User talk:Laird
|
Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, Laird.
This observation is due to the nature of your initial edits. Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble. We realize it is possible that you do not understand the nature of the site or our objectives. Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards to clarify things for you. If you're still interested in contributing, please see what our articles are intended to be. |
The article on that clown and its ensuing discussions have take up too much bandwidth. Just forget about it, okay? PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. Well, the reason I joined RW in the first place was to attempt to correct the bias of that article - preferably by having it deleted, but otherwise by simply editing it out (my argument is that once the bias is removed, there will be nothing notable enough about it for inclusion on RW). So, perhaps you can understand that it's a little difficult for me to take your advice and just forget about it. --Laird (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Why do you care about it? Tielec01 (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Because I know Rome and what he's about, and because in my view this article as it currently is badly distorts the truth about him and does unfair damage to his online reputation. Surely you can imagine what it would be like if someone wrote a slam piece on you that described you in all sorts of untrue and unflattering terms, and if that piece came up as top Google result? We're all human beings, we can all relate to that, can't we? --Laird (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Everyone's getting a bit tired of Rome's constant "no I never said blue, I said azure" semantic rebuttals. I did a lot of the research for the article, and believe me, the guy has left a trail of shit. His past career as a forum troll alone is astonishing in its scope and for the unrelenting energy he's put into trying to prove (as one commenter described it) that "Rome can never be wrong." Recently, he has been a busy boy, working very hard at putting his "ideas" into the public eye re the scientific establishment's supposed persecution of Sheldrake and claiming that he's been a victim of an organized skeptical conspiracy. This ain't Wikipedia. It's very much within RW's wheelhouse to write a critical and unflattering article about such a person. Have you read SPOV? Leuders (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, Leuders. Yes, I have read SPOV. I think it might be better though for me to respond on the article's talk page to the entirety of your comment above, so as to keep all discussion about the article itself in one place. I might wait though for Tielec01 to start the discussion s/he foreshadowed on Brxbrx's talk page. How does that work for you? --Laird (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Everyone's getting a bit tired of Rome's constant "no I never said blue, I said azure" semantic rebuttals. I did a lot of the research for the article, and believe me, the guy has left a trail of shit. His past career as a forum troll alone is astonishing in its scope and for the unrelenting energy he's put into trying to prove (as one commenter described it) that "Rome can never be wrong." Recently, he has been a busy boy, working very hard at putting his "ideas" into the public eye re the scientific establishment's supposed persecution of Sheldrake and claiming that he's been a victim of an organized skeptical conspiracy. This ain't Wikipedia. It's very much within RW's wheelhouse to write a critical and unflattering article about such a person. Have you read SPOV? Leuders (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Because I know Rome and what he's about, and because in my view this article as it currently is badly distorts the truth about him and does unfair damage to his online reputation. Surely you can imagine what it would be like if someone wrote a slam piece on you that described you in all sorts of untrue and unflattering terms, and if that piece came up as top Google result? We're all human beings, we can all relate to that, can't we? --Laird (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Why do you care about it? Tielec01 (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Sock or BFF of Rome Viharo's?[edit]
