User talk:Tolerance

World	Blogs	Clogs	Elections	The Bar
(talk)	(talk)	(talk)	(talk)	(hic)

Welcome to RationalWiki, Tolerance!

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!

Don't think we want balance if it means taking Iron Age myths as TRUTH. SusanG 13:59, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Respect and tolerance for religious views is all that I am asking for. I am confident that we can find common ground.

Sadly, I have NO respect for religious views. I'd better go off line before I start saying what I really think. AND SIGN YOUR COMMENTS ~~~~ SusanG 14:10, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I am able to respect all vews, even those I disagree with. why can you not do the same? Tolerence

Views != Facts that's why (!= means NOT EQUAL). On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:

on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. SusanG 14:16, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

You claim (I suspect) to believe in atoms. Have you ever seen one? Wise people and books tell you they exist and you have faith in them. do you believe we are so different? Tolerence 14:20, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Hmm, before Susan goes into full attack mode, I'd contend that the methods used to demonstrate the existence of atoms are more satisfactory than those used to demonstrate, say, fish oil tablets. Anyhow, we are certainly tolerant - we just believe that other things are wrong. We're not denying the sincerity in which said beliefs are held, just their veracity.--מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

What a load of crap. Ratwiki tolerant? Wake up Wikinterpreter. SHahB 14:30, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm bowing out of this discussion before I blow several fuses (and get stuffed Bohdan) SusanG 14:32, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

But people have faith is science because clever peopl tell them things are so. Take quarkcs, many people believe they exist only becase scientists say they exist. But not even a scientist has seen one. The bible tells me God exists, nobody has seen God either but I Know he exists.Tolerence 14:32, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Please tell me this doesn't have anything to do with the talk that's going on at the creationism articles which I've refused to read. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 14:45, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

'fraid it does.We've got a religious ~~nutter~~ person all to ourselves. :) SusanG 14:52, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm must say that, having read a little more of this site, it looks as though there is much work to be done. Yes NightFlare - we are discussing how best to present a Balanced Rational View of Creationism on those pages. Tolerence 14:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Rational and Creationism are two words that cannot be in the same sentence (unless it's Creationism is not rational of course) SusanG 15:10, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I see that you have a little to learn. You can't convince people by simple asertion. I Know the truth of what I follow, can you say the same about your Theories? Are they Perminant and Unchangin? Or are they different every day? Tolerence 15:16, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Ah, but if you know the truth of them, where is the faith in that? --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Thankfully, NO. They're updated to fit new evidence when it becomes available. That gives us marvelous things like computers and polio vaccine, which work whether you believe them or not. --Gulik 11:37, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

My faith in Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ gives me the confidence to know. Tolerence 15:23, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

But if you know, then there is no room for faith. The one excludes the other. It's like Paul says - we see God 'through a mirror, darkly' - we can't be certain, and it is living and believing in a world of uncertainty that matters. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

I disagree with your interpritation. We have evidence for our faith - the faith of things not seen.

I don't see how that helps. Delusional and paranoid people have faith (i.e., believe) that everyone's out to get them, but that's not evidence. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Such certainty precludes both faith and tolerence. Rational Ed^faith 15:29, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Вера же есть осуществление ожидаемого и уверенность в невидимом. SHahB 15:30, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Belief in the (alleged} reported words of a middle-eastern rebel priest of the iron age is another trait of ~~simple-mindedness~~ nutjobbery. Oh F***; Goodbye SusanG 15:30, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Censored. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 16:54, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

thank you[edit]

Thank you for your support on my talk page. Would you care to assist in reviewing some of the more erronesus artiqules?Tolerence 15:29, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I think no one would object to fixing articles that are actually factually erroneous. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 15:49, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I shall certainly endevour to stay within the rules and guidelines of this site.Tolerence 13:36, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Patience[edit]

I see that I shall need much Patience to continue God's work here. But I shall not answer to Abuse nor sink to it.Tolerence 15:34, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Good for you. SHahB 15:34, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Sadly, I must go OFF LINE shortly. It would be nice to have some support from the Christian Majority which I am sure is quietly watching the debate. Would you consider a Colaboration to improve the quality of the religious artiqules?Tolerence 15:40, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Please consider staying off line - after all the internet is a direct result of Science and must be anathema! SusanG 15:55, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

If you have to edit any articles here then for Christ's sake use a spell checker. Your overall ignorance is embarassing. Sure you weren't homeskuled? Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 16:22, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

For who's sake? :-) SusanG 16:26, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

It's not a term I'd ordinarily use Susan, but I was trying to appeal to his better nature and put the fear of God into him. I mean that's what it's for, isn't it? Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 17:02, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I consider spelling to be less imporatnat than the Message. But I thank you for your concern. Tolerence 13:38, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

You will find that spelling errors tend to decrease the impact of your message. The occasional typo happens to everyone, but a continually slipshod approach to spelling leads to the impression that you aren't taking what you are saying, or the people you are talking to, very seriously. The effort to get it right (or lack of it) imbues what you say with more notability. human

13:56, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

thank you for you advise.Tolerance 13:57, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Thank you very much[edit]

It's always nice to see someone randomly drop in from the sky, as it were, and try to undo the hard work I've put in here for the last six months. Thank you and God Bless. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:41, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Heh, Heh, Heh. SusanG 16:45, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

What do you mean AKjeldsen? This user isn't welcome here? Danish supremacist... SHahB 17:43, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

All that tolerance, quiet discussion and erudition brought to nought by one wazzock! SusanG 17:45, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

All users are welcome here, more or less, as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them, does it? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:51, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

The word "wazzock" seems to get broadly used... while the odds of any of us being in close theological alignments with M. Tolerence are rather low, all the user has done is edit talk pages and express their concern. Namecalling is not an argument, it's less than no argument. It's embarrassing to those who might wish to argue "on the same side", and obnoxious and trivializing to those to who are being argued with. I don't think calling a first-day user who has not done anything wrong a "wazzock" really furthers any causes whatsoever. Anyone for Headless Chicken Mode? PS, re-reading, it isn't actually obvious to me, now, who is being called a "wazzock". Our new friend, M. Tolerence, or is Susan humorlessly referring to herself? Oh, the lack of inflection on my cheap "vision only" screen! human

22:17, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

It was addressed to AKjeldsen in response to his humorous comment. Stop being so self righteous Human. SusanG 22:23, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

As strange as it may seem, I'm gonna have to agree with Susan here. Kjeldsen is clearly a wazzock. SHahB 22:28, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Susan - try to indicate more clearly who you are namecalling if you don't want me to get on a high horse over it, 'k? human

