Talk:A Storehouse of Knowledge/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 22 February 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

That small "a"

That small "a" (aSK) is driving me crazy and I whined at PJR over there about it. They always capitalize A Storehouse... when they write it. ħuman 18:46, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I rather like the little-a. It's catchy.--WJThomas 07:35, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

To the eye, perhaps, but it suck to type aSK vs. ASK. Actually, to me, it looks rather juvenile and not very Biblical at all. ħuman 01:01, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

The "Differences with Rationalwiki" section doesn't really seem to have much to say... ħuman 18:53, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Is "differences with" even tolerable grammar? I cringe every time I see it. Surely it should be "differences from". Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:58, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Or "between". It would also make more sense to compare them to WP & CP, since we aren't a 'pedia anyway. ħuman 19:06, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

What are we all doing on aSK

I'm one of those who respects PJR as a decent human being, even if I find some of his opinions abhorrent. I'm also one of the many RW members who have signed up on aSK and, quite frankly, I'm beginning to wonder what we're all doing. There appear to be a number of positions:-

1. There are those, User:human being a notable example, who have created an account to prevent imposters using their user name.
2. There are those, User:gulik being an example, who seems to want to point out the inconsistencies in the YEC, Biblical inerrancy position and are therefore counter to the stated aims of the site.
3. And then there are those, like me, who are somewhere in the middle.

I, personally, could never conform to PJR's worldview and there are those, possibly PJR included, who would say that, as such, I have no place on aSK.

So, what are we doing there? Silver Sloth 06:54, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

There's a certain pleasure in contributing to a wiki, making one's mark on a project. While I don't share the desire to create a Bible-friendly website, nor do I necessarily object to the notion. Certainly there's plenty to do without wading into the more contentious areas of the site, but if one does want to do battle with The Other Side, I suspect there will be plenty to do there, too, whilst still staying within the stated bounds of aSK.--WJThomas 07:35, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Consider this: Branches of science you have to ignore to believe in Young Earth Creationism. In the end, how much can you write for such a wiki?--Bob^{bing up} 08:08, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

I enjoy creationism as a sort of genre of science fiction or even role playing. I'm perfectly capable of working inside the creationist framework. You have to reject a lot, yes, but that's some of the fun...I don't think you hear civil war actors bitching about not being able to use Uzis. Neveruse513 09:09, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Each to their own I suppose. But torturing reality in such a way that it fits the YEC viewpoint lacks appeal for me.--Bob^{bing up} 09:33, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

As I have said elsewhere, I think that PJR is one of the more dangerous people on the web, but this can only make him less so. While he was at CP he appeared to be almost voice of reason when compared with the loonies around him. Now that he is the arbiter of content, I think that his true battyness will shine out like a beacon to expose its true nature. All hail the High Priest of Anti-Science: Go for it Phil! (Oh yes- the section header: What am I doing there? eff all!)_and marmite 10:46, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Me, I'm not doing anything. I really, really can't be arsed to start following another wiki. I couldn't give a damn. Fighting one nutjob wiki is enough for me, and as it is, that's turned into something I spend WAY too much time on. I'm not doing it again, and no matter what you think of him, PJR just isn't as....unpleasant, or as batshit insane as Andy. So I feel inclined to leave him be - I'm never going to change his mind or the minds of his fellow travelers. Ooops, I used a conservative term. So I just registered to occupy my username over there, nothing else. DogP 11:11, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

