User talk:ZackMartin/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 14 June 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

Article

You can create an article about your religion here. Just expect us to pore over it, edit it, make comments, etc. Тy^Talk. 04:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Religion

There's honestly some interesting stuff here. But it tends to range from the "oh, that's surprisingly astute" to the classic "WHAT THE FUCK!?". Blue (pester) 05:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

And from a preliminary reading, it seems that if you removed the gods and goddesses from Maratreanism, it would basically be a philosophical school, not a religion. Blue (is useful) 05:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think, if you wanted to, you could successfully extract a lot of the religious elements and be left with some sort of philosophy. I have thought of doing it before. I don't disagree with religion -- I disagree with some of its manifestations, but I don't disagree with it in principle. But I recognize that many people don't like it, and maybe if I presented it more as a philosophy than a religion it might attract some of those people better. But what I really want is people to take what they want from my teachings. If they see something they agree with, they should feel free to adopt it as their own view. If something else they don't agree with, fine, don't accept it. Maybe, if I find some elements of it are more popular than others, I might rejig the presentation to emphasise those elements and de-emphasise the less popular elements. --Maratrean (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have read your essay and I am critiquing it piece-by-piece on the talk page. Very interesting stuff. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Souls essay discussion

You wrote: "It is good to have someone to talk to that understands what I am talking about and is interested to discuss it. And I told myself I would finish off all this work from my job tonight, instead I am responding to you!" I couldn't agree more! (I'm in the process of slowly working my way through your replies.) I must say, we've had some excellent discussion thus far. :) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Because you haven't broken anything

You are now a RationalWiki:Sysop guide. Have fun! Тy^Talk. 12:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Why thankyou! --Maratrean (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"Last Thursdayism is a form of holocaust denial"

Sorry I'm sure you meant well, but I had to undo your edit because really it was a ridiculous statement. You may as well say it's a form of evolution denial, colonialism denial, Elvis denial or omnitheism denial. The whole purpose of Last Thursdayism is to hold up a parodic mirror to unprovable statements about our origins, Rather than to edit history to suit one's prejudices. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

New discussion

Not sure if you noticed, but I'm ready to continue the discussion here. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Wiki

This Wiki Could Suit you. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't like that place. Its full of people who make up their own silly trivial religions as a joke. I am doing something far more serious than that. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Burden of proof

I find it very, very interesting that you reject burden of proof - I did the exact same thing after I was first exposed to Bayesian statistics. However, as you can see on the talk page, my view now is that burden of proof is a rule for social situations (such as debates), not a rule of individual rationality. As such, it doesn't really interest me and is not wrong but rather irrelevant. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Meh

I assume you are the same user at ASK. Just thought I would say hi and that I am rather intrigued by your religion.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, RW Maratrean = aSK Maratrean. If you have any questions, let me know, I will endeavour to answer them. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay

I haven't gotten a chance to respond yet, I've been really busy these past few days. Hopefully I'll get a chance to do so within the next day or so. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries mate, take your time. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Too few typos...

...to be Trent stalking his wiki. Otherwise, I would suspect such. ħuman 07:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I used to be Trent and Trent used to be me; I will be Trent once more and Trent will once more be.

I used to be you and you used to be me; I will be you once more and you will once more be.

I used to be everyone and everyone used to be me; I will be everyone once more, and everyone will once more be me.

Once more which is the same as once only, in circular time. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Also too stupid and silly. Oh well. It was a great theory for twelve minutes.

