RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK?/Archive4

Brrrrr Brrrrringgggg
Philip is awake and has brought a wonderful new quote tying information, semantics, and evolution neatly into one easily disposable bundle. Boycott doesn't start 'til Monday, right? 00:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * please, when did DNA get semantically meaningfull information ? or is Philip using a different meaning of semantics ?  Hamster 00:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Phil is doing the same thing he did with "information" - quote-mining fricking philosophers without copying in the term of art definition of the word in question. As I said, I cut my teeth on this shit, and it hurt my brain to keep up (I did, but I was just a young punk then).  He's using both definitions in parallel - the term of art and the colloquial meaning.  He's a fucking weasel. Apologies to our mustelid users.  01:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My red telephone is open, shall I drop him a line? He doesn't read RW, you know. -- 00:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the exact same point we've been going on for ages. We insist DNA has no semantic meaning, Philip declares it does, and makes dipshit word-analogies.  Good fun.  00:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CUR, shut up. What he is doing is quoting a Philosophy of Language type person to justify his use of the word "semantic", which, as I bitched at him, is a tightly defined term of art, not the colloquial version of the word.  Christ on an Easter Stick, I cut my brain teeth on this shit in teh college.  He's just quote mining.  01:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, no. Actually, he's quoting specialists. Where?  Well, fuck if I know.  -- 05:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a "book". Written by some "who knows who".  All I know is he quote-mined it for his asinine "information" page. But I recognize that sort of use of language - hence the "term of art" phrase.  PJR has no clue on this.  08:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "I'm quoting information specialists." ....what?!  08:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, he appears to be more of a philosopher who knows his info theory. Looking further into.  UNH has a copy of the book, I might get over there and give it a peek.  Also, by the way, it's applying info theory to the origins of life not evolution.  The author shows signs of being a staunch evilutionist, so the quote-mining accusation is pretty fair.  23:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Folks, digging into that Kuppers guy is very interesting. For starts, he actually works with definitions of information... and "semantic"... this is from a random review I found, not Kuppers, but it might be fun to add it to ask when we go back:

"The issue of the origin of life is reduced to the issue of the origin of biological information. Information is viewed in its different aspects: syntactic (as in information theory), semantic (function and meaning of information for an organism's survival), and pragmatic (following von Weiszacker, "information is only that which produces information")."

One thing I found odd is that what PJR is quoting doesn't appear anywhere on the net, so at least it's original quote-mining. 23:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Information / faith
Hasn't PJR somewhere stated that he's using the dictionary definition of information and also somewhere rejected the dictionary definition of faith? Or am I seeing inconsistency where there is none? 22:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, inconsistency? From a cretinist?  22:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Holydaze Ask Boycott
Have we got a template : less than ten minutes away here. 22:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeeves took care of this early: Template:Holydaze/aSoKBoycott --Sid 22:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone should make an "ON STRIKE" template to put on user pages over there for the duration, to drive the point home. Maybe link to the section above about the event that sparked this whole mess. --Kels 23:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanx, Sid. How is it switched on? 23:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit Template:Holydaze and make the numbers equal. -- Nx  / talk 23:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I want a picket sign. Sterilewalkie-talkie 23:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Make a nice subtle banner (haha, pun accidental) we can use on both sites? 23:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this too subtle?

 On strike!

Sterilewalkie-talkie 23:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a bit understated. A quieter colour maybe (#FF0000) 23:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Better? Sterilewalkie-talkie 01:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is one boycott I will be observing faithfully. I am extremely curious as to the results, which I expect will be dramatic.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 09:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose I might as well come out and say it- I do not support this boycott.  I feel that a boycot should only be used in the case of CP or such, where irrational behavior, unjust bannings, rangeblocks, and other such things are used commonplace.  aSK and Phil have been accommodating to us, and, albeit while disagreeing with us, have accomodated debate, and have not banned a single user, exception ToP(1 day), who stated here that he was deliberatley a ass, to see how long it would take him to be banned.  I believe that we should try to continue to "patronize" aSK, as it is good for both us and them to get in a little healty debate here and there to keep us on our toes, and also to abuse 🇰🇪 in his blatantly transparent RuyLopez sock.  Theemperor.  66.240.60.131
 * Gulik earlier got a day as well, but both have had a certain trollish flavour. I am in two minds as to whether or not your boycott is a "good thing" (from the aSK standpoint).  I agree with what Theemperor says here about the aSk "culture" compared to CP (although I have been trying to avoid comparisons in favour of letting aSk be itself), but I also agree with what Human says below regarding getting a chance to build some content instead of responding to debates with pretty much the stuff that should be going into the articles.  I propose a semi-boycott.  Spend a week staying away from the "hot-buttons" and work on other content (there is plenty available) and see how much gets done.  Of course that adds nothing to RW and benefits aSK instead, but I certainly won't complain about that.  Also, I don't know what you think to find out from the boycott.  That rats generate most of the edits?  Hardly surprising given the lack of publicity to date and relative infancy of aSK.  The rat signup was an abnormal spike. Tricksy 02:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would you actually want to edit aSoK? If you wanted to create encyclopaedia articles, then there's a perfectly good encyclopaedia all ready for you to edit over at wikipedia. These encyclopaedia with a bias sites like aSoK and CP can only ever attract fringe wackos. It's amusing enough to go over there and poke at the freaks, but its hardly a project that you would want to improve. -- 08:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "perfectly good" : hmm, their rep hs been going steadily downhill from what I understand. Even our primary schools are starting to take a dim view of it as an encyclopaedia.  You imply a lack of bias on WP, which is odd as the policy is pretty explicitly argumentum ad populum, what with "Most popular POV equals NO POV" etc.  The whole point (and I am sure you already read this) is that aSK's bias/POV is explicitly stated on the main page, rather than either ignored or denied.  Considering the attraction of CP and aSK to the rats, I say "Greetings to all you fringe wackos!"  :^D  Of course I want to improve aSK.  Umm you do realise who I am do you not? I find it refreshing to have an encyclopaedia that says "Here is our point of view", one then knows on what basis to take the articles.  It is akin to a doctor hanging credentials on the wall.  It says "This is where I am coming from" so you can factor that in however you wish.  Tricksy 12:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A witch doctor in this case... --Kels 12:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You need a wiki full of loonies to edit? Try Tin Wiki, for all your conspiracy-theory needs. --Gulik 09:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @Tricksy. I don't think anyone would ever use WP as an academic encyclopedia, but it's a good starting point & sourcebook. aSoK only gives those references/sources that further its agenda. This leaves its bias intact. 12:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Theresa, I wasn't the one that called it "perfectly good" and I do take your point about WP as a good starting point (although even that is not true of many articles). But what you say of aSK is certainly true of WP, and the problem at WP is you don't really know what the agenda is unless you are willing to wade through bulk talk pages, diffs and contribs to get a read on the whichever editors are controlling whichever article.  Like we keep saying, at least aSK states is agenda upfront.  Regardless,  talkorigins and the skeptik's (if you're subsitute one c, why not go for both?) annotated bible are given as references/sources on aSK, and they most certainly do not further aSK's "agenda".   Tricksy 13:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

'''you get burned in the sun. you get wet in the rain.''' In defense of WP, it isn't as if other reference works are un-biased in pretty much precisely the same way as WP it is just that what counts as the power-to-bias is different. Brittanica's articles, for example. have the same sort of perspective bias the difference is the biases in many cases have been ratified by the market. Actual vandalism notwithstanding, In this casing calling WP biased and unreliable is not a cry of the emperor is naked but rather the emperor is naked too. I bet WP would win if one were to audit WP and any other encyclopedia based on a list of facts -- the larger the list the more it will win.Me!Sheesh! Mine! 14:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm fully clothéd.  00:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Attention Gentlemen At A Creationist Website!
Operation "Oh, Whatever" is now in effect! I expect your edit rate to drop precipitously! --NotNewton (Gulik 12:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC))


 * As an aside, is it just me or is Philip getting much more entrenched and militant in his bizarre beliefs about what evolution is and how science operates, or is it just because he was standing next to people who made him look good less crazy before? --Kels 13:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My guess: at CP he didn't need to defend his dingbat ideas so much, since the other sysops could be counted on to ban anyone who disagreed with him. He's admirably trying NOT to do that at aSoK, with the consequence that he actually has to argue, which makes the nuttiness that much more obvious. --Gulik 15:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, although I will point out that Philip has more focused control on ASK. He certainly has control of the evolution article, which he really didn't over at CP.  The information was over at CP (I looked at the recently), but it depends if you were looking--there were a lot of other things going on.  It's a much smaller community, so it's more noticeable.  I wish he'd edit dinosaur more at ASK.  Sterilewalkie-talkie
 * Well, he's got a week without most of the devils he usually has at his heels, maybe he'll get a chance. Seeing as he won't need to research a thing for all that time, and all. --Kels 19:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's my hope. Us staying out of his hair should give him time to create more interesting things to discuss.    20:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the "King of Nothing" angle seems to be working. The only activity over there for hours now has been Wes making articles about bands (good taste on the Murpheys) and CUR being an idiot and sticking the "On Strike" banner on PJR's page instead of his own. --Kels 01:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * He spent most of yesterday answering remaining questions, so today is the real start of the things to do at aSoK drought. There ought to be some quality insanity in store this week. -- 07:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I forgot how much of a quote-miner PJR is. Sterilewalkie-talkie 12:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See my "what I did during the strike" report below, I note you have strong brains in the area of "information". Pointers as to what direction to head in after Kupper 1990?  I kan haz access to big liberry with science books and periodicals.  Really!  00:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Effects of evolution on Christian views
Good! 13:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keeping in mind that not a single one of those people turning away had any other reason but evolution (and the roving gangs of scientists threatening them). I do wonder about PJR's point of view there.  Is he saying that even if the theory's true (it is, of course, and demonstrably so), it should be kept from people because it might hurt Christianity? --Kels 13:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems to be his point. 13:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As another website points out, "the truth shall set you free!" Bondurant 14:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If the Bible had a few more verifiable facts in it, and a bit less magic and made up guff then perhaps people would believe in that when they heard it too. -- 20:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can all sleep soundly now
"No, bacteria don't hold the opposite view. Bacteria don't think. In that respect (among many others) we are better than bacteria, and that's indisputable objective fact, not opinion." At what Phil? at surviving (which is the main thrust of evolution)?. There'll be bacteria here long after we've gone. 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Bacteria don't think. This coming from a metaphysical bastard. Interesting. 13:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Easy enough. Put Phil into a bacteria-rich environment, and the one who survives best is the "better".  But on a related note, his whole thing about death, animals die the same as humans do.  WTF did they do to deserve that fate?  Far as I know, animals aren't supposed to be able to sin, and none of them ate the fruit.  Seems like a raw deal. --Kels 13:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Phil's showing how zointed (sorry, shameless pug) he really is. 13:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've always found it interesting that scientists say that evolution doesn't have a direction and that saying evolution "toward" something is inappropriate (and the word evolution is in many ways bad). Yet the creationists clearly think humans are best, the pinnacle of all.  If this flu goes pandemic, we'll see about that.... Sterilewalkie-talkie 14:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What's ironic is that this sort of thinking is clearly an evolutionary adaption, taken a wee bit far. Primates are group-oriented, and the welfare of the group is analogous to the welfare of the individual.  Add intelligence, and you get "my tribe is the best!" which comes out in the highly emotional world of national politics, sporting events, and so forth.  So Philip identifying humans as "his" group, it's a matter of pride that "his" group has to be the best, no matter what.  Perfectly orthodox evolutionary theory. --Kels 14:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

