User talk:Carptrash

You have been smitten by a bunny in accordance with the community standards for... no real reason. Feel free to revert this odd edit.

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Carptrash! 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!

Assuming you are the same as your wikipedia name sake you are most welcome, though you may consider this "enemy territory." The trench warfare though is avoidable. tmtoulouse ^oppress 23:19, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Can you quit redlinking endless words in your comments at "liberal beliefs"? Since we aren't an encyclopedia, we aren't ever going to have articles on most of those things. We sorta don't like random pointless redlinks here :( But, er, welcome, whoever you are :) ħuman 00:47, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

I just showed you how to do it without littering our "wanted pages" with junk. Thank you, please, when in Rome. ħuman 01:00, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

I see you've already been welcomed to the paycheck. Greetings Carptrash! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:07, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Hey there

How is going I noticed you hanging around. As a general rule don't us Wikipedia (WP) as a reference it is what is called by people who use such phrases as a tertiary reference. Try finding the primary or secondary reference they used, read it, make sure it says what they claim it says and use that as a reference. Otherwise keep up the good work. $\approx$$\pi$ 01:21, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Which cult?

<font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^Chaos! 11:14, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

It's all (well. some of it) here, Point # 12. Unless, Tmtoulouse is . . . . . . . . ........ wrong? Carptrash 11:28, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't see how that's a cult. It's just a vaguely inane spiritual... thing. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^Chaos! 11:38, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Well I suspect that I'll meander over to the cult article and re-write it so that it covers me. Or just come to grips with the reality (or, unreality) that I just might not be cut out for culthood. Life is filled with these tough choices. I wonder what Esther Hicks would do? Carptrash 12:00, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Cults are rarely defined by their ideology at first, but rather their adherents. Watching one or more Esther Hicks adherents respond to what apparently was a specific call by their leader to whitewash her wikipedia article reminded very much of the Moonies. tmtoulouse ^oppress 13:34, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

If you are suggesting that I was/am responding to a call from My Leader you are very much mistaken. Or, at best, such a call was delivered through Non-Ordinary time, space and channels. But I am still trying to get a sense of what is going on here, what/where it is appropriate to say what/where. I have no desire to flaunt conventions because I do understand how important they are to rationalists. Comparing Esther Hicks followers and their tactics to those of the Moonies seems to me very much like wearing a large sign on your back proclaiming I DON'T KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT, which is okay, but you might as well know that it's there. Carptrash 11:23, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Didn't mention anyone by name. But the fact that about 5 editors are now banned at WP for sockpuppetting and abuse POV pushing, and the sock master was sent to wikipedia directly by Hicks is probably what I was talking about. Have you read some of the cult watch forums about the experience of ex-Hicks followers, or family and friends of current Hicks followers? Pretty enlightening. tmtoulouse ^oppress 12:42, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I have seen some of it and was not impressed. Mostly it was "my wife's cousin had a friend" or obviously (to me) folks who were willfully or otherwise misinterpreting what Abraham/Hicks says and finding that it did not work out. Time willing, I'll go to any link that you post here and give you my opinion. I have not really been following what has be going on at the wikipedia article since moving over here. However the wiki article (and this one for that matter) does have some glaring falsities - notably the "talk to the dead" stuff. That is pure projection, and now willful ignorance on the part of reporters and editors who seem to be more concerned with "good sources" than accuracy and/or truth. Why insist that she claims to "talk to the dead" when she does not just because some reporter who was not doing his homework got it printed? Carptrash 12:53, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Read a little closer, a lot of it was some anguished pleas from spouses of recent converts. They describe how the person they loved has changed to something different. Comments about how they have lost interest in many things, only show emotions when talking about "Abraham", are spending money they don't have to go to expensive seminars, buy dvds, even go on cruises. They talk about how they blame other people for terrible acts of nature. One heart wrenching story was about a Hicks follower who told a grieving widower and father who lost his wife and daughter in a horrible car accident that it was his fault because he manifested that reality by probably "worrying" about it. An ex-follower described some support boards where people advocated promiscuous sex without birth control or condoms because if you just think positive thoughts you don't need birth control or protection. Followers also seem to go nuts when you bring up negative qualities of the Hicks or question the legitimacy of their stage act. I have seen that first hand. The only ingredient missing is for Esther to pass around flavor aide on her next cruise. tmtoulouse ^oppress 12:59, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Read what? Please send a link. Also my domestic partner is making some very anguished pleas over my recent conversion to the rationalwiki. Does that make it a cult? if I decide that I can fly by holding and flapping a largish cottonwood branch in each hand and decide to test this hypothesis by leaping off the nearby Rio Grande Gorge Bridge (app. 600 feet, straight down) , does my demise fall at the feet of the scientific method?