Dionysios

He's a pretty decent god certainly but my favourite god would probably be Caligula. He declared war on Neptune, had the sea whipped for its disobedience and made a horse a senator. How can you deny his awesomeness? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Caligula... well, wasn't he a bit of a sadistic bastard too? --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but nobody's perfect. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Christ but you're a piece of shit

Someone says they don't want to talk to you any more but you still can't resist poking them with a stick. Take the hint. Everybody hates you and wants you to piss off. Do it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Not everybody. Maratrean may be a bit nutty, but at least he isn't an asshole. --UHM^{"rambling incoherently" for 20+ years!} 13:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Really, I was here during the active TK days and the Heart of Gold days. You are not that interesting, and I know what you are trying to do. sterile^talk 20:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think SuspectedReplicant has demonstrated here the point that Maratrean was trying to make. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Heh, indeed. Remember, DBAD Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

SR, I'm not going anywhere. You are a very foul person. You should piss off. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You should use that language with Philip. You'd be very welcome. sterile^talk 15:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

In the words of Rodney King, can't we all just get along? SJ ^Debaser 15:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Total newb here, but from what I've seen around here everyone is either A)friends, B) enemies, or C)Apathetic. Z-Rex (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Not saying I'm an enemy; just really find the contradictions fascinating. sterile^talk 15:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sterile, you know why I don't use that language with Philip? Because he doesn't use that language with me. You reap what you sow. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ooo.... Eye for an eye. Kinda fun. I don't use that language with Phil because it gets me blocked. Anyway, this was a fun conversation. sterile^talk 15:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking more of, When in Rome... --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Do as many Romans as you can? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Beer

You haven't lived until you're had Pickled Pig Porter --PsyGremlinTala! 11:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have to go all the way to South Africa to get it? Ah, I should have visited my brother when he lived there, I never did, and now he's back here.... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

All your creationist bullshit....

..is bullshit. However, I found this interesting:

Rather than only one past, it is possible the universe has multiple simultaneous pasts, if our universe is the product of the merger of multiple universes with convergent histories. In which case, the question of how old the universe is might not have one single answer.

Never considered that and if, as Quantum mechanics and Feynmans "Sum over histories" suggests, there are multiple futures the universe could choose from (and possibly diverge from) then multiple histories isn't a stretch. I don't actually think so but it is food for thought. Ace ^{of Spades} 09:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose my point is, once you admit the possibility of multiple pasts, then questions about history (whether human history or natural history) no longer necessarily have a single correct answer. They may have multiple, conflicting/contradictory, yet equally true answers. For example, evolution and creationism could both be true at the same time, and the universe might be simultaneously 6000 years old and 13.5 billion. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Why the fuck

is it "sour grapes" you prick? --PsyGremlinFale! 09:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Your response proves my point. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Very intelligent answer. Now go back to trolling your made-up religion. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 09:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah whatever (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Maratrean, I gather you mean "hostility", rather than "sour grapes", which would technically refer to jealousy towards the winner of something. Unless I'm wrong. Pink_{(Is a perfectly acceptable colour)} 09:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That would imply that somebody would have won something. Or do the ListenerX fan club just mindlessly support each other? --PsyGremlinParla! 09:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I said he didn't mean that someone had won something. I said "sour grapes" was technically wrong because there is no winner to be jealous of, and hence he must have meant "hostility". Pink_{(Is a perfectly acceptable colour)} 09:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think I did choose the wrong word. But anyway, you get my point. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A glowing review

[1] Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

She just doesn't understand yet. I must enlighten them. I shall soon. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No, Thank You =)

Hi Maratrean, thank you for the invite to join your religion, but I already have my own and I really like it a lot, so I'm going to have to pass on your offer. I'm glad it works for you though. =) Künstlerin (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

What is your religion? I would be interested to know more about it. (I am having some time off from this site, so I'd suggest email me if you want to chat. You can use "E-mail this user", if you have confirmed an email in your RW wiki preferences.) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as the rest of the world is concerned, I'm a Catholic =). But the pope might say that I'm a pagan, and Richard Dawkins might say I'm an atheist. My two patron dieties are Aphrodite and Athene, but I see them more as metaphoric of forces within myself rather than real persons outside myself. I'm not going to confirm an email for my RW, but when you eventually come back on the site, you'll see this message. =) ø_ºØk^ünstlerin 02:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was raised a Catholic. I wouldn't really call myself one, but I suppose I still have some sympathies in that direction. I like Aphrodite; Athena, well, nothing against her, but I never really felt drawn to her. I think, deities are real as much as people want them to be; you might just want them to be inner symbols, so that is all they will be on your account, but maybe others wish them to be more than that, and maybe on their account they are. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Indian Pale Ale