* beats head against wall* Holy shit, Phil, could you maybe make the conversation less about what Evolution actually claims? Evolution is every man for himself? Communities and altruism aren't naturally occurring? At what point does this go beyond "genuine belief in an alternative" and become "blatantly Lyin' for Jesus"? --Kels 15:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said elsewhere: "See Alice: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."" 15:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So "evolution" now means "Last Man Standing"? Well, that certainly starts to explain things like "Darwin caused the Holocaust". --Sid 16:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why use the evolutionary meaning of better? Because you're talking about evolution, you idiot! --Kels 16:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's just the time of night, but I'm having a hard time reading Philip's stuff here without a handy and entertaining rebuttal as a quick antidote. The degree to which he not only fools himself, but insists on fooling others, is staggering. Almost everything there is part of an elaborate construct of quote mining, half-truths and confirmation bias, especially the latter, and it's a bit depressing. I expect a good night's sleep will help. --Kels 04:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he's a total fucking quote-miner. I've been reading the Kupper book he quotes to make his "semantic" point, and seriously, he ignores the entire book's contents.  I asked him if I could quote Kupper in articles, but he dodged that question.  I will be doing so when the "strike" is over, believe me.  04:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Where'd you get the Kuepper book from? I'm interested....  Sterilewalkie-talkie 13:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Working from his footnote at asok:information, I found a few things on line  The former is a short review, the latter a partially redacted "preview".  They have a copy at my local Uni I may go try to borrow to check it all out.  Basically Kupper is a philosopher of science, and from what I can tell so far, is arguing that the semantic aspect of information required in genetics is inherent as semantic information at the atomic/molecular level - ie, it is inherent in the universe.  But don't quote me on that yet, too many pages missing in the preview, and I only Schlaflied skimmed the first 1/4 or so of it.  21:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And, PS, the reason I want PJR to let me quote Kupper in articles (since he must be a trusworthy source if PJR uses him) is that he is a staunch old earth evilutionist. 21:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. It's kinda interesting that there is a "real" operationalized semantic information.  Did PJR ever say why he's against Claude Shannon's info other than it's "statistical"?  Sterilewalkie-talkie 23:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Kupper breaks info into syntactic, semantic and pragmatic. Syntactic is what Shannon worked on, and is less important than semantic (to Kupper).  I don't think PJR understands semantic doesn't mean "like any analogy in English I can come up with" though.  Anyhooooo... see the new section below after I make it.  00:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope I'm putting this in the right place. After an (admittedly cursory) look at Küppers, I'm pretty sure you're right. Küppers' definition of semantic information seems to be what you get when you take syntactic (i.e. Shannon) information and add in an arbitrary set of constraints. These constraints might be complicated, and might greatly limit the number of allowable symbols; this is what we see w/ languages. But they don't need to me, and (importantly) these constraints need not involve a mind. The amount of semantic information is just the amount of syntactic information given the chosen constraints.
 * An example: Suppose I start transmitting a string of symbols, say n 0s and 1s. We can calculate the syntactic information; if each bit is equally likely to be a 0 or a 1, I'll have transmitted n bits of syntactic information. But if we know that the 0s and 1s are the binary representation of a string of Unicode characters, then it's not likely that each bit is equally likely to be a 0 or a 1, and hence when we calculate the information content of my string, it'll be less than n bits.
 * So really, all that's going on here is this: semantic information is syntactic information given a (probability-altering) set of constraints. Küppers confuses things somewhat by saying stuff like "[semantic] information is only that which is understood. (p. 48)" His claim is that there is semantic information in DNA; if semantic information must be understood, then that suggests that minds are necessary for DNA in some fashion or other. But he's not being precise here. All that actually matters is that we have some set of constraints, and for DNA these constraints come about as a matter of physical law. The fact that any given bit of DNA can only code for one protein (if it codes for any protein at all) is all the constraint needed to get "semantic information," in Küppers' view. He seems to note this on p. 49.TallMan 03:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Political correctness or stupidity?
Michaeldsuarez doesn't like man men being singled out (also uses the HORRIBLE word "womyn" in teh edit summmary). What a tosser! 18:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * .........I actually find the article itself much more fascinating... *blinks* Maybe Philip should tweak the MW code so that the "Save page" button reads "Amen!"... --Sid 18:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be encouraged, though not the womyn thing. As people properly translate 'mankind' and 'people' correctly, stories such as Sodom become much less interesting to homophobes. --Shagie 18:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never had any problem with "man" for humanity, it's normally obvious from context what it means and it's only those who want to be offended or imposed on who take exception. 18:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Womyn" has always struck me as Too Much Women's Studies syndrome, and often crops up in colleges and among both hardcore and fluffy pagans, and occasionally more politically-motivated lesbians (there's crossover, obviously). On the other hand, all three groups have more grounded people who know that it's not a big deal. --Kels 18:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What a fucking nutter... It's a biblical site - women are literally a subset of men and they have domain over them. 21:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hooman
Human looks up book PJR cites on innertubes and at UNH library website. Human reads bits and pieces. Human's brain asplodes, this is like real work to understand.

Wednesday Human drives to UNH campus and find the Biological Sciences stacks building on first try. Nice young man at desk explains to Human how to find book with its URL thingie. Human finds book. Human reads some more, more brain asplosions. Human puts book back on shelf and walks to main library building. Human asks nice young woman at desk "kan haz liberry card plz?" Five minutes later Human walks out with shiny liberry card. Asks random stoodints if legal to smoke on campus. Human walks back to BioSci stacks armed with new privlidges and powerz. Gets book again and another by same author, also picks out most recently published book on shelf. Human brings them to nice young man, nice young man scans liberry card and books and hands over dead trees to Human. Human now have them for four weeks, renewable ten (!) times on line if Human remembers him password.

Scored:


 * Kupper, Information and the Origins of Life (PJR quotes this at aSocK:Information)
 * Kupper, Molecular Theory of Evolution
 * Graur & Li, Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution

Human feels like big grown-up with liberry books to read.

As Human leaves BioSci stacks building, random person asks for directions to a building. Human, stupefied, points to nice young man building door to "help".

Human drives home and reports to socK drawer his exploitz. 00:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool! Book much retarded? Mei 00:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, book smart. PJR quote-mined it not read it I think. These are real books by smart people, not YEC tracts.  00:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think PJR quotemined the guy who quotemined the book, if I remember aright. I'll go & look. 00:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I searched for the quote he used, and smaller bits of it, and got no hits. Please, if you find the original miners, let me know? kthxbai.  00:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah. I pointed out to PJR that a quick google showed material on information theory by biologists including a link to one of Kupper's books.
 * PJR then quotemined them. Ajkgordon 09:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for clarifying that. Well, as pointed out above, I now have in my possession that actual, unredacted book.  Gotta do some reading before this strike is over, this is going to be fun...  21:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * is not right you bring actually facty info into an ask debate. it be ebil evilutiony librul science and not good God inspired Creation science 67.72.98.58 22:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ace
Ace got super pissed all day every day, proposed to his girlfriend, ate room service in expensive hotels, abused his collegues and slept. He also wondered why there so many fucking fatties in his office and got angry at people in the street. He also beat his umbrella to death and made a spiked mace out of it and some pins when he arrived at work. Ace McWickedThe Liquid Room 00:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I almost wrote your section as well... 00:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Irrational Atheist
I wrote steamy elfin lesbian sex scenes for profit. --Irrational Atheist 00:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't tell Ace!  00:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like fun. I won't tell   HEY ACE!!! IRRATIONAL ATHEIST WRITES LESBIAN SEX BOOKS!!!!!11!!!    sorry, it kinda slipped out  00:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I had sex with a steamy lesbian elf. 00:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, my book(s) heroine is a dyke (me dressed up) 00:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are we redefining "self insertion", dear? --Kels 02:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Share some linkage. --Irrational Atheist 00:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Narr! renders me traceable, sorry. 00:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tease! I'll just tend to my own flock, then. --Irrational Atheist 01:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lesbians
Interestingly, on the topic of lesbians, I went to a party during the week and I hid in the toilet drinking beer for over an hour making panicked phone calls when I found out that it was a lesbian party. Then I went to strip club and got a free lapdance from an ex-girlfriend before watching her knock out some poor bastard with her platform shoe when he leant in too close when she spun around the pole. Now I am eating BBQ Spare Rib flavoured noodles that contain an ingrediant called "rape-seed". Ace McWickedThe Liquid Room 00:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And this is why the Ace quote generator was an epic fail; who could have predicted he was going to come out with that? 00:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And I speak only truth. What I get up too in my spare time is better than any fiction I could make up. Ace McWickedThe Liquid Room 01:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are teh lesbians that frightening? You didn't try to "convert" any of 'em, then Ace? Shame on you.  01:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ace's +100 ring of charm is rendered useless by homosex.  01:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I got nothing against lesbians but when they surround you en masse and the only other male has a noticable speech impediment, spilt his drink on the floor and then collapsed on the table you know its time to call for reinforcments. Ace McWickedThe Liquid Room 01:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Javascap
Became a nude mud wrestler, dropped out of college, had sex with a mouse, fell asleep drunk, learned how to s, and got hit by a meteor. No really! 00:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you learned how to s. --Irrational Atheist 00:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No really, I did! I swear, s are the best thing in the world to ! 00:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just how does one acquire the s in order to them? Does it involve ? --Irrational Atheist 00:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is for me to know and you to find out... 00:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But I would like to find out. Is there a catalog to acquire s legally? Is there a how-to book to them? Help! --Irrational Atheist 00:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright... fine... to get the, you must a sacred virgin at  past . This will please the  s, and they will bestow a  upon you as their reward.  away.  00:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Trust you bastids to turn a bug into a feature within days... 00:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Was that so ? It only took you tries! --Irrational Atheist 00:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * [[image:Coffee spray.gif]] I must add that s are fun to with a very    00:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Quoting
I think this is lovely & deserves a full quote:Regarding quoting Kuppers, we've not really laid down any restrictions on who can be quoted and who can't be quoted. However, quoting an opinion of someone when that opinion is based on a non-biblical worldview and is contrary to a biblical worldview is not normally going to carry much weight. So saying "Geneticist Dr. X says that there's 3043 genes in chromosome P" is okay, because that is (presumably) factual. And saying that "Geologist Dr. Y believes that strata N was laid during the recessive stage of the flood" is okay, because his presuppositions are consistent with the worldview of this site. But saying that "Palaeontologist Dr. Z believes that dinosaurs evolved into birds" is not okay, because it is not a fact and his presuppositions are at odds with the worldview of this site. 13:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see Kels beat me to it on WIGOaSoK by 3 minutes. Oh well! 13:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't that just a lovely bit of self-serving creationist dishonesty? So Reasonable, too.  Any colour you want, as long as it's black. --Kels 14:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They ought to have an "ASK GUIDE TO QUOTEMINING". 14:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we need/have any "GUIDE TO QUTOE MINING" for other places? Thieh 14:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I admit, most of them aren't quite so up front about their intent to lie to the reader. --Kels 14:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PJR's far too honest to make an effective quote miner, he actually admits that he's getting the quotes second hand from Creation Ministries International. Phil, you're doing it wrong, you're supposed to pretend you actually know what you're talking about. -- 14:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's one of Philip's biggest problems, and weirdly it's a lot like Andy in the early days before everything was about Liberals. Where Andy wanted to beat WP at it's own game, which is why he never closed membership and chose the wiki format in the first place, Philip wants to beat the scientists.  Which means he's got to try to do it by honest, rational means.  The problem is, Creationism relies on a mixture of ad-hoc excuses, outright lies, twisted rhetoric, quote mines, and an utter absence of facts and rationality at key points.  So it's rather interesting to see Philip try to justify and explain non-fact with what he thinks is fact, often more so than watching Andy froth at the mouth and chew the scenery. --Kels 15:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome, he finally answered my question. "quoting an opinion of someone when that opinion is based on a non-biblical worldview" - that would be someone like Kupper, who he freely quote-mines at asock:information.  So we can only quote people when it supports PJR.  Very nice.  19:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, oh, oh dear. I love cherry-picked evidence-based creationism. Sterilewalkie-talkie 04:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Whois Bogdan (what is he)
I wonder which member is: "Bogdan Bednarczyk"? (Admin, Billing & Tech) Presumably it's User:Admin. Not terribly prolific. 14:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought User:Admin was the default user you got when you started a wiki? So it's just PJR. I could be probably am wrong. Taytopacket 14:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is our Bohdan, by any chance? Totnesmartin 14:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Austrilian Bohdan? 14:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ...probably not then. is he being a pain? Totnesmartin 14:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it was just idle curiosity (the devil makes work for idle hands) 15:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As the hosting servers are NS1.BOGDANS.NET, NS2.BOGDANS.NET I would imagine Bogdan is just the guy who rents the server space to Philip and probably has nothing to do with content. 19:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Without speculating about who controls User:Admin or who "Bogdan" is, I'll just note that you can set up MediaWiki without "User:Admin" since you can set the first user's name during the install process. For example, I got a local MW install with only a single user in the User List: "Sid". --Sid 19:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Alleged problems in the Bible
The biggest effing problem is that it was (allegedly) written thousands of years ago by an ignorant, superstitious gang of semi nomads for a gullible audience. IT MAKES ME WANT TO BEAT HIM ABOUT THE HEAD WITH A WET LLAMA. 15:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's also my biggest issue with the whole "Bible as historical fact" gig:
 * I mean, even today, with all our tools and us being networked like crazy, we still have trouble keeping our history 100% straight. Our history books can contain small and large mistakes, sometimes only being corrected as we make new discoveries. And people still go around, believing that the Holocaust is a lie and that the Moon landing never happened. Or shit, just look at Andy's World History Course!
 * So why am I supposed to believe that some ancient text is completely factual? Because "Creation scientists" go around and construct arguments to make our observations compatible with their story? Sorry, but not even the "Aliens built the pyramids" people expect me to believe in stuff like magically slowing light, animals being catapulted across continents by volcanic activity or laboratory chimeras created by advanced antediluvian civilizations (which somehow weren't advanced enough to build a BOAT or a bunker/base).
 * So yeah, I also don't find it very believable that some ancient dudes somehow managed to write down a 100% (or even 50%) accurate account of history. --Sid 17:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A friend of mine, very much a staunch pagan, put it very nicely. Just because you're ancient doesn't mean you're wise.  People a long time ago were just people, they didn't have anything more special than anyone else. --Kels 17:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Never laugh at the old when they offer counsel,
 * Often their words are wise:
 * From shriveled skin, from scraggy things
 * That hand among the hides
 * And move amid the guts,
 * Clear words often come.
 * — Havamal 134. 18:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Even assuming that the scribes got it all right all the time throughout Jewish history (let's just suppose) I wonder who was keeping the minutes during creation week? Even after that we must assume that either Adam or Eve had decided to keep a diary (probably Eve as it's usually a girl thing). Did God just happen to create some papyrus stalls where they could pick up the odd blank tome and a Papyrusmate♥ stylus? Then we get generations where nothing much happens except some begatting yet miraculously they still manage to hold onto these old documents (without adding much new stuff) despite traipsing around the middle east and avoiding being smitten every other day. Bonkers! 19:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * you are showing your chronologistic bias in your belief that these were primitive technologies, they obviously had pocket pc and flashdrives of some sort which were lost in the large flood events. Noah had to transcribe them onto the paper made fom the floaty rafts of vegetation after the flood . Hamster 20:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The evil empires of the Bible
Yeesh. What must it be like to be able to convince yourself that whole nations of people are so evil as to deserve extermination, every man, woman and child. And further, to actually believe that that extermination is just. Even to consider the proposition invites thoughts of Godwin. Truly, for good men to do evil things it requires religion. -- 18:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It helps not to think of them as people at all. They're just a homogenous mass of something, by definition evil since God wanted them dead and God is by definition good.  It's not like they were ordinary people, tilling their fields, going about their daily tasks, feeding their children, and generally not doing anything special.  They were EVIL, therefore they all had to die. None of that namby-pamby "converting" stuff or wimpy "missionaries", God demanded blood.  And again, since God is nothing but good, he must have had a good reason and the only reason is they were evil.
 * Now if you'll excuse me, I suddenly itch all over. --Kels 19:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, God in the OT is a major jerk. Even when he's not going around and nuking cities, his actions are often... questionable. Heck, I read Exodus a few days ago (at least until the Red Sea Crossing) for the first time in years and wow, I totally forgot that God personally manipulated the Pharaoh to not let Moses go. Numerous times. And why? So he could show off more and more "miracles" (you know, like killing off all firstborns - which is apparently okay with Christians, unlike the Pharaoh's plan to kill all boys).
 * Then again, Moses himself isn't really a rolemodel, either.
 * I honestly dunno. I'm a lot more comfortable with thinking that God got laid came to his senses after the OT. It doesn't require me to actually justify God killing off entire cities and actually telling his followers that he's going to make life extra hard for them just to show off. --Sid 19:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that wacky new testament just requires you to believe that when christians are washed in the blood of christ they come out clean, but when the jews call for the blood of christ to be on them they just get more icky than they were before (Incidentally, why the fuck couldn't these arseholes write believable dialog, who the fuck is going to shout out that they want a guy killed and that his blood should be upon them? Seriously.) So, no genocide, just laying the foundations for future genocide. Oh, wait, did I just cross the Godwin line? -- 19:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My take on YHVH is that he is a self-aggrandizing sort of God, and the claim that he created the world is akin to Hitler pretending he was Member #7 of the Nazi Party, or Stalin exaggerating his role in the October Revolution. 20:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Or Ed Poor bragging about being User #188, to pick a more pathetic example? --Kels 20:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I picture YHWH logging off RW, going downstairs to show off the article he wrote to his parents, who just say "very nice, dear, now go fix the typos", then he realizes he forgot his password. 20:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Omg. YHWH = CUR. The truth at last. Mei 05:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew someone would finally get the joke... seven hours, not too bad. 06:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wondered when someone would figure that out. -- 17:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Lack of sleep.
I forgot the strike, and apologized for it on the aSK Mormon page. It must be time for some sleep. Corry 05:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I only hope the mormons can forgive you. Mei 05:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They probably won't. I tend to consume large quantities of caffeine.  Corry 05:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Right me lad, it's the damp jerboas for you. Bend over. -- 06:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