23:07, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Susan, I'm a big fan of yours, but you need to back off from being so flat out insulting to Tolerance. It doesn't help 'our' side win any arguments (despite me agreeing in principle with your views), and finally I'll bet you wouldn't be like that in the flesh. DogP 14:46, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

As ever, I plead for tolerence.Tolerence 13:39, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Something you ought to read[edit]

Please read the Atheism FAQ. While not all of us are atheists, most of us would agree with the vast majority of what's written in there. Regardless, religion is in no way sacrosanct around here and is subject to the same criticism leveled at any other field of human endeavor, if not more so due to the wars and oppression it's engendered over the millennia. EVDebs 18:42, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I think Human's right. This guy(?)'s prozdt No-one could be that ingenuous (and such a bad speller) and know how to breathe let alone work a computingifierintertubeweb machine. SusanG

Andy Schlafly? --Gulik 01:23, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for your advice. I shall read the FAQ shortly.Tolerence 13:41, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

User name[edit]

Hey, Mr./Ms. "Tolerence", if you would like the typo in your user name corrected, I can easily rename you "Tolerance". Your user and talk pages would be automatically moved, and your password would remain the same. The old pages would become redirects to your "new" name. Just answer here if you'd like that done, I'll see it. Oh, and Welcome to the Dollhouse! human 20:17, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Is it wrong? Two LLS perhaps? If it's wrong than please fis it. Thank you very much. ...... When I sign in Ill need to use the new name I suppose?Tolerence 13:42, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

The second "e" should be an "a", if what you meant is "Tolerance" - which you spelled correctly everywhere else! Yes, I think you'll need to log in using the new spelling. If you have trouble, come to this page and copy and paste it. I will go do the renaming now. human

13:47, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Random Dislexia is a bit of a problem I msut admit. So "Tolerance" is correct? I'll save it somewherd78.47.210.72 13:50, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I see that pushed me out, but now it works. thank your for your Help Human.Tolerance 13:56, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

(EC) Hehe, it does interfere, yes. "Tolerance" is correct, I hope you can get logged in and drop a quick note here so we know it worked properly. (got it, great) By the way, I don't know about other browsers, but Firefox has a built in spelling checker which really helps. And you are quite welcome. human

13:58, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Thank yo again for your hepl.Tolerance 14:01, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Your Reception[edit]

I don't agree with you either, but I am mildly annoyed at the high percentage of snark and rethoric that have rendered the dicussions here with you just like wheels spinning in the mud - the snark and rhetoric coming from our side, that is. I address this to my cohorts: we know you guys are clever and witty, but I politely suggest you save it for someone who will actually appreciate it... surely this just feels like shooting fish in a barrel to you? In any case, I thought we were aiming to rationally refute the anti-science movement, with some snark... not to just be snarky at them.

I confess, this request stems from some degree of selfishness... I haven't debated a Creationist in a long time (and evidently, "debate" on Conservapedia does not count).

So Tolerance: hi. I doubt our arguments will change your stance, but I hope we're at least able help you understand our perspective a little better, and why we don't see rejection of your beliefs as "intolerant". Uchiha ^KATON! 21:10, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm with you, Ucicha. We have a great big banner on the front page that says we welcome those who don't agree with us, join and engage in debate. 'Tolerance' is entitled to a proper debate, not just invective and namecalling. From me, anyway, Tolerance - please continue to ask questions and engage here, we welcome your opinions, though you must understand we utterly disagree. DogP 12:27, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I noted you're plese come and debate with us welcome, but didn't want to try quoting you're own rules to you.Tolerence 13:44, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Please note one other thing Tolerance - if you can't write English clearly, it can be hard to understand you. Are you a non-native English speaker? DogP 14:27, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I am a native speaker. I may have other issues which I dn't which don't disclose at this time. thank you for your concern and patienceTolerance 14:33, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I wish you the best with those. Why don't you try and write a little more slowly - you've contributed here as if your ass was on fire. DogP 14:35, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I have Much to communicate and time is Short. I will take Ffirefix porgramme soon.Tolerance 14:42, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

On Deeply Held Beliefs:[edit]

Slacktivist: Passionate Sincerity Just because someone's belief is Deeply Held, doesn't mean it can't be DEAD WRONG. And it surely doesn't give it any kind of pass from mockery. --Gulik 01:27, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I depends on wheather you agree with NOMA or not.Tolerence 13:45, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

NOMA is a deeply controversial matter in rationalist circles. There are many who both passionately embrace and passionately oppose the concept, and many others who consider it a silly and irrelevant attempt by an otherwise highly respected man to shovel the issue of religion vs. reason under the rug. The fundamental problem that I have with NOMA (I speak for no one else) is that God cannot interact with the material universe without in some sense being part of it, and open to the same lines of observation and inquiry as any other scientific issue. (Ask me sometime how I believe that an omnipotent, omniscient God cannot exist in any universe with a finite value of c.) As a result, those who do not accept NOMA believe that God must be either observed and explained or ignored -- there is no middle ground. EVDebs 15:16, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't exclude my OWN religion(s) from mockery, so I'm surely not about to give anyone else's a free ride. --Gulik 11:39, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Advice[edit]

There isn't a silent Christian majority here. Sorry.
Susan has nothing but contempt for religious types, and you can't change that. (Susan this isn't an attack; it's just plain true)
This isn't really a site, in general, that has respect for other people's opinions if they feel them to be wrong. And you won't be able to change this any time soon.
"Faith" in science is not the same thing as faith in God. You can't see quarks, for example but you can still theorize their existence and then make verifiable predictions from that. If I don't trust that a scientist is telling me the truth, it's always possible to recreate whatever he did to do so. Faith in God is just that - faith. You can back up your faith (as I do) by looking at a sunset, or at the complexity of quantum physics, or the sheer mind-bogglingness of cell biology, but you can't take these things and make predictions from them.
Lastly, good luck trying to single-handedly change this site. Many men before you have died trying. Well not really, but good luck anyway.

