User talk:162.197.60.142

If you're going to completely change the content and tone of a page it's usually best to discuss on the talk page. Christopher (talk)

Making legal threats
Don't make thinly veiled legal threats onsite, if you want to make legal threats I think the email is legal@rationalwiki.org, it would be a good idea to read RationalWiki:Guide for individuals or companies we cover and other relevant legal notices. Christopher (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously, this is not the place for implying you'll sue us. Direct your concerns to legal@rationalwiki.org Christopher (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify: email legal@rationalwiki.org if you've decided to pursue legal action, it would obviously be preferable to sort this out without having to get lawyers involved. Christopher (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI
I've started a discussion about your article in the saloon bar where people might actually see it. Christopher (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Your most recent edits
Will probably go unnoticed, sorry. We've been busy dealing with this guy. I'm mostly just posting this to get you to the top of recent changes again. Christopher (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Love
Thanks, Love, for restoring that deletion by user RobSmith of my voluminous and wise words. And after only seven minutes, too! Impressive! 162.197.60.142 (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

Sorry Christopher
Sorry Christopher, I wasn't meaning to clutter up your talk page. I was just trying to let you know that I had posted some material that you might want to be aware of. (In my debate with Bongolian I'm kind of thinking of you as a fair-minded referee.) I didn't know about pinging. I'll do that from now on.

By the way, I deleted that sentence about convergent evolution, as I announced I would, if I didn't hear any objections by Tuesday. Is that normal procedure? That is, 1) explain why something should be deleted, 2) Set a deadline for someone to object; 3) Wait till the dead line and then delete it? 162.197.60.142 (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

Was it you, Christopher, who wrote the following on the talk page? "In all honesty, it's entirely plausible that the article was started by someone who exaggerates whatever they find to fit it into Rationalwiki's usual crank-busting narrative (going beyond simply doing the needful and delving into character assassination) because they don't quite care exactly where they get their sick kicks. Maybe we'll need to lasso up some folk from the saloon bar and get their input on the article." 162.197.60.142 (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy


 * It's fine! In future, don't include the "nowiki" bit or it won't work, that was to stop me pinging myself (see for an explanation of what nowiki does).


 * That isn't standard procedure, you wait for someone to respond and try and get consensus. I've protected the page so that you follow it, sorry about the longer waiting times to get stuff removed.


 * I didn't write that, where did you see it? Christopher (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I saw it on the talk page for Eugene M. McCarthy. It's copied and pasted from there. I asked you about it, because I think that's what happened. Somebody didn't like what I was saying so they created a page that exaggerated it all in an effort to make me look like a nut and discredit me. Is that really the sort of thing that you want to take part in? If so, FOR SHAME! 162.197.60.142 (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

So you're saying that Bongolian can write any lies he wants about me (and virtually everything he says about me is a lie, as I've explained at length on the talk page), but I, the victim in this, have no means of obtaining a prompt remedy of this injustice? Let me ask you, Christopher, how would you like it if someone treated you that way? Days ago, I explained the problems with those two sentences I removed. You're saying that I should just be patient and that these falsehoods may be removed one day when a concensus is reached. Why don't you play fair and read my detailed explanation of the problems with those two sentences and remove them yourself if you think what I've said is correct and fair? Is that a reasonable way to proceed? If there isn't some remedy of this sort, then you're just giving carte blanche to trolls like Bongolian to assasinate the character of anyone they like, because he/she can just keep spewing and even if a sentence gets removed now and then there won't ever be a final resolution of th problem. As for consensus, it seems to me you don't need that when someone is making false statements without citing the source of the information, that is, if Bongolian says that I claim something, he should be forced to cite the place where I do. 162.197.60.142 (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy


 * Bongolian is not a troll, I'm about to read through the talk page and see if I agree with your proposed changes. Christopher (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I await your findings with bated breath. And perhaps I should mention that I haven't had time to address all of the problems with Bongolian's comments. (I can't spend my entire life on RationalWiki.) But I do plan to thoroughly address every single error that he has committed (in particular, his erroneous claims about what I say about the genomic data), so long as he isn't allowed to just go on amplifying and adding misrepresentation after misrepresentation. (I'll ping you when I do.) As to the other stuff you're reading now, I'll check back for your verdict. I'm innocent! Please don't send me to prison! :D 162.197.60.142 (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

One other thing. Bongolian should not be allowed to quote Henry Gee at the top of the page when Gee himself is quoting an erroneous headline about me. The people who wrote that headline ("Humans evolved after a female chimpanzee mated with a pig': Extraordinary claim made by American geneticist") never contacted me and simply made that up, then Gee quoted them. What I actually have done is consider the evidence bearing on two mutually exclusive hypotheses. I do point out that there are many ways that that evidence is consistent with the pig-chimp hypothesis and inconsistent with the standard hypothesis, BUT I DO NOT CLAIM THAT EITHER OF THEM IS CORRECT. In fact, I think I've been pretty scrupulous on this point. Rather, I merely suggest that the issue be investigated further. Really, in indirectly quoting the Daily Mail here at the top of the page, I think Bongolian is trying to make a sensational impression by misrepresenting me, just as the Daily Mail itself intended to do. I don't think that that sort of false attention grabbing can possibly be part of RationalWiki's mission. 162.197.60.142 (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy