RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

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 who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2020.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2200Goal: $3000

User talk:LowKey/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Can't block you[edit]

Sorry Tricksy, it looks like you'll have to rely on your own self-control not to edit here. Pi won't let me block you. If you tell me your password, I could change it to something you'll never guess...-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 13:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I had a sysoping message...[edit]

But I left it at aSK. The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 01:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

An abstract for you[edit]

From the journal Genetics, an abstract from an article:

Evolution at high mutation rates is expected to reduce population fitness deterministically by the accumulation of deleterious mutations. A high enough rate should even cause extinction (lethal mutagenesis), a principle motivating the clinical use of mutagenic drugs to treat viral infections. The impact of a high mutation rate on long-term viral fitness was tested here. A large population of the DNA bacteriophage T7 was grown with a mutagen, producing a genomic rate of 4 non-lethal mutations per generation, 2-3 orders of magnitude above the baseline rate. Fitness - viral growth rate in the mutagenic environment - was predicted to decline substantially; after 200 generations, fitness had increased, rejecting the model. A high mutation load was nonetheless evident from (i) many low- to moderate-frequency mutations in the population (averaging 245 per genome), and (ii) an 80% drop in average burst size. Twenty eight mutations reached high frequency and were thus presumably adaptive, clustered mostly in DNA metabolism genes, chiefly DNA polymerase. Yet blocking DNA polymerase evolution failed to yield a fitness decrease after 100 generations. Although mutagenic drugs have caused viral extinction in vitro under some conditions, this study is the first to match theory and fitness evolution at a high mutation rate. Failure of the theory challenges the quantitative basis of lethal mutagenesis and highlights the potential for adaptive evolution at high mutation rates.
Sterile guillotine 02:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

PS I will probably order the Miracles book next month. (I have no real time now.) I think I will order Carl Zimmer's At the Water's Edge : Fish with Fingers, Whales with Legs, and How Life Came Ashore but Then Went Back to Sea at the same time: should be a good read and definitely related to things we've talked about. I'm waiting on Dawkins until it comes out in paperback. Sterile guillotine 02:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC) PPS PZ Meyers wrote today:

I do not say that there can be no such thing as a supernatural agent; I say that the creationists have not provided any credible evidence for such a thing, which is a very different argument altogether. As I said in the debate, if you want an idea to be scientific, show us the evidence. It's possible that the elves have been guiding evolution all these years, but it's not a possiblity I have to seriously consider in the absence of evidence for the existence of elves.

It's not just my "dogma." Sterile guillotine 01:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


Tricksy is not permitted to edit WIGO Everyone can post a WIGO but no one is allowed to re-edit a WIGO.
Tricksy should not vote on WIGO Everyone is allowed to vote on a WIGO. Even you.
If RWians are talking nonsense, Tricksy should not say so. Tricksy is more than welcome to critque RWians however expect someone to debate you on it.

Never let the truth get in the way of WIGO Never let the truth stand in the way of promoting the YEC myth. AceMcWicked 04:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. -Answers in Genesis, Statement of Faith
Concur with Ace. Corry 04:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
We have debates here, Tricksy. You are not blocked and are free to join in. You are not being censored if you do not win the debates and you are not being censored if the debates do not take the form most agreeable to you. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Bradley, a debate[edit]

Bradley, I challenge you to a moderated debate on any creationist topic you wish. Let's agree on a format and rules. We'll set up a debate page for it on which on you and I can respond. Let's do this shit, brother. I'm fucking geeked. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 05:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Should the rest of us agree not to gang up on him during this debate so he cannot claim an unfair disadvantage? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I would be more than happy to sit back and let Bradley debate Nutty. AceMcWicked 05:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Pulled the plug?[edit]

Has phil pulled the plug? AceMcWicked 00:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please place the Talk sections in an Archive[edit]

Please place the text you blanked into an Archive, so that it remains available without searching through the fossil record. Burying it all is deceptive. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

