User talk:BMcP

My god!
Somebody make this man a sysop, stat! 18:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By popular demand, you have been made a sysop here. Here's your guidebook. Godspeed! 18:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome, BMcP! I shall toast to you with my heartiest wine. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks! Hopefully I can do here what I wanted to do on CP, write real, factual astronomy articles (Guess you can tell I really like the subject). :) --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You had a nice run "over there". Welcome to the Dollhouse!  19:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so long as you don't mention Proxima Centauri. 19:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the kind of articles you wrote for Conservapedia won't work here - though I enjoyed them very much. But articles on debunking creationists' ideas are most welcomed! I'd love to read something on Aschlafy vs. wp:SN 1987A... 19:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive my ignorance in asking. Why wouldn't they work?  Not that I mind really, more curious.  I'd love to see some of the debunking creation stuff though. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles on astronomy in general would certainly be appreciated. We have an astronomy section in the science portal that could always use some work.--Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, and welcome! By all means, your kind of astronomy article would work just fine here.  Go to it! --Fawlty (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)(another astronomy fan)
 * Ah, alright, and thanks! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, we're not a general encyclopedia, so the articles we have on science are usually to support our debunking "mission". 20:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I will keep that in mind with anything I write. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, you are here now? I did enjoy your work at CP, and look forward to your contributions here.  I agree with Human above, though, that a lot of the astronomy work would likely fall short of the site mission, although work on the Starlight problem, etc., would be quite nice.   20:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @A.Noise - I think anything space/astronomy/cosmology, regardless of creationist rebuttal is on mission. While we refute anti-scientific claims we should also provide some science also. We are not general purpose but we should still have the current theories, observations and innovations of the science world. Acei9 21:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, Ace. I tried providing science once.   22:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll do my best. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, welcome to the  of the Intarwebs! Corry (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