Where to argue about eeeeeeek's less-than-perfect ANALOGY

Many places where I have read about applied Abraham/Hicks it is obvious to me that the folks involved are either willfully or not, doing something other than what Abe/Hicks is advocating. Misapplied A/H is not the same as doing it right, as in about any other area of endeavor. I predict that if I launch into some sort of saga about the advantages A/H has brought me (don't worry, I will NOT do it - this is just for discussion purposes) I would be informed in very clear language that anecdotal accounts do NOT count. However when anecdotal stuff supports the ratiohalwiki ideology - it's just fine. Or am I mistaken? Carptrash 13:52, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

If one can get away with saying "those for whom it doesn't work are just doing it wrong", there is no there, there. I had good experiences in the past with chiropractic (a good chiropractor, who, although a complete woomeister, didn't push the woo), so what do I do about our article on chiropractic? Read it, apply what it says and the way it says it to my experience, think about it... realize my experience is not a scientific study, and that most of the healing involved time plus ibuprofen plus using better mechanics when lifting (etc.). ħuman 15:58, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

You wrote:

"If one can get away with saying "those for whom it doesn't work are just doing it wrong", there is no there, there."

and that is certainly one perspective. However I'd like to present a purely mechanical analogy to be considered.

1. Cars are a great way to get around.

2. Bulls**t. Ours won't go at all. My husband spent all our $$$$$ on a car and it just sits in the garage.

3. You need to put gas in it. You are doing it wrong.

If Galileo had trudged to the top of the Leaning Tower and given the small canon ball (or whatever) a slight push as he dropped them, then it would have arrived at landing before the large one. These things do have to be done right. Don't you think?

The folks that I have read about for whom A/H is not working seem to be not doing it right, however I am still hoping to get links to some real examples of folks for whom A/H has failed so that I can take a look at them and respond to some "real" situations.

It is also interesting to me that I have been cast/drawn into being the A/H Cult representative since I have not actively thought about A/H in months - the exception being when I observe some of its principles in action and muse on it for a bit. At best it involves about .666 of my conscious awareness.

The car analogy is easy to test, we can have a car with no gas and see if it runs, then put gas in it see if it runs, then take gas out and see if it runs, we can do that as many times as we like and get data that can help us with our prediction that the gas helps it/is needed to run. Now, how might we do the same thing with the Law of Attraction? tmtoulouse ^oppress 11:44, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

well, yes, it can be tested, but more to my point here is that long before anyone figures out how to make the car run the folks who were so disappointed and then angry, have posted horror stories on 43 different web site, LOUDLY proclaiming the cars don't work, that this one has ruined their lives, that car ownership is a cult, that they are a HUGE waste of $$$$$ (especially if they just got a Hummer) etc. etc. etc. Prove what you will/can, those stories are out there for anyone to use when their agenda demands/requires it. Carptrash 12:04, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

You are getting the order mixed up, before we can start figuring out if someone is doing something wrong because they can't make "x" do "y" it must first be demonstrated that "x" can do "y." So how shall we test it? tmtoulouse ^oppress 12:06, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Xs and Ys can come later. What I am talking about is how misinformation gets posted on websites and is then used to prove that some particular process does not work. I am trying to explain/deal with earlier allegations that A/H produced a process that does not work and that there is "proof" (?) out on the web at various places. Which I have not been directed to as of yet.. Let's deal with this first? Then do the science thing? Which I suspect will be more difficult. Carptrash 12:34, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Meh, unimpressed, dealing with people "out there" is absolutely reliant on testing of the idea. If the idea is tested and shown to have merit then a discussion about them "doing it wrong" becomes important. If testing shows it does not have merit then there is no "right way" to do it. So how do we test it? tmtoulouse ^oppress 12:40, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