Is this another sock of Rome Viharo or just a BFF? The reason I'm in doubt is that apart from Viharo damage control, Laird seems to have done jack around here and the attempted turd polishing seems very reminiscent of Viharo's style of whining, hair splitting and all-round bullshitting. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Appears to exist well beyond Viharese debates elsewhere. PacWalker 08:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- A BFF, then? Or perhaps someone with a soft spot for the sort of woo that Viharo provides technical assistance in promoting. I just relied on a rather thin track record on RW which all has to do with Viharoica. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- I am neither a sock nor a BFF. I edit the weekly tabloid, Get Your Goat On, and for the past two years we have been investigating allegations of scapegoating here on RationalWiki. No doubt you take these allegations as seriously as we do. The question is, will anything be done by editors here, and, if not, will external authorities need to be called in? Our investigations indicate that the abuse is wilful, ongoing, and immune to remedial action. Yours in solidarity with the ruminants. --Laird (talk) 09:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Are you offering to call external authorities? PacWalker 09:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, and, in fact, you can expect the Goat Patrol on your doorstep imminently (remember, just dial 1800-GOATAID). Playfulness aside, I just want to see Rome's article cleaned up. Let's be honest, it's a hit job, and he doesn't deserve it. I might move on to help with other articles if my input were first accepted on this one, but so far, I've been met with only antagonism. --Laird (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm at the library; send them there instead. More seriously, no, it is not a hit piece, it is an honest criticism, and you've been met with antagonism because you've done nothing but try to get an article whitewashed (and occasionally done the work yourself). PacWalker 09:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, you've really called down a storm upon yourself. There's nothing that a goat on patrol likes more than a good book. Digests perfectly on the march. More seriously, the problem is that when you say "whitewashing", the more accurate term is "presenting Rome in a reasonable manner not designed to milk every opportunity to say something unkind about him". Look, I accept that there's an ideological war going on between "sceptics" and "woo-meisters" (neither of those terms are accurate, but they serve their purposes; too, in my opinion, the initiating side is the "sceptics", but that's beside the point). And soldiers in that war can expect to be fired upon by the other side. Hell, I've barely entered the battle but I count myself on the side of "woo", and I'm fully prepared to be shot at, even though there's not much ammunition to use against me at this point. We can discuss why I've chosen that side if you like, but it's beside the point. And by the same token I can acknowledge that *a lot* of what "sceptics" do *is* good. Fighting climate change denialism, fighting conspiracy theories against Obama - I value that as much as RW does, it's just when it comes to (the evidence for) non-material views of reality that we differ. The point in any case is that Rome is *not* a soldier in either army. At worst he's provided logistical support to one of the armies. And yet he's being targeted. This is, in my view, a "war crime". This, alongside the fact that I know Rome personally, and know that he's a good guy who doesn't deserve this malignment, is what motivates me to *start* on this article, which, so far, is a euphemism: I haven't even been allowed a start, I've simply been dismissed. If I were allowed a start, then I might be motivated to branch out. --Laird (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- I keep hearing these claims about the article being a hit piece, but only from Laird and (before he was blocked, again) Viharo himself. So far, the only reasons seem to be that it doesn't give a very flattering portrayal of Viharo due to his work helping Chopra set up ISHAR and his attempts at "reputation management" (if one is charitable) or whitewashing (if one is less amenable to cut Viharo some slack) related to altmed and (other) woo.
- Sorry, but if you don't want to be associated with woo peddlers, don't work for them, but don't take their money as a salaried enabler/PR tech dude and then scream for the wahmbulance when your activities are described in those terms.
- Seriously, Viharo's whining reminds me of that inane old NRA slogan about guns not killing people, except that Viharo's version is even less credible, because ISHAR was an explicitly woo peddling platform from the get go, something which Viharo must have been aware (and has not claimed to be ignorant) of when he helped Chopra set it up. However, Viharo does seem to have mastered the PR rhetorical toolbox, which is probably why people like Chopra hire him to help with the turd polishing in the first place ("online consensus building", indeed). I'm just surprised that anyone else actually finds this lingo convincing enough to ignore the seedy contents it seeks to prettify (e.g. providing at minimum the technical support designed to help rebrand quackery as alternative medicine/CAM/integrative medicine, "integrative" being a word that ISHAR really seems to like). So there's your reason why the turd polishing of Viharo and his activities has "been met with only antagonism".
