User talk:Bob M/Archive8

Fitocracy

You're pretty fucking hardcore, old man. Props for that. Occasionaluse (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Howdy

Nice to see you back Bob, I thought you might have snuffed it. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing so dramatic! Just wanted to give it a break for a while and concentrate on other things. Anyway, thanks for saying "Hi". :-)--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 19:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Bob M. I am hardly around here these days either. It is pleasing to see what they have made of the place. --Damo^Hi 08:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Damo. Good to hear from you. Changes are certainly interesting. :-)--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 08:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bob

Yes I will continue the discussion with you on here at some point. The reason I have archived my page is becuase there seems to be trolls spamming my comments on theistic evolution on the skeptiko forum found here Link. Most users on skeptiko are self confessed creationists with no science education. I have debunked all creationists claims on this website (you can see my posts), it is absurd to lump me in with intelligent design. I am a staunch critic of creationism/ID which is clearly not science. Obviously the creationists got upset on the skeptiko forum that I exposed them on this article for the anti-science that they are skeptiko forum. There are also trolls on that website claiming I used to be a member on that website, they are utterly confused. For my real views on creationism see here, Me debunking creationism Forests (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Forests. I can't see anybody referencing your comments on your talk page on that link. And even if they were - so what? Presumably the couple of sentences you wrote about your belief in Theistic Evolution represented your real beliefs and you wouldn't mind them being read and indeed reposted. You also volunteered the information in the SB.

In fact, I'm afraid that I simply don't understand your sentence: The reason I have archived my page is because there seems to be trolls spamming my comments on theistic evolution on the skeptiko forum found here Link.

Apart from the fact that there seems to be no relevant reference on that link - what do you mean "spamming my comments"?

Finally I've got to say that it's a bit odd to find someone who is so keen to be rational but who also believes in Theistic Evolution - and their own apparently mysterious personal interpretation of it to boot.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 20:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The "theistic evolutionist" section was quoted here. They are going through Forrest's contributions trying to match his identity against other forum users.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. I see that now. Thanks. I'm still left thinking - "So what"? We as a site have nothing to hide. And even if we had it's been copied anyway. So archiving it now just looks silly.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 20:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yo Bob

With respect to this link you were given, you're not missing much. Seems a bit New-Agey, a bit "oh look, consciousness... WOOOOOO!!!!!!... then... evolution... erm something-or-other". It's pretty vague. ^d 20:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I glanced at it at the time and came to the same conclusion. It certainly said nothing about Theistic evolution. But I didn't want to go down the route of arguing about what some random new age blog might or might not say. I was interested in whether or not Forests has some basis for his belief in theistic evolution.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 20:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Shermer and social Darwinism

Shermer is not just a libertarian -- at least not anymore. He uses the same reasoning as past "laissez-faire social Darwinists" that capitalism and the "free" market employ natural selection to weed out the "unfit" businesses and promote the most efficient ones. (In this best of all possible worlds!) This doesn't have the overt racial implications of earlier ideas, though the reasoning is lifted wholesale from them. Here is a short take on it from his blog:

“”Evolution explains conservative free-market economics. Charles Darwin’s “natural selection” is precisely parallel to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” Darwin showed how complex design and ecological balance were unintended consequences of competition among individual organisms. Smith showed how national wealth and social harmony were unintended consequences of competition among individual people. Nature’s economy mirrors society’s economy. Both are designed from the bottom up, not the top down.

—http://www.michaelshermer.com/2006/10/darwin-on-the-right/

He expands on this argument in his more recent book The Mind of the Market. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

But the Social Darwinists, if I understood them correctly, felt that we could draw moral conclusions from their beliefs that society was affected by evolutionary force. To put it more concisely "Is equals should". So if one race or country were subjugated by another that was all fine and good because it was "natural".

Suggesting that other things in addition to biology might be subject to Darwinian natural selection doesn't seem to be the same thing. Some computer programmes are evolved for example, but we would not call their creators Social Darwinists.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 07:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The Mind of the Market is dedicated to that argument. From p. 165: "This chapter -- indeed this entire book -- is not just descriptive of the way the world works, but it is also prescriptive of the way the world should work. That is, this is an exercise in raising our consciousness to higher levels of the Moral Evolutionary Pyramid."