By the way, "how to run cars" is public knowledge. There are books written on it from every level of society. Scholars say "science works this way in the combustion engine", mechanics say "gas has these effects, but oil is also important", artists write about years and years of mischif using cheep gas, and on and on. and no one has to pay for the SECRET knowledge of cars. Cults on the other hand have no evidence; universities and highschools do not teach the basics of cult-repair like they teach the basics of car maintenance; there are not shops by competing people who work within the capitlaist system to say "joey isn't as good a mechanic as I am, and my gas is better"... and on and on. In other words, the "what you need to do" to get your "success" in cults is vague, cold-read laden language, full of so many pitfalls and loopholes that you can easily "explain" away why the person didn't get what he 'asked for." And for all of this, THEY CHARGE YOU. knowledge is free - when it's *not* free, you should stop and ask what is being blown up your neither regions...--Waiting for Godot 13:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Sigh. I was trying to find an analogy (and they are rarely if ever perfect) to what some of you are finding - reading - and believing about A/H on the internet. If my analogy, which is not really intended to be looked at that closely, since it was intended for a very specific purpose just becomes a tangent to the real discussion . . . what's the point? . Everything G says about the public nature of cars might be true, but it still might not be enough to stop someone who had problems with one, no matter how irrational they might be from posting absurd crap in the www. We could go back and forth for years without really getting to where I hope we all want to be. Looking at A/H through the cold, clear eyes of science. Example, "There are books written on it from every level of society." There are several levels of society that are illiterate. No books have been written either at or for that level. Therefore your entire premise is wrong. . . . ... well I could argue more about my analogy, but am currently inclined to let the whole thing go.

Still waiting for how I can test this idea. Your whole analogy and premise assumes validity of the concept. I reject that your assumption is valid. So how do we figure out if it is valid or not? 24.36.227.74 14:33, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Okay User 74. "test this idea" Which idea? "reject that your assumption" What assumption? Carptrash 14:39, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Hicks' pushes the Law of Attraction as the basis for her shtick, this whole conversation becomes meaningless if the Law of Attraction is total nonsense. In that case people can not be "doing it wrong" because there is not "right way" to do it. So how do we test the Law of Attraction to determine its validity. tmtoulouse ^oppress 14:41, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

CAMwiki

I don't know how much up your alley this stuff is, but you might want to join and help out the good folks here:

http://www.wiki4cam.org/wiki/Main_Page

(CAM = complementary and alternative medicine). ħuman 15:56, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Well I am much more a consumer of this stuff than I am a praticitioner of it. My partner could probably be a serious contributer, but . . ... that's not my call. I shall pass it on. I'm an art historian with a background in various other fields. i know wikipedia is considered to be a so-so event around here, but this is about wikipedia NOT by it.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/wiki.html?pg=1

Anyway, I'm the Dixon NM person and there is a perspective on me there that is an objective, or subjective from a more-or-less stranger's POV. Here I am the token, almost tolerated, cult member, but that's not really much of who I am. Carptrash 17:38, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

You're in NM? tmtoulouse ^oppress 17:42, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

I wish you people wouldn't talk in abbreviations.

Also, see me after class. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^Chaos! 17:50, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes, Dixon, New Mexico, United States of America. Carptrash 17:58, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

My home town is Albuquerque. tmtoulouse ^oppress 17:58, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Come back often? We could get together and sacrifice some chickens or something. Have a good time. Carptrash 18:06, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

At Christmas, which would make goats more seasonal. tmtoulouse ^oppress 18:08, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Great. Bar-B-Qued goat it is. Carptrash 15:03, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

You're not an item! Stop flouting logic!