I agree with you that anyone's opinion should be respected (on the vast, vast majority of things), but this isn't really that type of place - it was created with the express purpose of "refuting and analyzing the anti-science movement, ideas, and people... and analyzing the full range of crank ideas". Lurker 01:46, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

There is a certain irony, Lurker, in your feeeling that there is no respect for other people's opinions on the site when you are free to post your opions witout being reverted, blocked or banned. Honestly, you sound like a bit of a crybaby. Rational Ed^faith 10:15, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Firstly, I would point you to Susan's second comment on this talk page. Secondly, just because I dissent without being banned, it doesn't mean that anybody respects what I've said. And lastly, I'm not whining, I'm telling the user exactly how it is. Do you disagree that this user is fighting a futile fight? Lurker 10:19, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Last I saw, this was the internet. Nobody but your mom is obliged to respect your opinion. Nor the hyperbole above ("Many men have died trying"? Puh-leeze!). --Kels 10:29, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Kels, for a cartoonist you sure have a hard time recognizing (attempted) humor. 69.158.119.124 12:04, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

You must admit you are being a bit of a drama queen, Lurker. While some editors on the site are less respectful than others, you are free to express your opinions and engage in debate. Disagreement doesn't always signal direspect.Rational Ed^faith 10:42, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Correct, but on the other hand, the disrespect that is here is often expressed quite clearly. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 10:51, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I'll agree that is true, although it often is really an attempt at humor, which is one of the better qualities of this site. I appreciate the respect you, AK, have always shown to those who disagree with you. Rational Ed^faith

<-- (edit conflict) I think Lurker's post is actually pretty good advice for Tolerence. The "die trying" thing was meant to be humorous exaggeration, but most of the things he said were true. I'd only change a bit of the third one: "This isn't really a site, in general, that has respect for other people's beliefs if they feel them to be wrong." Opinions are argued about, but beliefs tend to be debunked or written off (or attacked, yes). As far as I can tell, opinions might get you into a debate (sometimes a quite heated debate), but it's presenting them as facts (sans snark) that will cause problems. Then again, I think Tolerence is (a quite successful) psrodist, so I guess the advice is better geared toward the other potential "Tolerences" out there. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 11:12, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I would further edit the third point to read "This isn't really a site, in general, that has respect for other people's beliefs if they think them to be wrong." Although many of us try, some don't, and those that do often fail in short order. Other than that, I agree that Lurker's attempt to counsel Tolerence is in good faith and probably useful to our new friend. human

13:00, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Keeping it to one's self[edit]

I wouldn't have much problem with religious people if they simply follow the title of this section. I, generally, feel exactly the same as SusanG does about religious people. However, I try to "keep it to myself" as best as I can. As somewhat mentioned in the bullets of the above section, I think that there is a basic misunderstanding of each side that I also am beginning to think is unbridgeable.

Science is all about continuously questioning everything. To a scientist, being wrong is just as interesting as being right.
From my perspective, faith is about becoming increasingly stubborn, willfully ignorant, or both. There really is nothing wrong with this as long as it's not affecting other people. However, therein lay the problem.

I do believe that religion will continue to be more and more marginalized to the point where it becomes effectively irrelavent. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ _{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 11:34, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Religion may become increasingly irrelevant among classes of people who are lucky enough to have material and political positions that provide them with the kind of life that makes it less likely for them to need a source of answers, a source of hope, and a possibility of redemption/a way out of their miserable circumstances that transcends the material plane - but one look at the Middle East, or at the historical role of religion in abolitionist movements, the Civil Rights era, the anti-apartheid struggle, and a host of other political projects shows that people in desperate circumstances often turn to religion - and there's little reason to believe that will change. Richard Dawkins and you and I might be lucky enough not to need faith, but we're hardly the norm on this planet. PFoster 11:42, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Good point, PF. The opiate of the masses, and all that. Ironically, communism has played a similar role. Rational Ed^faith

You know, I've always found that "opiate of the masses" bit to be incredibly condescending. Go tell it to Desmond Tutu. And then prepare to have your narrow ass kicked by an octogenarian. PFoster 11:52, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

You are right. I think for many it is an opiate, but for others it is an inspiration. Theose who are helpless and suffering sometimes need an opiate, however. Rational Ed^faith

Thank you for your Suport. although I am not in the land of Friends it's good to Know that some are with me. Thanks again.Tolerance 13:55, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

"Religion isn't the opiate of the masses. It's more like the crack cocaine." -- Hellpope Huey, Chruch of the SubGenius.

--Gulik 14:55, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

MArks was wrong on may things. But he wasn't to bad on religion. You hae a selective quote: He wrore: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." He saw relgigion as an escape from a souless world. Tolerance 15:01, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I think replace 'religion' with 'the organised church in the mid-nineteenth century, and to some extent today as well' and Marx pretty much hit the nail on the head. Also, PFoster? QFFT. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Yes, Mraxs' opinions on religion were not as dark as they have been painted. (Now on Firefox.)Tolerance 11:13, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

OFF LINE[edit]

I should liek to thank evryoen for their patience and consideration but now I must again go off lien. I shall retuen at some alte pointTolerance 15:10, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Please remember to download firefox next time you are online. http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/ It is a very fast install and will do wonders for someone has difficulty spelling words correctly. --Shagie 15:13, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I now have Firefox. Thank you. (Does improving my spelling with software rely make me more intelligent?) Tolerance 11:16, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

No, but as one of my favourite professors used to say, "Turning in a paper with spell-checkable errors essentially says:'Fuck you, Professor.'" Show you care - check your spelling and grammar - people will be more likely to take you seriously. PFoster 11:19, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

And now I regret that I must go OFF LINE again. I respond to all Questions over the next couple of Days. I should like to thank everyone for the courtesy they has shown one who holds Differing Views.Tolerance 14:51, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Hi[edit]

Its amazing how someone elses opinion can offend some of the so called 'rational' people on this site to such a degree. This is my welcome, good to have different voices on board here. The old witch hunting gangs led by a prominent lady on this site is quite ironic (and embaressing) but don't let that hold you back. Not everyone shares their small minded intolerant views here. MarcusCicero 11:22, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Wait, wait, wait.........I am seeing this more and more in random places......can someone please tell me the connection between "rational" and "respect for other people and their ideas" or tolerance or placidity or patience or rhetorical style or anyone one of the other dozen or so false equivocations I see all the time.

Rationality is about an approach to gaining knowledge and vetting ideas. It is rooted in logic and driven by empirical testing and evaluations. It is a tool and a method and stops once a given idea has been vetted. After that the style of presentation or debate or approaches to interpersonal communications have nothing to do with rationality. Rationality is not a style of communication. Someone can be civil, patient, "balanced", and genuinely likable and be totally irrational. Just as someone can be crass, rude, quick to anger, intolerant of stupidity and the biggest asshole on the planet and still be consistently rational.

