Either you're the world's fastest typist or you're getting these from somewhere. I do hope you're not just copy'n'pasting from somwewhere. What would be the point? Anyway, welcome, JanusGenio! Yours trulyDear Sir 05:07, 20 January 2009 (EST)
Well yes, actually I am. It's my old work I'm salvaging from the ingrates at Conservapaedia before it's lost for ever. I'm never going to trust these fellows again with anything I know and is useful. So there, thanks for inviting me in. Cheerio, JanusGenio 05:16, 20 January 2009 (EST) Ah, well best not to lose it. Also, I've removed a comment you put on an archived talk page. Archives are kept for historical purposes and the debates are closed - plus, nobody reads them. I'll paste what you put here:
I would rather not deal with them. You see, I tried helping them by posting an article on work ethics I had written previously for my boss, and this was what they had to say about it:
With all due respect, is the author of this article certain that presuppositions of the content is not socialism/communism? To me that is the nature of the analysis I am reading here. The only way to avoid this pro-marxist pitfall is through Christianity. I for one, as does the Encyclopedia Britannica, see the Protestant ethic as a form of the Priesthood of all believers. And most of what is happening in Asia as a branch of one of the Western religious Great Awakenings grafted on to ancient Eastern roots of respect and nationalism. --RickD 22:42, 19 January 2009 (EST)
Fine, then. Let everyone who wants to give them technical advice turn them out, after all Christ Himself said, "Give not what is holy to dogs". I am done with them forever. Let these dogs rot in their own filth, for all I care! If they don't want to learn anything new to help themselves, I'm only too happy to oblige them.
Hi JanusGenio. If you haven't already, can you have a look through our missions & description here, as I'm not sure you have the right idea what we're about. Our purposes are completely different to Conservapedia's, & we're not trying to be an encyclopedia. If you've written things for Conservapedia or for your work, they're usually not going to be suitable for RationalWiki, or not without being adapted by a long way. WeaseloidMethinks it is a Weasel 20:45, 21 January 2009 (EST)
- It looks a lot like the articles you're posting were written as internal corporate briefings or something of the kind. That makes it even more awkward, as your company might not want this stuff published externally on the internet. Either way, the text has very obviously been written with different purposes & audiences than those of our site. WeaseloidMethinks it is a Weasel 20:56, 21 January 2009 (EST)
Hi. For your information our mission statements are:
- Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement.
- Analyzing and refuting crank ideas.
- Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
Please try to ensure that any content you create furthers these missions. I would also strongly suggest that you read our RationalWiki:Newcomers which will tell you a little more about our objectives. Frankly, at the moment, I starting to get the impression that you are trying to test our patience. The possibility exists that, if you continue to create articles which have nothing to do with our objectives, then these articles may be deleted without debate. Please note that you are more than welcome to contribute to debates, write essays, and contribute to on-topic issues. If would be nice if you were to respond to this message to indicate that you have understood it.--Bobbing up 08:26, 19 February 2009 (EST)