User talk:SuperInfinity

TeenageWasteland (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

www.gmeducation.org
Do you notice how several editors are removing that link every time you put it in? By re-inserting it without opening up a discussion on the talk page, or while a discussion on the talk page is still going on, you are edit-warring. Edit-warring is not cool. I thought you were cool. Don't let me down. Be cool. TeenageWasteland (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You let me down, bro. Not cool. TeenageWasteland (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You obviously have an ideological ax to grind when it comes to GMO foods. If you want to help with this article, try adding useful, cited material and don't just delete things you don't like. NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 21:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright. Just out of curiosity, how is putting something like "when he read the actual science" "useful, cited material" and not an ideological axe to grind? SuperInfinity (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That was a summation of a direct quote from Mark Lynas. "So I guess you’ll be wondering—what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist." The full article can be found here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/03/mark_lynas_environmentalist_who_opposed_gmos_admits_he_was_wrong.html --NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 23:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I'm shocked you actually had an answer to that. But the point is that it's being dismissive or even "snarky" against something that is NOT an irrational stance to have.SuperInfinity (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki has a "snarky-point-of-view" policy when it comes to anti-science and pseudoscience. To be against specifically one genetically engineered organism for some supposedly good reasons (i.e. lets say you found some studies which backed up your position) is totally rational. To be blanketly anti-all GMO organisms because you've read pseudoscience that says they're all harmful or they're all made by giant corporations is irrational, its a gross simplification and not what the reality of the situation is. --NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 15:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at the usual space.
Stop it. Nobody is buying it, and you're only wasting your time. Father Vivian O&#39;Blivion talk 17:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked
Come back in nine hours and consider another approach. This one clearly isn't working for you. Father Vivian O&#39;Blivion talk 20:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Father Vivian, there is "majority rules" and "rational science rules".


 * What do you find problematic with what I wrote?


 * It's hard to fit a square into a circle, and that is what the GMO lobby seem to be intensely trying to do by implicating anti-GMO activism as being "pseudoscience". The square is not a circle, and no matter how you look at it, it just won't fit. Or maybe I am looking at it wrong? Tell me how what I wrote is faulty if it is. Not trying to convince me for the sake of idealogical views, but because of what's true.


 * SuperInfinity (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think their argument is that you shouldn't edit war content in. Maybe you could try the talk page? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * EC I care very little about what you wrote. What I find problematic is the edit-warring. Continuing to re-introduce something when a number of editors have removed it is not how we roll. Ever since you've been here, it seems like you've engaged in this kind of behavior. The fact that you've been editing here for almost 4 months and still haven't been given autopatrolled status, never mind been made a sysop, should give you a hint as to what the community thinks of your conduct and of the content of your contributions. Father Vivian O&#39;Blivion talk 20:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

GMO Edit Warring again
Take your additions to the talk. Hash out your viewpoint with other editors. You just might get some useful additions in. Stop edit warring over the same non-useful phrase. NerdyWizard (talk) you believed that why? 20:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing the GMO page
Give it a rest. Please. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

GMO
I have vandal binned you for your edits to Genetically modified food.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please stop doing things like this. If you remove any content again from the GMO page without a good reason, I will block you for vandalism.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't want someone to talk to you, you can fuck off.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Stop it now.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Try this shit again and I will happily continue to Fibonacci-block you.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Your continued vandalism & top tier anti-GMO crankery
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ^My thoughts for the last month or so.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Only since last month? Take a walk in my shoes and try "My thoughts since last year" (August 2015, in this case). Hah. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "For well over two years" seems more appropriate overall. Sadly.--JorisEnter (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

What crankery did I post? Where's the crankery?

Having a different opinion to you is crankery? SuperInfinity (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly removed content from the same page, despite having been told not to do so. You provided no rationale for your actions ("I find it offensive"). You have not contributed anything to this site, and have only been here to push your POV against consensus and facts.--JorisEnter (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Once more
Stop vandalising the GMO article. You're already vandal binned over this; see you in 3.14 months. Please behave. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Norman Borlaug did his cross breeding and selection experiments in a Du Pont labratory
So we have Sounds like he does meet your "idomatic definition".
 * 1) Food: wheat and other grains
 * 2) Genetically modfied: by way of selection and breeding
 * 3) In a lab: DuPont Delaware botany labs

I've therefor reverted your change. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also a bit confident that this is the same person in GameFAQs that hates GMOs. You can entertain yourself with me trying to engage with SuperInfinity45 here. 20:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You know my opinions about offsite drama. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, just letting you know, I've engaged with this dude before, as well as my sister, and you might as well just start directly insulting this one as you usually do. 20:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * They weren't created in a lab though. I am confident scientists, professors and others in the field would not consider Norman Borlaug's breeding programmes as GMFs or GMOs. It's really bad-faith to post stuff like this, but you're free to ruin the credibility of the site and the argument for GMOs. SuperInfinity (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * They absolutely 100% came out of a lab. They had nice little planters where they tested their various hybrid seeds, under controlled conditions, which were themselves hybridized in the laboratory.  As to a professor calling it GMO, here's a lesson plan from virginia tech explicitly listing him as making GMOs.  Here's the exact words of the man him fucking self describing the importance of what you call GMO  and he calls biotechnologies in the 21st century.  You're wrong and will remain wrong.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The powerpoint file continually refers to genetically modified foods in a way that makes it clear that they are different to conventional (artificially selected) ones. Right through, but as an example on page 15: "The only GMOs commercially available in the U.S. are the following eight crops:". Norman Borlaug doesn't mention anything about GMOs there, I searched for "gm" and "genetically modified" and it only led me down to page 26 where they are giving statistics on the amount of GMO coverage of each crop - again, as opposed to conventional crops. As I suspected going to those links was a complete waste of time for me but maybe my explanation of the most basic things can help you. SuperInfinity (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh. I guess I'm wrong.  Doesn't matter if I'm wrong about that because it was in response to you deflecting the core point.  1, 2 and 3 are all true.  Will you acknowledge that?  That by the arbitrary definition you invented for GMO(all such definitions end up being arbitrary), he totally 100% did?
 * Will you admit the seeds came from a lab? Will you admit that no organism to that point before had that genome, because he created it?  That it was food?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure but the original point about it being GMF is false. That's what the edit is about. I am going to try to revert it one more time and if not forget it. SuperInfinity (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No fuck that, don't you walk away from admitting that you're wrong by your own goddamn definition. You get back here and have a moment of growth you fucker!  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this you
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/community/Superlnfinity45

Since others can't find your posting history, it's that guy who likes Putin a lot and has a seething hatred for GMO just like in here, which matches the views of this account. 20:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)