An ideas relative wrongness is a completely separate quality from how that idea is presented or how that idea is argued about. If you want to argue that this site is irrational or that a given person is irrational attacking style is not going to cut it. tmtoulouse ^provoke 11:42, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Nice to see you doing your best to curb that sharp toungue and sound more rational, Marcus. Not! Rational Ed^faith

ARGH! Again how is a sharp tongue related to irrationality or rationality??!?!?

I think we have all been possessed by some enlightenment era Jungian archetype of the calm composed "professor." The rational scholar archetype really needs some tweaking.............where is the righteous anger?? tmtoulouse ^provoke 12:03, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

But I'm sure that you will agree that all ideas should be respected - even if you think that are wrong.Tolerance 13:01, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh please, I am itching to bring in Josef Mengele right now.... tmtoulouse ^provoke 13:44, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

(undent) Criticism can be positive, negative, or neutral. Criticism, from this site, of something you believe in shouldn't be automatically considered disrespectful. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ _{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 13:05, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps, but the principle of NOMA should protect any religious viewpoint from scientific criticism.Tolerance 13:12, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't think you really understand NOMA. It's not a club to tell anyone they can't approach any religious dogma with scientific analysis. It could just as easily be interpreted as a dividing line set at the outer limits of what science is working on, outside of which theology is free to study anything it wants. human

13:40, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't by into NOMA, so that doesn't mean much to me. tmtoulouse ^provoke 13:44, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

re: rationality and niceness. IMO rational discourse involves some sort of civility. Maybe there are some instances in which it is rational to be an ass, but by and large I think that in RW's context—yakking on the internet, with no direct real-world policy effects other than personal edumakashun or lulz—it's pretty much a given that in order to be taken seriously (and rationally) you can't just insult people and drive them off the site for not agreeing with you. Engage them, listen to whatever they have to say, and if you think it's wrong, by all means rip into their argument. It's got to be possible to do that (and even express righteous anger in the process) without being a complete douche, which I think just implies that you're arguing from emotion/stubbornness, which in turn implies irrationality.--Bayes_yikes 14:01, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

I agree completely.Tolerance 14:06, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Rationality is divorced from the style in which an idea is presented. Determining the worth of an idea based only on the style of its presentation would be irrational. Perception of rationality is a different beast all together, and as I said I think the archetype of the rational scholar needs updating. tmtoulouse ^provoke 14:10, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

@Tolerance, NOMA is just an idea that one scientist floated for discussion. It not a "rule to play by", just a suggestion, and not a clearly worked out philosophical idea, either. @Trentoulouse, Yup, apparently Newton was a bit of a jerk, but his personal "failings" (including some of the things he bought into) in no way invalidate his contributions to physics or math. Sometimes it's harder to accept a good idea when presented "nasty", but the style does not change the quality of the idea. However, that does not excuse unnecessary nastiness (see the Galileo fallacy) or being lazy about personal style -- especially, I think, in a small community. Just my USD0.125 or so... human

19:04, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Rationality is a state of being as well as being a state of mind. Rational people generally don't let their emotions get the better of them, and harsh incivility is certainly an emotional, and hence an (ir)rational act. I don't mean to sound like I am some solid example of this in action, because as you all well know I am most certainly not! MarcusCicero 09:50, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

NOMA[edit]

Contact this user to purchase your NOMA card

I don't patricularly mind NOMA. To me, it's not a fluid thing. On one side is everthing that science has, does, and will know (with the will part simply "yet to come"). The other side are the things that science can't know. In my opinion though, the "other side" doesn't really exist. It is simply an infinite ficiton. To borrow for my favorite RPG, the "other side" of NOMA is the Imageria. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ _{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 13:54, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

It was "invented" Stephen J Gould and endorsed by the Pope. On the NOMA debate page many people here have supported it. the majority I think. Why not make it official policy?Tolerance 13:59, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

If I understand NOMA correctly,the "faith" is comprised of those things about which certain knowledge is impossible. This means that it is impossible to talk about what lies on that side of things at any sort of meaningful level beyond conjecture - so if we can't really talk about it meaningfully, why create an intellectual space for it? PFoster 14:05, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Like I wrote, I don't particularly have any problems with NOMA. However, Tolerance, I don't believe that you have an adequate understanding of NOMA. If it were to be made "official policy", I don't believe that it would look anything like you expect that it would. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ _{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 14:11, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

My NOMA has Batman in it. And fairies. Prove me wrong.PFoster 14:15, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

NOMA says that there are some things which are withing the remit of religion. The existence of God, the existence of the Soul, Miracles, the answering of prayer, the Solace that Religion brings. All these belong to the Magisteriam of Religion. They have nothing to do with Science. Many religious people (though not I) would maintain that "evolution" is somehow controlled by God - this to is a religious belief. and religious beliefs should be wholly separate from scientific beliefs and not investigated by them.Tolerance 14:30, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

And I don't agree with this framework, nor do I see how it would apply as a site policy. tmtoulouse ^provoke 14:32, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

I would urge you to go glance at my response to you elsewhere. You seem to be confusing "because religion says something about it means science can't" with other ways to draw the line in NOMA. --Shagie 14:35, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

(undent) Maybe it would be better to say that it is not the beliefs that science might investigate, but the questions those beliefs raise and the predictions they might make. If those questions or predictions can be tested in some way then they fall within the science side of NOMA. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ _{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 14:38, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Basicly I agree with NOMA - if Religious speakers don't talk ever, in any way whatsoever about the realm of science, then I for one will be glad to agree not to discuss the mumbo-jumbo of religion. The moment they bring a deity into the province of science however they cross the barrier. Otherwise let the children play in their corner.- Susan Jayne Garlicktalk 10:41, 4 September 2007 (CDT) SusanG 14:40, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Gee, thanks, mum. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:44, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Don't mention it AK. SusanG 14:46, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't agree. If God exists, then She is a justifiable subject for scientific examination. To insist otherwise is a cop-out by people who don't REALLY expect their deity to show up and Smite the unbelievers when needed. --Gulik 11:46, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I have some serious problems with my very very limited understanding of "NOMA". NOMA apparently claims there are these two distinct centers of human experience, science & religion, and never the twain shall cross. But wouldn't this suggest that it is wrong for medical science to study the human mind and see if it can find any sparks that are or yeild "religious thought" (William James' ideas about why all mankind shares some aspects in their religious descriptions). Woudln't it mean you couldn't test the efficacy of prayer in a room, with the intent to prove that it does or does not (science is neutral in what it proves) have a legitimate effect on those prayed for? What about the bible. would NOMA mean that I cannot have my degree in religious studies which focuses a scientific (or as scientific as we can get) look at the bible, how it was written, who wrote it, what changes it had gone through over time, etc. These are important questions to humanity... are they off limits? It seems to me that science shouldn't be barred from trying to understand teh world any way it can. and that religions can take or ignore what science finds and do what they want with it("We don't really like the book of thomas because our traditions tell us not to). Can people who understand NOMA guide me on what things Gould was trying to say/do... and where the approach has wandered? ^{— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs}19:01, 2 March 2009 (EST)