I want to go until the real censorship starts. PJR is eventually going to have to censor valid Christian viewpoints if he intends to keep the site up to his established standards of Biblical interpretation. There is nothing I love more than one nutcase telling another nutcase that his conception of the transparent skypimp is wrong...especially when I'm one of those nutcases. Neveruse513 11:19, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Just because you respect a person (and would therefore not troll, vandalize, etc) doen't mean you can't contribute challenges to the project. that is, if he writes something factually inaccurate as science knows it, he should be called on it. Not edited, necessarily, but it should be pointed out on Talk pages. ---En attendant Godot_{"«Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta. V.Nabokov»} 11:26, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm just commenting on things and trying to weasel the source code of the Guard Dog out of PJR. Cubic word Phantom Hoover! 15:04, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm not fully sure yet, but it's nice to be able to discuss things there without the constant threat of instabans. Philip does welcome discussion in theory, and I think he means it - as long as one does not Darwinify or Evolutionize teh snartikles themselves, one is welcome to stick around. ħuman 20:45, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm not sure my interest is great enough to last. It is fun being on a new wiki. Old wikis have their scars and unique character and all, but there is something fun about infancy. CP was fun in its own way in the young days--easy to type in stuff about cheese and bridges and the evolution of cp:electric fish with no one noticing. But the YEC stuff concerns me, especially after my interactions with PJR on dinosaur back before we all got banned. Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 22:42, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm making sure he's on his toes, not acting like assfly, and not comparing me to Neb. --<choose>

<option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 11:24, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

Style Guide

what I find very odd is the statement in the style guide that "Information about origins—both creationary and evolutionary views—is not to be included in articles about empirical science (biology, geology, etc.) nor in articles about living things (birds, fish, etc.) unless there is a special reason to do so" This neatly avoids a lot of argument but seems to be contrary to a strict Biblical viewpoint. Is PJR really trying to have it both ways ? 67.72.98.57 12:42, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Where's yer Baraminology now, PJ? _and marmite 12:51, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Can't be done. It's very difficult to talk about biology without implicitly accepting an evolutionary standpoint. And I'd say it's impossible to talk about geology without acknowledging the real age of the earth.--Bob^{bing up} 13:12, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Hard, but possible. It restricts the editing to being "descriptive" - ie, "The Rocky Mountains are a range in western North America, ranging up to xx,xxx feet/metres in height. Some famous ski resorts are there...". "The duck is an aquatic bird, sometimes used to adorn bathtubs". You get the picture. ħuman 16:01, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

OK. You could do that. How would you go about describing geological eras? Ice ages? Continental drift?--Bob^{bing up} 17:01, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Ice ages are Intelligent Refrigerations. Continental Drift is Intelligent Quaking. Wait, not what you were looking for? --Irrational Atheist 17:03, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Distant past, recent past and NOW ! after all only 6,000 years to consider. Ice age (1) caused by FLOOD and continental drift is FLOOD GEOLOGY http://www.globalflood.org/ - its all SCIENCE 67.72.98.45 19:08, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Sort of, yeah. Essentially it means no deep "back story", since the back story on ASK is explicitly goddidit as told in Genesis, 6-10 kYa - or more recently. Any field of "science" which cannot exist without contradicting that back story will be shown to be "not science". ħuman 20:42, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

The real question is if "creation science" is an "empirical science." Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 22:44, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

No, it's not. It's works backwards from assumptions to editing the observations. But we knew that already. ħuman 23:55, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

This is probably from the KendeM parodist posting the usual silly stuff on their kangaroo article - he got called out on the talk page and PJR decided that origins debates could wait until ASK was fully operational. I guess he's got his hands full enough without getting bogged down in arguments. Totnesmartin 09:02, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

Actually the approach was decided before the site was even launched.Tricksy 00:09, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

How many times has PJR described the difference between operational science and origins science? The style guide (and now the regs) basically says stick to the operational unless the specific topic gives reason to include origins information. It's not a delay tactic or an avoidance. It's in keeping with being a general encyclopaedia, rather than one big polemic. How many of you complained about CP articles having unneccesary conservative polemic? Why complain now about the lack of unnecessary polemic? Tricksy 23:07, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Augustine

