|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
User talk:John Zande
Who believed this?[edit]
Hey, it kinda looks like you are promoting your own book. How is this weirdness you want in Poe's Law articles an example of it? Who believes it is real? Could you explain this all a bit?---Mona- (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. Apologies, first edit. Updated
- Looks like entertaining work, but I abbreviated it and moved to extant section.---Mona- (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- OK, thanks, but don't you think it requires its own category, "God"?
- I amended a section to be "Religion, ministries and churches." It could also maybe have worked in the creationism section. BTW, see the pen-tip in the icon selection above you when you write text? Click and add that after each of your comments and it will publish your "signature." Also, no need to add a space between your new comment and the one to which you are replying. Just add one more : preceding your reply than precedes the comment above yours, and it will indent properly.---Mona- (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Cheers Mona, and thanks for your help. --John Zande (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- I got dizzy reading the exchange between you and the physicist guy; a bit abstruse for me. :) But if I grasped it right, you "think" good = evil, and that the "Creator" is malevolent. Or something. And he engaged all of what to you is actually bullshit?---Mona- (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- ADDING: If you were still enduring that capcha device, I placed you on autopatroled stayus, since you are not insane, not a troll, and not a vandal. So, capcha should be gone.---Mona- (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yup, but Brian is just one. He was, however, the only online apologist who've engaged the subject who uses his real name, which I could then cite here. There's been longer, more wild exchanges with bloggers like Higharka and Insanitybytes, who're both categorically nuts. Stephen Law thinks it's one of the funniest things he's read, he got it straight away, Dr Maarten Boudry (who wrote 'The Parodoxes of Darwinian Disorder,' one of the best Sokal-like hoaxes ever) coined the term "aggravetics" for the work, but Rev. Marvin "Knife" Sotelo' of the Satanic Temple (who eventually reviewed the book) was thoroughly baffled (and worried) at first because he thought I actually believed all this stuff. Turns out, Marvin is an atheist, and he was pretty relieved to hear I was too.--John Zande (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, and David Klinghoffer (Discovery Institute) nearly had an aneurysm after reading the introductory pdf I sent him. Turns out, The Owner of All Infernal Names doesn't exactly fit his idea of the Intelligent Designer ;)--John Zande (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, if you have quotable experiences with the likes of Klinghoffer and those of that ilk, the book and reactions to it could possibly warrant it's own article. Not having heard of the book before I wasn't at first sure what you were trying to do, and I had some concern you were just some self-promoting Internet dude. Maybe you should write up a draft here on your user page or sandbox, and those interested could take a look at it?---Mona- (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Do I just "edit" my user page?--John Zande (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Mona, not sure if it's your cup-of-tea or not, but if you like I'll happily email you the book in an e-format which can be uploaded into a Kindle. No problem if not, but if you're curious, just send me an email.
- I should have put a welcome template on your page, but I'm not resourceful like that! Look here. It will reveal many RW mysteries to you, and link you to the sandbox. I know there's a way to create draft articles linked to your User Name, but I'm not the one to tell you how, given that I don't know myself. About your book, I'm so behind on both my reading and an article I need to finish here (on "Targeted Individuals") I know I'd never get to it. But thanks.---Mona- (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Mona, not sure if it's your cup-of-tea or not, but if you like I'll happily email you the book in an e-format which can be uploaded into a Kindle. No problem if not, but if you're curious, just send me an email.
- Sounds good. Do I just "edit" my user page?--John Zande (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, if you have quotable experiences with the likes of Klinghoffer and those of that ilk, the book and reactions to it could possibly warrant it's own article. Not having heard of the book before I wasn't at first sure what you were trying to do, and I had some concern you were just some self-promoting Internet dude. Maybe you should write up a draft here on your user page or sandbox, and those interested could take a look at it?---Mona- (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, and David Klinghoffer (Discovery Institute) nearly had an aneurysm after reading the introductory pdf I sent him. Turns out, The Owner of All Infernal Names doesn't exactly fit his idea of the Intelligent Designer ;)--John Zande (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yup, but Brian is just one. He was, however, the only online apologist who've engaged the subject who uses his real name, which I could then cite here. There's been longer, more wild exchanges with bloggers like Higharka and Insanitybytes, who're both categorically nuts. Stephen Law thinks it's one of the funniest things he's read, he got it straight away, Dr Maarten Boudry (who wrote 'The Parodoxes of Darwinian Disorder,' one of the best Sokal-like hoaxes ever) coined the term "aggravetics" for the work, but Rev. Marvin "Knife" Sotelo' of the Satanic Temple (who eventually reviewed the book) was thoroughly baffled (and worried) at first because he thought I actually believed all this stuff. Turns out, Marvin is an atheist, and he was pretty relieved to hear I was too.--John Zande (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Cheers Mona, and thanks for your help. --John Zande (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- I amended a section to be "Religion, ministries and churches." It could also maybe have worked in the creationism section. BTW, see the pen-tip in the icon selection above you when you write text? Click and add that after each of your comments and it will publish your "signature." Also, no need to add a space between your new comment and the one to which you are replying. Just add one more : preceding your reply than precedes the comment above yours, and it will indent properly.---Mona- (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- OK, thanks, but don't you think it requires its own category, "God"?
- Looks like entertaining work, but I abbreviated it and moved to extant section.---Mona- (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
[edit collision] What Mona is recommending is a user sandbox, where you start editing a page such as User:John Zande/Spiteful deity or some such. The key is the slash between your user link and the title of your choosing. Nice to see what you're doing here, by the way. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- No problem, and I've added a little note to my user page. Thanks again for your help, Mona. Hugely appreciated.--John Zande (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- And thanks to you, CamelCasePragmatist--John Zande (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Say, another
revered traditionexpectation of all decent human beings hereonerous task you can complete is to tell us how you found the place.---Mona- (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)- Hi Mona, that link (us) is broken. Not sure what you're asking, but happy to help if I can?--John Zande (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Scrap that... Link is working now. I'll check it out--John Zande (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Mona, that link (us) is broken. Not sure what you're asking, but happy to help if I can?--John Zande (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Say, another
- And thanks to you, CamelCasePragmatist--John Zande (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- No problem, and I've added a little note to my user page. Thanks again for your help, Mona. Hugely appreciated.--John Zande (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm software-challenged and it took many tries before I formatted the link correctly. Up on the left of the page, under Navigation, you'll see a link to "Recent Changes." That's where the action takes place: there, you can see what articles (or their talk pages) have activity. You will also see occasional outbreaks of administrators "blocking" one another for zero seconds or even 5 minutes, all to spew snark and silliness at each other in the summary line. Similar to when at each page, if you click on the Fossil Record you will find the history of edits, which frequently contain parenthetical explanations of why something was added or reverted -- this is usually a good idea, especially if making substantial edits to an established article. On relatively rare occasion, you'll see real blocks of some duration meant to stop vandals or trolls, or other unruly editors; the reason is also given in the parenthetical. Another tool used for these people is the "vandal bin," which limits them to one edit every 30 minutes. But it's pretty laissez-faire here, so such punishments are not frequent.---Mona- (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)