The idea of Non-Overlapping Magisteria is that there are certain abstract assertions a person can make that science can not refute because the form they take is in a personal realm of experiences (i.e. faith), which is distinct from those of science - e.g. "I know in my heart that God exists & that He is watching over me", "Jesus is my Lord & Saviour", "my Soul is in the form of Tiger", etc. etc. Some people dismiss the concept of NOMA altogether because science can investigate the reasons for these beliefs. However, the real problems come when people stretch the concept of NOMA & apply it to things which certainly can be covered by science. E.g. Tolerance appealed to NOMA re the Global Flood. This is silly - should scientists & historians studying the past say "whoa, guys, we'd better stop looking into this because we might find something which contradicts a Religious Text"? Of course not. Wëäŝëïöïď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:12, 2 March 2009 (EST)

I totally agree with Weasel. If something that is religious tries to pass itself off as science, it should be studied and analyzed. --"C, U R ^{the cute, forsaking baseball bat.} 20:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Poll[edit]

Is tolerance a troll, parodist, or for real?

Troll[edit]

SusanG 14:19, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Parodist[edit]

First. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 14:39, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

This guy is for real[edit]

I assure you that I am For Real.Tolerance 14:22, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Well that's just the sort of thing a troll would say now isn't it...hmmmm........... tmtoulouse ^provoke 14:25, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

I am sure your right. But an insistence of ones' innocence is hardly evidence of guilt.Tolerance 15:54, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Just a gut feeling, but I'm going here. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ _{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 14:24, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
I think he's real and sincere. I wouldn't say "troll" at all, he is far too nice and friendly. The fact that his sincerity has conflicts with our mission in some places shows how sincere he is because all he does is raise polite, non-trolling questions on talk pages. Is he wasting our time with questions, which is one form of troll? I think not, they are mostly legitimate, although at a rather naive, sincere level. I reserve the right to change my mind ;) human 22:02, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
I felt like making this poll on some other users pages before, on the opposite side of Tolerance! This guy is for real. MarcusCicero 08:09, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm tending to think you're for real Tolerance, though if you turn out to be a parodist I won't be the slightest bit surprised, and will be highly amused. However, I think it's clear you're not a troll, since you've done so little actual article editing. Unlike CP, we have a 10/90 rule - we think editing Talk pages is far more important than editing articles. DogP 13:59, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Other[edit]

I think I am leaning half way between troll and parodist. tmtoulouse ^provoke 14:14, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

I think I agree, but only because the definitions kind of overlap. I think he means to cause trouble, but by pretending to be something else. Plus, a pure parodist would be funnier. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 14:29, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't have an opinion, I just like to vote. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:30, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
I've just read some of his posts and its very hard to tell. --Bob ^{bing up} 05:06, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Sock of a RationalWikian[edit]

I mean, it's evident. Now, WHICH RWikian, I admit I don't know. Editor at CP ^{for a change} 15:08, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Ames and Trent have Checkuser. They could give us an at least partial answer, right? --Edgerunner⁷⁶ _{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 15:19, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

No, we nixed check user a while ago, the only people on the site that can do any IP checking are me and Linus by reviewing server logs. Which is more than a little cumbersome, and used only in very rare circumstances......in fact can only think of one time I did it. 24.141.66.208 15:21, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

IIRC, there's some info in the database as well that can be manually retrieved… never done that, however. --4.154.55.56 16:34, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Well yes, thats how check user works, still cumbersome. The only time I have delved into it was checking to see if/how the WIGO votes might be being gamed. tmtoulouse ^provoke 16:36, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

mm. hadn't thought of that one! SusanG 15:12, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
He can be both, right? NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 14:31, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

[Susan?] Yes?

Was that edit you fixing someone else's mistakes? Or covering your own? (I don't REALLY think you're Tolerance, but it would be hilarious...)PFoster 17:02, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

'Twarn't me - Honest Guv! User:SusanG17:04, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

OK, now this edit has me shifting camps- e.g. I don't see the spelling or grammar mistakes that were so carefully applied when editing here on RW. Either way, keep up the good work, Tolerance! DogP 17:37, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

We made Tolerance go out and buy Firefox so he could use the spellchecker. It helped a lot. human

18:55, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps I am his sock? --"CUR ^talk 13:39, 15 February 2009 (EST)

It is more probable that you are not, my son.--Tolerance 15:57, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Dang, where were you for the past two years! Welcome back! --"CUR ^talk 15:58, 15 February 2009 (EST)

I am never far away in spirit. You might say I have been going to and fro in the wiki, and from walking up and down in it.--Tolerance 16:01, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Just one gosh darn minute here! "You might say I have been going to and fro in the wiki, and from walking up and down in it"? i'm not a christian but I know my Bible, and I know who said something very similar! Totnesmartin 17:58, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Same here. Sort of. Meet the resident moonbat. . . not that that is a bad thing. I agree with many of your viewpoints, only apply them only to interactions between users, not articles. --"CUR ^talk 16:04, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Given the Nature of this Wiki it seemed incumbent upon me to confine my Comments to Article Pages rather then inflict them on the Articles - an amusing difference to CP where one is obliged to edit Articles rather than Comment upon them, and thus run the Risk of a permaban.--Tolerance 16:59, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Oh, feel free to edit articles. We do not censor any content whatsoever. Sometimes to my regret. But things work better this way. See, if I am tolerated, I see no reason why you shouldn't be. I do think most editors here are respectful of non-completely insane beliefs- but where I think you, I, and they differ is on what beliefs are crazy. Go figure. --"CUR ^talk 17:05, 15 February 2009 (EST)

NOMA and "the solace that religion brings."[edit]

Well, I can meet you partway here - I'm on the record as being an advocate 'round these parts for a meaningful acknowledgment in religion's role in making people feel better, live better lives, and most important to me, to actualise meaningful political change. But that's not because I believe there's anything transcendent about religion that actually, in some mystical way, gives people the strength to do what they otherwise could not. It does allow them to explain the world to themselves and to do what they otherwise might be less able to - but it's because of THEM as HUMANS in a material world, not because of any actual divine involvement...PFoster 14:54, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, you said "HUMAN" ;) human

22:04, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

If nothing else...[edit]

...this page should give great insight into how CP and RW differ. Diametrically change everything with Tolerance, how long would he have lasted on CP (not counting 90/10)? I would give him two posts.