:P

That is all. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^Chaos! 17:24, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I will NOT BE HUMANIZED. I am an item. I am an item. I am an item. I am an item. I am an item. I am an item. I am an item. I am an item. I am an item. I am an item. Carptrash 17:26, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Can I at least sign your name after the inexplicable listing of you as an anniversary present?

And one more thing: capital letters, people! :) <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^Chaos! 17:28, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Sign away, but . . . people? Carp are large fish. Carptrash 17:32, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Not as large as Jellyfish. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^Chaos! 17:35, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Some jellyfish, for sure, and not as dangerous either. Carptrash 19:21, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Beliefs

I detect (I sincerely hope) a certain lack of honesty in your replies!--Bob^{bing up} 15:04, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

I think he's serious. You may have missed some of his other contributions... ħuman 17:24, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

I can often be accused of having a lack of judgement in things I do/say/write, but a lack of honesty is, I believe (since we are discussing beliefs) a new charge. Thanks Human, for (sort of) backing me up on this one. Carptrash 18:07, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

He may have thought you were making parody answers, but I had already noticed your (general) belief system, so, yeah, you're welcome ;) ħuman 20:24, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

I can't say that I take all this very seriously but I am not going to lie about anything. But I do think that some of the folks here need to know that there is a whole axis of beliefs very different from theirs but that is not headed towards the Consevapedia end of things either. The world is not (opinion) that simple. Carptrash 20:31, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

My apologies for doubting your honesty - I honestly thought your answers were parodies. Perhaps some version of Poe's Law at work?--Bob^{bing up} 02:18, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Re: debate, "your place or mine"

I'm more than happy to discuss / debate anything you like. We appear to disagree on - at a minimum - God, ghosts, psychics, communication with the dead, fairies / faeries, astrology and numerology. I know less about numerology than the other topics, but I'm willing to discuss any with you. Johann 20:10, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Just now

For example, I'm sitting at my desk just now and am suddenly propelled out of my chair to go look outside. I snapped this picture. What got me out of the chair? How can I develop a hypothesis to test this sort of thing? Carptrash 21:12, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Hm...looking out the window and noticing a nice view? --Gulik 02:44, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Does that really need a hypothesis to explain it? Spontaneously getting out of one's chair to look outside is a frequent occurrence, happening countless times every day wherever there are people sitting in chairs. What causes it? Perhaps boredom or restlessness from sitting down. I don't see any mystery here. Johann 02:47, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm confused anyway. What hypothesis would you wish to test? As far as the picture is concerned I could hypothesise that you took the picture to put on this talk page in order to make the point. But I must admit that the only way I could take that further would be to ask you.--Bob^{bing up} 05:02, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

This view is from my front porch. My "office" - where my computer and you folks live is at the other end of the house. We - all of us - are frequently surrounded by beauty such as is the picture, but many folks are not tuned into it (as in vibration) and miss it. I was not bored at the time - I was fairly engaged with here, but felt a calling and responded to it by seeing the rainbow and sharing it with you. So how do we set up a scientific experiment , one based on your sacraments, to discover if this was just coincidence, a random occurrence or something else? Work with me. Einar aka Carptrash 10:55, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

There's nothing to test on what has happened but your explanation supposes that you are somehow more attuned to the vibrations. What testable hypotheses can you draw from that? Then we can design the experiment. Silver Sloth 11:05, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Well it's easy. Let's isolate Einar from the external ambient (he must not know of weather outside). To be rigorous, he shouldn't be able to feel changes in outside air pressure either. Then he just marks on a paper every time he feels a calling. After each calling he is permitted to check if there is a rainbow outside. Hypothesis: "there is a supernatural relation with me feeling a calling and rainbow appearances, not caused by me sensing changes in weather". Editor at CP^Sig(h)! 11:19, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, we also need a control group who go out to check for rainbows at random periods. Silver Sloth 11:29, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Ahh yes, the Sensory Deprivation Box'. Thanks, but no thanks. But this is not just about the weather and the beauties of Nature. I am mostly, here, I think, associated with the cult of Esther Hicks, but really that is a misapplication. My primary cult is the Move on Command one. So sometimes I move because a friend is (or so I discover) parked by the side of the road, half a mile away and I need to talk to her. Another time it is "Get the mail right now!" and I run into someone else I need to see at the PO, and it goes on and on.