- Oh, and the martyr gambit is unlikely to get you any more track than Viharo's rhetorical hand waving got him. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, you've really called down a storm upon yourself. There's nothing that a goat on patrol likes more than a good book. Digests perfectly on the march. More seriously, the problem is that when you say "whitewashing", the more accurate term is "presenting Rome in a reasonable manner not designed to milk every opportunity to say something unkind about him". Look, I accept that there's an ideological war going on between "sceptics" and "woo-meisters" (neither of those terms are accurate, but they serve their purposes; too, in my opinion, the initiating side is the "sceptics", but that's beside the point). And soldiers in that war can expect to be fired upon by the other side. Hell, I've barely entered the battle but I count myself on the side of "woo", and I'm fully prepared to be shot at, even though there's not much ammunition to use against me at this point. We can discuss why I've chosen that side if you like, but it's beside the point. And by the same token I can acknowledge that *a lot* of what "sceptics" do *is* good. Fighting climate change denialism, fighting conspiracy theories against Obama - I value that as much as RW does, it's just when it comes to (the evidence for) non-material views of reality that we differ. The point in any case is that Rome is *not* a soldier in either army. At worst he's provided logistical support to one of the armies. And yet he's being targeted. This is, in my view, a "war crime". This, alongside the fact that I know Rome personally, and know that he's a good guy who doesn't deserve this malignment, is what motivates me to *start* on this article, which, so far, is a euphemism: I haven't even been allowed a start, I've simply been dismissed. If I were allowed a start, then I might be motivated to branch out. --Laird (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm at the library; send them there instead. More seriously, no, it is not a hit piece, it is an honest criticism, and you've been met with antagonism because you've done nothing but try to get an article whitewashed (and occasionally done the work yourself). PacWalker 09:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, and, in fact, you can expect the Goat Patrol on your doorstep imminently (remember, just dial 1800-GOATAID). Playfulness aside, I just want to see Rome's article cleaned up. Let's be honest, it's a hit job, and he doesn't deserve it. I might move on to help with other articles if my input were first accepted on this one, but so far, I've been met with only antagonism. --Laird (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Are you offering to call external authorities? PacWalker 09:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- I am neither a sock nor a BFF. I edit the weekly tabloid, Get Your Goat On, and for the past two years we have been investigating allegations of scapegoating here on RationalWiki. No doubt you take these allegations as seriously as we do. The question is, will anything be done by editors here, and, if not, will external authorities need to be called in? Our investigations indicate that the abuse is wilful, ongoing, and immune to remedial action. Yours in solidarity with the ruminants. --Laird (talk) 09:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Heya ScepticWombat. I take it you're an Aussie? Me too. Like you, I've gone under "wombat-related" nicks in the past, love the 'bats. Do you get into Combat Wombat? Your nick inspired me to look them up again, which led me to this vid - man, how good would it have been to have been at this house party?? Oh yeah! (featuring Mc IzzY and Elf Tranzporter from Combat Wombat). OK, so you have had limited exposure to people who recognise that the article on Rome is a hit piece. Well, what can I say? - limitations are there to be overcome. If you want a heads-up, you can check into the thread I referenced in my talk-page justification of my edit on the article on Rome (the source of FCP's invitation). Or you can look into the talk page's history . And you raise ISHAR (ha, that's exactly what Rome and Deepak were trying to do too). The interesting thing is that the article on Rome was created long before he was involved with ISHAR. Let's not confuse rationalisations with motivations. Again, let's be honest, the *original motivation* for the article was payback for Rome's attempt to introduce a neutral perspective into a Wikipedia article being dominated by organised sceptics. The rest is just a veneer on top of that. Basically, you make my point for me: even whilst Rome isn't a "soldier in the battle", the mere fact that he has been *hired* by "another army's" officers qualifies him in your eyes for attack. But really, this is just bruised egos (yours) and vengeance talking. Much as I don't intend any offence to Rome by this, he really isn't that big a player in the war (in fact, he's not a player at all, he's simply offered his professional services to those who are players). Maybe you guys don't realise it, but you're diminishing your own credibility by treating him as though he were! P.S. I didn't follow any of your links; sorry dude, I have limited concentration, but if any of them were crucial, then please let me know. As for martyrdom, dude, there are no nails in my palms, I'm just stating the facts! Every one of my edits has been reverted, right? And none of my talk page suggestions have been acted upon, right? How is it being a martyr to simply state those facts? But in the end: can you point to any claims that are in need of "independent verification" (per Castaigne) in my edit and its justification? Everything's verified in the talk itself, I have no idea what s/he is even asking me for. --Laird (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- What Laird seems to have missed is that he interprets the "fact [that] none of [his] talk page suggestions have been acted upon" as having to mean that there's an unfair bias against woo in general and Viharo in particular, instead of it simply illustrating that no one buys the turd polishing or the arguments for said polish pushed by Laird and Viharo. That's the martyr gambit, and it's evident in the "conspiracy of skeptics on WP"-whining as well.