Better yet, given his apparent willingness to discuss things, how long would the real Tolerance last? I'd say four posts. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ _{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 15:03, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, well, I haven't reviewed his/her contributions to mainspace articles, but how many of them haven't been reverted and are still up? Very CPedian to me... ;-) Editor at CP ^{for a change} 15:11, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

He made two (I think), and one was reverted. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 15:14, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Ed@CP, there's a big fuckin' difference between reverting off-mission edits with prolonged discussion and revert with banhammer. Give us some credit, here...PFoster 15:17, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

If the tables were turned, and Tolerance were on CP being liberal/atheist, who would we be? I'd have Susan = Andy (or possibly Kinkywho), Marcus Cicero/Edgerunner = PJR, SHaB = RW sock, NightFlare = TK. Any others? No-one take offence now, it's only a joke (looks at Susan nervously). DogP 14:03, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Aaaargh! you can go off people, you know.

SusanG 14:06, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

:-) DogP 14:07, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Why TK? Why am I being attacked without any provocation whatsoever? You've come here pretending that those snarky comments just clean fun but then saying completely different things in MSN, along with the other members of the small group that run this place disregarding the will of the "mobocracy". And then when I get fed up with the subversion that is rampant and evident to lurkers, you just say "Oh, its NightFlare, he's just causing drama". This place is no better than Conservapedia. NightFlare ^{Lowly editor}

I lol'd. Uchiha ^KATON! 14:43, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Come now, calm down everyone and stop getting yer knickers in a twist. NightFlare, you're not a drama causer - I just called you that because you're the only one above who thinks Tolerance is a Parodist.... typical TK behaviour to call someone a parodist. DogP 14:41, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Nightflare: Please don't take it like that! If anyone should be annoyed its me! (and I'm not!) Susan ^{talk (if you must)} 14:45, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

He's probaby just trying to live up to his new identity. Doing fine, NightFlare, you just need to mention how much we're 'filled with hatred' a bit more! :D --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:50, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I like this page, it shows what kind of corruption and outright hate is going on here. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 14:52, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Even funnier yet, NF! DogP 15:02, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I must say one could suggest that finding ones user page littered with comments doubting ones identity and speculating over ones motives a little insulting. As usual I shall rise above this - an example others' might sometimes wish to follow. In an effort to prove my sincerity I have today signed up at conservapedia - naturally I shall follow their site policies as I have followed yours' here. I am quite confident that I shall last more than four posts.Tolerance 15:50, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

We're actually very different places. Our site has a mission, so we do guard our mainspace articles, but I think we allow free expression and debate. CP has an unavowed mission, leading to hilarious truthiness, and censors debate. So I think you'll find that quite unpleasant. But I wish you the best.-αmεσ (ninja) 15:53, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

you say your different - but then we seem to define ourselves by this difference. Is this correct?Bob ^{bing up} 15:57, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, "we" are different from CP, but if this blog defines itself as different from anything, it's not just in terms of dofference from CP, but difference from a number of movements/forums/media etc. with which our members have ideological issues. PFoster 16:07, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Not only that, but we're different from ourselves as well! We practically embody difference here! :D --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:13, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, I'm certainly different from me. Susan ^{talk (if you must)} 16:15, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm not. I'm a sock of AmesG. And so is Human. DogP 17:40, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Ok, as a Celebration of that Difference, would you consider making me a sysup? Tolerance 16:21, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Okay - i hereby annoint you "Sysup Tolerance." Use your powers for good and not evil. PFoster 16:22, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

No, fool! It's actually TK IN DISGUISE!!!!!! :)

(Well, let's see how he does.) --Gulik 16:26, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Thank you very much Mr Foster. that is very Kind of you.Tolerance 16:37, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, cool, you guys made Tolerance a sysop? Anyone show him the sysop guide thing so he knows what the extra buttons do, etc.? Oh, and (whine), why don't I get to be anybody at the Looking Glass Conservapedia? human 17:39, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

New to CP too?[edit]

Nice to see you join The Opposition - you'll get some wonderful balance to the viewpoints expounded here. Now, it'll be interesting to see what they think of you over there? DogP 15:44, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

He's just a sock of me.-αmεσ (ninja) 15:50, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

...or is he?-αmεσ (ninja) 15:50, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Dude, EVERYONE on CP is a sock of you. Except me, and that's because I'm a sock of Icewedge. --Gulik 15:51, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't know your exact political/religious views, Tolerance, but I'm looking forward to your comments on Andy's efforts to remove pernicious Liberal contamination from the Bible. --Gulik 15:51, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Come now Gulik, don't restrain your comments. That's Andy wanting to rewrite the Bible because he believes he'd do a better job. DogP 15:54, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

He just wants to undo the liberal vandalism, now that he is such an ace. fly. human

17:40, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I must say that I don't seem to be having any problems Editing over there. They seem to get an awful lot of Vandalism though. I'm staying away from their talk pages as I don't want to get blocked but editing to add an OEC point of view doesn't seem to be a problem. Perhaps youre concerns are overstated?Tolerance 15:52, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

You haven't had the YEC squad come through and clean up your edits. TerryH gave you a nice welcome - he seems to be of the assumption that a 'day' means a 'day and a night' rather than 'an age of many days and nights' - thinking that a day lasting a million years would have a night of a million years too and the plants would die. Perhaps you could clear this up for him? --Shagie 16:20, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Ah, but remember--back then, the moon was a "light" in its own rights, not just a reflector of sunlight! It would help keep the plants alive! (This is almost as much fun as coming up with semi-plausible explanations for goofy Dungeons and Dragons rules.) --Gulik 16:35, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

"Creationism: The THAC0 of theology." --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:48, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Hi, Tolerance... hey, if you find a happy home there, or at least one tolerant enough for you, well, good for you! I just hope you sometimes find time to come here, and enjoy our goat pilaf, and keep poking us with sticks to keep us on our toes. Godspeed... human

20:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, the OEC Articles and References still exist. My attempts to bring a certain even-handedness to both sites seem to be bearing fruit which I find most heartening.Tolerance 16:44, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Are you enjoying being called 'Dumb' as your tolerant addition was reverted, Mr.Tolerance? DogP 13:19, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

And another [1] and some additions. You don't appear to have gotten off to a good start with PJR. --Shagie 13:36, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

