| There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2019. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with |
User talk:Realist2
Take the three day block as a hint. And A Welcome!
- Welcome back, (from your three day block!). I hope you enjoyed your habeas corpus! CЯacke® 11:10, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Tolerance vs. Rationalism[edit]
I think that here, for the most part every RW editor will consider tolerance overall as a virtue. However, we're not about tolerance as such, except inasmuch as it invariably seems to prove a virtue when rationalist principles are applied to the world. Deepak Chopra is well-known to be a supporter of liberal causes as well -- should we fail to call him out for his fraudulent "medicine" and his media whoring (especially as his association with the HuffPo has cost Arianna Huffington quite a bit of credibility)? Ward Churchill is a promoter of Native American issues -- "little Eichmanns" soundbite aside, should we cover up the fact that he likely lied about his ancestry and apparently has a history of plagiarism because he's a fellow-traveler? The ends does not justify the means, and just because someone may be right about one thing doesn't mean they're not an idiot overall. EVDebs 16:06, 17 December 2007 (EST)
Edit warring considered harmful[edit]
This edit warring is becoming tiresome. Please cease and desist; if you wish to pursue the case further, make your argument on talk:Uri Geller rather than continuing to revert against consensus. EVDebs 14:20, 18 December 2007 (EST)