- I also don't give a shit about any supposed original "motivations" that Laird apparently thinks excuses Viharo's enabling work for woo peddlers. So what if the article was started prior to ISHAR - the very fact that Viharo went on to help Chopra build his woo forum is simply an illustration that Viharo's history in the field is long, well established and apparently continues unabated.
- Also, mercenary motives are no excuse for helping to spread woo. In fact, they may be seen as an aggravating circumstance, since they obviate the "naive/deluded" excuse. For instance, would you feel less inclined to condemn Frederick Seitz's unabashed shilling for the tobacco lobby if I told you that he didn't personally believe that tobacco was harmless, but just helped Big Tobacco for the big fat paycheck? Being willing to sell your services to any bidder has never relieved anyone of the moral responsibility for their actions, or insulated them against criticism if they helped their employer do nefarious things - even if they happened to "only be in it for the money".
- Allow me to reiterate another fact: No one were convinced this time around either. Yet getting the same result as in round one, despite several new editors being involved (me, for instance) in this second round, has apparently not put a single dent in the knee-jerk assumption that this is all due to the evulz skeptics trying to make Viharo look bad. And no, I'm not Australian, btw. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well, and so, ScepticWombat, if not Australia then from where are you? And why wombats?
- As far as sceptics on Wikipedia go, is it not the case that there are both organised (GSoW) and loosely-cooperating groups (encompassing those individuals whom Rome encountered on Rupert Sheldrake's article) attempting to insert a "sceptic's" point of view into Wikipedia pages? It seems undeniable to me. Whether or not one chooses to call this a "conspiracy" isn't so important; personally I wouldn't use that term (because it's all pretty much out in the open), and Rome, given the choice, doesn't either. So, what's the big deal?
- As far as "the martyr gambit" goes: ha, nice, I like the dramatic flourish. The reality is not so dramatic. The existence of this article in the first place proves a bias against Rome; the fact that since its creation, and since other people, including me, have pointed out the problems with the article, the community has not seen fit to delete or correct it demonstrates that the bias continues. Pretty simple, not very dramatic at all.
- As far as mercenary motives go: perhaps you should start pages also on those mercenary woo-enablers who are Rupert Sheldrake's accountant and Deepak Chopra's solicitor, and any of the many others who in one way or another support, through their services, these "woo-meisters"? Why single out Rome?
- As far the comparison between "woo" and big tobacco goes: it has no merit. The scientific research, including that done by Rupert Sheldrake, overwhelmingly supports the existence and reality of psi; on the other hand, as far as I know (I have not actually looked into any of it as I have looked into some of the psi research) the scientific research overwhelmingly affirms the health problems with tobacco.
- On the question of bias: the language you (and other editors) use is quite revealing:
- Rome and I are "polishing [excrement]", yet in digging up every piece of "dirt" you can find on Rome, magnifying and distorting it, and then ignoring any countervailing perspectives, you are... what?... "Setting diamonds", perhaps?
- Rome and I are "bull#!?$ing", yet in publishing an article about Rome filled with demonstrable misrepresentations, you are...?... How about: "Prosecuting the case of the angels"?
- Rome and I are "whining", yet in publishing a whole bunch of negativity about Rome, you are...?... Maybe: "Extolling the joys of life"?
- Rome and I are "hair splitting", yet in publishing an article in which the obvious intent of a talk of Rome's as laid out within the talk itself is represented as merely what Rome (later) "claims", you are... what?... How about we go with: "Making accurate and necessary distinctions"?