PJR's epiphany
So close, yet so far. "claims based on a superficial reading or even misreading of the Bible, and a tone that made it appear as though belief in the Bible is old fashioned and unreasonable" becomes parody. But use it to say evolution is wrong is fact. I always wonder why people like PJR can explain such things to other people, about how the Bible can be misunderstood for any reason, and not apply it to himself. --Irrational Atheist 16:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Self-analysis is the hardest thing in the world for most people, including me. --Gulik 19:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

SCIENCE!
Dammit, you stepped on my toes with that Ungtss WiGO. I was gonna post something about how he was trying to polish Ed's turds. I do particularly like how Ed seems to be suggesting that we not only can't find all the answers of behaviour just by looking at the brain (despite the fact that we're doing a pretty good job of it), but that we shouldn't even try. Christian-based science, indeed! --Kels 20:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it very funny that creationists use the same arguments over and over as though they're profound new insights. They weren't right a century ago, they weren't right a decade ago, why would they be right now? --Irrational Atheist 20:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe something changed when the laws of physics SUDDENLY ALTERED back in the 60's. But it's still funny, since Ed's "we should not allow science to study this" basically sticks a finger in the eye of PJR's "Christianity encourages the study of science". --Kels 21:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No mention of teh arabs (non Christian!) & science whence (among other) words algebra, alchemy. Who maintained & improved during the "dark ages". At least that's what I was taught. 21:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand how PJR reconciles this god that keeps everything nice and steady for us to study with the god that floods the whole damn world on a whim because we aren't licking his arse enough. And are we sure Ungtss isn't aSoK's first proper parodist, there's something fishy about those edits... -- 21:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

article request
Does anyone have access to the journal Bioessays? I'm interested in the article "Problems And Paradigms: Metaphors and the role of genes in development". Abstract:


 * In describing the flawless regularity of developmental processes and the correlation between changes at certain genetic loci and changes in morphology, biologists frequently employ two metaphors: that genes control development, and that genomes embody programs for development. Although these metaphors have an admirable sharpness and punch, they lead, when taken literally, to highly distorted pictures of developmental processes. A more balanced, and useful, view of the role of genes in development is that they act as suppliers of the material needs of development and, in some instances, as context-dependent catalysts of cellular changes, rather than as controllers of developmental progress and direction. The consequences of adopting this alternative view of development are discussed.

Sterilewalkie-talkie 23:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and there's a beautiful paper about new gene development (new information) here. Sterilewalkie-talkie 23:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My shiny new UNH liberry card might get me there on line, otherwise I guess I could go copy it for you? 23:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What episode is that in? And pages numbers?  23:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Purty card. (Volume 12 Issue 9, Pages 441 - 446.  So someone else thinks of journal issues as episodes...) I miss the large university library (except for all the liberals, of course).  Or, just a feel for the paper would be enough.  Actually, just the abstract might be enough.  Sterilewalkie-talkie 23:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, UNH only has it back to 2001, v. 23. Pity.  They've got Science back to like the Civil War though...  00:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Let me look on teh intertubes for a bit.  Sterilewalkie-talkie 00:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have downloaded the article onto my hard drive...give me an e-mail address to send it to...Amin7b5 00:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... This looks like an afternoon read rather than a 10:50 pm read. Sterilewalkie-talkie 02:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks interesting. And I quote:

Is developmental information encoded in the genome in any way? In biology the term information is used with two very different meanings. The first is in reference to the fact that the sequence of bases in DNA codes for the sequence of amino acids in proteins. In this restricted sense, DNA contains information, namely about the primary structure of proteins. The second use of the term information is an extrapolation: it signifies the belief or expectation that the genome somehow also codes for the higher or more complex properties of living things. It is clear that the second type of information, if it exists, must be very different from the simple one-to-one cryptography of the genetic code. This extrapolation is based, loosely, on information theory. But to apply information theory in a proper and useful way it is necessary to identify the manner in which information is to be measured (the units in which it is to be expressed in both sender and receiver, and the total amount of information in the system and in a message), and it is necessary to identify the sender, the receiver and the information channel (or means by which information is transmitted). As it is, there exists no generally accepted method for measuring the amount of information in a biological system, nor even agreement of what the units of information are (atoms, molecules, cells?) and how to encode information about their number, their diversity, and their arrangement in space and time.
 * There's three references at the end of that paragraph. The most interesting one is this book. Sterilewalkie-talkie 03:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. I want to find works written after, say 2006 on this stuff, it's so cutting edge in many ways.  03:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Bah. Mere opinion, and counter to the Biblical Worldviewtm besides!  You'd do better to listen do Dr. Mr. His Honour Ham. --Kels 03:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Goggle Scholar will tell me who cited this in the future. 2000s here we come. Sterilewalkie-talkie 03:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Goggle Scholar" - Ken? 03:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of quotes, "claiming that it's fair representation simply by appeal to it being quotes is insufficient". Dammit Philip, I just bought that irony meter! --Kels 03:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ken's sneakyness
Has been reverted by persons unknown. Neither edit appears on Rc? why's that? 05:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd got Rc filtered for "talk" Silly Me. 05:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see PJR hsa a special template to help his readers maintain their ideological purity. God knows, we can't have people accidentally clicking through to pro-evolution material. Their faith might be shattered! Think of the consequences, murder, baby rape, possibly even atheism. Seriously, that references section is worse even than evolution references. At least Ken has probably read most of his sources, PJR seems to think you can cite sources you've never read as long as an appropriate member of staff at CMI has told you they're sufficiently holy. Morons. Morons all. -- 07:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And we have atheists can't be moral. Do we really want to go back? Sterilewalkie-talkie 11:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Me, not really. There are one or two things which might prompt me to be more active again, but other than that, I think aSK is a lost cause for both us and Philip.
 * I hadn't really been overly enthusiastic about Philip's content policies (Demonizing atheists/"evolutionists" whenever it's remotely possible and using The Biblical Worldview as an excuse to rabidly push his view as The Absolute Truth), which is also why I readily agreed to this boycott. --Sid 12:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ken has been repeatedly challenged to show more than just his quote mines of the articles and papers he cites. He always weaseled out. It's been that way on CP and on the various forums he trolled over the years. The rest of the time, he simply quotes abstracts of articles that are usually on pay-per-download sites or somewhat hidden, so it's 99.99% certain that he never read the shit he quotes. And if you look closely, Ken also cites Creationist quote mine pages without even pretending to have looked up the actual source. So really, Ken and Philip are quite similar in that regard. If Creationist Site X said something, citing that site is as good as (or even better than) citing the original source. --Sid 12:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "slavery, for example, is okay if people think it's okay" - well, sure. Annoyingly, the slaves tend to think it's not so okay. Now maybe atheist slaves... --Just passing by 13:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When an external basis for morality is not available, morality becomes whatever people think morality should be, which means that morality is decided by changing human opinion. In this situation, slavery, for example, is okay if people think it's okay. I always thought Christians once thought slavery was ok BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS IT'S OK. This is getting confusing.  15:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How interesting: Now Philip says that "A warning is not required for links with family-friendly content where the link is used in a References section." I wonder if he will revert his Evolution edit... --Sid 13:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dance, puppets, dance! Er, I mean... well done. :P There are also (at least?) two in the Dawkins article. Probably more, but I'm too lazy to search. Overall, good to see some common sense in the policy. --Sid 15:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you noticed what a hit piece their Dawkins article has become, primarily due to Philip? Nothing on his work. Nothing on his books. Just a perfunctory comment that he's a biologist and former professor, then the rest is all character assassination. Not like CP, indeed. --Kels 15:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the slavery-morality thing is interesting. One could say there were more Christians in early America when there was slavery, and now there are less Christians and there is no slavery.  Temporal antecedence is problematic.  Sterilewalkie-talkie 16:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"20. ↑ Provine, W.B., ‘No free will’ in Catching up with the Vision, Margaret W Rossiter (Ed.), Chicago University Press, 1999, p. S123, quoted in What’s this all about? (Creation Ministries International)." - Now that's what I call a solid reference! 20:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

An Ephiphany
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that I've found Andy's sock on aSK. I think he edits under the username Augustine.

Proof:


 * 1) Is one of three senior members, and when he was promoted, the message was known to site owner, and not just known to management.
 * 2) Makes edits that feel like something a CP sysop would do- someone who is used to power.
 * 3)  In his talk page, there's a conversation between him and 🇰🇪, where he acts like he has authority over even dearest Kendoll.  This means he's either TK, and he's not a bullying ass, or Andy, which to me seems likely.
 * 4) His userpage.