leave my edits alone. vandalism does not need to be archived. Tricksy (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
You must be new here. Plus, not all text on your page is vandalism. As has been told to me, your talk page is not your page, it is the mob's page. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Where are the diff links to said vandalism, so that we can deal with it accordingly? The Goonie Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 21:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
It's all there on the archive I made for his page. None of it even appears to be vandalism. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, let's see what they got for evidence. Remember, anyone can make an accusation. It's more difficult to prove such a thing. Thus why I want diff links to said vandalism. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 21:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
My mistake, you're correct. Note however, I will openly admit to [wandalising a post of his on WIGO:aSK] due to the extremely factual inaccuracy of the statement. Of course, I could just let the text stand on its own as evidence of his stupidity. However, I think it's funnier this way. Note however, none of this was on his talk page, and thus not at issue with my request for him to archive his talk page. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I thought you were referring to WIGO:aSK. I am not accusing anybody of vandalising my usertalk page (IIRC there was one, but I think someone else removed it). Again, just because you didn't get it doesn't mean it was stupid (too subtle and multi-levelled perhaps, but not stupid). Tricksy (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC) p.s. I was following someone else's example by not archiving, but I cannot now remember who that was. Tricksy (talk) 04:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Right good then. So we both agree that you were incorrect in pouncing on me over asking you to archive your talk page. As well, your assertion "vandalism does not need to be archived." is directly refuted by how RationalWiki handles vandalism. So we can both agree that your statement is contradicted by RW mob rule. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 15:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
'I' wasn't even talking about my talk page, and I didn't pounce. I stand by my reminder to leave my edits alone. Actually Help:How_to_handle_vandalism says nothing about a need to archive, so I was right there, too. Also I figured you were talking about the WIGO talk because that was where I had recently removed an edit (in keeping with the how to). As I hadn't edited here at my usertalk for quite some time(about five (5) months), I didn't realise that your rather general "place the text you blanked" meant anything other than the text I had recently blanked. I guess my error was that I did not assume that you were being vague. Do you have this kind of trouble communicating in real life? Tricksy (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
GoatThe Goat be Praised. damn it, dude. You really do have just as much trouble admitting error as PJR. How hard is it to say, "I misunderstood you. Sorry." Fucking christ. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 23:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Gerard hasn't come along and pushed the AP policy that you can simply delete whatever you want whenever you want. As soon as it suits him, I suppose... Occasionaluse (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Gerard who? AP what? Could I maybe get more context? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 16:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Obviously Mavis can't type. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 16:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
David Gerard. WP. damn spell check.. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's try this again: "Please place the Talk sections in an Archive. Please place the text you blanked into an Archive, so that it remains available without searching through the fossil record. Burying it all is deceptive. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)"


Restored. Aceof SpadesSilverbrain.png 03:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You can't see it but I am tipping my hat (no, look a little more to your left). Tricksy (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Aceof SpadesSilverbrain.png 03:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little annoyed at you....[edit]

Obstructist? Perhaps a case could be made, although I'd like to hear it. But obtuse? Really? steriletalk 23:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Obtuse; yes really. Your repeated request for a list seemed quite obtuse in the face of the clear intent of Philip's request. You said repeatedly "if you ask it, I will go" and then because Philip added a "please ecourage like minded people to do likewise" when he asked you started the "names, please" requests. You are clearly intelligent, & I have a hard time seeing how you could so completely fail to grasp what was being said. Maybe I am misusing the word obtuse, but when someone steadfastly misconstrues clear communication I call it obtuse. As I said at the time, I would rather see you go back to constructive contribution than leave. I was not trying to insult or annoy you, but simply call it like I saw it. I think most Rats-at-aSK are obstructionist, only opting in to either insert unacceptable counter-POV content or to challenge/remove legitimate POV content. If a RW-Ian finds my on-wiki commentary to be personally annoying, that is a regrettable but nevertheless interesting juxtaposition. Tricksy (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
So you think it's "moral" to tell people that he doesn't want them to stay, but he doesn't have the guts enough to identify them. Really, that's all I was prodding for. I think people have a right to know when they aren't welcome.
My edits didn't change much--I'd want evidence for that to believe it--although perhaps subconsciously they did when Philip started deleting posts, especially for the contrived reason that I hadn't answered his questions, when I had in fact, done so. Just as Ace got pissed when Philip started lying about "nothingness" and Horace when he got called a bigot. I understand that you want to defend the wiki, but I lose respect for people who defend Philip. And it's hard not to include "POV" stuff when it's well evidenced (and the creationist side isn't)--duh--and when Philip is so intent on backhandedly sliming evolution and its supporters. So I guess I don't buy your criticism without specific examples.
Really, get away from Philip. It's not worth it. steriletalk 12:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
reductio ad absurdum; It would be immoral to post a "Trespassers Will be Prosecuted" sign without a list of names attached. Likewise, everyone here who criticises creationists is doing so immorally unless they list them by name, and of course the criticism would not apply to anyone not named. Tricksy (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This discussion is surreal. It was obvious Philip had several people he'd like to leave in mind. When asked for a list he said there wasn't one and threw a tantrum. WTF? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


If anyone is watching this space, can someone with the requisite tool please ask him to rename my account to "LowKey"? It's about time I pulled this one into line. Tricksy (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you have to talk to one of these people (which includes Nutty and Ace). steriletalk 12:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like you'll have to talk to this guy. Or this guy. The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 12:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Done. -- Nx / talk 13:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks. Apart from CZ I am now homogenous. LowKey (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