- I am Rome's "sidekick", yet any one of a group of collaborating editors with a bias against Rome is to the rest...what?... Perhaps: "A true leader"?
- Psychological projection is a fascinating thing.
- And after all of that: I find myself battling here a whole lot of animus, of which the hope of my personally defusing seems more than a little unrealistic, and so, having no desire to engage further with it, I will - unless anybody brings up anything particularly notable - stop responding. Perhaps you will find it within yourself to examine the source of that animus and projection. In any case, best wishes, dude.. --Laird (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Cue quasi-religious concern trolling at the end there, just without the "I'll pray for your soul"-bits. Jeez, golly, thanks so much for that one; it makes me feel so warm and fuzzy.
Laird also seems not to understand the difference between being someone's PR-guy and being the accountant in assisting woo peddling. To put it simply, while the accountant renders a service, perhaps indeed an indispensable one, accountants rarely directly helps with the actual diffusion of woo - by contrast, ISHAR and similar services provided by Viharo are important venues for spreading woo into the public sphere.
"The existence of this article in the first place proves a bias against Rome" Ah, so the very fact that Viharo is criticised for his role in helping/enabling woo peddlers is an unfair bias. Glad we got that settled. Also the next claim about "other people, including me, have pointed out the problems with the article, the community has not seen fit to delete or correct it demonstrates that the bias continues" is equally silly. Why? Because these "other people" actually only amounts to Laird and Viharo. The only other objections have been on the issue of whether Viharo is actually important/notable/interesting enough to have an article on RW, not claiming that the article is being unfair.
"The scientific research, including that done by Rupert Sheldrake, overwhelmingly supports the existence and reality of psi" In one big-letter word even Laird might understand: NO! That Laird even makes this claims shows how divorced he is from the real world. This is also why, rather than a nefarious campaign removing woo from Wikipedia, the "sceptic cabal" purported by Viharo, Laird, Sheldrake etc. is simply an example of those not living in woo cloud cuckoo land removing the baseless assertions from those woo peddlers and their followers who have decided to put down stakes in that La La Land. But nice red herring to divert attention from the truly terrible "Well, he only did it for money, so that's okay"-argument. Can I take this as a tacit admission that you realise that the argument is rather silly?
What is truly interesting is that two rounds of this wahmbulancing which, despite different RW editors being added in round two, have ended up with the exact same result: No one bought the arguments about either unfair sceptical bias or unfair depictions of Viharo. Yet, and this is the fascinating part, rather than using these unanimous results, which also match those reached by a rather different set of eyes at WP, as grounds for reflecting on the merit of and possibly revising their own stance, Laird and Viharo seem to have concluded that this simply demonstrate the comprehensiveness and depth of the unfair sceptic bias and the sceptical web brigade's reach. Now, if anyone needed further parallels between the style of arguments from the proponents of woo, religion and conspiracy theories, they could hardly have asked for a better illustration than this one. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Responding because you actually bring up a good point, and I'm willing to correct myself. Yes, if this were a real war in which "the bad guys" were causing real harm, then the excuse that one was merely providing services to those "bad guys" would not be good enough: provided one knew or had reasonable opportunity to find out exactly what "the bad guys" were up to, then one would be culpable. I'm perfectly willing to admit when I make a bad argument, and this was one. The thing is, I don't see this as a legitimate war. Rupert Sheldrake in particular has done some fine research and is shedding light on truth, not darkening it. If you disagree with the conclusions of his research, then the appropriate response is to dig into it and publish a critique in the academic literature, or anywhere public really, not to bash him, suppress that research and poison the well on his bio page on Wikipedia of all places. I think Rome feels the same way, and if so, I don't think that there is anything reprehensible in what he's (Rome's) done; he's simply attempted to bring neutrality to a contested article. You guys might want him shot at dawn for that; I don't think that that's a reasonable response.