''Why wouldn't they work? '' Some of us had the idea to create some articles on math here at RW - just to show Conservapedia how it should be done. But this idea didn't get popular: if a high-school student wants to look something up at a better Conservapedia, he goes to wikipedia. So, we transferred the articles to A Storehouse of Knowledge. You should take a look: all the creationists' nuttiness, but the management is a little bit more gentle. 18:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well right after I left CP, I was contacted by a couple other disenfranchised people from that site who directed me towards Wikiversity, an educational wiki that isn't beholden to some fundamentalist's sway. That will be a much better fit for astronomy stuff than A Storehouse of Knowledge, as the latter is still run by YECs.  To honestly discuss astronomy, you need to talk about ages of astronomical objects.  Granted, that site is probably okay for math articles, the people in charge seem to be quite a bit more levelheaded.  It surprises me more CP religious folks haven't defected to AsK. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Levelheaded? I suspect CP religious folks haven't defected because PJR's completely inflexible on this YEC shit and puts most xtians off by at least implying they don't believe in jesus right because they don't do his brand of whacked out biblical literalism. And ask yourself what business a fundie YECer wiki has with our math articles, or any math articles for that matter. 19:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, wikiversity seems to be quite an apt place! But remember: Instead, I know of no evidence that Wikipedia has helped a single student in any meaningful way. (A. Schlafly) ... 20:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Think of levelheaded in a relative sense. Compared to some of Andy's notions, the YEC's aren't so bad.  CP is also very inflexible when it comes to any age over 6,000 years, as their systematic censoring of the astronomy articles since I left will testify to.  I wager though that PJR is inflexible about an old universe, they be willing to at least except the universe is more than 12,000 light years across, Andy does not.
 * Not sure what real objections YEC people would have to general mathematics though. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Consider "hot science" is one of our catchphrases I'd say that astrology related stuff is near enough on mission. It's one thing to offer rebuttals, but a firm background in science is what makes the initial disagreement possible. I'd love to see some of your stuff over here. If you decide to do most of your stuff at wikiversity, it'd be cool if you could pop articles here or at least give us a link so one of us can go read it and maybe steal it in the name of goat.-- 23:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what real objections YEC people would have to general mathematics though. - clearly you don't know that Christians HATE Stone-Cech compactification. 02:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * cp:Axiom of Infinity and a couple other pages (cp:Empty set, off the top of my head) had some strange stuff about Christian math on them for awhile, mostly by parodists? (What's the verdict on Foxtrot, anyway?) But I think they'd been edited by Ed Poor and maybe Andy too. --MarkGall (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Chant...
"One of us, one of us..." Acei9 20:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * um..."Gooble-gobble"? 20:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC) CЯacke ®
 * Hot fucking damn. You god damn hoosers. Acei9 20:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * His name is Robert Paulson. 21:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Doubleplus good realgreet former unperson! The party awaits your addition of many goodfact articles on skyobjects!
 * Sorry about that, I figured a little newspeak might help you ease the transition from Big Brother Andy's Airstrip One to the real world again. Welcome you astronomy guy you! HumanisticJones (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey--
I'm on. like Day 5 of ignoring CP--when did you get booted? This past little while, or did I miss it? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't get booted, I walked away because I felt that Andy was being too unreasonably ridiculous in his censorship of astronomy related articles. From what I can gather from his "arguments" on the site and from emails from CP members, Andy doesn't believe the universe is larger than 12,000 light years across (6,000 from Earth, which is the center).  Therefore all astronomical objects that have a distance and/or size greater then this has their size and distance stricken.  That is simply too much and I couldn't in good conscious work under such ridiculous censorship for the sake of one deluded man with an ego-trip. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The CP recent changes page is calling for you TOP. "Come back... come back..." Internetmoniker (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? That I got to see. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome! Typically, everything happens the moment I'm away from RW/CP for any time. Amazed you lasted so long over there, but as the others will tell you, once you step on one of Andy's many, many crazy toes, there's no going back. Still, at least you showed yourself the door (and thank you for giving me something to blog - it's been way too quiet over there lately!) . -- Psygremlin  17:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I lasted as long as I did because some of the admins were more supportive then they could ever admit publicly. Virtually no one else ever wrote astronomy articles and I think they really didn't want to see me gone even if I disagreed with most on issues such as the Age of the Universe, Evolution (not relevant in Astronomy really), and so on.  However I believe Andy did not like me one bit, in the end he is the only person on that site I hold any ill-will towards. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy puts the "ass" back in "astronomy." Badum-bump...I slay me. I'm here all week! Try the veal! TheoryOfPractice (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * some of the admins were more supportive then they could ever admit publicly like who? 04:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Karajou was the most helpful, he was the admin who created multiple astronomy templates for me (on his own initiative), accepted any suggestions I made, never attempted to censor any factual material I wrote that contradicted CP's de jure young universe (and small universe) viewpoint.  He was one of the admins that advocated for me to have more rights.


 * TK was supportive in reining in on occasion, some of Andy's more fanatical acolytes, when they would attempt to expunge any information that didn't jive with Andy's YEC view of the universe, also advocated for me to have more rights. In one on one conversation, doesn't believe in the YEC view.  He is very different when one chat's with him outside the CP webpages.