If Maratrea is going to create controversy here such that he can pad the criticisms section of the RW at ASK, is that not unlike creating controversy at ASK to pad a WIGO here? Are you going to do anything about it? steriletalk 12:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been creating controversy? I have not been the one posting sexually explicit images... I have simply been the one asking for them to be removed from my talk page, and coming up against editors who are insistent they remain. The people who are creating controversy are the ones who will not let me remove blatant offensive trolling from my talk page, even when this site's own standards (as written) permit its removal (RationalWiki:Community standards). The fact that this goes on, is a valid criticism of RW, and if you don't like that criticism, speak up and make some effort to stop the behaviour being criticised, rather than laying all the blame on the critic. (((Zack Martin))) 12:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
We have editors actively and openly trolling somebody because they don't like what he wrote on another wiki about this wiki - there's a name for that. No matter if such criticism is justified or not, it's unfair, stupid and childish. --ʤɱ socialist 13:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
No, we have users actively and openly trolling somebody because they don't like what he writes on this wiki, because it's total bullshit. I couldn't give a pus-filled abscess what he writes on ASK - nobody reads it anyway. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
And you don't have to read it here either. So stop throwing a hissy fit because somebody disagrees with you. --ʤɱ netlabelist 13:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(OD) Sterile,it would appear that MT is not the one creating controversy. What about MT's edits make you think that they are for the purpose of criticism elsewhere? Having much that deserves criticism does not equal "padding". I haven't read the latest edits to the aSK RW article, but please note that I have indeed removed unfair criticism from that article just recently. MT makes good points above, as does UHM. I must say that although I was aware of the general RW oversensitivity to dissent, I am beginning to thing that the aSK article may undertated. LowKey (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I was reading the article just now, and some of the criticisms seem a bit lopsided just by being drawn from the experiences of one editor. There is a reason that the Deuteronomic code required two witnesses to testify where misbehavior was concerned. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
You do have a point. I have raised this at aSK. LowKey (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, RationalWiki is extremely fragmented now, having been overrun by a younger crowd who is less self aware of how what they do influences the wiki, and that the reputation they create has consequences. Part of that fragmentation is a hyperobsessive analysis and reaction to every little edit, perhaps not unexpected because of the history of the link between RW-CP. I'm not condoning what's going on to M (at least the pornography part; the analysis of his created religion part is a little different, if done well and intelligently), and I'm not saying that if it continues, it will become a legitamite criticism of RationalWiki. But it isn't the norm of the wiki for over four years (there was a time we would have just discussed things with him, and then, ignored him), and it's clear that M's highlighting his own experience in the ASK article. steriletalk 12:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Sterile is a genius. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
(EC)If RW used to be different — fair enough, and why don't you add that point to the article? — but that doesn't change what it is like right now. I think you also need to distinguish between philosophical objections to RW (questioning the coherence of its own foundational self-understandings, etc.), vs. criticism of the behaviours engaged in by much of the RW community (of which the nudity/pornography incidents is one issue of several). You seem to think my concerns about RW's rationality are due to its reactions to my religious beliefs, when for me that is not what they are about. I think the criticism that RW likes to claim the high ground of rationality without really considering the question of what rationality is, is one which many people who disagree with my religious views could agree with. (((Zack Martin))) 13:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not welcome at ASK any more. And, yes, indeed--it is all about you, and presenting contrasts to others, isn't it? Hence, why people want to call you a troll. Let it go. I'm also not engaging with you any more, because that's what you want. steriletalk 13:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Don't understand what you are talking about. (((Zack Martin))) 13:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
We would have no problem at all if a whole group of folks wouldn't have said anything to Maratrean in the first place (about their motivations I don't know anything, but I suspect it's something along the lines of "You're wrong! I'm right!" and "So you won't say I'm right and still pursue to say different? YOU'RE A TROLL!!1!!!!"). Them dragging it all over the fucking site is the reason why this comes up at all. Them engaging him in duscossions, not seeing that he simply gives up or leaves and being angry with him for that is the reason why Mara is a big deal at all. If people weren't so fucking annoyed that there are people out there who aren't retarted dickheads and disagree with them this whole shit wouldn't even have happened. And then as the pot wouldn't be overheating anyways, a few dickheads start to openly troll that guy on his own talk page and openly say they are trolling him back and want to trill him off the site! Why? Because he disagrees and has enough patience not to overreact!
What is manlyhood for studs as become dickishness for some RationalWikians. It's a laughable pathetic kindergarten.
So if you have a few braincells left don't drag Maratrean into everything, that's what you moan about so don't fucking fuel it. --ʤɱ libertarian 14:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Growing roots?[edit]

So, have you decided to become an invested member of the RW community, or are you just observing? No criticism, just curious. steriletalk 23:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have decided to see if RW can mature into a community of which I would be comfortable being an "invested member". That might sound like a deflection, but it truly is not. The attempts to actually establish community standards seem hopeful to me. My input is sincere and aimed at helping RW become less "broken" (from a societal viewpoint). If the result is still a community of which I would not be comfortable being a full-fledged member, then that's how it will be. I will not regret helping along the way. I have long been critical of the RW community, and it seems to me that "constructive criticism" is a little mealy mouthed if the opportunity for "construction" is waved off. LowKey (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, welcome (or re-welcome) then. I go from being optimistic to pessimitic about RW's future lots, but I guess time will tell. steriletalk
I go through the same swings. The twist for me is that RW might very well "pull through" and I still wind up opting out. Although, I have user accounts on a lot of wikis and CZ is about the only one to which I don't at least drop in occasionally. I have actually done more on RW than aSK lately because RW seems to me to be at a more critical crossroads, and I am determined to work on substantial content for aSK and just don't have that kind of time lately. LowKey (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Do I have a place in your golden vision of RW, lowKey? Aceace 02:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
PS. Susan would be proud! steriletalk 02:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)