Wanna talk to the MiddleMan? Then you've come to the right place!
- 1 User talk:MiddleMan
- 1.1 Neanderthal
- 1.2 Welcome
- 1.3 UXB
- 1.4 Flat earth & Brownback
- 1.5 Hamilton or Belfield?
- 1.6 CP sucks socks
- 1.7 Gas Gaints
- 1.8 userboxes
- 1.9 I know you will understand....
- 1.10 Baraminology
- 1.11 vandalism
- 1.12 You're B4B 'skeptic'?
- 1.13 YEC...
- 1.14 ID and AF edit?
- 1.15 How is your Quantum Physics?
- 1.16 Moving stuff past userboxes
- 1.17 yay
- 1.18 Lightning Rod
- 1.19 hey there
I will add supporting facts as I move through the list of articles I am reviewing for use as citations.--TimS 14:02, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
Don't add them to my sandbox, man! I want to empty that thing.
Here is what they look like when saved:
The goal is to save as many as possible into the template space, so all can use them.
I saved your herbal jazz cigarette one as "legalize it", and edited your user page accordingly (sorry). I see you have quite a few more, can you save them as templates in your copious free time? To do it, just copy the url above into your browser, change "legalize it" into the new name, hit "enter", and edit it. Thanks! humanbe in 16:22, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
- Hey MiddleMan, please read my comment at Template_talk:User_Universal_Healthcare. You and Kels are the only people using it so far, I wanted to discuss changig the image. humanbe in 18:46, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
Flat earth & Brownback
That link is slaying me. I remember back in late Feb when a friend sent me a link to a blog talking about CP. I was agog. I really couldn;t tell if it was parody. And it's the same with this one. All I can say is "wow". And I am just a grain of sand falling off a beach ball! You should add an article referring to it. humanbe in 17:58, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
They're now discussing the blog's author's theory that eating soy makes people gay, HI-LA-RI-OUS! MiddleMan
Hamilton or Belfield?
yo, you say you're physics, i'm planning to do Ames' bidding and write up a big set of documents proving why we can't change physical constants (else the universe would collapse). Would you be able to proofread/keep me honest? or collaborate? αιρδισΗταλκ 02:35, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
Are these related to the Gaia hypothesis? 184.108.40.206 14:34, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
No, not really, it's just a classification. MiddleMan
- I think it was a gentle dig at the spelling. ;-) ɱɑδ ɱ¡ɳblow in my ear/I did this! 14:40, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
Right, but, I'm not a sysop so I can't change file names. MiddleMan
- Actually, anyone can do most of the work. First, check "what links here" to see any other files you should fix. Then use the "move" tab up top (it looks unfamiliar because CP disabled it!) to move the file to the correct name. It will move the discussion page and history as well. The old name will be a redirect. Unless it might be a common mispelling of your article name, after gixing any files that linked to it, then comes the role of the lowly sysop. Alert one to delete the old, incorrect file name. It looks to me like "gas gaint" got fixed completely already. PS, please, when asking a
slaveto delete the old file, give 'em a link to make it easy, too. humanbe in 16:39, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
Something like that...
But I can only move articles, not images. MiddleMan
- Ah, ok. Does it still need fixing? (Actually, you can "half" move it - just upload under the new name?) If so stick the link on my talk page with the "to" and "from" so it's easy for me. humanbe in 18:33, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
I'm glad you like my userboxes... Sterile 14:06, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
I know you will understand....
- Why does everyone here refuse to follow their own rules? Why don't you accede to my reasonable demands? Why are you all so confused about how to follow rules? Make me a sysop! Bet you thought this was someone else. humanbe in 22:20, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
Now we're at it, did anyone check Subhuman's IP? A user form conservapedia who demands sysopship, created his account the day HoG left... or is he just a parody of HoG? (Man, editing CP really makes people paranoid.) MiddleMan
- Keep in mind that we are all
sockmeatpuppets of User:Helena Bonham Carter and your worries will fade. humanbe in 14:02, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
- Subhuman not HG! Subhuman on CP and RW1! Subhuman friend MiddleMan! Subhuman parody of Rockman! Bo Ho want clean bed.--Subhuman cabal member 14:07, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
MiddleMan understands: Subhuman not evil sock. MiddleMan
- I am 99.257082% sure that most HGs deny their HGness. --Kels 15:10, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
What's your source for that?
Liberal statistics no doubt (we all know liberals don't mind some deceit!)
THIS. DISCUSSION. IS. OVER. --Da Goon
- Now you've got my attention. And we all know what the result of that will be. I am the all-powerful CP SYSOP and I have the power to ban you, and your dirty socks, all of them...then I will create a new user account, with a stupid name like "mrweenie" perhaps, and leave weird gay userboxen on your pages. yes, indeed. that'll show you! you dirty socks. ROFL.
I archived the HOG vandalism to Adolf Hitler. Just so ya'd know. And in case you want to do similar in the future. And I agree, Reagan was way eviler than Billy Jeff. humanbe in 00:12, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
You're B4B 'skeptic'?
