User talk:An outcry cometh

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, An outcry cometh! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Sup. Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This is definitely worth a read before you start editing articles too heavily. Tielec01 (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Good luck!

Aceⁱ⁹ 01:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Warning

"An outcry cometh", that would be like saying a color-blinded person saw reality exactly the same as someone with perfect color perception. Surely they don't. I've analyzed your unconcise replies and noticed that you expressed support for the gay agenda, so I'm confident you're favoring immorality. Like all atheists, you deny that conservative talk radio stops depression. Nobody seriously doubts that the entire New York City area, as large and entertainment-oriented as it is, can probably support only a handful of female pop singers on any given weekend. We have this fundamental difference with Wikipedia: Conservapedia is an educational resource, while Wikipedia is not. Open your mind a bit, please, for your own sake. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 05:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Can I be the first to cry out loud. Even scream? Dirk Steele (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not too much of a streatch to the definition of "obviously vile trolling" here. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 02:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with this place. I don't want this filthy talk on my discussion page and why are people just reversing my edit to Duane Gish and not trying to make any argument for it?! An outcry cometh (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Read the talk page.Tielec01 (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I read it it is not a good explanation. nobody has given a reason for reversing the edit so far and they KEEP reversing me adding real information about Dr. Gish. Please JUSTIFY your arguments. So far Tielec01 is the only who has said anything and even that is not a good justification for reversing. !An outcry cometh (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You want to make the change you must justify it. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sprockets I'm the only one who has ever asked for that before you mentioned it. Nobody has said anything with merit about why my one single edit wasn't good except vitriol and nosense.

What is the vandal thing. It's not fair. I'm trying to talk to you people about this and once someone says something substantive to respond to I WILL RESPOND. My other account haha look at Jeremiah 51:54. God has spoken on the desctruction of Babylon. I don't know what vandal bin is but nobody has given me any helpful advice! Someone reasonable please come and look at what has happened. These people have come over and made very broad statements that have nothing to do with the specific edit I made that has been reversed many times without any explanation. It doesn't matter if Dr. Gish is a creationist. You don't need to call him names or say nasty things. This website is full of that and it doesn't make either side look good especially your own. You need to make good logical arguments that rely on facts or you look like clowns. An outcry cometh (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

nobody has given me any helpful advice! Several people have directed you to our help files. Look at the welcome message. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

My Other Account....

Clever....hattip to Nutty Aceⁱ⁹ 03:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring is ineffective

If you want to change an established page, try making a better case on its talk page. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You're out of the vandal bin for the moment. Since you are using talk space, it doesn't seem fair to throttle your input there. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What better case? Someone PLEASE explain why giving more information about Dr. Gish and then removing some unnecessary silly nonsense that doesn't change the message of the article requires an explaination. An outcry cometh (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

.

Being a dick convinces nobody of anything. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to draw attention to certain aspects of RW you find lame, stupid, childish or incorrect list your objections and discuss them. Edit warring does nothing. You should know this. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yo

I'm keeping you out of the vandal bin (becase you aren't one) and, I assure you (since I don't have time right now), I plan to do a very thorough point-by-point refutation and/or debate on your points once I get the time. Until then, I apologize for people not doing a good job engaging. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) A cursory search reveals 14 peer reviewed articles by Gish in journals by the American Chemical Society. I've noted it within the article. Nobody^{don't bother} 06:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