It only goes to show that there are Many Opinions. I find it most gratifying that you take such a Close Interest. Tolerance 14:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

User Category?[edit]

Would you consider categorising your user account (Along with mine) as 'tolerant RWians'? Could be a larf' MarcusCicero 07:57, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I would consider it. Before I do so, could yo confirm that you relay consider all your posts to be tolerant? I don't mean to be offensive in any way, I'd just like your confirmation. Tolerance 12:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Of course my posts aren't always tolerant Mr. Tolerance, but I aspire to be, which is more than can be said for most of the religion haters on this site. I'm sure both of us agree that we are against prejudice against people on account of who they happen to worship a few times a week. MarcusCicero 07:14, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Having reviewed some of your posts I think I might prefer to plow my own forou (how do you spell that?) so to speak. I nevertheless I wish you well in your attempts to improve the level of Respect for Religion on the site. Our Objectives may be similar, but I am not so sure our Methods coincide. Tolerance 12:15, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Fair enough. The difference between is that my politics and religious belief (OR lack of) are identical to theirs. I just hate religious prejudice, very deeply. MC 86.40.199.99 10:55, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Then we differ. I have always felt that hate is a poisonous emotion that damages the hater more than the hated.Tolerance 12:10, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Good luck in repressing human emotions then. Get back to me and let me know how you get on with that. MC 86.40.199.99 08:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Commiserations[edit]

Sorry to see you got ban-hammered at CP. Despite what people say about us here, we are reasonably tolerant and you are still welcome to edit. Just take the controversial stuff to the talk page first to avoid any misunderstandings.
P.S. Were those other accounts really your socks? Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:53, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Am I banned at CP? I must check.Tolerance 13:24, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

My word, so I am. I am most certainly not a sock of whoever those tow users are. I suppose I must follow the complaints procedure. Shame, as I felt I had some useful contributions to make.Tolerance 13:27, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

It's never mattered who you are or are not a sock of. Once Kookoo or someone else reaches a conclusion about you, it's beyond questioning. Did you know that I have about ten sockpuppets running at any given moment? (according to Kookoo/TerryH)-caius (ninja) 13:31, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, I have sent a note to the "Blocking Sysop". I assume he has acted in Good Faith and that things will be Resolved shortly. I'm certainly not a sock of "Heffalump and Freeze", whose Activities I suppose I should go and have a look at.Tolerance 13:40, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, best of luck!!!-caius (ninja) 13:58, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

As the blocking syop was CrockO'shite I don't hold out much hope for a satisfactory resolution.

Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:10, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

We are in communication, there seems to be some Confusion over "IP" numbers. I am confident that matter will be Resolved. I have also written to Mr Rayment as we had interacted somewhat. Tolerance 14:38, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

More commiserations

^Contribs_Talk 21:14, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Now they are even reverting your talk page contributions. [2] [3] --22:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and a warning to a blocked person too.[4] --Shagie 22:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Seriously, if you think Crocodiletears is going to reconsider his block, you're going to get old waiting. Even for those guys, it's unusual to see quite that level of "make it never was". Probably you hit a nerve, with the whole "ID isn't Christian" thing. --Kels 22:16, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

From Eddie's User page: "But senior staff have been amazingly tolerant of opposing ideas here so far and I reason to hope they will continue to do so." No Comment!

^Contribs_Talk 22:36, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Hey, people, be nice to our friend Tolerance! What, are we delighting in his crashing on the shoals of CP's shores? How small are we, anyway? Let him work his thing out, his wiki-presence, his editing here and there, without endless a priori argumentation about what he will find. Sheesh... human

23:12, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

nobody's been nasty to him at all - admittedly there's been a bit of 'I told you so' but that's all.

^Contribs_Talk 23:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I didn't say anyone was nasty... but this crap is a lot more than "I told you so" - it's wikistalking, in advance, and after the fact, and jumping on every straw to make a childish point, and too much ugly gloating over every pratfall. IMNSHO, anyway. Can't you guys just leave the editor alone? human

23:41, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, let's see. Guy comes here, complains about how we're all judgemental and tells us what we should do is assume the Bible is correct, then we can be tolerant. Then he goes to CP, and is warned ahead of time of the reception he'd likely get, which ends up happening. And we're the bad guys when we go "wow, they reacted even worse than we'd thought, tough break". Don't mind me if I think that's a little out of place here. --Kels 23:53, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

For reference, the entirety of Freeze's offense seems to be asking on JM's page "where do I go for a copyright infringement?" and then asking Andy and getting blocked before he can say what was infringed. Heffalump appears to be following the Andy Party Line (if that is a troll, parodist, or true believer - thats another question). CP sysops, lacking any practical knowledge of networks often assume that anyone form the same IP range is the same person. When I got blocked, 3 other users who I can assure you are not me also got blocked as my 'socks' - probably because they were from the same large ISP. CP sysops will also do a lookup to see what city that person is from (based on IP address) and block them if they are from the same city as someone they have already blocked. This has the side effect that anyone who gets translated to a major network hub where ISPs have a presence often get banned for being the sock of someone else, even if they aren't. --Shagie 01:44, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations[edit]

I should like to thank those who have expressed interest and concern. I am still trying to email CP sysops in an effort to clarify the situation and ger my edit rights restored. It is particularly unfortunate that the last comments about ID and YEC's have gone unanswered. The excellent "Answers in Genesis" site clearly shows that ID and YEC are incompatable as can be seen in their articles here and here. I consider it to particularly unfortunate that I was blocked before being able to make this point.Tolerance 10:27, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, a word of advice then, since it seems you have, indeed, been reinstated. Stay off those topics. Ed has clearly got his eye on you, and you can bet that others like Crocoite will take your block, even if it was their error as reason for suspicion. It is entirely possible Ed has already marked you down as a parodist, and will be looking for excuses to ban you again on that basis. If you want to avoid, or at least minimize, trouble, then keep that in mind and adjust your posts accordingly. --Kels 10:53, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Also it doesn't help if you edit here under the same name as on CP. They're pretty sneaky and regularly read posts here, especially WIGO & TWIGO. Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 11:13, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

I thank you for your comments which I am sure are well meant but I would make the following points:

I have made no secret of my posting here. My user page on CP implies as such, and I even asked the blocking sysop at CP to review my entries here as proof of my integrity.
I see absolutely no reason to not post what I believe to be right on the subjects which interest me. The CP system had a small glitch and was fixed - and fixed quite quickly for a site which suffers so much vandalism. While I am reluctant to rush to judgment I can't help but wonder about an element of paranoia here. Tolerance 11:34, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Hardly paranoia given their history, which is almost entirely filled with examples of such behaviour. But I'm sure you'll find out for yourself presently. --Kels 11:39, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

