Talk:Denyse O'Leary

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

"dissent of dissent" - what, exactly, did you mean by that? Jollyfish.gifGenghispillaging 18:25, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

O'Leary shut off blog comments because she didn't want visitors to her site to see people disagreeing with her. Hence dissent of O'learys purported dissent from darwinism. 18:29, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
The phrase is a bit clumsy, Tm. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!</font>That's why I have this doomed expression. You haven't noticed my doomed expression. 18:30, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
"a friend is pestering me to sue for defamation." Sorry? wTF is defamatory about this? It's rather kind, in a "don't mock the mentally retarded" sort of way. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 06:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Meh, Canada's laws on defamation are pretty "plaintif" friendly. tmtoulouse 07:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
This is pretty much on the level of all Andy's law suits against us. They use the word sue in the hope of getting us to remove it, but they don't follow through with even an official request to remove the material because they would just get laughed at by us, never mind a court. - π 07:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The issue is that the standard in Canada is that material "lowers the reputation of an individual in the eyes of the public." There is case law that even discounts a "justification" or "truth" defense. Though, my understanding is Ontario as a province a truth defense would still hold. But "common law" systems often of very free speech unfriendly defamation laws. This is more an intellectual exercise in why someone might think they could get away with it. I am not particularly worried about a lawsuit. tmtoulouse 07:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Well she can't sue us then, this article probably raises her ever so slightly in the eyes of the public given where she is now. - π 07:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Nice one, 22/7 give or take a few thousandths. Nice one. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
They've got no reason to sue us. Let's face it, if someone wants to genuinely find out about Denyse O'Leary they're gonna go to Wikipedia, and apart from that, people rip the shit out of everyone else all the time, so if she thinks this is offensive she should watch Frankie Boyle Live. (Or just have a conversation with Ace). SJ Debaser 15:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Did O'Leary really teach a University course?[edit]

RationalWiki says that someone let O'Leary teach a course on the campus of Toronto University. Maybe so, but was it a University authorized course? Her blog (follow your footnote) states the course was taught at 100 St. Joseph's Street. A business named FLM Languages ( is at 100 St. Joseph's street, which appears to be on the campus. However, I wonder if O'Leary taught at a commercial or otherwise non-university affiliated place at the same address. It's possible somebody affiliated with the University has low enough standards to invite her give a course, but I kind of doubt it. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 11:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Eternal Einstein's Universe[edit]

Dear Denyse, Since science is necessarily a never ending story as it relies only on removing from itself, often by chance, the things that ain't true, I discovered by chance that the Big Bang ain't true. Unfortunatey it ruins the story presented in your book "By Design or by Chance?". It turns out that so called "cosmological redshift", which was considered by some astronomers to be the evidence that the universe is expanding, which LeMaitre used as the "evidence" that the universe was "created", is caused by simple relativistic coupling between space and time.

It turned out that curvature of space is coupled to time dilation the way that both form a "flat" 4D Minkowski spacetime, similarly to empty, "flat" spacetime. Of course space is not empty, not even flat, and so it acts on the time "bending it" accordingly (causing redshift) that it looks to us as "accelerating expansion of space" observed independently by Supernova Cosmology Project. Early cosmologists overlooked this fact. I noticed it only after I manged to figure out with primitive Newtonian calculus that the universe must be "stationary". Later it got sure support from the principle of conservation of 4-momentum. If energy can't be made from nothing the universe can't be expamding.

So you Denyse, should correct it in the next issue of your book. The universe is eternal as Einstein assumed it anyway, even inventing his "cosmological constant" to stabilize his equation. Einstein didn't like his "cosmological constant" considering it ugly. He even called it "the biggest blunder of my life", yet he didn't know how to get rid of it. Finally he said "if you are out to describe the truth leave the elegance to the tailor" and left the gravitation stabilized by his "constant" since he wasn't buying the creationists story about the "Big Bang". As it turned out he was right.

Now that "cosmological constant" is not needed any more since spacetime turned out to be stable you may change the title to "Evolution in Eternal Einstein's Universe". If you never heard the story that I just told you, you may blame your fellow creationist gravity physicists who didn't like it to be known. Maybe for the reason of not understanding the general relativity? JimJast (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 00:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Whee! Can I haz this to add to my Time cube-esque collection (actually it's the first but everything's gotta start somewhere) 01:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC) SusanG Toast

This article is a joke[edit]

I almost deleted it outright, then I realized I was on rationalwiki and not wikipedia. How is anyone going to take anything here seriously when all you do is throw around ad hominems?

dear Anonymous (if that IS your real name): An ad hominem is (according to Wikipedia) an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. This article is not arguing for/against anything, it is simply a short, snarky biography of someone regarded here as a crank. Hence there are no ad hominems involved. Nor are we criticising ID on the basis of O'Leary's flakiness (that WOULD be an ad hominem argument). ID is ludicrous enough on its own merits without need to resort to logical fallacies. Voxhumana (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Feeding the kitty[edit]

This one? Anna Livia (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)