Your scientific method is (are?) your sacraments, - - dogma from which you can not wander lest you be called to task by your conscience and/or your cult co-members. Do I believe (I ask myself) that all people are equally sensitive to vibrations? Are we all equally intelligent? Equal in our physical abilities? Basically, YES - with some standard deviation paramaters set up around it. But as in, say, physical abilities, vibrational sensitivity can be encouraged and/or squelsed by our activities. Practice and belief and faith.

Sigh, I love for you to be the control group, okay? Please post your next rainbow here when you catch it. I'll send three in the next week or so, so be ready.

Wait, that takes out the random element.

Never mind.

And this is where i burst into ""They're coming to take me away, ha, ha, they are coming to take me away." Carptrash 11:39, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't think it's possible to form or test a hypothesis from what you've said. Consider your trip to the post office, which is probably a fairly regular event. Specifically, consider:

(a) the number of people who you may need to see for whatever reasons

(b) the fact that most people you talk to, or need to talk to, live in the same community as you. They will be calling into the post office themselves at some point, no doubt, so the chances of meeting them there are quite high

(c) the number of ways you could meet them (in the post office, on the way to the post office, on the way home)

(d) the number of other significant events that could have happened (such as, you didn't meet anybody you needed to meet, but a very important letter had arrived. Or, you didn't get a letter, but you saw a rainbow on the way there. Or, you didn't see a rainbow, but while you were on your way over, you were able to give directions to someone who was lost. And so on...)

(e) the number of other people you passed or came into contact with, who you didn't know or need to speak to

(f) and the number of times you go out for something like this, and return home without having had anything extraordinary happen

When all of the above are taken into consideration, there is really nothing remarkable about coincidences like those you described. Johann 16:30, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

If you do all "the math" there is probably nothing remarkable about the Taj Mahal either. And well, yes, I go to the PO pretty much everyday, as does the rest of the community. We get no to-your-door mail around here. But I am not talking about meeting folks and having a pleasant chat with them. This is more like my partner saying to me, "I have to talk to Joan" and then running into her at the PO the same day. But these are the mundane examples. More (dare I say) spectacular ones are not what I'm doing.

dinner at joan's

So Today. Actually, it started Sunday. We are over at Joan's for dinner. Now Joan is the local "interested in science" person. Not like Ron who has a Ph D. in nuclear whatever, but she likes to keep up with the world of quarks and black holes and what not. it might also help for perspective on some of this that when I look at the User pages around here I find folks who are doctoral students and candidates et al, well in my family it is my daughter who is getting a Ph D in history so I'm twice as old (carpmath) as many of you. Joan's even more ancient than me. But I digress.

We get to discussing forest fires - are they good, bad or just ugly. Should they be stopped or encouraged, or even started, and got to talking about Mesa Verde where all the various forest fire areas (1923 - 1938 -1951 - 1968 - etc [carptime] ) can be studied as to how fast things grow back etc, but we all realized that we lacked hard data.' Today at work (I work in a library - from whence I do not do this) I found a book in the donations box called Blazing Heritage: A History of Wildfire in the National Parks. It's an advanced copy, not for sale, but should do the job nicely.

I was a bit surprised today when E, the afternoon volunteer did not show up for his shift, but when I got home I learned that where he had been was over at my place removing a tarantula from the green house. A higher calling. So is any of these in themselves proof that there is some energetic pattern or flow going on - working in my behalf? Sure seems like it to me. Carptrash 23:39, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Woo, that's amazing!!! Actually, as people, we spend most of our personal energy attempting to make such connections, so calling them evidence of some "unseen vibration" is a bit credulous, in my opinion. Also, that rainbow thing - you said you'd have three within a week - so where's the coincidence, even, let alone the magical vibrations, in going outside each day at about 3 PM and looking at the post afternoon shower? ħuman 01:30, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Would you care to define these "vibrations" of yours? And by the way, if you're twice as old as either Human or I'd be amazed.--Bob^{bing up} 02:58, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

*Shakes Carptrash's hand* I am honored, sir. I have never actually met anyone who espoused cooky, New Age beliefs. Yet here you are before me. I stand in awe. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:04, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I said (please go back and check) that I'd send three (rainbows) to you this week, not that I had seen three. Your job, besides reading my postings for comprehension, is to photo and post those rainbows.

i did not go seeking the book on forest fires. I did not know that such a thing existed. It came to me.

