User talk:Taiwan boi

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Taiwan boi! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

human^{be in} 02:20, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

You might want to edit your user page and tell us who you are... just sayin', is all. human^{be in} 04:06, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Done. --Taiwan boi 04:49, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Just a note from SJG

Hi, the trouble is that you entered firing with all guns. It's quite very possible that we'll love what you've got to say, but just deleting whole sections with hardly a word of explanation (no matter how whacky they might be) is a leetel bit arrogant no? Anyhow nice to talk with you. As I said - I aint no philosoph but I can think as well as the next gal. Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 21:42, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

As I've pointed out, I didn't delete whole sections 'with hardly a word of explanation'. I gave a careful and detailed explanation of several paragraphs for each and every deletion. Here they are again:

* Sons of God: This section referred to the Contemporary English Version of the Bible using incorrect nomenclature. It also made an entirely spurious argument by selectively quoting this translation of the Bible without explaining why this particular translation is superior to others. The fact is that the translation 'supernatural beings' found in this translation is not found in the majority of standard English translations over the last 400 years. It is a gloss, and a fringe gloss at that. The entire argument made in the 'Sons of God' section relies on the 'sons of God' being 'supernatural beings', something which the Bible never says. Making an argument from a single Bible translation which contains a gloss not found in any standard reputable modern Bible translation is not only very sloppy research, it commits the fallacy of selective quoting. I note that the article does this quite a lot. There are about four or five different Bible translations being quoted, each one in order to justify a particular 'spin' on the Genesis narrative.

* Human lifespan: Same problem as above. Once more a loose paraphrase of the Bible has been quoted (not even a translation), and once more this paraphrase is being uniquely quoted in the article (apparently only in this place, and only because its translation creates an apparent contradiction in the text. Once more there is no explanation given as to why this paraphrased version of the English Bible is authoritative, and the majority of standard reputable modern English translations are ignored (undoubtedly because they do not contain this 'contradiction'). This is sloppy research and selective quoting.

* Giants: This section claims that since giants lived after the flood, they must have survived the flood and been carried aboard the Ark. This commits the logical fallacy of the non sequitur. There is no necessity whatever for giants to have survived the flood. Giants can be born to non-giants, and typically are. This argument was based on completely faulty reasoning. Another error it commits is in claiming that the statement made by the men of Israel that the Anakim made them feel like grasshoppers really means that the men of Israel were claiming that the Anakim were so large that the physical difference in proportion between the Anakim and the men of Israel was the same as the physical difference in proportion between a grasshopper and a fully grown human adult. This is nonsense, as the text says no such thing

If I have my way, the 'Rainbow' section won't last long either. It contains the wholly unsubstantiated claim that the ancient Israelites thought that the rainbow was a physical object. It also starts by saying that the Bible seems to say that God created the rainbow after the flood, and then immediately continues on the basis that this mere assumption is a statement of fact. The Bible nowhere says that God created the rainbow after the flood, and early rabbinical exegesis says no such thing (the earliest rabbinical exegesis says that the rainbow was already around from the beginning of creation)

To date, no one has even bothered to discuss my objections with me. My deletions were simply reverted. If there's any arrogance going around, I suggest that it's not on my side. --Taiwan boi 21:57, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Start over?

Ok let's start over. The "hogwash" element is being bothered what a gang of prehistoric (well nearly) priests have to say about ANYTHING.

In your opinion. I'll go with the academics who find such texts useful historical sources. But then I took a double classics major, whereas your attitude to history seems radically different to mine. --Taiwan boi 02:20, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

'fraid you're right (again), I rate knowledge of history on a par with pop trivia - interesting but not relevant. However there are a lot of people here who do care.Susan Jayne Garlick^talk

When performing a major edit on an existing article it is polite to leave a working time between argument & edit - we're spread around the world - I'm in the UK & you're in Taiwan so I shouldn't be awake now. I can't recall how long you left between arg & edit but my recollection is that it wasn't long.