Plz to discuss. 15:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. He's far too polite in the discussion with Sid on his talkpage - Andy is too much of a pompous ass to remain civil for so long. Also, "personal invitation of the site owner" - after Phil's parthian, I would have thought the only personal invite he'd be giving to Andy would be to talk a long walk on a short pier. --PsyGremlinWhut? 15:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This. Andy must have read Phil's document - would he really want to join after that? EddyP 15:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll add that if it is Andy, we'll know before long when he starts pulling out some of his more bizarre theories about the flood and related things. I think Philip disagrees with him about the Pope's "more than just a hypothesis" comment too, so he'd be unlikely to leave that alone for long. --Kels 15:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I always thought that it was Learn together but I haven't been following that closely. 17:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

OMFG
OMFG, Ungtss: "However, religious believers do not typically support personal freedom in the areas of sexual behavior, abortion, and other criminal activities, because they believe that in those cases, the interests of others outweigh the interests of individual freedoms."
 * Is that really all you have? A 14 year old text-message acronym?  Have you ever asked a religious person why they think abortion, drug use, or prostitution should be illegal?  Ungtss 16:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got a lot more, but I refuse to waste it on someone who claims in an encyclopedia project that "sexual behavior" and "abortion" are illegal. I really don't give a shit about what you think should be made illegal. aSK is not your blog, and it's not some sort of fantasy world where you can state as fact what you think should be fact (excluding, of course, creationist "truth" as laid out by Biblical literalism - that is indeed The Truth on aSK, no matter what reality has to say about it).
 * And instead saying something like "Oops, yeah, good catch", you come here and ramble about... what exactly? Things that weren't even being discussed? I don't care about your hurt feelings, and I'm not interested in any justifications about why you or anybody else thinks that X should be outlawed. And you know why not? Because that WIGO was about you making a hilarious bullshit claim. Nothing more, nothing less.
 * Oh, and yeah, you're welcome. --Sid 17:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, so your "OMFG" referred to my poorly written first draft's unintended implication that those things were illegal. I suppose you've never written something poorly on your first attempt.  That's probably pretty easy when you only have to write "OMFG."  Pretty hard to screw up that subtle piece of argumentation.  Ungtss 17:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever written "sexual behavior" when I meant "prostitution" or "criminal" when I meant "similar". That's beyond "first draft" and goes straight into "Paging Dr. Freud" territory. And it lasted for almost seven hours and five revisions, so calling it a "first draft" is a bit reaching. When does "first draft" end? Should we suddenly wait a day? A week, maybe? Or wait for your explicit permission to point out your mistakes?
 * You didn't point out my mistake. You said "OMFG."  That says nothing.  But when I read the part you quoted, I realized, "Dude -- that's totally wrong."  Normally, when people point out mistakes, they articulate what the mistake is.  Unless their only purpose is to mock people from behind the curtain.  Ungtss 17:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made silly mistakes when writing, sure. But when people point out my mistakes, I usually react with humor. Slightly self-deprecating humor, even. And when somebody points out my mess, I admit that I made a mistake and that phrasing was poor, usually with a short nod or a thank-you note when possible. I usually don't post rants about usage of year-old acronyms, though, and I also rarely try to imply that those who point out my poor phrasing are voicing criticism of my belief system or that they disagree with what I originally wanted to say.
 * My word of wisdom: Save your energy for actual discussions and challenges, Ungtss. --Sid 17:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My word of wisdom: when pointing out people's mistakes, use sentences, not text message acronyms without content.  OKCUL8R.  Ungtss 17:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Read WIGO? Of course I do.  I'm a sysop here.  Ungtss 17:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That was just my polite way of saying "Ungtss fixed his stupid mistake without acknowledging where the 'sudden inspiration' came from". You'll see it more often on WIGO:CP. --Sid 17:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For future reference, where am I supposed to acknowledge it? In the edit summary?  Ungtss 17:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it's traditional to begin "Gentlemen..." -- 18:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I apologize for my ignorance of the proper etiquette. Ungtss 18:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"Effectively Barred"
PJR's having his complex again. Christian morons like PJR need to learn that just because you aren't allowed to make EVERYTHING in life about God or Christ does not mean your faith is "effectively barred." Universities have churches either on campus or right next to it, and often there are associated ties between the two. Armed forces have chaplains and religion is seen as a method to keep soldiers bound together. School districts all over the country promote Bible study groups that meet just off school grounds, sometimes during school hours. Prayer and Bible student groups are legal in public schools so long as they do not meet during school time. It's hard to find any function or place in the USA that isn't somehow attached to Christians in some fashion. But since the government won't endorse Christianity as TEH TRUTH (I'm unaware fully of how things work in PJR's native home), Christianity becomes "effectively barred."

It's annoying to hear Christians whine about how persecuted they are, when in reality all that happens is that people don't want their faith pushed onto them. --Irrational Atheist 18:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think when PJR says biblical worldview, we're supposed to read batshit insane young earth creationist worldview. You know, the one that's barred from the media because they don't want to come off as a bunch of escaped mental patients. -- 18:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Pie_chart.png|right|thumb]]I love this image, and I draw it at every opportunity when talking to someone bitching about how they're being persecuted. 18:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a great image! --Irrational Atheist 18:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Paradoxically Australia is both less and more Christian than the US. Whilst it is not written down anywhere we are officially Christian nation. Our monarch Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the Church of England and particularly during the early colonies no other churches were built and it wasn't even until the 1950's the government would give money to Catholic schools. My high school had a Christian chaplain and doubt any other kind is allowed in schools, but nobody has ever questioned or mentioned whether another kind is allowed. Church groups give presentations and they are only ever Christian and they are opt out not opt in, but so is sex education which I only heard abstinence mentioned once in several years in passing. There is no pray in schools, but parliament opens every day with the speaker leading the chamber in the Lord's Prayer. Sacrilege carries a higher punishment and I think it is legally questionable whether police can enter a church to arrest someone. But on the other hand, nobody questions teaching evolution in schools. Politicians rarely mention their religious views. We have had atheists as both Governor-General and Opposition Leader and an agnostic for Prime Minister. 11:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Low Key Bradley
I am starting to think the LowKey is far more hard line than Phil. He definiatly seems the "Grab for power" sort of fellow. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 07:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed that PJR's comment that he would like to see more ASK and less CP, become "don't talk about CP to 🇰🇪". I like the link to PJR's comment like he is carrying out an order, reminds me of the CP before TK took over again. 07:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)It wasn't "don't talk about CP". It was "don't do it here" (as in that talk page).  I have noticed on the Ruylopez talk page that suggestions are made, followed for a day or two and then ignored (like the "no ad hominen" that came from a rat in the first place).  This latest from me was not a rebuke, or a command.  It was an attempt to avoid the cycle starting again.  The talk page was also becoming a little like a mini WIGO for CP which I think Philip was also addressing.  I can appreciate that CP is VERY easy to talk about, but it is important to let aSK be itself.  The link was specifically so Ace would know what I was getting at.  If I say something that you consider high-handed, say so (to me or to Philip).  Even a "no, this is important, and I can't raise it elsewhere" probably would have done. "Grab for power," I don't often ACTUALLY laugh out loud on the internet, but that did it.  The odd caution here and there hardly qualifies as a "grab for power", and the only time I have assumed (ever so slightly) more than has been explicitly given to me, I drew attention to it and invited criticism.  Maybe I am just not so good at this "Grabbing" business. Tricksy 09:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See the response I made over on aSK. Its OK Bradley, I was just observing. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 09:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I had already responded there before here. Philip also commented.  I guess you are the victim of poor timing, as Philip suggested. Tricksy 10:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, don't EVER suggest to contact a CP sysop via mail/IM/whatever. (I/We can go over the reasons if you like, but I'm short on time right now. But if you at least idly followed RW for more than a few months, you should know why.) --Sid 10:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, a "I can't raise it elsewhere" probably would have sufficed. I guess I was also reacting to the fact that Philip had just recently asked for less CP discussion on aSK, and very shortly after that was a post specifically inviting criticism of CP on aSK.  I actually meant (although admittedly didn't make clear) the "email this user" function on aSK.  I am fully aware of the TK/Off-wiki "issue".  Tricksy 02:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a tip there, Bradley, but warning Horace about incivility right after Philip's called him a liar to his face (with no similar comment) is getting close to CP territory. When the admins are above the rules, or when the authorities "forget" to apply the rules to them, you've got problems. --Kels 12:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In that discussion (which Horace titled "That is not honest Philip") both Philip and Horace were experiencing, and expressing, a certain degree of frustration. I made no comment to either, as neither was "over the top" in my opinion at the time.  My comment to Horace was due to the repeated use of the phrase "evil atheist" in a single post elsewhere, along with the general sarcastic tone of that post, and my comment was "tone it down a little."  For the record, I do not comment about civility as "an authority" (at least not in the first instance).  I did the same on WP (at least until I learned that it only decreases civility).  I would expect any member to abide by the site's rules and caution those that seem to be pushing the boundaries, and in fact I have seen others doing exactly that.  The rules do apply to everybody (and I have explicitly and openly invited criticism), but discussions will naturally become heated to some extent.  I generally only comment if "uncivil" comments seem to be escalating, or if an individual comment is clearly over the line.  I do try to post such comments on the user's talk page, instead of in the middle of other discussion, too. Tricksy 02:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Active Users
Is there any interest in a table like this:

And do we have a redirect as cp:xxx] or [[wp:xxx for aSK? 09:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, but I'll add one. --  Nx / talk 10:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ask:Main Page --  Nx / talk 10:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was fast! 10:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Good chart, but you're calling users "Dead" if they only started in May (like me). You either need May numbers, or differentiate between brand new users and dead ones.  Ungtss 09:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I used the preexisting table for Conservapedia:Active users and RationalWiki:Active users. I don't want to invest to much time into this.
 * As I included the TOP 150 editors - out of ~200 - such oddities as declaring you dead could happen. Sorry, no offense meant. :: 10:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am soo honored to be number 31 * bows to fans * Hamster 17:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Holy shit, I'm the 13 th most active editor on aSK? Wow.   The Emperor

Dawkins
It always comes back to Dawkins, doesn't it? Why do Creationists have such an obsession with the guy? Why do they go to such great lengths to engage in public masturbation about any statement he makes?

And I thought that Andy with his "Dawkins is/was not a professor! Oxford University got it wrong!" rant was bad, but now we got Philip with his "atheist -> no absolute basis for morals -> might be engaging in deception!" claim. What the fuck? And then he adds this little "cover my ass" disclaimer about "Oh no, I'm not saying he is! Just, you know... considering the possibility... And there are honest atheists! Or so I heard, at least..."

GAH. *headdesks* --Sid 16:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because he wrote a book about how a belief in God is just a hallucination in man's brain. They can't stand that. So they must attack him, thus making his book the work of a crank. --Irrational Atheist 16:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dawkins is a very prominent and aggressive anti-theist and, more specifically and recently, an anti-Creationist. So it's hardly surprising they go after him.
 * Some critics go as far as saying that Dawkins has helped to raise the profile of Creationism and perhaps, unwittingly, advanced its cause. Ajkgordon 17:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That explains their hard-on for him, but why do they have to make such poor arguments? I didn't read any of his books, but I'm sure there must be something they can pin him down for without resorting to silly speculation and overly constructed implications. --Sid 17:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Creationism, duh. Like they'd be used to having well-formed arguments. --Kels 17:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Goalposts: Dawkins vs. the Vatican
I'm deeply amused by the standards of "X can be seen as a representative of Y". Cases in point: Convenient. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll try to banish aSK from my mind, at least for tonight. Guh. --Sid 19:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That single Dawkins quote about evolution not providing handy-dandy instant morality is absolute proof that atheism has no absolute basis for morals. (Which in turn is used to heavily imply that Dawkins might actually be a filthy liar...)
 * At the same time, Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, President of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Culture says during a Vatican briefing that evolution and the Bible are compatible, but that doesn't mean that this is the position of the Vatican. Nope, it's just his opinion.