Sarcasm and derision are not the sort of thing that leads to an open discussion, but it seems more or more obvious that this is not what is going on here.

Sorry to underestimate your ages. I once - 30 years ago (carptime) found a book in a library with the inscription, a note really, written on the title page. It said something like:

the author of this book was either an old man whose mind closed years ago or a young man whose mind never opened.

Shake my hand, Radioactive, if it helps. I'm sorry that your list of aqaintances is so limited. But I've met plenty of jerks in my life so the honor is . ... one sided.

Also, Mercury is going retrograde, a bad time for communications, among things. Carptrash 10:39, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Please, please, please explain why Mercury is going retrograde has any effect on how we interact. Remember that all explanations must meet reasonable criteria. Because I say so, Because someone I respect says so, or because anecdotal evidence says so will not do. Any testable, falsifiable, and logical explanation will do. Thanks. Silver Sloth 10:55, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Here's a Brit talking about it. [1]. More trustworthy, I am sure, than a Yank. I can't tell you why/how my computer works, how my microwave works, how gravity works, how light works, they just do. Folks have been tracking Mercury's movements for 5,000 years (this is not a math problem) and observations collected over that period of time have led to certain generalities being made. For me reading astrological predictions is like reading the weather reports and predictions and about as useful and accurate. So,I take an umbrella with me on occasions, and sometimes it rains and other times it does not.Does that disprove the science of weather forecasting? You be the judge. Carptrash 11:35, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

We Brits are no more trustworthy than anyone else. No, I don't understand how much of science works either but, and it's a very significant but, I do know that it's all based on a very strict methodology which has been refined over the years to avoid problems like seeing significance where there is none. Post hoc does not imply ergo propter hoc. Weather reports are far more accurate than astrological predictions because the mechanism is understood. It's difficult to predict the weather accurately because of the large number of unknowns and the butterfly effect but it does work, otherwise we wouldn't spend so much money on it. Astrology only works in as much as debunkers like Randi and Derren Brown have given predictions attested to be 80-99% accurate but which were totally false and had nothing to do with the position of any heavenly bodies. Silver Sloth 11:49, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

"We Brits are no more trustworthy than anyone else" I'll trust you here.

Astrology, like weather predicting, is also an area fraught with a million details. Sure, Mercury goes into retrograde motion , but what is Saturn doing at the same time? Etc. I am not writing to convince you of the rightness of my perspective, just letting you know that (1) it's not just fringes kooks who believe in this sort of stuff or, (2) I'm a fringe kook. Your choice and I'm off to work. Carptrash 12:14, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't know if this: "I said (please go back and check) that I'd send three (rainbows) to you this week, not that I had seen three. Your job, besides reading my postings for comprehension, is to photo and post those rainbows." was intended for me. I think it was, since it looks like I was the only one who mentioned the 3 rainbows, when I said "Also, that rainbow thing - you said you'd have three within a week...". How does that indicate a lack of comprehension of your original statement, "I'll send three in the next week or so, so be ready." Didn't that mean you expect to be called to see 3 rainbows in the next week? Ah, no, I see. You're going to send someone else 3 rainbows? Necromancy (is that what weather control is called), cool. I guess I misinterpreted you because you seeing and photographing 3 of them in a week seems like a more reasonable prediction than claiming that you will be personally instigating 3 for someone else to see. Comprehension in this case required a rather considerable leap from the possible to the improbable. I'll keep my eyes out... ħuman 15:05, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Rainbows are at best a bit of distracting flash and color.