 * Oddly the people I had the most problem with (outside Il Duce himself), were not admins. One fella took it upon himself to follow every single edit I did or article I created and poured over them, searching for any indication of what he quoted as my "evolutionist snobbery", and attempted to remove any and all information not in line with Andy's bizarre view of the universe.
 * I should write about all of this sometime. &mdash; Unsigned, by: BMcP / talk / contribs
 * I had a similar experience at CP. Karajou, TK, DeanS, PJR, and even Andy were more than helpful, and I was up for sysoppery towards the end of my tenure.   05:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll echo the sentiment that Karajou is really genuinely helpful, even on math stuff he probably didn't care too much about. He made suggestions for making some pages more accessible, helped with templates, etc.  And he didn't share the nasty habit of inserting nonsense that has afflicted some others there.  --MarkGall (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My impression is that, other than Andy (who lumps the two together) and TK (who is taking them all for a ride), the admins are conservatives first and christians second. You wouldn't have lasted so long if you were making articles that portrayed liberalism as anything other than evil/foolish. EddyP (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Myself, I avoided the more powderkeg articles. Several, like Evolution, atheism, and Homosexuality, were utterly pointless to even bother with on the talk page, as those were the personal fiefdoms of Andy's loyal vassal, Ken.  Besides for me, I came there with an intended goal of honestly creating a decent astronomy section.  Naive, I know. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about the person changing your articles; it was probably a prodst trying to suck up to teh assfly. CS Miller (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is something I've wondered about.. You seem to have been there with good intentions, and I'm wondering why? It's fairly obvious from viewing the front page that CP is a bit crazy, not to mention nasty, and I'm wondering why people try to improve it? Seems like making sandwiches for a KKK tea party, where good intentions can never lead to something good. -- 23:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mostly it is for the kids who are being homeschooled by CP, as an attempt to give them good information or perhaps spark an interest in the wider world.  02:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I should write about all of this sometime. do it dude. I'd buy it. 02:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I did it in the hopes that at least one person would become interested int he real sciences (especially astronomy). That and the idea of showing not all people with conservative views or leanings are YECs, religious fanatics, or just plan extremists. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "TK was supportive in reining in on occasion, some of Andy's more fanatical acolytes" OMG, that's how TK uses commas. (template fail, I was looking for the one that has Donald Sutherland screaming "OMG, you're TK!") 02:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for you to improve
Welcome to RatWik, home of the sane. Just thought I'd point you at this refutation page 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe. It probably could do with some TLC from someone knowledgeable in the art. CS Miller (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Refutations = good time. 22:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting article, I definitely see some potential for additional information there. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

uh-oh
Looks like Douggie has set his sights on your articles now. -- PsyGremlin  19:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well they have already been purged of time and distance data, so this doesn't really surprise me. Some will survive but I suspect ow many of the star ones won't.  --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity
"Wikiversity any good?" you ask. I think it's good enough, though I'm somewhat disappointed with it. It desperately needs more material. I want to think of it as the place to go for information at an educational (high-school / college / whatever) level. But it has not yet lived up to its potential as such an encyclopedia.

The problem with Wikipedia is that it is a "world class" reference. If you want to know positively everything there is to know about nonabelian gauge theories of fundamental physics, WP is the place to go. (Well, I exaggerate. Nonabelian gauge theories are so esoteric that even WP isn't at the cutting edge of research.)  But for many things, it tries to be a repository of everything that an expert might know. Someone wanting to know how Dedekind cuts lead to the formal definition of the real numbers (a topic I have been working on) will find himself awash in things that are far beyond his understanding. The same is often true of the internet at large.

Many of the articles that Conservapedia should have been good at aren't out there. Conservapedia could have been a good source of information at the high-school and undergraduate level, but they chose to put swastikas on their front page, delete actual science, and drive everyone except brutish fundamentalist sycophants away.

So where do we go? An obvious place for Conservapedia refugees to go is the anti-Conservapedia, that is, RationalWiki. But, as others have noted above, RW doesn't really want plain science or math articles, and some attempts to create them have been deleted. (Also, I personally abhor the saloon-like atmosphere, with its goats and "moar" and "teh".)

So the best place that I have come up with is Wikiversity. It really needs more articles. And I'm hard at work, largely bringing over stuff that I and other refugees tried to write. And some new stuff. It's really quite refreshing to be able to concentrate just on the subject matter, without having to worry about what atrocity will appear on the front page, or when I will be banned by some insane sysop.

It's kind of lonely over there. I want to read about 61 Cygni and the distance to the Andromeda galaxy. Which I believe is 2.3 million light years, right? And stars have ages, right? And things happened over the last 13 billion years, right?