Are you someone there too? MiddleMan 11:24, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
- Not yet. Whenever I visit that site, I just get distracted from the greater goal of baiting sisyphus and just laugh at stuff. --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר שְׁלֹום!
No, I am not now, nor have I ever been YEC or Funde.
I subscribe to more of ID than anything else. I am a member of the RCC, albeit not a good one. I am a drinker (albeit light one anymore) and a very profane person. --TK/MyTalk 20:50, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
Sorry to interject ... what's RCC?Nevermind ... figured it out as soon as i hit submit Jrssr5 09:32, 11 June 2007 (CDT)
ID and AF edit?
Did you intend to delete the ID def. from the intro? (see talk at article) Talk:Intelligent_Design_and_Academic_Freedom#introductory_definitions humanbe in 20:52, 23 June 2007 (CDT)
I moved it to another paragraph, because the intro did not explain Academic Freedom itself. MiddleMan 21:05, 23 June 2007 (CDT)
- It did not? It spends longer on it than ID. Or is it incomplete? Should we have an article on AF? Anyway, since I reinserted the def. into the intro, I'll remove it from that later section, since it is just redudant now. Let me know if there's a problem with that (can do on ID & AF talk page if you prefer) humanbe in 21:22, 23 June 2007 (CDT)
How is your Quantum Physics?
Would you be at all interested in collaborating with me on Non-materialist neuroscience? The heart of the claim is that neuronal plasticity can only be explained using "quantum physics" and this is proof of dualism...basically that the "mind" manipulates the "brain" through "quantum" interaction. The whole thing smells of Sham quantum physics to me, but would be useful to have someone who knows this better than I do help me see the faulty logic....you interested? tmtoulouse irritate 13:42, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
I've heard similar claims about QM before, most of them are plain bullshit, but I'll look into it. Can you give me some source material that accurately describes their claims, because the RW article doesn't say much about QM. Anyway, since Einstein's theory of relativity we know that there is no real divide between matter and energy, the best way to visualize this is to see matter as some kind of condensed energy. MiddleMan 06:16, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
Here is the best place to start, you should have access to the full text pdf, if you do not let me know. The gist of what they are saying, to me, is that active thought alters the physical structure of the brain, these alterations involve things that are probably predominantly controlled by quantum effects, the modern physics movement has shown that the intelligent deserve is an integral part of quantum effects, some sort of "intelligent" observer is collapsing the wave functions that are altering the structure of the mind, this intelligent is outside of the material world, ergo its the "mind" in the mind-body dualist paradigm and not only can you describe it that way but its the only correct way to describe it.....but check out the article, you can skim the neuroscience/psych stuff if you want. The physics portions are well labeled....oh and they try and do math too! 220.127.116.11 10:02, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
Looks to me like the classical "we are humans and we are better than anything else" approach that also sparked the ID-movement.
However, some of their claims are true: QM is indeed a factor in neurological processes, implying that our thoughts cannot be entirely predicted. There our safety nets in our brains that prevent our thoughts from being entirely chance-based, but occasionally a random QM-effect will leak through.
They are however dead wrong to assume that there must be some kind of "soul" within the brain to observe the particles, this is a widespread misunderstanding: the observer does not have to be sentient for the wave function to "collapse". A computer taking readings on its own would find the same patterns a human would find. The wave function of a particle is a distribution of probable locations, between which the energy of the particle alternates randomly. An observation made at a specific time will pinpoint the particle at one of these locations, we cannot predict what location that will be, but we can derive the probability of finding the particle at one specific location.
Before, during and after the observation the particle alternates between locations. But it still interacts with other particles without a sentient observer being present, ultimately making the universe itself unpredictable (otherwise nothing in the universe could function without a sentient force observing every sub-atomic particle, I suspect that by misinterpreting this they want to bring God in the picture.) In other words: an observer does not really change the wave into a particle, because after we stop observing the particle still behaves as a wave.
I bet they also hadn't realized that if their theory were correct it would mean everything with a brain is sentient at some level (which I don't dispute) and thereby seriously undermine right-wing thought. MiddleMan 11:27, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
- Anytime anyone wants to take a swipe at it Non-materialist_neuroscience#Mangled_Quantum_physics is ready to go! tmtoulouse irritate 14:21, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
Moving stuff past userboxes
Are all those blank lines an attempt to move the next section down below the userboxes? If so, there's a way to do it which will work even with different text sizes. Instead of blank lines, insert <div style="clear: both;"></div>. --jtltalk 02:28, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
Already on it ;) MiddleMan 14:55, 21 July 2007 (CDT)
See Talk:Lightning rod. I thought a nice thing to do would be to ask you. Are you one, or would you like to be? Because if you added yourself, there'd be no debate. If you don't, discussion continueth. humanbe in 12:59, 21 July 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, I went to a festival (of godless metal music), so I had to spend 9 days in the real world, but I'm back now! MiddleMan 10:07, 10 August 2007 (CDT)