Let's instead consider (1) whether or not something that can not be proven by the scientific method means, by definition, that it is wrong.

And (2) whether you (plural) expect any major changes in basic understandings in the course of the next 20 years or so? Another Galileo or Newton or Einstein etc and,

(3) whether or not you (again, anyone of you) expect to have basically the same set of beliefs and understanding that you now have - in 20 years?

Carptrash 18:46, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Knowing and Proving

Answering questions from the previous section

1. Does the the fact that something cannot be proven make it, de-facto, wrong. No, I cannot prove, or disprove SETI, for example. However, and this is the biggie, I am extremely cautious when using unproven methods for making decisions. I have seen at first hand the damage that can happen when people use woo for making life decisions unaware that they are effectively being manipulated by charlatans.
2. Do I expect any major changes in basic understandings in the next 20 years. It depends what you mean. Einstein effectively overturned Newtonian physics and changed our 'basic' understanding but it didn't invalidate Newtonian physics - just showed that there was far more to it than that. We may or may not get the universal theory of everything but I don't expect it to radically alter my day to day world view.
3. Do I expect to have basically the same set of beliefs - yes, my mind is not closed but in 55 years of having a long hard look at all kinds of views and explanations I've ended up with rational atheism and expect to stay here.

Others, of course, will differ Silver Sloth 09:18, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Essay Talk:Gender and Sysops

What happened is basically that RA is fond of putting links to all sorts of stuff in his sig, so you ended up on one of his old essays instead of his user talk page. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 19:30, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. I feel . ... better. Not so . . ...... so used. And fortunately the somewhat reticent Susan cleaned it up for me. In, I think, 5 seconds. Service with a . . .. ? Carptrash 19:48, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

It's not just "stuff", AK. It's my stuff—a world of difference. : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:18, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

So, is this where the phrase, " stuff it " comes from? Carptrash 21:27, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

FYI, there's also a link to goat in my sig ^_^ Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:32, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

That's comforting. Carptrash 09:52, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Message from the RationalWiki Ministry of Demotion and Personal Impediment

Dear Carptrash,

We regret to inform you that you have been demoted to the rank of sysop. You are requested to report to a bureaucrat, at your nearest possible convenience, to be assigned a mop and bucket for the purposes of cleaning up the mess around here. If you have any further questions please refer to the enclosed pamphlet So you are now a sysop.

Your Sincerely,

Sir Reginald Albert Humfildink-Hollingsworth the Third, Under-secretary of the Chief-secretary of the Personal-secretary of the Minister.

Stirring the pot

You seem very adapt at stirring the pot on wikipedia! tmtoulouse 13:52, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Well, the pot was already pretty well stirred. I added another flick. My comments did not exemplify the best of wikipedia, but then neither did the "verification is more important than truth" (or whatever) stuff that I was finding there. But nice to hear from you anyway, because Life is supposed to be Interesting. Carptrash 10:19, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Art

Looks like art to me... ħuman 00:34, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Absolutely. Carptrash 10:26, 4 December 2008 (EST)

So why you delete it, my funny friend? (not that you don't have the right) ħuman 01:26, 11 December 2008 (EST)

It is one of my 17 personality flaws. If I feel that what I have to offer is not valued or wanted, or worse yet, offensive, then I withdraw it. I have lots of other art that can replace it. But I appreciate your checking in. Carptrash 01:32, 11 December 2008 (EST)

S'ok, I enshrined it on my user page ;) I don't know who did not appreciate it or value it, but I thought it was awesome. Only seventeen? (Wait, isn't that a song title?) ħuman 01:37, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Well, no one has complained about my "art" yet, but my real flaw is that when something gets me started I am short on breaking mechanisms (A typical Aries trait, though by no means universal) and I go into a sort of slash-and-burn mode and take away more than is required. I've had hundreds of pictures come and go from wikipedia and went through perhaps 7 last night at direct action. But if I get rid of all my flaws I would achieve perfection and cease to reincarnate, and I like it here. So, as I get rid of old imperfections I cultivate new one's to take their place. Actually, Rationalwiki now serves that function, replacing a Lutheran website I used to post at. To much the same effect, I might add. Carptrash 01:45, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Nice reply ;) Well, anyway, the parts I understood. I am glad to archive whatever profane aspects to your RW persona you shed, at least as I find them amusing. Perhaps I am a few levels lower on the carnation scale. Or, perhaps, my carnations bloom prettier. Either way, thanks for the clear and concise wonderfully obfuscative answer! ħuman 01:56, 11 December 2008 (EST)

That's good, right?