- As earlier indicated, I don't see fit to respond to the rest of what you've written other than to ask: are you really so confident that you know so much better than I do what's real, what's woo, what's baseless, what's truly La La Land - and how to use that powerful word, "No"? (rhetorical question of course). I'll simply point out that the "concern trolling" (I didn't follow the link) is as much "challenge" as "concern". You shouldn't feel so much warm and fuzzy as... doubtful. ;-) --Laird (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well shoot, pour me something strong; that'll be a reason to feel warm and fuzzy. ;) PacWalker 14:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Is cider strong enough? It sure knocks the socks off my goat. (Btw, another way of saying what I was trying to say above is that Rome was acting as a negotiator/conciliator in a dispute. And as such - even though paid by one of the disputants - he was a third party, and attacking him is "against the spirit of war"). --Laird (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- It sounds like he was a "third party" in the same sense that a lobbyist is. Being paid by one party to make sure their opinion is reflected in the text isn't really the same as being a negotiator. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- (EC) He's not a third party anymore than a tobacco company's PR guy is a third party. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 14:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- It sounds like he was a "third party" in the same sense that a lobbyist is. Being paid by one party to make sure their opinion is reflected in the text isn't really the same as being a negotiator. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Is cider strong enough? It sure knocks the socks off my goat. (Btw, another way of saying what I was trying to say above is that Rome was acting as a negotiator/conciliator in a dispute. And as such - even though paid by one of the disputants - he was a third party, and attacking him is "against the spirit of war"). --Laird (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Look, you guys might have had a point if he'd been out there pushing hard the merits of Sheldrake's/Chopra's philosophies. But from what I've seen (which, admittedly, is not everything), he didn't do that. He wasn't a "pusher". He limited himself to arguing against excessive and unnecessary criticism. In other words, for neutrality. --Laird (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- There is neutrality and then there is false balance. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Eh, Laird, you do realise that damage control, such as the attempt to remove criticism, is also one of the things PR guys do, right? Keeping that in mind, Viharo's Wiki-socking for Sheldrake and Choprah is classic PR work. You can help promote an idea just as well (and in the case of woo probably even better) by removing (in the case of woo entirely valid) criticism of it as by telling others how profound it is. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- There is neutrality and then there is false balance. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Look, you guys might have had a point if he'd been out there pushing hard the merits of Sheldrake's/Chopra's philosophies. But from what I've seen (which, admittedly, is not everything), he didn't do that. He wasn't a "pusher". He limited himself to arguing against excessive and unnecessary criticism. In other words, for neutrality. --Laird (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- ScepticWombat, all I can do is point back to the language you use and note how biased in a certain direction it is: Rome is engaged in "damage control"; he is a "PR guy"; he is "socking"; he is promoting "woo"; I am engaged in "sophistry". Could this very unbalanced language be exactly what Rome was hired to assist with? Could it be that organised-and-not-so-organised "sceptics" (like you) on Wikipedia have such a strong animus against certain people and topics that they can't bear to see them documented without some sort of unnecessary and inappropriate negative and critical commentary? And could it be that Rome's behaviour was - rather than malicious, corrupt woo-peddling - a totally reasonable attempt to balance out that animus? And if you answer as I do, then how would this article then look?
