted poorly and in addition, in my opinion, deceptively.".
 * Toughen up Sterile, you're not the victim here. You've given out worse abuse than the above for much less. I take the point though - you don't want to talk about the decision. That's fine, but perhaps you shouldn't have invited people to ask about the reason if you weren't going to give it.Tielec01 (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A few people have given the reason. Mine is above (albeit somewhat implicit): "This isn't about wiki rules. It's about jeopardizing the foundation legally. (Although inasmuch as the wiki is supported by the foundation, it jeopardizes that as well.)" This is a responsibility of the board that we must not and do not take carelessly. It is discouraging that you seem insistent on our doing so. Sterile (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy birthday!
Happy birthday buddy. It was damn decent of you to let Jeebus go first, but you're a better person. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Aw, shucks. I always try to do better than the dietites. Sterile (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination
I nominated you to keep standing on the board. -- Mie kal  02:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This
I am absolutely enchanted with how talented Lita Cosner is at making shit up. Literal is whatever they say it is. A plain (grammatical–historical) view of Scripture allows us to read Scripture as its human authors and original audience would have understood it. So if we find that in a certain context, Leviathan is not meant to be understood as an actual sea creature, but in another context it is, that is not inconsistent with, for example, a belief in an actual 6-day creation, because in each instance we are letting the text dictate how we interpret it. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm increasingly convinced they can justify anything to themselves. Even contradict themselves in the same sentence. Sterile (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion discussion
You may wish to comment on the ongoing articles for deletion discussion about article "John Duffield". 02:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Dude. Can you at least not delete the AFD discussion? 02:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No. We already had a discussion to delete the page, and the decision was to delete. Hiding it in your user space and making edits cannot change that decision. You have to make a case to restore it; I do not need to make an argument to delete it since people already deleted it. You have not made that case. I do not take lightly people who change a community decision on there own on an ad hoc basis. Please do not respond, as I tire of you lawyering. Sterile (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I love watching a master at work.
Do you have kids? 'Cause if you do, I'll bet they're the best-behaved motherfuckers on the block. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No kids. Sexual orientation sorta makes it difficult and I think I'm past that agewise at this point. But thanks. I think.. Sterile (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can just hear my old man saying this, and even though I'm way past the age where anyone would say that sort of thing to me, I feel it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Election thingy
Since it opened on 12 February 2015, did the election booth actually close? 06:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Voting was open until February 20th. So, yes, it probably did close. I'd assume so, anyways. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Talk to Trent. Or just be patient. If you notice, I didn't start the election proper, the voting part. Sterile (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)