More to the point, just because somebody has a peer-reviewed publication doesn't mean they are incapable of pseudoscience. For example, publishing something that says "Vinegar and Baking Soda mixture produces fizz" is completely different from one saying "Compound X is the link that proves Creationism." You see my point? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, however, a talkpage comment that he had never written anything peer reviewed irked me. Also the tone of many of our articles is frankly absolutely embarrassing. Nobody^{don't bother} 06:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not disputing that. Which is why I am going to the level of reasoning required here. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If your not a troll, you need to slow down. Start with one single article, and one single point of discussion and bring it to the talk page. Jumping from article to article making substantial changes will just be reverted. There is a path to discussion and collaboration but your not travelling yet. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Creationists are not generally fideists but those who hold faith based on evidence of God's creation". I know you are a creationist, so tell me, if there was a conflict between your faith and the evidence so that all the evidence pointed to the non-existence of god would you stop believing? (remember in a thought experiment, such as this, the parameters shouldn't be changed). Tielec01 (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You people automatically assume I'm a young earth creationist. I'm not. I'm also not interested in chit chatting with you. I just want to edit articles. So far I've been subject to obscenities and insults all around. Please just leave me alone. An outcry cometh (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do you want to contribute to a project staffed entirely by people who don't seem to like you very much? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 17:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think their point is not that we don't like them. I think their point is in trying to understand why we don't like them and have been rude towards them. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The point I would make is that it should not matter whether you like me or not. I was under the impression that this site is about ideas but so far people have been extremely rude to me and basically repeated themselves without saying much if anything is wrong with my edits other than they don't like them. The question is whether you can objectively evaluate my edits under whatever official policy you have instead of just reversing it all. This site is about ideas. Some of these articles distract from the points you want to make with hateful name calling and whatever "snark" is. Playground name calling in articles destroys credibility. Some of you were already disrespectful to me because you assume quite a lot because I am Christian including that I am a YEC. I'm sure there are Christians on this site you are not hateful to who have similar views as I do. But to TheoryOfPractice: personal views don't matter. Edits and facts matter. An outcry cometh (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This site isn't about your ideas. It's about "Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement. Documenting the full range of crank ideas. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media." Do you believe life's abiogenesis was done through direct divine action? Do you believe the current diversity of species is due to evolution due to natural selection? Why are you hanging out on a site which attempts to convince people of those two things? Hipocrite (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits and facts matter, but unless you have a serious martyr complex, trying to contribute edits and facts to a marginal website that has shown zero appreciation for your efforts seems like wasted time to me. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Who cares what I believe? I'm not hanging out here or pushing "my ideas". I'm trying to edit some articles. What I believe has nothing to do with putting good information into articles. Isn't that what a wikipedia is about? Reverse whatever you think isn't "snarky" or hateful enough but don't remove good information. And to TheoryOfPractice who are you to try driving me away like this? An outcry cometh (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are you dodging the question? This is not a wikipedia. You are, in fact, pushing "your ideas." ref: [1]. Hipocrite (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The idea I'm trying to push is things as innocuous as adding Dr. Gish's education and bibliography information. The parts you disagree with are me removing hateful name calling. I know you can tell the difference. An outcry cometh (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to drive you away, I'm just trying to figure out why you would want to stay at a party where nobody is being nice to you when there are parties happening at every other house on the block. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You repeatedly refer to me leaving and nobody wanting me here but you're not trying to drive me away. What I believe should have nothing to do with how you behave toward me. Do you treat everyone you think you disagree with this badly? I say "think" because you don't know anything about me. What is your problem? An outcry cometh (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Where have I treated you badly? I've merely asked you a question -- why think that you can change the position of a long-established project on your own? why dedicate your time to a project that seems to have received you pretty coldly? Why care about what a marginal website has to say on an obscure topic? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 19:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Show me where I'm trying to do anything but remove juvenile rants that have nothing to do with actually refuting pseudoscience or the anti-science movement. I didn't remove facts. I removed negative emotional non-content. If that's something you consider a "position" I'm very curious why, what purpose it serves, and whether you think it makes this site look better or worse? An outcry cometh (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

[2]. Hipocrite (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Now I understand why you're acting this way. You obviously didn't read the edit carefully. The claim is that "Intelligent design advocates claim that intelligent does not depend on special creation by the fiat of any god, and therefore is a scientific theory like any other." That's demonstrably true. Atheists, liberal Christians and people of all kinds of persuasions who aren't YECs accept intelligent design. Are you calling them liars? You're saying I'm pushing an agenda because I deleted this : "The claim is apparently false, as the Discovery Institute, currently the leading promotor of intelligent design in the United States, was remarkably candid in admitting in the wedge strategy document that its purpose is to advocate creationism on purely religious grounds." You go ahead and explain to me how the Discovery Institute's wedge strategy means that all all intelligent design advocates are lying about wanting to advance creationism. The Discovery Institute speaks for the Discovery Institute. To be clear, I am not a YEC. I accept intelligent design to some degree which is why noticed the false claim I removed. I await your answer or an apology for claiming I did something I did not do. An outcry cometh (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Was that sentence a "juvenile rant?" I've got other examples where you are doing far more than "remove juvenile rants" - ref [3]. So, perhaps you owe me an apology, you liar. Hipocrite (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You still ahven't told me why you care about juvenile rants about an obscure topic on a marginal website. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 19:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got things upside down and you're continuing to throw up irrelevant points for I don't know what purpose. It looks like you just want to argue. Why is wrong to remove distracting childishness when I'm adding good information to an article. Why would you want some of this embarrassing stuff in articles in the first place? An outcry cometh (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, not everyone in this community agrees with you that the stuff you removed was "distracting childishness." I don't necessarily think its wrong to want to re-write part of an article that you disagree with, but I wouldn't force the point if nobody else agreed with me. Given that nobody else who contributes to the project seems to support your take on the article, why be so invested in it? Why would I want "embarrassing stuff" in the article? Well, I'm not embarrassed by it. I think it's funny. This isn't some authorative intellectual source. It's a goofy blog. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 20:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Follow your own rules. Is there a grievance procedire here? Are there sysops who enforce this stuff?!"