- Put it this way: if someone was paid by creationists to try and get Wiki articles on "creation science" to be more "neutral", would you consider this to be a diplomatic endeavour or a PR one? Would you think it unreasonable to criticize someone for doing this?--SpecialFFrog (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Or perhaps you're just asking questions, Laird? Never mind, I think that SpecialFFrog already made an excellent counterpoint to the latest rather hypothetical and tortuous hand wave for why Viharo is not a sock puppeteering PR man for a bunch of woo peddlers, all the evidence to the contrary. As for Laird's constant tone argumenting and concern trolling, he seems to forget that RW is under no obligation to maintain NPOV, but rather SPOV. If the reference was to WP, rather than RW, then WP actually has a policy (not to mention that this is simply good sense) that requires that woo peddlers don't get to tout their woo in a Fair and Balanced way; it's called WP:FRINGE
and you ought to be aware of it. In other words, Wikipedia foresaw exactly the kind of woo peddling and whitewashing Viharo has engaged in and made sure that claims about just wanting to "balance out" completely legitimate criticism of crackpots such as Sheldrake and Chopra would be justly dismissed as the hogwash they are. As for RW, the criticism of woo and those who promote it simply tends to be a bit more direct and blunt than on WP, calling a spade a spade and all that. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Or perhaps you're just asking questions, Laird? Never mind, I think that SpecialFFrog already made an excellent counterpoint to the latest rather hypothetical and tortuous hand wave for why Viharo is not a sock puppeteering PR man for a bunch of woo peddlers, all the evidence to the contrary. As for Laird's constant tone argumenting and concern trolling, he seems to forget that RW is under no obligation to maintain NPOV, but rather SPOV. If the reference was to WP, rather than RW, then WP actually has a policy (not to mention that this is simply good sense) that requires that woo peddlers don't get to tout their woo in a Fair and Balanced way; it's called WP:FRINGE
- Put it this way: if someone was paid by creationists to try and get Wiki articles on "creation science" to be more "neutral", would you consider this to be a diplomatic endeavour or a PR one? Would you think it unreasonable to criticize someone for doing this?--SpecialFFrog (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, I'm tired of the hostility, assumptions of bad faith, and name-calling, and I have no expectation of getting you (plural) to acknowledge the petty vindictiveness and mendacity of and behind this article, let alone to correct it, so this will be my final edit here (unless I write something off-site and choose to inform you-all of it here). I asked questions because they're a gentler way of making points than blunt assertions, and I figured this conversation could do with some gentleness - it wasn't out of a desire to hide anything. Feel free to reframe the questions as assertions if you prefer to receive the points in that more assertive way. Any "PR campaign" was/is being run by "skeptics", not by Rome - the "guerilla" in GSoW makes it plain that "skeptics" view this as an ideological war, and the more loosely-organised group of "skeptics" editing unnecessary critical comments into Rupert Sheldrake's article is far more culpable of "PR tactics" than those attempting to clean up after that group. The fact that you deny this only provides further evidence of psychological projection: you are the "whitewashers" - whitewashing guerilla campaigns away as "responsible editors following Wikipedia policy". It is quite fascinating to watch. The main unanswered question for me is whether it is deliberate or unconscious, or something more nuanced than those binaries. You are also badly wrong about "woo". Psi has been studied scientifically for over a century now, including by eminent scientists, and its existence is no longer in doubt. The questions remaining have nothing to do with establishing its existence but rather with its nature and mechanisms (theoretical questions in other words). And with that, I leave you with my deepest concern trolling. May the goats have mercy upon your souls. --Laird (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Laird, I would have some level of sympathy if you only cited facts. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 12:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Laird, does Rome share your belief that psi's "existence is no longer in doubt"? The reason I ask, is the assumption that psychic powers have been proven real could explain a lot of his odd behavior online and also why he's so effortlessly plugged into the woo community. Leuders (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Wait I get it now! The sceptics are trying to prevent the knowledge of psi to spread, because the sceptic conspiracy use psi to maintain control! Yes, it all suddenly makes sense now. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, I'm tired of the hostility, assumptions of bad faith, and name-calling, and I have no expectation of getting you (plural) to acknowledge the petty vindictiveness and mendacity of and behind this article, let alone to correct it, so this will be my final edit here (unless I write something off-site and choose to inform you-all of it here). I asked questions because they're a gentler way of making points than blunt assertions, and I figured this conversation could do with some gentleness - it wasn't out of a desire to hide anything. Feel free to reframe the questions as assertions if you prefer to receive the points in that more assertive way. Any "PR campaign" was/is being run by "skeptics", not by Rome - the "guerilla" in GSoW makes it plain that "skeptics" view this as an ideological war, and the more loosely-organised group of "skeptics" editing unnecessary critical comments into Rupert Sheldrake's article is far more culpable of "PR tactics" than those attempting to clean up after that group. The fact that you deny this only provides further evidence of psychological projection: you are the "whitewashers" - whitewashing guerilla campaigns away as "responsible editors following Wikipedia policy". It is quite fascinating to watch. The main unanswered question for me is whether it is deliberate or unconscious, or something more nuanced than those binaries. You are also badly wrong about "woo". Psi has been studied scientifically for over a century now, including by eminent scientists, and its existence is no longer in doubt. The questions remaining have nothing to do with establishing its existence but rather with its nature and mechanisms (theoretical questions in other words). And with that, I leave you with my deepest concern trolling. May the goats have mercy upon your souls. --Laird (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Wow! That latest Laird post was almost pure, undiluted 100% Sheldrake "the sceptic conspiracy is out to get me". Did you know that RW has an entire article concerning this Sheldrake claim?