And from there, good night.

Carptrash 02:01, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Yes :) ħuman 02:16, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Answers

"The power has been off all day and just came back on a few minutes ago, which is kind of a drag in winter. My first concern was to use the one toilet flush that I had in reserve and the second was to get here. I've now done both, so, what's next?"

I take you have one of those Amish-produced wood-fired computers? Might want to start up the generator, I'd think. ħuman 19:55, 11 December 2008 (EST)

After a series of eight or ten 15 second outages, one came with an audible "boom". So I hooked up my generator to run the fridge, heat, water, and this thing. Hope you are staying warm. ħuman 02:23, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Well the power is back, but the only heat downstairs is the fire at the other end of the house. So it's definitely chilly here, but i can't see my breath, so it has been worse. Life is (according to my cult supposed to be interesting. Carptrash 03:22, 12 December 2008 (EST)

I've been on generator power for about 90 hours now. Getting as much as 15 hours of a five-gallon fill. Just can't turn too many things on! Pity, I wanted to get some "real" work done today. At least I have heat, light, water, and refrigeration. Damn cable was out all weekend, too (no innertubes!). I gotta go reread your UFO thing, I only skimmed it I think... ħuman 20:32, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Barnstar

		Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions to RationalWiki, I award you this barnstar.

Thanks. I've never had a goat before. Are they always done anonymously? Because if this beast eats my garbage or Peruvian golden berries or something I'm gonna wanna know who to see about it. Carptrash

Anonymous donor. Wazza^{Hello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me...} 07:17, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Oh no

I appreciate your concern, your gentle advice, and you are, of course, right, as usual. ħuman 01:15, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Jeeezus Christ.

Long time. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC) (formerly Theory of Practice, formerly P-Foster. Remember you well from back in the day).

Wow, yeah, long time no see. Where have you been? Bicycle^wheel 15:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been happily elsewhere, I found that editing here was at best amusing and a good time and at worst like . . . ...... like editing at Conservapedia (?) just with different rules. Or the same rules, just a different emphasis. I am the black sheep in a very "rational" family, and felt like the black sheep here. That can be okay for a while but not for a long term relationship. I ended up back here more or less by accident, did an edit or two and am frankly surprised that any one noticed, much less remembered me. This is interesting in itself, so perhaps I'll do some "science" while I am here. 'Sciecne" being what I call it when I discover something unknown and decide to poke it with a stick to see what will happen. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you were never the typical RWian but you always came across as a friendly character so most people didn't mind that much. Bicycle^wheel 18:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Well thank you. I've always considered myself to be a friendly character, figuring that if someone does not like me it is a sign that there is something wrong with them. Sort of. So I have bookmarked this place, am wandering in and making my mark (very much like Gabe, my dog, does, at the dog park and other places) here and there and we'll see what it leads to. Carptrash (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion:

For loads o'pics use: "Gallery" Scream!! (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(thank you

for your suggestion at Atheism - it worked, though I'd like to get the images larger. And get a lot more of them. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Recommend that you leave pic sizes alone - folk stipulate preferred size in "Preferences" and big pics might look silly on small screens. Scream!! (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice rant

I have to make one pedantic remark, though: Jesus is a prophet in Islam, so I doubt they'd speak of him disrespectfully. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully we will never know. Carptrash (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Misclicked

Hey, I misclickingly rolled back your most recent addition to the ridiculous Left Behind books' article. I rolledback my rollback again, but in case you were monitoring the page and/or was notified of this messing around, now you know why. My bad. Hopefully everything is as if I never misclicked again, if not, just restore it as my intention wasn't to change anything. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)