Russian River? 21st Amendment? Ale Smith? (All though that is Southern Cali) Stop me when I get close. Although when I think of The States I always think of APAs, but that is me. - π 09:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, right now I am drinking Gage Road's Sleeping Giant India Pale Ale... which I am sure I never have never drunk in California. I have drunk quite a few different beers in California, but unfortunately I can't remember their names, or which particular one tastes most like this one. There's just, something about the taste of this beer, which reminds me of California... (maybe its hops taste a little bit like Sierra Nevada?) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The difference between an APA and an IPA is the hops used. APAs use American hops, IPAs European. Besides that they are both highly hopped golden ales. I noticed Sierra Nevada is now available at this specialty store in my little city in the US of Australia, I might be paying them a visit when I get my next contract. - π 10:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

United States of Australia

Why do you keep using the phrase "United States of Australia"? Their official name is "Commonwealth of Australia". --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Because he noticed the obvious parallels between Australian and US federalism and thinks he is clever? - π 10:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it's a joke... similar to the joke about us being the 51st state... (although the same joke gets made with respect to the UK too). (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

So which do you like better?

ASK or RW? sterile^talk 16:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

They both have their pros and cons. RW is more lively so it has more people. ASK has a more civil culture. I have decided to avoid RW for a while (a week or two), although I'm sure I'll be back. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably a good call. It's crazy here at the moment. sterile^talk 16:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the HCM was fun to watch at first. Now it's just boring and annoying. Really everyone should just rewind a month and all will be well. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It's nothing personal. I just wish Philip would just decide all of them and not bother with the voting. sterile^talk 02:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I've proposed there, and maybe Philip would take it up... I think it could do with a process change like what I outlined, e.g. nomination goes to a committee, all users can give input the committee will consider, committee makes a reasoned decision. And, put a time limit on nomination processing... say two weeks of community discussion; and then two weeks in which the committee has to render a decision (which could be simply, not yet, come back a bit later)... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

There aren't enough people to have a committee. It'd have the be everyone. sterile^talk 15:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not just all the senior members be ex officio committee members? There are only about seven senior members, that is not too many for a committee (if there are more later, one can subset). Or even now just a subset of the senior members; say Philip, Bradley, and then maybe one other senior member too. That'd work. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Your sig

Please use a sig again, checking the records everytime is a pain in the ass. --ǓḤṂ^³ 10:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Eira cleared it up. --ǓḤṂ^³ 10:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey!

No offense, but you are not my sock, because I would never, not even for humor, make up a religion. Plus, anybody can see that I am new around here (I was too dimwitted to sign my comments).......--Lefty (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You know what? I just realized that yeah, there's no chance that someone has spent the time necessary to produce all the supporting text that Maratrean has... no one would ever be that desperate to hide a sock... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Poor Lefty, you fell for it. Hint: read the source of that page and maybe you will attain enlightenment. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

But who are you a sock of? Or who are you really? sterile^talk 00:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you not read my post? Who would seriously spend all that time building up an alter-ego for a sock. 300 some pages of nonsense... no one would go through that much effort to support a sock here on RW. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That's what they want you to think. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The truth is, I am not a sock... but I do have a sock... can you guess who? (Hint: They have joined relatively recently... relatively to me, that is...) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I would never attempt to produce that kind of......interesting material. It would take an uncreative soul such as mine hours to come up with all that..... bullshit inane ramblings (citation needed; somebody fill in the appropriate word).--Lefty (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

