User talk:Zahd

Hi Zahd. Nice of you to join us. If you'd like to know a bit more about the site please have a look at our RationalWiki:Newcomers' guide. I would especially draw your attention to the passages which talk about about raising issues on talk pages before making controversial edits. --Bobbing up 14:24, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Light.
Is sometimes like a particle. and sometimes l;ike a wave. Nothing to do with "spirituality" 'cause there's no such thing. It's a materialistic world. Thanks. PFoster 16:27, 23 November 2008 (EST)
 * For some reason, I feel like Poe's Law is somehow involved in all this sordid business.WilhelmJunker 16:28, 23 November 2008 (EST)
 * That raises some interesting questions. What does that make the Enlightenment - a light bulb factory? -- 16:37, 23 November 2008 (EST)


 * There is a certain pedantic element to rationality that I like. It is not so different from fundamentalism in that it likewise has dogmas, doctrines, and conceptual processes that imitate logic. -Zahd 16:39, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Come to the light.
tired of your spiritualist bullshit and moralising about abortion, adultery and fornication. One edit every half hour. Sorry. PFoster 16:48, 23 November 2008 (EST)
 * Our main request is that you become willing to use talk pages first, and then edit articles. Signify that you will approach us conversationally and work with us on wording, relevance and other issues and I or others will be happy to move you back into the normal editing group. tmtoulouse 17:09, 23 November 2008 (EST)
 * I can agree to that. I appreciate the lifeline, as I think the idea of rationality as the basis for a wiki is a good one. -Zahd 17:23, 23 November 2008 (EST)
 * Okay, you are "paroled" and should be able to edit normally again (subject to the new account limitation, which shouldn't be a problem). Just remember we have to get to know you, talk with us and as we become more comfortable with you and you with us things will go smoothly. tmtoulouse 17:31, 23 November 2008 (EST)
 * Thank you. Regards, -Zahd 20:02, 23 November 2008 (EST)

"Pro-innocent life" v. "pro-abortionist life"???
PLEASE avoid that kind of loaded language on controversial topics. PFoster 20:18, 23 November 2008 (EST)
 * Its strange that snarky, dismissive, and irreverent language seems to be encouraged, and yet mine was not. I'm sure my language was a bit of all three, including its having a certain property of directness and logic. It seems you are operating under some kind of bias. What is that bias, may I ask? -Zahd 20:22, 23 November 2008 (EST)
 * There's all kinds of bias going on here. Please don't think we are either NPOV or encyclopedic. PFoster 20:23, 23 November 2008 (EST)


 * That's funny. Am I free to make at least rational comments? -Zahd 20:24, 23 November 2008 (EST)


 * Arguing that the murder of licenced practitioners performing a legal procedure is somehow justifiable on a "lesser evil" level isn't funny no matter how you slice it.
 * Or rational. PFoster 20:26, 23 November 2008 (EST)
 * Sorry but I agree it isn't funny. Its both sad and infuriating. On that we both can agree. It is a sad fact that stating certain things in certain ways makes people upset, such that they can't handle what's being said. I suppose its just a natural part of our being insular beings that we divert our attentions toward more pleasant things. Or is it that we are rather lighthearted beings? Even rationality can be a double-edged sword it seems. Regards, -Zahd 20:29, 23 November 2008 (EST)