 * Well, clearly Ungtss has much greater authority, that's all. --Kels 19:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're creating a double standard by placing the arguments of two different editors side by side. I pointed out that Ravasi's argument was only his opinion, but I also tried to delete the "atheists have no morals" fallacy and was vetoed.  It's easy to manufacture hypocrisy when you cherry-pick from different editors, pretending we're a monolithic force.  Unfortunately, it's also meaningless.  Ungtss 19:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cherry pick? Don't make me laugh! Biblical literalists have gorged on Morellos. 20:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (It's so funny - and somewhat tiring - how we can reliably summon Ungtss just by poking his aSK actions.) It's not really a double standard in my eyes because this isn't about who said what, but rather about the technique. It's about the general "It's only representative/reliable/quoteworthy if I agree with it!" trend several people on aSK successfully push. Going back in history would give more and more results by various editors using this successfully. Philip's "However, quoting an opinion of someone when that opinion is based on a non-biblical worldview and is contrary to a biblical worldview is not normally going to carry much weight." also falls into that category, for example. --Sid 20:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll give him this much credit, though. He did try to remove the suggestion that Dawkins was a liar.  Incompetent yes, but not a liar. --Kels 20:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sid: All people with biases use that approach, regardless of their bias of choice.  WP, CP, and aSK all face the same problem.  The problem comes up when you're so colored by your own bias that you can't see yourself or your friends doing the same thing.  The oppressed become the oppressor, so to speak.  Ungtss 04:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, Ungtss, I assume you have purely and utterly disestablished yourself from any bias on any issue? Or are you just another one of us clouded, biased, presumptuous, flawed, humans? 05:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure I'm biased. But at least I know it.  Ungtss 06:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know we all can be guilty of it. But I try to stay consistent, and I'm willing to change my mind as new info comes up: I take the word of Vatican officials speaking during a Vatican briefing to be at the very least more than just "his opinion" (until shown otherwise), and I don't take the remark of a single guy who has no official leading position in an organization as representative for that organization. For example, Dawkins about the morality of atheism evolution or Setterfield about magically slowing light.
 * The problem is (with aSK in general) that quotes are accepted or rejected as representative/worthy on the basis of "Does this help my agenda?" (regardless of who inserts them in the first place). That's also why I listed your example: I would honestly be surprised if Philip allows mentioning (without any qualifiers) that the Vatican accepts that evolution and the Bible are compatible. The day he does that is the day that Vatican simply isn't part of Real Christianity anymore. But you won't see aSK stating that there are True Christians who accept evolution - it has to discredit the quote or the Vatican.
 * I freely admit that we all tend to accept our own sources to be more representative than others, but when working on an encyclopedia, it's important to put that bias aside. I give my best to do so. It's possible that you do, too (Good for you! High-five!). But aSK in general (pushed mostly by Philip) does not, and your Vatican thing simply was the most recent thing that happened to fit the pattern. I hope you can look past the fact that I mentioned something by you and see the bigger picture this was supposed to be about. --Sid 11:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * IIRC, Philip has argued, with Aschlafly, that the Vatican accepts that evolution is "more than a hypothesis" - the subject of some fairly heated debate between the two on CP, ("a" vs. "one"). And Philip has criticised the Anglican communion as being weak on a number of issues including its acceptance of evolution. Ajkgordon 13:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Should this be on the main page...
Along all the other WIGO's? Or are we having more WIGO's than I am aware of? Thieh 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is some debate as to how permanant WIGO aSoK is going to be. It's fairly active now, but aSoK is very much borderline alive. Without any way of attracting an audience or new editors, aSoK probably isn't long for this world. -- 18:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All of a sudden aSK becomes the intern in the Dilbert universe (aSoK). Lulz FTW!  Thieh 22:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Crashed
aSoK dun crashed.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 173.55.145.178 / talk / contribs
 * So it would seem. 21:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Goddidit. 20:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Phil's probably fallen out with Bogdan. 22:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Back up again. --Sid 00:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please please please!
Someone who isn't blocked please go and add PJR's praise of RW to aSoK's RW article. -- 03:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can do. I never saw a friendly invitation bring so much ire.  And I really meant my invite.   05:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PJR was wrong, and rude, while "pretending" to be polite. Bradley is shaping up to be his TK.  05:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Human, why criticise me for butting in, when it was in fact Ace that interjected? Please link the diff of you telling Ace to butt out.   You posted all but "MYOB", and then liken me to TK (how do I get an irony metre?).  None of what I said impugned the invitation in any way.  And I meant what I said about it being a catch22.  Not intended so by you, but that is how it would be treated. The double standards are also getting tiresome.  Rats are made welcome on aSK, but there seems to be an assumption that a lower standard of civility applies to some (and I mean only some).  I start calling editors on it, and suddenly I'm TK, or making a grab for power.  Like I said, I am sorry if you thought I was commenting on the invite, as I was not.  But there have been more than enough "pot shots" lately and I will continue to point them out. For people so adept at passing out criticism, you Rats seem awfully sensitive to it. Tricksy 06:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. Nothing more to add, except maybe "what a jerk" and "this should be the final nail in the 'Mr. Reasonable' coffin". -- 05:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the last time I invite Philip over for a party. Imagine if I knew he was coming to the NE US and asked him to drop by for a coffee and some chat!  05:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * N.B. While LowKey/Bradley probably isn't TK, is anyone else pretty darn sure that TK would have an account over there already?-Diadochus 06:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * IndependentObserver (Stop making me go over there, please!) 19:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Philip seems to insist on us celebrating with full historic disclosure. So we should also celebrate how he the rest of the Special Discussion Group signed up on our silly hangout zone (RW1) under false names (or shared another user's account), copied our non-public discussions, sent (or at least claimed to have sent) them to the FBI and then called us all terrorists. Oh, and let's not forget how he stood by idly (if I forgot any major protest by Philip, please say so because I honestly don't remember anything) as TK banhammered every single editor whose name remotely looked like the name of a RW account (Night of the Blunt Knives) - plus a few more for good measure. Or maybe we should also celebrate the anniversary of the SDG itself. Everybody's favorite secret mailing list (which is, like, totally different than a non-public wiki) had apparently been founded on May 8, 1007. --Sid 10:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So I guess that means the honeymoon is over then? --PsyGremlinWhut? 11:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I've knocked them off my Ffx bookmarks, I'll only go there in response to WIGOaSoKs in future. The man, and his webshite, is dishonest and ignorant. 16:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also moved my bookmark from the bookmark bar to the (overcrowded) general bookmark menu which I rarely open. Gah. aSK cost me way too much time, nerves and faith in mankind already. I need to take an extended break. --Sid 19:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel vindicated now. I caught heat a few months back when I called Mr. Reasonable a liar on WiGOCP, so it's nice to know there's a point after which "credulously believes" turns into "outright lies". --Kels 19:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Philip's overview of the content of RationalWiki, did anyone else find one member of his list of perjoratives a bit incongruous? "a place of filthy and blasphemous language, replete with ... innuendo". Really liked that one. Also if the whole snooty retort was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, the man really needs to learn how to put his tongue actually in his cheek. With the best will in the world it really isn't funny, except unintentionally of course. --seventhrib 12:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Show me the money!
Arguing with PJR on aSoK, in a way that one could never get away with on TK's Conservapedia, has led me to make some discoveries about him that aren't terribly pleasant. Firstly, far from being smart and reasonable he merely gave the appearance of being so on CP. A midget among pygmies if you will. In fact he's almost totally incurious about most topics, and extremely poorly read. He linked me to an article at CMI, which amongst other things claimed that Richard Dawkins was a eugenicist then totally missed the catch when I called him on it, illustrating that he doesn't even read those just skims them for whatever he happens to be trying to defend at the time. Secondly, he's very prone to making ad hoc explanations up on the fly. He can't keep his story straight from one page to another, for example he can't seem to decide if mutations never produce new information or seldom. He makes the "never" claim in articles, and the "seldom" claim when challenged. This is a general creationist malaise, but one that he gave the appearance of being immune to on CP where he was effectively unchallenged.

As far as I can tell, his "faith" such as it is, is now reduced to one central plank. Evolution couldn't happen, and it is because of "information", something which he steadfastly refuses to define. I see little point in arguing with him on anything else. My advice is to keep on jackhammering away at PJR, either get him to define what this "information" is or to drop the issue. Keep on showing him the fallacy of his argument until he's forced to retreat entirely in to fantasy land, or admit he has no basis on which to make the claim. Tear down any attempt he makes to shift the burden of proof, which he does regularly and continue to press him. I'm convinced that if we can get him to concede on this one issue, his whole house of cards creationism claim comes tumbling down. -- 10:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Why you gotta knock down everybody else's card houses? When did the evolutionists become the pushy evangelists?  Why are you not content to let other people find their own path?  Why you gotta fix everybody who disagrees with you?  Ungtss 11:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're perfectly able to choose "your own path", even if the path leads to to skip with the pixies and fairies down lollipop lane in to fantasy land. However, once you start pushing your idiocy on others, making wikis, telling people it's the absolute truth and if they don't believe it they'll burn in hell and even trying to get it taught in schools, that's the point when we have to tell you you're full of shit. -- 11:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is in itself debatable. But of your four points:
 * pushing your idiocy on others
 * making wikis
 * telling people it's the absolute truth and if they don't believe it they'll burn in hell
 * trying to get it taught in schools
 * I only know of Philip doing number 2, which I would contend is fairly harmless and unobjectionable. Is it 'rational' to let yourself get so obsessed with this fellow? Plus I'm not convinced you're quite as close to 'victory' as you seem to think.--CPalmer 11:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Word up, Palmer. Jeeves, don't sink to the level of your opposition.  Nobody's gonna read aSK and suddenly have their worldview overhauled, get saved, and go blow up a building.  aSK, RW, and CP exist for the authors, not the readers.  Lighten up and give other opinions room to breathe.  Otherwise you confirm the belief that you and those like you are intolerant.  Ungtss 12:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Full support, Jeeves. This is an area where Phillip really needs to yield. Whenever I feel calm enough to come back, I plan on challenging his claims and politely continuing to press him for a definition of information. What's so difficult about it is his propensity to answer you in article form ("here's an article, it answers your questions. read it", "well, what about this", "well, you forgot about this", "but this, this and this", "well, I didn't write the article"). Creationists will often defer to their literature in such a fashion, leaving you to argue with the author while they consider your claims addressed. 12:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between the Barenstein bears and War and Peace? Not only "more text," but also "more information," because typing out 700-some pages of "a's" would yield as much text as W+P but not as much information.  How do you define information?  I don't know.  But I know it when I see it.  War and Peace has more information than Barenstein bears.  Phil is saying that organisms have never been observed adding meaningful "pages" to themselves.  And that's true, as far as I know.  We've seen the pages rearrange themselves (usually to the detriment of the specimin's health, but not always).  We've seen pages duplicated.  But have we ever seen an organism add a new page that coheres with the rest of the book?  Ungtss 12:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And there you see why those of us living in reality tire of creationists. There is no rational definition of "information" from creationists. Analogies, vague or uncertain definitions, and no explanations leave enough wiggle room that anything and nothing can be information. Then the creationist can argue something is information, and something isn't information, thus making their claims always right, and rational minds' arguments always wrong.
 * Your analogy argument about new pages is absurd. A new page of all new text forming at once is not what evolution explains. Gradual changes over time. The sudden leap argument is the straw man that creationists prop up to argue how evolution must be wrong. And you bring it here in defense of your points? Great way to show you're not a science-hater. --Irrational Atheist 13:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, you don't prop up a straw man, you knock him over (and then cackle victoriously).-- 13:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We have shown examples where new "pages" are "added". They were refused. 13:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Neveruse: Since you're the only one who made a statement with content -- if you have evidence of new genetic "pages," present them to Phil and to me.  That's what this whole thing is about.  Nobody can define the "information content" of a book satisfactorily that I'm aware of.  But we all know what it is.  If you can show an increase in that sort of information, you'll have us crazy-ass fundies backed into a corner and ready to meet the intellectual firing squad.  Ungtss 13:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)No they won't. Because there is no example that satisfies the Creationists, and past experience has shown they just redefine their terms and claim victory regardless.  If there is no definition of information (except what you "feel in your gut"...informationiness?), then there's no possible way to provide an example of it.  Kind of like the numerous examples of information that have been casually tossed off by Philip as Shannon Information, which is unacceptable for reasons he doesn't seem willing to share in any concrete way. --Kels 13:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC3)It always comes back to the fundamental misunderstanding of information. Wheat has duplicated it's genome six times. Of course you might say: Well, those are duplicates, not new. Well when the duplicates are modified you might say: Well, that's modification of information that was already there. It's all just really frustrating because we can't get you to decide what you think is information.


 * I can give you examples all day. But in order for me to give you an example of what you believe is information being added, you must give me a definition of what added information is.


 * If you really, really, really want to, I will give you examples and we can see why or why not they do not fit your nebulous definition of information. 13:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your example involves the barenstein bears duplicating a page and then scrambling the new page. In the real world, nobody would consider that to be new information.  To be new information, you have to add to the story in a way consistent with the whole.  The beginning of a new chapter, for instance.  Theoretically, a duplicated page could become a new chapter.  But have we seen it?  Ungtss 13:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying that my example involves the bearnstein bears does not actually make it involve the bearnstein bears. A chapter in a book is in no way analogous to genetic information. This is furtherance of your flawed definition. 13:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a simple proof of the claim that mutations can increase genetic information, whatever definition of information you care to use. PJR has claimed that mutations always result in a loss of information. Assume for reductio this is true. Now, consider the point mutation. Point mutations are mutations and hence, by PJR's claim, decrease the amount of information. Point mutations are also reversible. So now suppose that a point mutation occurs and causes a loss of information. Later, a second point mutation occurs which reverses the first. If the first caused a loss of information, the second must cause an increase in information. But we assumed that all mutations cause a loss of information. This is a contradiction, and hence our initial assumption must be false. QED.TallMan 13:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that point mutations always lead to a loss of information, and I'd be surprised if PJR made the "always" claim. Sometimes?  Yes.  Always?  No.  But that's no evidence of net information increase over the evolution of the species.  Ungtss 13:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On the ASK page for genetic information, PJR endorsed this claim w/r/t mutation: "Any change at all will diminish total information with absolute certainty." So he's committed to the claim, even if you're not. Your position (and PJR's) seems to rest on an equivocation on the term "information."TallMan 13:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, PJR and I have been known to disagree on a lot of stuff. However, I haven't stated (nor do I really have) a "position," because neither I nor anybody else I'm aware of (including the evolutionists that have tried) have come up with a rigorous definition of "information."  Fascinating topic to think about though, I think.  What's the substantive difference between an old Apple IIC text-based adventure game and Excel 2007?  All I can really say is that Excel has more unique instructions that have more functionality.  Come to think of it, that's not a bad start.  What about genetic information as unique instructions within the genome which amount to functionality for the organism?  Ungtss 18:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I took you to be endorsing PJR's view. In any case, PJR's position rests on an equivocation between two senses of "semantic information." DNA has semantic information in, say, Küppers' sense of the term, which is basically Shannon information relativized to an interpretive schema. It doesn't have semantic information in the sense you've used the term elsewhere on the page (when you're talking about pages from a book), which is more like representational content. DNA doesn't represent anything. Computer programs, like books, can have representational content, but they have it derivatively (putting aside functionalism in phil. of mind). So even if that we don't have a good way of measuring representational content, it doesn't matter, since that's not what's at issue for DNA. We have perfectly good ways of measuring the information content in DNA, and using these methods we can see that mutations + selection produce information.TallMan 19:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

As usual, the creationists just ignore natural selection. It matters in evolution after all. As for a new genetic information paper, read here for an example. Furthermore, evolution as a theory works well without information theory. Lots of independent lines of evidence otherwise. Sterilewalkie-talkie 13:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but a global search reveals the name "Shannon" in the paper, therefore it's invalid. Try again. --Kels 13:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Shannon uses the maths. Maths makes us accountable.  Maths bad.  Sterilewalkie-talkie 13:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When did computer simulations become substitutes for actual science? The simulation doesn't replicate the real world in one key aspect -- selection.  Its selection function was only "those making fewer changes in a round kill those making more changes."  That doesn't simulate the real world even a little bit.  Ungtss 13:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since when did your beliefs, intuition, hunches, and awkward word analogies substitute for science? And it uses an actual info theory parameter--where's yours?  Sterilewalkie-talkie 13:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no! Yer DNA works exactly like the English language. It's not an analogy! -- 16:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I hate the analogy crap, analogies are just a way of dumbing down information. I have been trying to post over at ASK that if anything genetic information is more of a recipe than a sentence since concentrations matter (the chemicals in the cell are finite unlike what you my type or scribble). To ignore concentration is to fail to understand what media you are using to pass the information along, in this case chemicals. Also, Philip is moving that goal post a lot, from new information to meaningful new information.--TimS 16:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * but, but but, DNA is both meaningful, semantically, and GRAMMATICAL so so .. er, I forget what BUT IT HAS MEANING ... (see phil, I was paying attention - dunno what you mean but still ) Oh, is it meaningful genetically that Eve was Adams clone and presumably genetically identical ? Hamster 17:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How about music? Would it be possible to get away from this 'English literature and genetic information' analogy? Genes don't work like English does.  A better analogy (however poor it may be too) is music.  There you have a limited set of notes (lets work with 20 of them) instead.  Insert pages? nope - duplicate a measure.  Everything is also playable - just some chunks aren't pleasing (a bad mutation).  But then, this analogy might be too useful and show that information can be added so try to ignore this one?  --Shagie 18:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried that on ASocKfullofpuppets. PJR told me I was wrong, that a melody does not contain information.  I've been too double-zointed by that to bother to reply.  00:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can come up with any analogy you want. The creationists' unspecified definition of information still excludes the addition of information. I still don't understand how they assert that something being duplicated then (even or) mutated is not completely new, but the fact is that they don't (and won't). They have excluded new information by definition, and by not giving you the definition, there is little to nothing that you can do to change it... 18:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Philip already said melodies aren't information when human asked about music. --Kels 19:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I was on to something by demanding an example in binary, which is closer to DNA than the english language. He repeatedly refused to give an example of information and an addition of information in binary. Most likely because it would be extremely easy to see how mutated binary could result in the addition of information (once defined).


 * I don't think any creationist can deny that binary can encapsulate information (if so, they can get the fuck off their computer) or that information can be added (if so, they can simply not respond). 19:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, he's already admitted he doesn't actually know how to measure this "information", and indeed that no one does. He's still insisting that he can somehow make an estimate of it. This doesn't seem to stop him hypocritically demanding that we show him an increase in information happening by chance. He's a piece of work all right. -- 19:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think PJR is trying to be too specific about this information thing. He's trying to specifically show how impossible or unlikely it is that mutation can cause an increase in information and uses unspecific definitions of information, meaning and vague analogy to do so. Even when presented with a well-defined mechanism, such as gene duplication, he picks it apart and says that each step isn't an increase in information while ignoring the whole process. And he tries to be specific without having the specific knowledge required.
 * What he would be better doing is being much looser with information as a concept. Surely everyone can agree that the first organisms had much less genetic information than humans. This is the leap he should concentrate on. Because he can then rely on the appeals to incredulity. Ajkgordon 08:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What he said. PJR sucks at science.  09:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't help him to observe that say, yeast has less "information" than an orangutan (even though this is by no means clear in itself.) His little induction relies on being able to demonstrate at each step there is no significant increase in information. To do that he really has to use specifics, specifics he simply doesn't have. -- 08:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He has no idea what he is talking about, in the end. "Information, I know it when I see it" is not an intelligent response.  Ironically, of course, it echoes some Supreme Court Justice, talking about obscenity.  09:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