A lot of people around here have been saying that you invented Maratreanism. However I have yet to find that specific claim anywhere by you. On your user page you say "I am Zarnacy, the Maratrean protoprophet. I am an adherent of the Maratrean religion." Does this mean that you were the first Maratreanite? Or are you just a member of the church which has bestowed upon you the title of prophet? --Damo^Hi 00:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am the founder, in a sense. I am not a Prophet, but a Protoprophet — I believe a Protoprophet is someone who potentially could become a Prophet, but isn't one right now. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

How many adherents are there? --Damo^Hi 02:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it is in the hundreds of thousands...and BOTH follow "the profit" on RW. 03:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Right now, not very many. Hard to say exactly, because there are people with differing levels of involvement. But definitely less than 10. I am hopeful this will change as time passes though. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that virtually every successful religion has both a carrot and a stick. Christianity has heaven and hell, Scientology has becoming an OT and having to disconnect with all friends and family. What is the carrot and stick involved with Maratreanism? --Damo^Hi 03:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Back in pagan times, cults with a small number of adherents were fairly commonplace; as G.K. Chesterton said, "A pagan was generally a man with about half a dozen [religions]." This was only possible, however, because those cults lacked prophets to get up everyone else's nose with gadfly tactics; that was the philosophers' job.

Damo, once the carrot-and-stick religions came on the scene, that meant that any others were not viable until such time as the underlying assumption behind both carrot and stick (i.e., heaven and hell exist) were seriously questioned. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

We don't have a stick in the sense that you are thinking of Damo. Well, we believe in an afterlife, but it is essentially universalist — everyone gets the same reward, not just us. And that reward is the creation of an entire universe to fulfill your deepest longings, and to be granted knowledge of it is so intimate, you will near entirely forget you were ever in any other. The reward is essentially a bribe — Maratrea wants to reabsorb all souls into her, but she only wants them to do so willing — and everyone has their price, and whatever yours is, she has the means to pay. As to an eschatological stick, well, we believe in something like hell... but only for really evil people, like Adolf Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer, rapists, murderers, that sort of thing. And even they get "let into heaven" afterwards, since their "punishment" is only of finite duration.

At a more practical level, I think our carrot is we can give people's live's more meaning, by providing a way of making sense of the world, and hope for the future (both this wordly and otherworldly). That carrot doesn't do it for everybody, but we believe only some are called at this moment. As to a stick, we don't really have one. Does that mean we won't be successful? Only time will tell.

Oh, and ListenerX, I am quite a fan of G. K. Chesterton actually... even though, him and I would see many issues very differently, I suppose. In a way, he is the most Pagan of Catholic writers, and both are things which attract me to him. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Many pagans today get so caught up with their specific cults, and with drawing followers thereunto, that they fail to grasp that a more realistic (not to mention more historical) goal is to convince people of the viability of a broadly pagan world-view, which can incorporate non-New atheists, traditional pagans, New-Agers, and even the more liberal Christians in the same tent, religiously speaking. Various developments since the Renaissance have been nudging society in that direction, despite the Nazi fiasco, which as Tolkien observed was a real setback in that area, since so many pagans and pagan-inclined people had jumped on the bandwagon of romantic nationalism that Hitler stole and wrecked.

I would personally rank such figures as Tolkien and the Pearl Poet higher than Chesterton on the "pagan" scale. ListenerX^TalkerX 08:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

All interesting stuff. I just wanted to get a picture of how your faith worked. As for whether it will grow, well we shall see - but then if you believe what you say, whether it grows or not should not be a concern of yours. Damo^Hi 08:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

ListenerX, I am really not sure how "New Atheism" would fit into "a broadly pagan worldview"... traditional pagans, New-Agers, liberal Christians, I can see.

I agree Tolkien was more pagan than Chesterton... although Tolkien was more of a story-teller, and his non-fiction output is mostly limited to the topics of literature and philology... Chesterton wrote fiction, but he also produce many books discussing ideas in religion, civilization, etc. I suppose that is what makes Chesterton interesting as me, as much as I love the Lord of the Rings (especially the Appendices! and the conlanging!), and as much as LoTR is a much better work of fiction than say Father Brown... as to Pearl Poet, I don't know enough to comment...