"You're not paranoid if they're really you to get you." --Gulik 12:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Looks like I can't get my block off this time. Shame.Tolerance 14:01, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

That's a pity. I also just noticed that no one here had blocked you yet, so I took the liberty of giving you a gratuitous 3 second timeout. You're welcome ;) human

14:11, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for that traditional RW welcome. :-) :-) I guess it's appropriate now that I also have the traditional CP "goodbye". Tolerance 14:38, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I know you![edit]

You got blocked at CP for being me! I didn't know you were here as well! You don't have Freeze with you as well do you??^{— Unsigned, by: 129.129.129.129 / talk / contribs} 15:04, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

I was plocked at CP for being many people. But it was a mistake. I know not this Freze - though he was alos confuised with me. who are (or were) you? Tolerance 15:06, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

At that exact moment I was cp:user:Jellyfish. DanH blasted several other people at random when he noticed I had "at least 15" IP addresses. Too bad one of them had to be you, an actual constructive editor. That's just how they like things over there.^{— Unsigned, by: 129.129.129.129 / talk / contribs} 15:10, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Ah yes - jelyfish. I remembe that name too. I am not sure taht my contributions were accepted as being contructive though they were - as all my contributions are - in Good Faith. I still hold a faint hope of editing there again. Tolerance 15:14, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

I wish you the best of luck then, but I don't think you have much hope. Conservapedian sysops hate admitting they're wrong. They'd prefer to believe that their wild guesses about user identity are an infallible system. You should edit here instead! I think we could really use you.^{— Unsigned, by: 129.129.129.129 / talk / contribs} 15:18, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Use me as a what I wonder? .-) Tolerance 15:23, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

A punching bag is how SusanG would use you. Most people here aren't very tolerant of Tolerance. --

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:26, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

We can sort that out later. Tolerance is much too well-mannered to spark off any serious arguments, wouldn't you say?^{— Unsigned, by: 129.129.129.129 / talk / contribs} 15:27, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

I am difficult to upset and even harder to bring to anger. But my opininions simetimes irritate others.Tolerance 15:28, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

I think that's because many editors here have only interacted with intolerant, "mean" fundamentalist Christians (like Andrew Schlafly), and I think they're at a bit of a loss when interacting with Tolerance, who is a well-mannered, pleasant fundamentalist Christian. --

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:36, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Exactly. RW's rivalry with CP has left you all feeling that Christianity is the avowed enemy of science.^{— Unsigned, by: 129.129.129.129 / talk / contribs} 15:38, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

I wish I could continue partaking in this discussion, but I have to log off for the day. Best of luck in all your endeavors! --

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:42, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

A belated "Thank You" for that thought.Tolerance 12:45, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Atheism and Communism[edit]

Hey, I just wanted to say this was a good addition! I know you often find your views run against the grain here, but we appreciate help like that. And thank you for making your addition in line with our perspective. :) Uchiha ^KATON! 00:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes. ħψɱɐ₦

03:53, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Please think of it as my personal "Smoke and Mirrors" campaign. :-) --Tolerance 14:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Although I mentioned before that Marx wasn't as Negative on Christianity as he is sometimes Held to be. Tolerance 14:44, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

You...[edit]

...are now unblocked on CP. Enjoy! <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{That's why I have this doomed expression. You haven't noticed my doomed expression.} 17:31, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Am I? Thats nice to know. What a surprise.Tolerance 17:41, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

How did that come about? Do you know? Tolerance 17:47, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

DanH happened to be here for a while, and I told him you were blocked unfairly -- for being me. It all happened in about thirty seconds. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{That's why I have this doomed expression. You haven't noticed my doomed expression.} 17:49, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes I've just managed to find it. Thank you for speaking up for me. Most kind of you.Tolerance 17:50, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Sysopship[edit]

Dear Tolerance,

It is my sincere regret to inform you that I have demoted you to the rank of RationalWiki sysop. Here is your bucket and mop. When you get the chance, please read the Sysop guide.

ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ rurgh bruagh bruragh raaarrrgh braaargh!

My Word. What a Surprise.--Tolerance 12:55, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Not really. --"C, U R ^{the cute, affiliateing baseball bat.} 17:13, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Fufhs sake...[edit]

Guide to capital letters. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ rurgh bruagh bruragh raaarrrgh braaargh!

It is Most Kind of you to supply this, but I feel that I follow an Interior Greater Guide. Thank you again for taking the Time to Advise me. Yours in Christ.--Tolerance 13:37, 27 February 2009 (EST)

youR interioR greateR guidE tellS yoU tO makE uP youR owN capitalisatioN? WelL, sO doeS minE. Totnesmartin 14:00, 27 February 2009 (EST)

I am Glad to provided you with Inspiration.--Tolerance 14:03, 27 February 2009 (EST)

That made me giggle. Totnesmartin 15:25, 27 February 2009 (EST)

aND iT MAdE mE gIGGle tO! ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ rurgh bruagh bruragh raaarrrgh braaargh!

I exist to Serve my Fellow Man.(or Woman)--Tolerance 15:29, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Who else here is a Terry Pratchett fan? I just now realized that we've got one of Dorfl's golem kin posting here In All Capital Letters. (Not Dorfl himself, as he's an lightning-proof atheist in a world full of gods.) --Gulik 16:36, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Hah! Knew it rang a bell, thanks Gulik.

_and marmite 16:39, 27 February 2009 (EST)

But I have a Better Chem.--Tolerance 17:01, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Thought the pattern might have been caps for all nouns, a la German and and more archaic modern English. Then I thought nouns and adjectives. Then I noticed he capitalised "advise", so I give up. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 18:18, 27 February 2009 (EST)

What is your guide to capitalization? I'm confused too. I thought it was Declaration-of-Independence style, but then I saw the capped adjectives & that one verb. Is it just that you cap for emphasis? If so, do I win a prize? Oh, and it's nice to see dissenting views here, even if just to joust against for s&gs.-Diadochus 01:26, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, I REALLY really want to know what the deal is with your capitalisation. PLEASE, please explain it. Its just so....so....strange? DogP 13:04, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

You...[edit]

... are a Master Troll. I salute you and your trollitude.DSFARGEG 18:08, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Second poll[edit]

I see that many of our users weren't around when Mr/Mrs/Miss Tolerance got going last time. I think it's time for another poll on our opinion. Please vote under the appropriate section below.