EZ edit button
I'm not sure if this conversation will go on much longer, but I thought that I would toss in the edit button. All of this reminds me of why I started our Conservapedia:Probability article. The point of everything Phil (and all other creationists) does is to simply make evolutionary arguments seemed to be wildly improbable. They want/need to sow a bit of doubt no matter how small and add anything that might help to obscure the topic. 12:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Morals: Nuremburg defense
As an atheist, Dawkins has no absolute basis for morals. Accepting that, doesn't it make the godbotherers' morals rather like: "The Nuremberg Defense is a legal defense that essentially states that the defendant was "only following orders" ("Befehl ist Befehl", literally "order is order") and is therefore not responsible for his crimes. The defense was most famously employed during the Nuremberg Trials, after which it is named.(wp) ? If you substitute "morals" for "crimes" it would still seem to apply and remove the moral high ground that they seem to place themselves on. If their god told them, [as he apparently has done, (see the Bible Genesis → Revelation; various)] that it's OK to kill, enslave, slander etc, other people, they'd consider that moral. Not really coherent but you get the point? 16:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * am I wrong in considering the basis for conduct to be an aspect of culture rather than specifically religion ? Hamster 17:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But that would mean that religion has nothing to do with morals! Out, damned atheist. 17:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you'd be wrong in considering that the basis for conduct to be both an aspect of culture and religion, the latter being itself an aspect of culture. Ajkgordon 17:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the argument that some christian use is that their morals aren't inherently "superior", but that they come from god, making them absolutes. This somehow makes them better than relative morals.   17:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC):::"right and wrong" are generally considered to be an aspect of a World View (as created by the society at large, not necessarily religion) yes.  There is growing theories, however, that morality has a (inescapable) biological seed, and evolutionary theory have developed many rational ideas why morality exists.  The thing is, the big morals are virtually the same in all human societies.  Don't murder is number one, though murder is defined as "killing one of your ingroup", not simply "don't kill a human" at large.  Rape has always been a crime, though what exactly rape means changes from society to society. (rape has historically often been about property damage, not rights of women to body integrity.)  Lying is a nono, but trickery and magic are at various times, ok.  --- Why Christians insist that I can't have valid, clear morals without a fairy telling me what to do is simply something I never understand.  do they really think they needed to read the bible in order to figure out that taking a hacksaw to their mom and dad isn't really a good thing? -- 17:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC) (EC)
 * do they really think they needed to read the bible in order to figure out that taking a hacksaw to their mom and dad isn't really a good thing? Sadly, for some, yes.   17:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * EC EC) @ Ajk: Yes, I thought that too, but how many will accept that their religion is a consequence of culture (with feedback of course) rather than that culture is a consequence of religion? 17:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, none? (Except the culturally religious, of course.) Ajkgordon 18:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I remember PJR making similar comments about morality at CP a few times (sorry, I can't remember exactly where or when). He really believes that we only know what actions are moral or immoral because of what God personally told Moses & other OT prophets + what Jesus said. 17:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that may be over-stating, PJR's case. He undoubtedly believes that the absolute morality of religion is the basis for society's morality, rather than vice-versa. And he believes that declining morals (as he defines them) are a result of secularism and atheism in government.
 * But I don't think he believes that without religion we'd all be running around with Uzis killing and maiming and raping anybody who looked at us funny. Ajkgordon 18:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you certain about that? He certainly believes Hitler was capable of what he did primarily because of the influence of the theory of evolution, and the "motives of those who promoted evolution was to replace God."  It doesn't take much to connect those dots. --Kels 18:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I always wonder about the Abraham thing when this sort of crap gets bandied about. He was prepared to murder his son because God told him to do so? Where were his morals then? Of course the Cretins will say "Ah, but it was just a test", but if morals are absolute why didn't he just say "Fuck off God, I've got some standards you know!" 20:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, but I would be very surprised, Kelc.
 * You're actually doing the strawman thing. PJR didn't say that Hitler was capable of what he did because of evolution - he said that Hitler used evolution as an ideological justification for the holocaust. Which he did. The fact that evolution, and particularly Darwin's words, were not justification is neither here nor there - the fact is Hitler used evolution, however twisted, as a propaganda excuse.
 * What PJR does, of course, is use Hitler's justification as a demonstration of how evolution (bearing in mind that he believes it to be wrong anyway) can be used for evil things.
 * Which is fair from that perspective.
 * In the same way that anti-religionists (is that a word?) use the Inquisition as an argument against Christianity.
 * Now I, as PJR can testify, disagree with most of what he says as much as anyone. But you need to argue against what he actually says rather than what you think he might be implying.
 * Because PJR is a master at picking up every little bit of misrepresentation and taking it apart word by word, letter by letter. Which means the whole argument gets swamped in minutiae and leaves the main point floundering on a heap of technicalities. Ajkgordon 20:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I recall PJR once said on CP something along the lines that evolutionists, non-christians, etc. could be moral and did not base their morality on the word of God or touch of God or anything like that, but simply followed the morals codes of western cultures, which in turn he argued was based on Christianity.
 * I tried finding that comment without success, so I could me misinterpreting him or the talk page was burned or... 11:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a boycott?
IMO, it's hard to decide whether this is the result of a boycott - or a general loss of interest in PJR's mantric exercise information is information is information... 16:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you can see a "flat spot" there from late April to early May, end of strike marked by a relatively strong uptick for at least one day. Hard to tell if it's statistically significant without know how to do the maths on the numbers, though.  19:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The one day appears to be RW's collective pent up wikirage on the monday, however the new wiki shine has definitely worn off. -- 20:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I broke it
Captain, a SocK drawer won't load the funnies for me nae moar! 23:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you jiggle the handle? --Kels 23:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I was doing when it stopped. I had just flushed a few loads and now it won't refill.  23:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Philip's LIES and RW/aSK etiquette
Stubborn, yes. Ignorant, yes. Dishonest? I don't really think so. I've had plenty of arguments with people where they've refused to back down despite being quite clearly and definitely wrong, but I wouldn't say I'd pushed them so far they were just lying. Self-deception isn't really lying, at least, not in common parlance. There might be something to the accusation that RW has a double-standard when it comes to politeness. You might well find them sanctimonious and annoying, but the aSK sysops do in general make honest attempts to be nice; quite often the RWians are too frustrated to bother. It therefore doesn't seem entirely fair of us to leap all on them for levels of rudeness which would pass practically unnoticed over here. Also I'm not sure I'm totally comfortable with the tone of the WIGOs, which veer often from 'amusing' into 'sneering and mean-spirited'. While I'm moaning, could we maybe restrain ourselves with the "aSK is just like CP!/PJR is just like Andy!" stuff. Godwin's Law needs to be reformulated for discussions on aSK, with Hitler being replaced by Andy (no offence for any implications there, Mr Schlafly). Be honest, guys: aSK is really not at all like CP, and neither is PJR particularly reminiscent of Andy Schlafly. It's unfair to take any examples of prickliness from him and then say OMG YOU'RE ANDY - in general the two are miles apart. I'd suggest generally more courtesy, even over here. Easier to have discussions that way. I don't want WIGO to stop being funny, but right now it smacks of being nice to their faces and then running away behind the shed to snigger and call them mean names - and since it's broadly anonymous it looks it's Official RationalWiki rather than just some editor mouthing off. And lets not call PJR a liar unless he is actually definitely lying. It's not clever to point-blank refuse to understand, but it's not necessarily dishonest. --seventhrib 12:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. There is a vast difference between aSK and CP and PJR and Andy.  I'm not sure why we even bother with a WIGO at aSK.  There is very little going on over there that you could pick up on by simply looking at PJR or LowKey's contributions.
 * I can clearly understand the frustration that RationalWikians can have with PJR. I've felt it myself.  My choice was to simply stop editting.  I'm not saying "never again", but I see no reason to do so now.  I also understand that there are passions on both sides and that my solution is not the best for everyone else.
 * Still, aSK is not CP and PJR is not Andy. I do respect PJR for letting the conversations at aSK go on.  That is something that is simply impossible at CP.  12:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. IMO, PJR and co. have actually been very patient with the more vocal of the RW editors there, and anyone who accuses them of being CP-like in their administration is going completely overboard. EddyP 12:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm. I tend to disagree, but I admit I didn't follow all discussions, so maybe I missed something major?
 * In general, I would think that RW editors on aSK tend to be more civil than here. Not all of us, and there are mild outbreaks, sure. But my impression was that the discussions tend to stay within the rules.
 * And yes, the aSK sysops can afford to be polite. After all, they can move the goalposts however they like; and in the end, the rules are worded so that they are right by default (The Biblical Worldview is the absolute truth on aSK, and it just happens to match Philip's view 100%.). Ken's also quite polite on CP. It's easy to be polite when all you do is picking on semantics and minor points while completely avoiding any major point you might lose. It's also easy to be polite when you know you will win any confrontation (by being able to block, edit war without limit longer than normal users, locking entries, or simply stalling until the other side loses patience and gets blocked for rudeness).
 * For example, from what I saw, Philip claims that mutations can never/rarely/whatever-qualifier-is-convenient add information to the genome/DNA/whatever, and he loves to make challenges (but only within his carefully defined analogies) for people to show that it does (Including tests that are so impossible to pass that he didn't even pass it in the initial step, and then he omits the full rules because he really wanted to construct a trap!). But now it becomes more and more clear that he has no way to quantify information, and an actual definition of information is also missing. But still, mutations can't add information, and you will have to prove him wrong. Good luck. :)
 * Is aSK just like CP? In many ways, no. But in many ways, it reminds me of CP about a month after the blog rush in 2007:
 * People back then also were allowed to discuss freely. Several of my discussions with Andy and TK are still online there. Discussions that could NEVER happen in this form today. Bans (except for vandalism, etc.) were quite rare.
 * Random articles were free for all, but the fun always ended the moment a sysop started to edit it.
 * And yet, the key articles were firmly locked down (either officially or simply by power of authority), and discussion about their claims was long, absolutely fruitless and ran along the same lines as several aSK discussions: "I'm just keeping you occupied - the article won't change, anyway."
 * And in many ways, it's terribly easy to draw direct analogies even with the CP of today.
 * Philip portraying Dawkins as an immoral liar versus Andy portraying Obama as a Muslim. Both are gossip and speculation, both go out of their way of not making direct accusations, but the obvious implication is still there.
 * Philip being the de-facto owner of the Dawkins article (among other articles, I'm sure) to the degree that people by now have switched to the locked-page style of just making suggestions and Philip generously considering them. Compare that to the phase where Andy owned the Dawkins article on CP. It also wasn't locked, but any change Andy disagreed with was reverted regardless of reasoning.
 * The information claim that still remains in the article even after it became clear that there is no known way of quantifying information - and no formal definition of information to begin with. Something like this has happened on CP very often - the only difference is that either the sysops flat out ignored the complaints or that the people pointing out these WTFs "suddenly vanished".
 * The rules being enforced in a way that doesn't punish endless stalling and aggravating, but does punish frustrated editors after weeks of "No, I didn't say that. Keep guessing."
 * Starting out with The Truth ("Anything agrees with is true. But let's call it The Conservative View/The Biblical Worldview instead.") and then constructing the rest around it.
 * Open bias against sources that disagree with The Truth (Content warning and the open admission that quotes by people who don't agree with the above conclusion carry little weight on aSK). On the other hand, any random quote is absolute, representative truth if it supports The Truth.
 * Do not revert the edits of a sysop.
 * Atheism directly implies evolution. Evolution directly implies atheism. And Darwin caused the Holocaust.
 * Sure, you can argue about how good the comparisons are, and you can argue that Andy was worse, and that aSK has many interesting ideas CP would never consider, and that aSK is nicer and more polite and that it causes a rain of ponies and candy, but aSK is not as far away from CP as you would like to think. I wish it was, but I have come to the conclusion that it's not.
 * And no, Philip likely isn't lying. Mostly because he never really settles on anything to say. His claims always come with explanations and reasoning, but the moment you pinpoint a lie or an error, He Had Never Claimed This and You Are Misrepresenting Him, followed by a slightly tweaked explanation. Rinse, repeat.
 * Philip is polite, smug, and comfortable in the knowledge that he finally has a place where he is always right - even when he's wrong. I don't see a reason to pussyfoot around that. I agree that we shouldn't go around, yelling "WHAAA PHILIP IS AN EVIL CUNT NAZI AND A GENERAL ASSFAG!", but we're still talking about a guy who goes out of his way not to answer challenges to his wild claims and who can't resist making cheap shots against atheists whenever he can. This is simply aggravating, and I understand the need of people to vent. And I think most people accept that venting here is better than venting there. Civility is fine and dandy, but let's keep things in perspective. --Sid 19:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear God, so this is what catharsis feels like? Awesome. :) --Sid 19:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Triffic, Sid! 21:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fond memories of old times (CP 2+ years ago). Thank you, Sid! --Editor at CPOh, Finland! Why? 13:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sid is right; politeness is only one facet of the matter. I was among those naive fools who wished him well at the start, before discovering how incurious, smug, staunchly ignorant, and hypocritical the man is.  He left CP bitching about how Andy stuck to his guns on the Obamuslim issue, when everyone disagreed with him and there was no evidence in the world to back him up except what he concocted and twisted.  Now, take that sentence, replace Andy with PJR, Obamuslim with evolution.  It's the whole Information issue that shows him (along with the whole creationist movement) for what he is, intellectually bankrupt.  He spends enormous amounts of time making absurd analogies and insane tests, then trying to argue that they somehow apply, then knocking information theory he can't understand, all-the-while failing to actually explain what "information" is, even though it's SO critical to evolution!  And of course, Biblical means exactly what he wants it to mean, and it's soooo obvious which parts of the bible are metaphorical and which literal, that he needn't actually explain.  06:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think PJR's "intellectual bankruptcy" is inferred quite early on from his views on Biblical literalism and YEC. In all seriousness, did anyone expect a person who believes in Hell and the Great Flood and all that to be anything but ignorant and incurious? He's a nice guy and everything but I fully expected his attempts at arguing biology and genetics to be ridiculous - was everyone else shocked when that's exactly what happened?
 * Insofar as aSK is like CP, I will concede that all of Sid's examples are pretty much correct. A couple of things, though - for one, I'd say CP's defining feature is the constant nastiness towards its editors, and its wanton banhammering. aSK's sysops may be aggravating to argue with but they do not display these characteristics. I wasn't around in 2007 so maybe it's like CP was then, but it's clear CP has changed a lot for the worse, and we aren't going to aSK now and complaining "you're just like CP used to be!" Secondly, even when accurate I'd argue it just comes across as knee-jerk and Godwin-y, and quickly gets a bit tired.
 * It's a rubbish encyclopaedia, and it always will be, and we KNEW it would be. The only reason to go over there is to confront Philip with the holes in his knowledge and his understanding, or maybe out of curiosity. The former can be done firmly and clearly and everything, but also nicely. Why not? He's just some guy carving out a weird little corner of the net, sometimes it seems like we almost take it personally. --seventhrib 13:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I like this, I really do. People complain that we're too tied to CP, that we're gonna go down with them if we don't pick other targets, and when we do, we're criticized because the targets aren't good enough.  Despite spawning at least one excellent article which is one goal I spoke about when this whole thing started.  I think one of the really big points to remember here is that while Philip might be small potatoes now, he's got ambition to turn this into what CP wanted to be, a resource for people who want to teach their kids that myths and magic are not only better than science, they are science.  And since he's so "reasonable" and polite, he's far more likely to do that than looney Mr. Schlafly.  Besides which, it helps us because Philip does tend to be pretty up to date on the shifting positions of the god-botherers, which allows us, by criticizing him, to make our arguments and the site itself more up to date and effective.  As to the lying and "like CP" thing, yeah a lot of that's hyperbole, but we saw how easily CP went that way.  A lot of the people who'll rally 'round Philip's banner once he starts to get a bit more known aren't a whole lot different than the ones who rallied 'round Andy's.  Authoritarian, incurious, absolutely certain that they're right and there's a scientific conspiracy.  Philip might weed out the ruder ones, but it's good to watch it doesn't turn into a polite version of CP, which they have every chance of doing.  Lying, well, as I've asked a few times, where do you set the line where misrepresentation and disingenuity becomes outright lying?  Personally, I'd say he's passed it on more than a few occasions. --Kels 15:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said we should stop arguing with him - on the contrary I support every effort to pester him about the information stuff and everything else. I just don't see the necessity to do so petulantly. --seventhrib 12:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It took CP several months after a massive influx of editors due to the blogrush to start turning into the mess we see today. Roughly Feb - May 2007. During that time, PalMD would argue with Andy about breast cancer/abortion, etc., and though he made no headway (just like aSoK today), there were no retaliatory banninations. The cusp, basically, was the introduction of the 90/10 rule and the NotBK, so-named because it was a Great Purge. Two years later, TK just blocks and range-blocks on whim. 19:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I recall, one of the really significant moments when things started to shift was when 🇰🇪 was made a sysop so he could lock & block to protect anyone from adding anything non-negative to the Evolution article. That really set the trend for protected pages, both literally and de facto.  It's not quite so intense over at aSK, so I doubt it'll be as blatant, and Philip would be a total idiot to give that nutcase sysop powers, but you can already see the de facto sort beginning to form.  --Kels 19:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing Phil has "going for him" is that we have become inured to the utter dictatorship at CP. This leads to most of us Rats not bothering to edit controversial articles, and just arguing on talk.  If we started correcting errors and inserting referenced facts on the crazy articles, things might get ugly quickly.  20:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll see how this information stuff goes. For all that Philip has said that Shannon information is offbounds and then to not even use the right definition pisses me off a lot.  It comes across as arrogant.  Sterilewalkie-talkie 01:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As was quote-mining Kupper. He thinks he's found a trick phrase he can trip up "evolutionists" with.  Trouble is, he hasn't taken the trouble to understand it - which is typical of about 99% of arguments cretinists use - the people they are arguing with have simply never encountered them before, thus have no "immediate" response. Result: cretinist "wins" debate.  02:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Phil gives somewhat of an answer
That programs are good analogies. And they can be - he should investigate genetic algorithms some. Including using randomness to explore a search space. He also gets confused with compiler errors - there is no "compiler error" in dna, everything can be compiled to a protein. --Shagie 04:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fuck it, I'm still pissed that he claims melodies don't contain information. And pissed over his asinine reply to my "can I quote Küpper as well" question.  05:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason he's going for a computer program is that it was designed. Microsoft word Unix shows evidence of an intelligent creator.  However, that is still a poor analogy unless he is also willing to accept Dawkin's weasel and other genetic algorithms.  Meh, it hurts to try to argue this sober.  I keep typing "its wrong" and then realize to explain it it would take several paragraphs that he would say "but that doesn't apply" to. --Shagie 05:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you tried "It's wrong because the giant space weasel told me so?" That sounds like a convincing argument to me. -- 11:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you mean this, Philip is blantanly wrong. That is NOT Shannon information.  It is Kolmogorov complexity.  Philip does not know what he is talking about.  How disingenuous can you get Philip? Plummeting credibility.... Sterilewalkie-talkie 12:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * programs may be bad analogies, cause as a professional programmer for many years [in cobol and RPG ] our motto for program design was "whatever works" and much code looked like it was copy pasted by a herd of one armed monkies. Maybe try "yer wrong, God tells me stuff " in future discussions :) Hamster 15:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was rereading this again today and was reminded of this old post on usenet. --Shagie 17:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Hamster, your example makes the analogy better. Another nice things about the programming analogy, for me, is that I've always said I'll start taking ID seriously when we start finding the "comments" in DNA... (someone made a great joke last time I mentioned this).  19:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * DNA is semantically meaningful and gramatical cause Philip said so [and would he lie] therefore a translator should be fairly simple. Hamster 20:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Shannon". I win.  02:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought about it and I realize what annoys me about the programing to dna analogy. DNA isn't a program - it is assembly instructions. There are no 'if' conditionals as a programmer would see it. It isn't Turing complete. It is the instructions for 3d fabrication of proteins based on concentrations of other proteins. The thing that I was thinking of is 3d rapid prototyping instructions and that reminded me of the Golem project. No intelligent design - but genetic information on how to make a structure and the linkages for the state table 'brain'. Glance at some of the other projects they did. --Shagie 03:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't read your links, but really, what pisses me off is the "make an analogy >>> disprove because analogy fails" so-called logic. You can't "disprove by analogy".  Analogies are for simplifying and explaining ("DNA is like a set of intructions").  Shannon, I win again.  04:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I know it's Sunday
But that place seems deader than ever to me. IIRC, there were times when PJR was away from CP. What will happen if he'll stay a week or two away from his creature? --Editor at CPOh, Finland! Why? 20:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Bradley's doing a bang-up job administrating the place in his absence, and some new user has provided some delicious word salad for lunch, what's to complain about? --Kels 21:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ohoho! I'd recognize the work of the Postmodernism Generator anywhere. 22:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What will happen? It could turn into A Storehouse of Postmodernism and Silly Math Jokes. As a matter of fact, I planted one of the latter in a moment of boredom (induced by having too many important things to do and not feeling like dealing with any of them, but I digress) several weeks ago. So far, my "article" has been wikified and categorized by other contributors, and is still going strong. I wonder how long it will last. (If you out it, I'll beat you with a damp Mountweazel.) --Just passing by 21:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Was that subdialectic socialism article generated by the bullshit paper abstract generator software? I can't make head nor tail of it. I'm fairly sure it says absolutely nothing. -- 22:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Suspect Poe, the author is defending the copyright ''system  22:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder how much information it contains? -- 22:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Man, the guy even sucks at being a Poe. --Kels 00:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It was Mother's Day, in Australia, yesterday. 23:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Bradley's amusing. I like how he's harassing me as one of their, like, 10 active editors.  Sterile 23:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, Strerile, you have that combination of traits dangerous to fundies: knowledge and intelligence. 00:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Bradley's come to my defence! 00:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Brad's come to the same conclusion that Publius did & blocked the offender. Shame, I was enjoying swapping insults with him. 01:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Toast, re: intelligence. Nice to know all that skooling (and teeching) is good for something.  Sterile 01:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I've certainly learned a lot about information theory through you dumbing it down succinctly explaining it. Just like I've learned a lot about the nature of science over at the Falsifiability debate. --Kels 14:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Our resident piss artist comments
Ace's "parthian" makes good reading but is eclipsed by the bending over backwards that follows it. Anything can be called on to prove the truth of the ramblings of Genesis. THESE PEOPLE ARE CERTIFIABLE!! In any responsible society they would be taken aside and cared for as less than able to cope with reality. Can they dress themselves? Do they need spoonfeeding? Do they know that you have to put one foot ahead of the other to walk? The ability to use a keyboard must have been the result of years of Pavlovian training. AAAAARRRGGGGHHH! 15:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Tell me about it. It just amazes me how otherwise intelligent-sounding people are quite willing to not only throw reason away but twist themselves in knots to justify something so clearly mythical.  I can't really understand it, myself. --Kels 15:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Here for those who missed it. Ironic, really, since I will probably be talking about "fact-free assertions" and "offering no evidence" later on. Sterile 15:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Sterile, the facts are all in the BIBLE, as is the evidence. You're on a hiding to nothing. 15:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "You ask me to explain something that presumably you believe to be a problem that creationists need to explain, yet offer no evidence that it is a problem needing explanation. I don't believe that it is, and unless you demonstrate that there is a need, I'm under no obligation to answer."