I am not really that interested in romantic nationalism though... romanticism yes, but not nationalism... or maybe I prefer that most romantic of nationalisms, the one where all existing nations are insufficiently romantic, and thus one must create a new nation for one's self (micronationalism)...

Damo, I agree that, given my beliefs, whether my faith grows or fails doesn't matter much for the afterlife, but it may matter rather much for this life. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Unix Regex Line

Your provided: find -type f -print0 | xargs -0 -n1 fgrep 'Request.QueryString(' /dev/null | cut -d: -f1 | sort -u | while read f; do cat $f | fgrep -q 'Request.QueryString("BackUrl' || echo $f; done

This fails for a number of reasons.

• As already noted, this fails to properly escape file spaces, and thus attempting to run this on the example problem given results in a bunch of "cat: ./File: File or directory not found", "cat: 1: File or directory not found".
• This will eliminate all files that contain "BackUrl" in the query string even if the file contains references to Request.QueryString that do not contain "BackUrl" in the query string. Thus, it failed to provide a proper solution. Running your command line against the example problem itself is sufficient to show that it fails to provide a proper solution.
• Your whole notion of find -type f -print0 | xargs -0 -n1 grep whatever is retardedly flawed. Have you seriously not looked through man grep? Look at the proper solution posted below to get a hint at why, please be advised that the "why" is still left as a problem for the reader.

You are the kind of computer person that makes programs suck. You don't read documentation, so you use your tools wrong. You don't use compact solutions, and thus end up wasting resources (but that's ok, right? because everyone is just going to get a faster computer anyways, right?) You don't test your solutions.

Seriously, you end up invoking at least 5 + 2n processes where n = the number of files. When simply 4 processes are necessary, with no command line argument building at all.

Here's a more proper solution (Solution still assumes that ":" does not appear in the filename): fgrep -r 'Request.QueryString(' * | fgrep -v 'Request.QueryString("BackUrl")' | cut -d: -f1 | sort -u

As expect... you are a fail coder as much as you are a fail pedant. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 15:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Coming from somebody who sees being called stupid a personal attack, the hypocrisy in the above post is delicious. Oh wait... let me guess... you were just joking right? --41.133.32.164 (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I should have put " around the $f in the cat and echo, to deal with files with spaces. I forgot that. This is the difference between writing commands into a wiki, versus writing them into a shell prompt (with the shell prompt one gets quick feedback if one does something wrong). You are right about the colons, but one very rarely encounters files with colons. (I often encounter files with spaces, due to developers who use Windows or spend too much time in IDEs). Also, you are wrong to label my command line a "Wrong Unix Regex Line". There are no regexes involved. fgrep doesn't do a regex search, it does a string search.

From a philosophical point of view, why does grep have a -r option? Shouldn't the Unix philosophy dictate that tools be orthogonal, and hence only find should work recursively, and grep should just search for strings in files? You are right about using way too many processes than necessary, but I think that is really a problem with Unix. I like the idea behind Microsoft PowerShell (although not so much the implementation), since it avoids this deficiency of Unix (excessive use of heavyweight processes).

Really Eira, I never said it was the perfect or ideal solution, but it works quite well for me in practice. And what is wrong with you, really? Are you still upset about the fact that you said in Talk:Philosophy of language "Good call, it is I suppose important to point out to some people that these two matters are not directly related, even though one would be tempted to think so. For instance, it's not uncommon to mention in an article about catfish that it is not actually related to cats.", and then I find cites for the propositions that (1) philosophy of language and linguistic philosophy are closely related, (2) sometimes they are hard to distinguish, (3) some serious academic authors use them essentially synonymously? To quote TallMan, "Eira's cat-catfish comparison was too much". (((Zack Martin)))^™ 18:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether you had put quotes around the $f or not, it won't actually fix your code, as beyond any and all syntax problems, there is a fundamental error in the logic, which results in it failing to solve the problem as presented.