I was invited by 'human' to edit the article and so I edited it. I posted reasons for my edits 5 minutes later. I was subsequently told that I shouldn't have edited the article (when I had been invited to do so), and that I hadn't given any reasons for my edits. You can understand perhaps why this kind of behaviour leaves me less than impressed. --Taiwan boi 02:20, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Your points are probably true but be nice, hmm? Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 22:15, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Well I did manage to avoid saying 'F* you', unlike some I could mention. --Taiwan boi 02:20, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Selective quoting but ok. Apologies. Susan Jayne Garlick^talk

Just to be clear, the discussion came after the edits and after, when reverting, I asked for discussion. My only "argument" for the reversion was the deletion of sections without discussion. The discussion is now happening, only barely. I have invited both TB and AKJ to work together, as they are both into this biblical scholarship, to make a better, better article. And, yes, let's all be nice and start over. human^{be in} 22:36, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Yes the discussion came after the edits. That is, after the edits I had already been invited to make. I was invited to edit the article. I edited the article. I gave reasons for editing the article. People complained about me editing the article, reverted the page without reading my reasons, and claimed I hadn't given any reasons at all. What an impressive standard of scholastic endeavour. Right now I am feeling less than inclined to repeat myself, knowing that what I post next is simply going to be ignored or thrown out again. --Taiwan boi 02:20, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

This I'll leave to H. Ah! Vienna! Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 07:48, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

There appears to be much dialog going on at the talk page. That is good, appropriate and useful, and hopefully will lead to edits that make the article better. TB, I didn't invite you to just rip sections out without edit comments. That's poor wiki style on a long established (however weak it may be) article. But, it's a wiki and nothig is ever lost - so if your edits had been added sections the text and effort would still be there (although, if for some reason I deleted material I would have quoted it in full in talk, with my reasons for doing so) The discussion now happening renders this tit-for-tat here moot, though, I think. I hope that you (TB) and the other concerned editors will succeed in collaboration, in a way that lets you essentially make the improvements you seek. human^{be in} 13:08, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Once again, I didn't make any edits without comments. I posted detailed comments exactly 5 minutes after I made the edits. I don't understand why people continue to deny that I didn't explain myself. As you can see from the latest discussion on the Talk page, the article is being dominated by people prepared to make the most absurd claims, on the basis of the most pathetic 'research' (for want of a better term), who haven't even bothered to check their sources, haven't bothered to familiarize themselves with the subjects on which they write, ignore corrections (and revert them when they are made), and who appear to be determined to defend these practices to the hilt. To date I have seen no evidence of anyone even attempting to correct the article, or start a revision project. Any and all edits, comments, and suggestions I have made for improvement and correction have been summarily dismissed, and directly argued against. At this point I believe there's little or no point in me hanging around. This has wasted a lot of my time over the last week or so, and to absolutely no advantage whatsoever. The article remains as full of error as it always ways, and there is overwhelming resistance to any change. I am much better off simply creating a new page on my apologetics blog which absolutely tears this article apart, and records in painful detail the fanatical resistance to correction which I encountered even when pointing out such simple errors as getting the name of The Contemporary English Version wrong. --Taiwan boi 19:00, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Probably you are better off doing that, yes. Wiki style is to discuss before wholesale deletion. IE, the comments should come before the wholesale deletion without comment. I had time to look at all 3 deletions, and make a "comment" when reverting (gee, whodathunkit) before your "discussion" turned up on "talk". Mr. TaiwanBoi, maybe you and we should be questioning why you are here? You are obsessed with the global flood article, and want to not argue "chapter and verse", but simply delete what you don't like. I might suggest that you relax, take a chill pill, and see if you are comfortable even being here - do you want to contribute to other articles? Write something that advances our cause? Or, are you just a biblical apologeticist who wants to piss on a wiki you found? human^{be in} 21:30, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Yes, ideally discussion should take place before deletion. But I had understood your correspondence with me to be an open invitation to edit the article, so I edited it. The reason why you had time to look up all three deletions and make a comment when reverting before my comments turned up on talk was that it actually took me time to write my comments (gee, whodathunkit), and even when I was trying to post my comments you were preventing me from doing so by holding the Talk page open by editing it. Having said which, my lengthy explanation for my edits appeared less than 10 minutes after my deletions, so there's no excuse for accusing me of making deletions without explaining myself.