Clearly this person is (trying to appear to be) loyal to CP. Too literate to be Andy or Kenny, somewhat confrontational. Kara? TK? Dean? I'd vote TK, because there appears to be some attempts to throw out false identity clues, and because I always suspect TK of everything nefarious.--WJThomas 08:36, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Augustine was one of the first users to be made a member, so (s)he must be someone Philip knows and trusts. Probably not TK then.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 08:54, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Meh, I thought it was the "real" Ken - there is some similar style, but it is altered for the wiki. Then again, it could be TK. I forget now who I left off thinking it was last night. Wait for a bullet on a talk page? ħuman 15:50, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Augie is quite literate, well-spoken, and doesn't make multiple edits per entry, so I'd be shocked if it were Andy or Ken. There's a decided whiff of bully-swagger which makes me think TK. Then there's the "PJR is a close personal friend of mine" post on his user page, which sounds a lot like TK's "Andy said so--trust me..." thing. And this exhange has a lot of TK attitude in it.--WJThomas 18:32, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

I notice a decided attitude, even arrogance, in this comment as well, interestingly enough. Taking advantage of PJR's earlier comment he would be busy this weekend? --Kels 19:54, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Thinking about it, I bet it's someone we have never heard of. There's plenty of authoritarianism to go around, especially in those paternalistic religious traditions. Augie may well be a good friend of Philip's (IRL or net), brought on board to build some critical mass? ħuman 20:40, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Certainly possible, but this person's devotion to the Conservapedia article makes me think he/she/it is a CPedian. I'm starting to lean towards Dean or Kara, though.--WJThomas 08:03, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

I think it is safe to say that it is the artist formerly known as Learn Together... Fox 10:06, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

Whoever he is, Augustine is a rude little shit, isn't he? --Kels 10:25, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

I will always remember his reverts to my Passover article, demanding more references because it opposed his opinion; duly provided, the veritable truckload of references was dismissed because none of them were first hand written accounts from the first century!! "You should know better Fox. Opinion without reference made towards a different group will not be viewed as fact on Conservapedia. The sources you had shown didn't give a single work from the time period to verify their claims. Please don't deflect from that basic truth." I know a few people here thought he was reasonable, but that could have come straight from the Schlafly quote generator... Fox 10:31, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

My memory's a little fuzzy on the guy, but didn't he start out a lot nicer, but at some point start to veer heavily into the TK/Andy school of debating? He certainly seems to be retaining some traits over at aSK. --Kels 11:17, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

I don't recall much about LT, but that Augie character certainly seems to have gone the same finishing school as TeamKiller. ħuman 21:57, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

And now, Augie is a "Senior Member"...

Seriously, how can this guy not be a troll? --Kels 18:58, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

members all have banhammers ?

Is having all members with ban powers a good or bad thing ? it seems you start as a non-member but can get promoted after a month if you behave. 67.72.98.45 19:10, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm curious why you are asking here, on RW, instead of on ASK. I mean, how they run their wiki is really their business, isn't it?--En attendant Godot_{"«Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta. V.Nabokov»} 19:32, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Especially here!! with 265 janitors RW is a shining example of the argument that teh largely defensive weapon of ban axually makes for a safer wiki. 10:58, 28 March 2009 (EDT) CЯacke®

Sources - um are these Encyclopedic ?

In a number of articles the sources seem a bit off mainstreet . http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/Lucifer and http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/Gap_theory , they are funny though. 67.72.98.45 20:50, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

Philip still hasn't defined what he means by biblical worldview. Some people have a very different interpretation of what that means. Ed "I have been writing neutral articles" Poor seems to find every chance to mention the moonies. - User $\scriptstyle 4\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 20:53, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

Ed's a real piece of work

Actually, Ed's a right little shit, that's what he is. The fact that he can say that with a (presumably) straight face after being complicit in so much at CP, plus constant POV pushing and abuse of power at WP before that, it's stunning. I wonder sometimes if it's possible for him to be honest. --Kels 00:55, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

I had to add my €0.02 larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 03:49, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

What a pity! PJR closed the discussion. Well, understandable from his point of view. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:47, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

Biblical?