I never said that. I claimed that Shermer is recycling the same arguments made by earlier thinkers applying natural selection to economics. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, and Dawkins applied natural selection to society and especially to religion when he came up with memes. In fact it's obvious that natural selection does apply outside of biological spheres. But that's not the same as Social Darwinism. I'm not saying that Shermer isn't a Social Dawinist - I haven't read his book - but the simple fact of his applying Darwinian descriptions to social change doesn't make him one any more than it makes Dawkins one.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You continue to attack a straw man. I never said natural selection doesn't apply outside of biological evolution -- evolutionary algorithms are a good example of that. Memetics is also a good example of a faulty evolutionary analogy. However, my point is that Shermer is using the same reasoning as earlier social Darwinists by conflating the "invisible hand" (which is a misunderstanding of Smith anyway) with natural selection. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Then I guess I'll have to buy his book and form my own opinion. :-) --Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 21:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Go for it. There is not much terribly new in it besides some coverage of newer experiments in fields like neuro-economics and Shermer's debunking of Homo economicus (not really new, but unusual for hardcore proponents of laissez-faire). Even in (fairly) recent times, F.A. Hayek was making the same arguments in lectures like "Evolution and Spontaneous Order." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Relevance

How relevant is your little wiki? Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not - except for a bit of RW history. If you want to propose deletion go ahead. :-)--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 13:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

PaulRJ

I am asking for some edits due to factual errors on a page about me to be dealt with fairly and rationally or for the page to be deleted. I would be grateful please arrange for the matters to be dealt with responsibly and fairly then that's all I want. I realise you are protected by amendments to the US Constitution but I am protected by the Malicious Communications Act in the UK and the page violates this. So I have just initiated requests to have your site blocked in the UK as I am fed up with trying to engage and getting no where. You've not been involved but I thought one last chance would be fair. PaulRJ (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have already been referred to this link: RationalWiki:Guide for individuals or companies we cover and no doubt you will also look at RationalWiki:Legal FAQ. Cheers. --Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 08:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Sig

--429cage (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC) Hi Bob,

Thank you for the message about the signatures (I've never used a site like this and I was responding to the guy in a bit of a hurry -didn't know how to do that properly). I fixed it.

--429cage (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Blame fast(ish) typing and slow computers. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not an excuse. Your system response time has nothing whatsoever to do with how long it takes to add your signature to your post. Not signing is lazy when you know how to do and shows a lack of respect for other users.

In any event adding your signature when you make your comment is always going to take a lot less time than the time needed for some other person to first establish who you were and then go to the trouble of adding an "unsigned" template. It's bad wiwi-etiquite and makes you look dumb.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 21:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for board of trustees

Respected Bob, I wanna nominate you, Am I entitled to nominate? If yes then I would... either you accept or reject. Nannadeem (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that, but I did my stint a couple of years ago.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC).

• Is there bar for 2nd or 3rd time/term? further am I entitled for nomination to someone.Nannadeem (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

People can serve for as many terms as they are elected. I do not wish to stand again. On the nominations page: RationalWiki:2014 board of trustees election/Nominations it says: "The nomination procedure is easy. Any user may nominate any number of users who meet the requirements, including themselves, by placing the user name in the nominee section and informing that user on their talk page. No second is required." So, yes, you can nominate whoever you like if they fulfil the conditions (which are also described on that page).--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• • • Respected Bob, I have nominated you. You may reject my proposal. But I request not to reject, accept it plzzzzzzzzzzz. Nannadeem (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but I have done my bit.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Cheers Bob

Thanks for the welcome chief.^{— Unsigned, by: Skinnytony1 / talk / contribs}

You are most welcome.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 11:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

E-mail

Thanks for the heads-up. That was certainly NOT me, looks like a spambot got a hold of some of my recent e-mail contacts. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Happy to help. Don't know if you want to contact the others who also received the mail though. Cheers. --Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering about that email. But what an odd site for a spammer to link to... Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I used my self-control and didn't click the link on the basis that I assumed it was something nefarious. What was it? ^{— Unsigned, by: Bob M / talk / contribs}

A site hawking "raspberry ultra drops". What's odd is how closely modeled off the Fox News website it is:

Spam site.

Real site.

Every "article" on the site, however, was about raspberry ultra drops.

@RNS: I want the record to show that the email hijacker took one look at your email contacts and pegged them for the sort of people who'd buy anything Fox News told them to. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is kind of weird.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 11:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

odd edit:

Bob, why did you zap the note about Fukashima on the talk page? fwiw, was referring to that part of the article, not anything said on the talk page.--Greeneggs (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. --Greeneggs (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Uhhh. Wassat? Edit? What edit? Ah. Ok, I'll forget it then and go back to sleep.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 17:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I did a better job making a suggestion here?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Environmentalism#Expanding_Disputed_Issues:

Here's what you zapped:

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environmentalism&diff=prev&oldid=1336834

getting the hang?--Greeneggs (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The page history suggests that you were the one who zapped your addition, actually. Specifically, it looks like you accidentally rolled back the contribution. - Grant (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess that anybody can make a mistake but in this case it certainly wasn't me! As Grant says you seem to be accusing me of something you did yourself. :-) So yes, somebody needs to "get the hang", but not me in this case. :-)--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 06:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)