SamHB (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sir!
I have loaded something that might be of interest to you here. Please peruse at your leisure and let's see if we can put a refutation together for this. I remain, your humble boot-licker -- PsyGremlin  11:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I don't know my astronomy as well as my cosmology I can only say this - This is the most exciting development in creation science that I have yet seen--except for John Hartnett's cosmological relativistic galactocentrism, that obviates the concepts of "dark matter" and "dark energy." is false. Harnett took his ideas from a Israeli called Moshe Carmelli and what he does is merely rename "dark energy" as "Effective Matter Density" which is causing the expansion of space. It's the same thing by a different name. AceX-102 12:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Email much?
I poped on to your user page to email you something privately funny and let you in on our little game, but I couldn't find one. Now it's fairly obvious what has been done, to anyone who really pays attention (so not Andy or TK or Karajerk or Kenservative) but I figured you might want to play too. Send me an e-mail at Opcnup on the Gmail and I'll fill you in. --Opcn (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI
In addition to 🇰🇪 to render 🇰🇪 we also have  to avoid the cumbersome looking 🇰🇪's.

C ® ackeЯ

I know it's difficult...
...but please refrain from highlighting parody quite so much. Cheers. 19:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, should I erase the section then? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Aye fuck it, go ahead and burn it. Cue HCM.... 20:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't matter now, she stepped one step too far on her own and blocked. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Chicago
Erm. I was a student at the University of Chicago in 1995. 02:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually.........
I was indeed talking about what social conservatism has become. I have talked with some of the more right-leaning conservatives both in real life and online, but their thinking is fairly predictable and tired. You know, one of these fundamentalists told me (This was an actual, real-life incident) that my concern for the environment was "not Biblically based." I have attempted to pitch to them evidence for numerous things and for numerous issues (from global warming to animal rights), but they always shoot it down with the same arguments, over and over again (i.e. "You are more concerned about animals than people; the Bible says that we are supposed to use animals for our own purposes" or "Global warming is a perfectly natural occurrence.") It sometimes gets ridiculous, and somewhat laughable! Economic conservatism, well, slightly more acceptable. Most of those people can carry on an intelligent conversation for a while......until they get on a rant about how the "illegals" are causing our problems.--Lefty (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

lulz not lutz!
haw ONE / TALK 08:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

AJK in the saloon bar
AJK has a question which is right up your street. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Up your street
I saw this on CP's main page and thought you'd be just the person to tear the argument to shreds... if you don't head desk yourself to death first. -- PsyGremlin  16:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Please consider coming to Americawiki
Communications with a number of CP refugees have convinced me of a truth that I hadn't recognized before: people have a wide variety of reasons for doing what they do at CP, and a wide variety of reasons for doing what they do after giving up or getting banned. (I'm talking about sane people; the motives of the CP sysops and bullies are a different matter.)

Some people just wanted to cause trouble at CP, and have no interest in anything after their CP tenure is up. Some people actually wanted to contribute real material against all odds. Some people wanted to needle the powers that be at CP. Some people want to engage in the ridicule that we have at RW. (I was in the second and third categories.) For example, a number of people really seem to enjoy doing battle with Andy about relativity, but writing about relativity apparently has little appeal for them.

So suggesting to you that you come to Ameriwiki and write astronomy material there may not be a completely straightforward matter. But if this is something you might be interested in, please do so. At CP, you seemed to be genuinely interested in writing about astronomy. Ameriwiki can provide an outlet for that.

Some time ago, higher on this page, I suggested that you go to Wikiversity. I am currently more interested in AW, though my stuff goes to both places.

I hope you will consider this. SamHB (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I will give the site a look over and see if it worth pursuing. My name concern is devoting time to site that receives no traffic.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

So
So, mister astronomy guy, what do you do astro-wise? Are you a pro or an enthusiastic amateur? And what do you have in the way of scopes? Генгис 15:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)