Biblical literalist, really. He complains about WP's lack of neutrality, but then goes on to label his literal interpretation of the Bible as "the" biblical viewpoint, dismissing a large chunk of Christianity who wouldn't consider themselves less "biblical", even though they don't take the bible literally. Doesn't strike me as particularly fair or intellectually honest either. --This user is Crowing Rabidly! 08:04, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

I mentioned it in a brief comment about the main page on ToP's talk page (there). Bradley F copied it to talk:main, so at least it's being discussed. I should go see if anyone replied to my last comments... ħuman 19:08, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

RW and ASK

I noticed that RationalWikians are a bit warmer to ASK then Conservapedia. Mabye it's because ASK isn't run like a police state. Of course, most of the actions ow the RWians on ASK consist of prodding debate.--Ipatrol 22:40, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

We like debate. We have a whole space called debate. We have more content on out talkpages than the articles. It is the way we roll. - User $\scriptstyle 4\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 00:05, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

And so far, PJY has not stifled debate. ħuman 00:10, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

the number of RW members editing at ASK has dropped since the crashes in Jan-Feb 2010. The number is now very close to , well, 0. Hamster (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Overwrite

I removed that part from the article. IIRC, I tested this issue during week one, and it gave me the "You don't have Upload rights!" error message when I actually tried to overwrite an image. However, I'm working from memory here, so if one of our resident non-Members could doublecheck it (With something harmless, just in case I was wrong!), that would be nice. --Sid 13:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"It's difficult to know whether PJR knows he is a liar or truly believes in the positions he advocates."

Whoever wrote that nonsense needs to learn some basic english and some basic logic. One cannot unkowingly lie; particlualry one cannot truly believe in a position that they advocate and said to be a liar for advocating it. Then agian "never let the truth..."

It's a wiki, dude. Edit mercilessly. Šţěŗĭļė driptray 01:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No lube for you! --Kels (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I added that. I can't think of my rationale. I think it was whether he was self-deceived or not. Could have been written better. But he's a liar and he knows it. 01:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I know your rationale. You just had an argument with PJR and you, like most people who have tried to hammer a point through his skull, could not believe that someone so seemingly intelligent could hold such a stupid position. A position that could only be held through extreme ignorance, but that can't be the case because he knows already what you are telling him. So either he actually believes his position despite the evidence and is simple deluding himself or he is trying to maintain this position due to alliterative motives and so is purposefully lying. That sound about right? - π 01:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That sounds about right. I'm mystified by his tenacity to this day. Apparently nobody but him knows how to make a good point. 01:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, he's so taken by that whole "we use the same evidence" that he continually tries to force the evidence to fit, without even realizing that he's rejecting huge chunks in the process. It's not even that he fails to understand, but aggressively pushes a twisted understanding. --Kels (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. "Liar" and "evidence" have some uniquely RatWiki meaning.^{— Unsigned, by: 167.123.240.35 / talk / contribs}

Correct. Here, "liar" is someone who says things that aren't true, and "evidence" is stuff you can prove. Very different from how they're used at the CMI fan club aSK, which is of course the correct way. --Kels (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that by providing definitions that are wrong by way of being incomplete (the first) and just plain wrong (the second). Proving evidence! The closest concept that matches that definition is "pesudoscience".^{— Unsigned, by: 167.123.240.35 / talk / contribs}

We do have the {{tq|}} template, you know. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 00:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)PS why not sign?

Isn't "Creationism" a combination of "liar" and "pseudoscience" anyhow? We're half way there! --Kels (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Anagrams of creationism include "tinier comas", "an eroticism", "it is romance", and "I scream into." [1] What fun! Šţěŗĭļė driptray 03:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC) PS I could argue for dishonest instead of liar, but eh, I'm tired of hair splitters. Šţěŗĭļė driptray 03:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC) PPS Are you getting bored, Bradley? Šţěŗĭļė driptray 03:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not bored. The sheer ridiculous nonsense at this fundamentally dishonest site sometimes overcomes my ability to shrug it of as a collective cognitive aberration, & I fel the need to comment. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Phil thinks he has "won" over any user who got bored and wandered off and now just makes jokes of his inane positions instead of giving him arguments he can claim are fallacies. ħuman 03:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Social consequences of evolution