I've been totally open about why I am here. I've seen the RationalWiki article on the global flood quoted online, and found the article to be so poor that I thought I would contribute to its improvement. To date, improvement has been strongly resisted. You accuse me groundlessly of being 'obsessed' with the article, which is ridiculous. It's a subject on which I'm informed, so of course I'm going to comment on this article. I don't comment on articles on which I'm uninformed. If you want 'obsessed', how about IceWedge, who apparently has license to edit the article whenever he feels like, putting in and deleting whatever he likes, without even providing proper references or checking his facts. He seems to have been the one who has edited the article more than anyone else, yet you call me 'obsessed'?

I have not simply deleted what I didn't like. That's a blatantly false accusation. I gave you 'chapter and verse' in the form of detailed explanations as to why I removed what I did, and subsequently I have entered into lengthy discussions over the issues under question. Nor have I committed a single revert.

I have made suggestions contributing to the global flood article, but you've rejected them. Those suggestions would materially advance your cause, yet you don't want to accept them. Reject them by all means, but don't claim I never made them. As I have pointed out before, if it were really my aim simply to abuse this article, then I would have done so from the safety of my Website instead of coming here, going to all the trouble of identifying weaknesses in the article, and suggesting how it could be made stronger. Instead all I get is abuse.

I am going to try one more time to put the 'rational' back into the 'RationalWiki' article on the global flood. I am going to suggest that you actually hold editors of the article to appropriate standards of research and editing. That means correct research methodology, it means correct citations and references, it means coherent and logical arguments, it means an honest handling of the relevant source materials, and all in all it basically means IceWedge is out of a job unless he lifts his game. At present you're simply allowing any atheist to throw in whatever he likes, without checking his references or facts, and refusing to do so even when they're proved false. That's hardly what I would call 'rational'. --Taiwan boi 22:18, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

"ideally discussion should take place before deletion"

Not "ideally". It't the right way to approach an "established" article on a wiki - no matter how wrong you think it is. At least this is now what is happening.

"it actually took me time to write my comments (gee, whodathunkit), and even when I was trying to post my comments you were preventing me from doing so by holding the Talk page open by editing it."

No such thing in reality. One person editing a file does not prevent another from opening it. With this comment you prove that you are, well, full of something smelly.

"You accuse me groundlessly of being 'obsessed' with the article, which is ridiculous"

Ridiculous? It's the only article here that you have ever edited or shown any interest in. I still have on my "to do" list to read this article carefully and see if it makes sense, is stupid, etc. - from a layman perspective. I don't want it to suck any more than I want any other article here to do so, but I also note that it has been worked on almost daily, so I look at it as a "work in progress". I copyedit the new stuff on it from time to time, but I am also waiting to see how it turns out. human^{be in} 23:39, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

When you said to me 'If you want to improve the article, improve it. If you're not sure what the improvement should be, discuss the flaws here in talk.', I understood that to be an invitation to improve the article, and to discuss if I wasn't sure. I was sure, so I improved the article.

I never said anything about not being able open the article. What I said (on the Talk page), was that I couldn't update it with my comments because it kept telling me that there was an edit conflict (due to you editing the article):

I did that several times before it actually worked. It just kept telling me there was an edit conflict, without updating the page. --Taiwan boi 21:49, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

You even acknowledged this yourself, so don't backflip and start changing your story, telling me I'm 'full of something smelly':

Sometimes that happens, very frustrating, I know - especially if you were editing a small section of a large page. Another way around it is to, as I think you did, create a new section. It might read a bit odd, but never edit conflicts. Oh, and re: your comments in the new section, thanks. Hopefully whoever is "invested" in what is in those sections will chime in and defend them or discuss new/better wording. Are there any other weak areas in the article you can suggest making stronger? humanbe in 21:57, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Note there that you thank me for my comments, express the hope that those responsible will comment, and you even invite me to make further suggestions on other weak areas in the article (which I did).

Yes, it is unreasonable to suggest that I am 'obsessed' with this article. I have explained to you twice before why I am editing this article as opposed to others. It's a subject on which I'm informed, so of course I'm going to comment on this article. I don't comment on articles on which I'm uninformed. I'm not going to comment on the articles on Chelation Therapy, Hawking radiation, Signal detection theory or Franklin Delano Roosevelt because I'm simply insufficiently informed on those subjects. Why doesn't that make sense to you? Are you going to contribute to Wikipedia's wealth of information on the historical use of the mung bean in South America? I didn't think so. --Taiwan boi 00:29, 10 September 2007 (CDT)