Everyone, almost, is a sysop. We do have moderators. If you think you need their intervention, write something up here. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 17:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it's still an asshole thing to vandal bin people for little to no reason while hurling all kinds of insults at them. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I shoudn't need a site boss to intervene just because some of you can't restrain yourselves from discussing homosexual sex on my discussion page. It shouldn't happen and when I remove it you shouldn't bully me by forcing it back on. If that's difficult for adults to understand you have bigger problems than being unable to read my edits before reversing them and removing good information along with what you dogmatically disagree with. An outcry cometh (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with homosexual sex? Here's a picture of two monkeys in love [4]. Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

EC Would you have a problem if it was heterosexual sex? If no, why bother to be so specific? Why not just say "sex"? Reeks of homophobia that you needed to narrow it down like that. Also, expecting a community that's had a certain tenor for many years to conform to your own ideas of appropriateness when you've been here for 20 minutes makes you look self-important. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about self-important?? How is removing material that even atheists might find offensive "expecting" a community to "conform" to my own ideas of appropriateness. It's not unusual for people to object to wanting to be around discussions of homosexual or even heterosexual sex so what in the world do you care what my religious beliefs are regarding homosexuality. If someone has a belief you don't agree with you think it's Ok to insult and berate him over it? What gives any of you the right to bully me over my beliefs. They have nothing to do with how YOU should behave. An outcry cometh (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"If someone has a belief you don't agree with you think it's Ok to insult and berate him over it?" Sometimes. You don't ever think that's appropriate? Hipocrite (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe you guys. This guy doesn't want his talkpage to be made into another porn site. I, personally, think that's a reasonable request. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"If someone has a belief you don't agree with you think it's Ok to insult and berate him over it?" Depends on the belief. Flat-earth? Tooth Fairy? Santa Claus? Black Helicopters? Chemtrails? Objectivism? YEC? No doubt I do. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 19:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? You would go out of your way to insult and berate a YEC? How would you do that? Would you just go up to him and get at it or would you wait for him to say anything you actually disagree with first? Would you treat a Christian the same way? Do you believe I am a YEC and therefore deserve your mistreatment? An outcry cometh (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I would, because it's a ridiculous belief that in no way squares with a reasonable or rational approach of understanding reality. I would probably wait until said YEC made it an issue, though, no need to bother the crazies out of the blue. As for how I would treat "a Christian," that would depend on the brand of Christianity in question. As somebody currently exploring Christ's teachings as a way to make sense of certain moral and philosophical questions, I have great sympathy for people who use their faith in Christ as a base from which to fight for social justice and the end of oppression. As a decent human being, I have a great amount of scorn for people who use their idea of Christ's message to advance hatred and marginalization and oppression, and I have no problem telling them so. I actually have no idea about you or your beliefs, and I do not see where I have mistreated you. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 19:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark

I think this user is likely to be a troll, as others have pointed out, or at least willfuly dishonest. For example (emphasis mine):

You people automatically assume I'm a young earth creationist. I'm not. I'm also not interested in chit chatting with you. I just want to edit articles. So far I've been subject to obscenities and insults all around. Please just leave me alone.

However, on the Duane Gish talk page[5] this user commented:

What the heck is a false balance about adding some real information about Dr. Gish and removing childish name calling and histrionics. Why not just make real arguments instead of saying nasty contentless stuff? There is plenty to complain about believe me. I'm a young earth creationist but I don't buy all the stuff the most popular apologists say. Let's work together to get these yec article more respectable

It's most likely that Outcry changed their beliefs, in the course of an hour no less, to avoid a difficult questions on a factually dubious statement they made to justify a change the creationism article[6]. The statement, even if it was correct, bore no relevance to the change they made at all.

Outcry has consistently mistaken their opinions about the tone of articles as facts; some of their edits have been partially correct for example: Duane Gish's publication record, although even this they exaggerated by claiming he had published over 40 peer reviewed works[7]. Other edits by Outcry have been completely wrong such as the attempt to claim the wedge strategy document does not show that ID is being pushed primarily for religious reasons[8]. Despite claims that they would address facts, Outcry has so far not commented on the relatively simple statement with links that I made on the talk page showing that this statement was factually incorrect[9]. They seem more concerned with claiming that their concerns have not been addressed than reading the simple refutations and help that has been provided.

TL;DR - Outcry is probably a troll, or just a lying creationist (is there any other type?). Tielec01 (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In B4 someone thanks Captain Obvious.Tielec01 (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew Outcry had said they were a YECer but couldn't remember where. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, did somebody say Denmark? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 01:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)