 * Yeah, I don't think I'll be returning to aSoK. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 15:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My personal favourite is his non-definition of "meaning". I can't decide whether Philip is trying to cover up his inability to define his key terms, or if he actually believes "I feel it in my gut" actually is a good explanation. --Kels 15:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It certainly makes it easier to change the meaning of meaning and of terms at anytime, and to keep himself in control of the argument. Sterile 15:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope he knows deep down that he's lying to us and/or himself. I am afraid he does not. If we turned his burden of proof fallacy against him, it would be pretty funny. "Yeah, Phil...I don't see any problem with information added by evolutionary processes...You're going to have to show me that it can't happen." &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think someone's tried that (myself, probably), but he usually reverts to some word analogy that has nothing to do with genetics. Sterile 15:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder what he would think about more inane assertions, like the reality of the celestial teapot. I don't see any problems with it existing. He can't even begin to falsify it...does he just let my assertion stand or does he all of a sudden develop an understanding of the burden of proof? &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 15:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's been tried. He came back with something about there being no Teapotian Bible to lend it credence. 16:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, and here it is. His argument is that the teapot criticizes unsupported assertions, but since the Bible is true it's supported.  Therefore, it's reasonable and the teapot doesn't apply. --Kels 16:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The teapot criticizes unsupported assertions? Does that actually mean something? Reification much? &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 16:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: What Neveruse quoted about us needing to prove it's a problem before Philip feels an "obligation to answer" - I felt oddly reminded of TK's "truisms" on CP (used whenever someone asked for a cite for his extra-bold claim about how liberals bully and persecute conservatives). See for example his comment here (no diff link thanks to history burning, so just scroll down a bit to TK's last comment in that section). Sorry to all those who want to believe that aSK isn't like CP at all, but what I see is "I make a claim, and we will consider it as true without further explanation or sources until you prove it wrong or point out a problem. And when you do, I will judge whether your claims are correct. Spoiler: They're not because they contradict The Truth." --Sid 19:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * firstly, whats a piss artist? Secondly, I just couldn't take it anymore. Their positions just have no scientific basis. It is as pointless as arguing with Andy. I have given up but someone should ask Phil if Richard Dawkins has no basis for his morals then why is it that Kent Hovind is in jail and not Dawkins. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 19:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * rotfl. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 20:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because Dawkins, being a soulless Atheist, murdered all the witnesses and ate the bodies, of course, I mean, duh. Also, Liberal Activist Judges. --Gulik 20:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * At the risk of appearing simple (because use of the vernacular can sail way over the head of the variety of English speakers on this site and I feel that I should explain) a "piss artist" is a habitual drunk. 21:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I get tired of Phil making his little assertions (even evolutionists don't "believe" in teh K/T boundary...) and providing links - that are always to fucking creation.com! Meaning he has no real idea of what his sources are, if any even exist. 01:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, that felt good. Sterile 03:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Credit where it's due, friend. I WiGO'd you. --Kels 03:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont "believe" in the K/T boundary, I had a geologist friend show me pics of it and he has no reason to lie to me about it. I wish Philip appreciated the difference Hamster 04:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One of my pro-science achievements on CP was to change the big bang and evolution userboxes from "believes" to "thinks". They live on, here (and there, I guess).  04:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, now you've said it TK'll change 'em back in 5, 4, 3, 2.... Anyway, I'm glad someone else is sick of the constant CMI links from PJR. He doesn't appear to understand that if he wants to convince someone that his YEC is correct, then this is precisely the wrong way to go about it. No matter how you demonstrate that individual points from these articles are incorrect, he never seems to grasp the larger idea that because so many things they say are wrong it makes the larger and more nebulous conclusions highly suspect. This is bitterly ironic coming from a person who thinks that not believing the genesis account opens the rest of the Bible to scrutiny regarding its veracity. -- 04:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Does TK stalk this talk wigo though? You're probably right, we should check on it.  And yeah, when Phil gives "references" that go to creationwiki or whatever, to prove what "scientists" and "evolutionists" say I am too bored to click on them.  Christ on an Easter stick, Phil, link to the fucking source, not some quotemine site!  05:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That would involve a) Him having read the source, and b) The source not being an obscure creationist book printed 80 years ago in a run of about 100 that the CMI guy picked up at a garage sale. -- 05:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez
As a bit of a swinger I sometimes visit and upload pictures at an adult site. So I was a bit surprised to find another contributor called RuyLopez posting topless pictures of Soulard Mardi Gras in St. Louis. I suppose that it couldn't be the same person as RuyLopez by any chance? Or is this name common across the intertens? --Hello Boyz 21:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it's a chess opening, and it's not altogether inconceivable that it could be someone's real name. Also, if ASK's Ruy Lopez is Ken (sorry, i haven't been keeping up), then he lives in Buffalo, not St Louis. Totnesmartin 21:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While the thought would be amusing, it's unlikely. RuyLopez on aSK is 99.99999999999% Ken, and Ken is known to use more sock names than any RW member across various blogs, forums, etc. So this is likely just an amusing coincidence. --Sid 22:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is, in fact a commons chess opening, and Ken has alluded to having been good at chess. I cannot assess the veracity of this, as he refuses to play me.
 * I often think that Ken only plays with himself. 22:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not just in chess.  22:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I played with him once, he was fixated on capturing my bishop. -- 05:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Ruy Lopez any relation to Dirty Sanchez? 12:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well at least
aSocK full of drawers is looking up to be the go-to site for info on rock and roll. 05:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ed's plea to Tim
It's hard to know where to begin with this.-- 13:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * More Ed hypocrisy - he didn't lift a finger when Tim left 5 months ago - now he's probably looking for allies again. Maybe TK is getting out of hand behind the scenes too. Maybe in October he'll ask Jess to reconsider. As for his actual post, he once again, shows a) what a moron he is and b) how deluded he is about his own abilities. --PsyGremlinWhut? 13:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "I prefer to act as a surgeon, removing what is clearly infectious or defective." - Well Ed, I think there is some pretty obvious gangrene that needs to be excised. 20:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What the... and here I thought that his aSK:CP talk page post was bad in terms of being naive. Is this really Ed Poor from CP? I have trouble believing this. Where was Ed all this time? The things Tim brought up have been widely criticized by several people on CP (pretty much all of them now banhammered... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...). I'm more willing to believe in Santa than in Ed really being this surprised about the CP stuff. --Sid 20:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ed confuses me, really he does. He can't possibly be as blind or stupid as he acts, and yet he comes here and posts crap like this or his stuff on Tim's page at ASK without the slightest shred of irony, as if he's somehow helping.  Even his actions on CP are wildly inconsistent, leaving you unsure if he's malicious, mocking, or just incredibly stupid. --Kels 20:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the evidence points to incredibly stupid, though I wouldn't discount a little malice thrown in for good measure. I mean, seriously. A second generation moonie who has never once had the thought "Hang on, Sun Myung Moon isn't actually the messiah, he's a very naughty boy." in his entire life. I'm rather hoping that Moon dies before CP does, so we can watch the hilarious self delusion manifest. -- 10:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The description linked elsewhere gives another person's insight into Ed and his mannerisims on CP/Ask. "Ed is also a tireless bastion of customer service. Give him your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free... and he will send them off with a smile." Quite simply, he is trying to please everyone and make problems go away.  I suspect he is a bit naive when it comes to this (picture Woody in Cheers type).  When it comes to politics and religion he has blinders on (Mr. Ed?) that prevent him from seeing how someone else could think otherwise.  He may only be able to see the "good" in a person (not a bad thing) that completely has him missing out on everything else that is going on. --Shagie 22:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. So often at CP, to see the "good" in one of the sysops, you have to see "bad" in the person they disagree with.  He may pretend to play the peacemaker, but he engages in plenty of thuggery.  I don't think he's naive at all; he just wants to be viewed favorably.  I've worked customer service, and sometimes bumbling, well-meaning naivety is the best approach to make the other person do exactly what you want.  -- 22:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Either way, his background in customer support isn't surprising and the same techniques he is trying to use on CP. I am a strong advocate of Hanlon's razor.  Granted, it takes a lot of stupidity but not outside the realm of possibility. I more attribute his tuggery at trying to be "in" with TK and Andy and the rest of the thugs... but then he was a bit of a thug on WP long before CP... so dunno.  Maybe. --Shagie 22:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Am I right?
The reason for Phil's intensity on the "information" topic is:
 * Assume:
 * evolution is correct
 * therefore:
 * information increases
 * but:
 * information does not increase
 * therefore:
 * evolution is incorrect

So it goes to the core of his belief and allowing information to have increased would destroy his "Biblical inerrancy" credo? Sterile's doing a great job, but he'll never win when so much is at stake. He's now bringing SETI into it! (And Human, stop it with your brilliang tyops - this is not a subject for levity). 04:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Did you understand my self-referential definition?" AAARRRGHHHHHHH! And Toastie, if I can't have a fun in the middle of the epic battle for truth with a cretinist, what use is life?  04:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Teh point was: PJR thought it was a typo. Bringing it oput with a [sic] as his end note to his unsigned screed. 04:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I saw that later. Oh well.  Then I checked to see if "g" is near "t", and of course it is.  I wonder if my comment lost any meaning due the substitution of guanine for thymine?  21:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I can't believe this.  I guess I'm going to have to pull "Dawkins wasn't ever able to give specifics and you criticized him for it, can you?".  And what is with Philip's italicizing meaning?  Does he really think that makes it more convincing?  Sterile 11:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sterile, your going to make yourself Ultra-mega-super-double-zointed if you keep this up much more. 11:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is scary! But it's so much fun.  I'm already planning to point out that SETI uses Shannon information and other statistical measures.  Sterile 13:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He's gone bananas. Apparently everyone knows what by instinct what his definition of information is, but atheists can't grasp it since they don't believe in meaning. Yeesh. Has he been to the Ray Comfort school of argument recently? Is there something about the climate down there in the antipodes that produces total morons? -- 13:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Related to the SETI example, Sterile have you ever read a book by Stanislaw Lem called "His Master's Voice"? It actually deals with these subjects.  It even gives examples of the ideas of information being separate from meaning and data only being meaningful in its intended context as the team attempts to decode a message from space without any understanding of the sender or intended receiver (I believe the phrase "akin to running a data punch card through a player piano and happening to get Beethoven" was used).  The fact that PJR refuses to address the meaning of DNA in terms of thermodynamic stability in protein formation says to me that he's just content to keep running those punch cards through the piano.  You're doing quite well though, keeping your cool this long.  I've actually learned a lot from watching your posts, though I've achieved epic migraines from PJR's. HumanisticJones 15:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.


 * (Coincidental stumble) 15:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't actually read the book--thanks for the information (pun somewhat intended!).  Excellent quote, Toast--I think today I will have to look for contradictions in his own use of meaning.  (They should be easy to find because of the italics.)  I don't think Philip will ever back down, although for the second time I'm getting tired of the extended series of irrelevant analogies. I guess I just have to pace myself.   Work calls at the moment. Sterile 15:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI A similar debate (or, actually debates, is raging here and here. Sterile 15:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)