Yet, I have to admit that the staunch insistence that psi is real is an impressive piece of sticking one's head in the sand, blindfolded, with one's fingers in one's ears while trying to go "Lalalala! Psi is real no matter that there's no scientific basis or explanation for saying so! I AM JUST RIGHT, BECAUSE SHELDRAKE, THAT'S WHY!" Yes, it's clearly those who haven't bought the psi woo meisters' pseudoscience who are the whitewashing psychological projectors, because "They" don't want the TRUTH to get out so people can tap into all those amazing psi powers (hey, I remember UFO: Enemy Unknown, does this mean we can mind control and panic people (and aliens) or what?).
I am simply amazed that any person living in the 21st century, presumably in an advanced country and with access to the web still clings to a repackaged version of 19th century spiritualism with some sciency-sounding mumbu-jumbo lingo tagged on. To claim that psi is a fact as in scientifically demonstrated is so appallingly, facepalmingly inane that I'd better take a break soon before I get a concussion. Well, it's been fun, have a blast mind controlling the pigeons or whatever psi is supposed to do. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Paid editor for Rome Viharo[edit]
As you have worked as a paid editor for Rome Viharo this strongly biases your judgement about the man. I do not believe you should be commenting here Jamenta (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- I will say this once and then continue once again to ignore this page, as I have no intention of getting into a war of words with the troll Oliver Smith and/or his brother/s, whatever pseudonyms he/they choose/s to use: I have never been paid by Rome Viharo to edit any website. The only paid writing I have done for Rome is for a business plan in 2010, and even then I was not paid directly by Rome but as a sub-contractor of the client whom Rome engaged to manage the writing. --Laird (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Uri Geller[edit]
You wrote: "Here's my position for the record: based on the evidence I've read and seen, I've personally concluded that Uri Geller has psychic powers. Is it possible that I'm wrong? Is it possible that he cheated? Sure, but you could say that about almost anything. It's possible that I'm wrong that the country Spain actually exists - I've never visited it for myself. Am I as convinced that Uri has psychic powers as I am that Spain exists? Not quite, but it is my (provisional) conclusion." [1]
Problem: There's plenty of actual objective evidence that Spain exists - there's maps pointing it out, extensively-documented history about it, people all over the world descended from Spanish people, people from Spain going out to visit shitholes all around the world like yours, you can actually visit it as you said - versus no evidence in favor of Geller or anyone else having psychic powers that the self-proclaimed psychics in question do not have complete control over the demonstration to convincingly fake it. 172.252.126.35 (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Photo[edit]
In keeping with your request, the file has been deleted and the photo removed from your page. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- You may want to check https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LairdFruitarian.png . Daev (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
New Photo[edit]
The photo you mentioned appears to have been uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, not this site exclusively. I'm not sure how the legalities work with regards to photos we use through Wikimedia, so you should probably mention this to a moderator with more experience than me. In the meantime, I can remove the photo from the page, but I might not be able to delete it. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. Not sure of correct (rational)wiki etiquette, so I hope that responding to you here is not rude or otherwise ill-advised. Can you suggest a more experienced moderator for me to mention this to? --Laird (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe tmtoulouse or David Gerard, they're probably the most senior people on this wiki. Σπριγγίνα (ομιλία) (συνεισφορές) @ 14:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)