Don't suppose anyone would care to do either a SBS of Phil's rant or alternatively a [[Social consequences of religion/Christianity/Biblical inerrancy]]? 15:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The SBS is at Social consequences of evolution if you want to go at it. Most of it is just the usual bullshit about how "all these bad things are because of evolution therefore evolution is false", but it might be worth to have a rebuttal to this specific article rant anyway. If not, delete it. -- Nx / talk 17:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what a massively hypocritical pile of shit. This is particulary stupid: "In Western societies, Christianity was the dominant religion for most of the past 2000 years, and as a result, these societies generally enjoyed great prosperity, technological advancement, and human rights". The stats and history books say otherwise Phil. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I do like how in the talk page he's taken it on himself to be the great defender of slavery. Even a watered-down version of slavery is still unacceptable, of course, and minimizing the version that was present in Biblical days doesn't make it any more so. It just makes the one minimizing look like a tool. --Kels (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep digging Philip. -- Nx / talk 17:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If it hadn't been for Islam during the middle ages we probably wouldn't be where we are now. Silly twit (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Unjustified statement

Article now says:

Apparently, in the process of making an "encyclopedia", at least one editor uses the RationalWiki page at ASK as a place to write his grudges, very much on limited information.

How do I base what I write on "limited information"? What information am I lacking? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You joined the Wiki fairly recently, for starters. Even I am a newcomer as far as some of these old traditions and in-jokes are concerned (the origin of the goat jokes, for example, was before my time). Also, you are seeing it from the perspective of an outsider who came here with your own aim in mind, rather than a more typical editor or a person who just reads the Wiki's articles. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems rather like the Courtier's Reply—you haven't been here long enough, you couldn't possibly begin to understand (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I was explaining how your information is limited, not remarking upon the validity of conclusions drawn. But that sort of thing can be a problem; I, for example, have a blinkered view of Occasionaluse's activity on the Wiki, because I disproportionately notice those posts where he pursues his self-declared vendetta against me. Similarly, I doubt that if you had been here during UncleHo's flourishing period, you would have asked him the questions you did. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a distinction between:

1. You said X, but X is wrong, because you haven't considered information Y which clearly demonstrates that (maybe you are not aware of Y due to reasons Z)
2. You said X, but X is wrong, because you don't have the full information due to reasons Z

Do you see why the first may well be valid but the second is fallacious as stated? What we have here is (2), not (1). (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I said, I was explaining how your information is limited, not remarking upon the validity of conclusions drawn. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

(OD) First, thanks for correcting my spelling. I actually spotted that is wrong just as I hit "save". I hope your reversion is not simply due to my sloppy typing :) My reversion was because a) the statement is actually untrue, b) even if it was true it's a bit on the nose to complain about a single article exhibiting a grudge against an entire grudge-site and iii) it's more like a wigo snark than article content. LowKey (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, although as Maratrean said, there is a distinction between philosophically-motivated differences (on which most of our grudges are based) and personal differences. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Wandalism

Currently wandalising their "Biblical Creation" page.--Toasterstrudel64 (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You're pretty awesome. Ace^Moderator 23:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Sarcasm or serious?--Toasterstrudel64 (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

dude im so jealous of you!--il'Dictator Mikal 23:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Definitely sarcasm.--Toasterstrudel64 (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"We do not condone vandalism of other wikis, and most of us feel quite strongly on that point." Тyrannis^Plead 00:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Toasterstrudel64, do you not have better things to do, like composing an ode to the lump of green putty in your armpit? ListenerX^TalkerX 00:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for what I have done; I was not aware of this sites position. Oh, and ListenerX, wondeful reference to the Vogons.--Toasterstrudel64 (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No, the Vogons only wrote the third worst poetry in the universe; that was an example of the second worst. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Move to WIGO:ASK? sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 05:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)