Why does grep have a "-r" option? Because recursing through directories is trivial. "find" recurses through directories and tests properties of the files before presenting them, and thus does selective recursion through directories. However "process all files under this directory" is trivial. In fact, "recurse through subdirectories" is an extremely common behavior to all unix command-line tools, and is almost universally either "-r" or "-R". ("ls", "cp", etc)

No, you didn't say it were a perfect or ideal solution, but the point is: it's not even a valid solution. It is logically wrong. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You say, it "fail[s] to solve the problem as presented"? That's not true. It will produce the desired output given the input. Thus it solves the problem presented. It will not be the most efficient solution, but yours is not the most efficient solution either (for example, your solution uses 4 processes when only one process is necessary).

Actually, both our solutions don't produce 100% correct output. Both will fail for files whose names contains a colon. Additionally, yours will wrongly exclude a file called Request.QueryString("BackUrl"), even though the criteria was only defined in terms of the contents of the files, not their names. So, both are solutions are incorrect in theory (in terms of their inputs/outputs), but yours is slightly more incorrect than mine. In practice however, neither incorrectness makes a difference, since the inputs which would cause incorrect output are improbable.

Anyway, you say "it's not even a valid solution". It is a valid solution; it gives correct inputs for its outputs (well, not 100% correct, but less wrong than yours).

And how's the philosophy of language? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Even after pointing out your error, you still fail to look back and debug what went wrong. Since you do not seem to understand what is wrong with your "solution", let me spell it out: Your "solution" will exclude a file that contains Request.QueryString("SomeId") if that file also contains Request.QueryString("BackUrl"). Thus your purposed command line fails to give correct output for the example inputs. (It improperly excludes "File 2" from the file list.)

While both our presented solutions fail on some edge cases, your presented "solution" fails to give a correct answer to the example problem set. This isn't some matter of opinion, it is reproducible fact. And since my solution actually produces a valid solution to the example problem set, your "solution" is actually more wrong than mine.

Seriously, I don't have to say another word, set up the god damn example, and run it. Perhaps once you see it print out "File 1" but not "File 2", then you'll understand and accept that I'm telling you the god damn truth... this isn't about ego, this is you're demonstrably wrong. In fact, in terms of Knuth, you're mathematically PROVABLY wrong. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 17:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Different interpretations of the question, Eira. Anyway, here is a slightly modified version:

find -type f -print0 | xargs -0 -n1 fgrep 'Request.QueryString(' /dev/null | cut -d: -f1 | sort -u | while read f; do cat "$f" | fgrep -v 'Request.QueryString("BackUrl' | fgrep -q 'Request.QueryString(' && echo $f; done

That should match the same as what yours does. Although both will fail on lines which contain 'Request.QueryString(' twice, once with "BackUrl", once without. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Not different interpretations of the question. The question as posed states: "Then I want to match files 1 and 2 but not three." As I believe I mentioned, a failure to properly read specs is one of the great pitfalls in programmers. (This aside notes the edge case failure where a line contains two calls one with "BackUrl" and the other without.) Of course, the funny thing is that you dump yet another fgrep on the tail end, when just moving your fgrep around makes it work just as well without all the convoluted while crap at the end: find -type f -print0 | xargs -0 -n1 fgrep 'Request.QueryString(' /dev/null | fgrep -v 'Request.QueryString("BackUrl' | cut -d: -f1 | sort -u To which I note again: inefficiency, and horrible coding skill. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 15:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Listen to yourself Eira. A total stranger asks a question. I reply with a quick, off-the-cuff answer. I may well misinterpret what they say a bit. I may well come back with a less than perfect answer. It's not like I sit down and think... right, how can I design the best possible solution to their problem? They aren't paying me, I'm just trying to do them a favour. And then you come along and question my professional competence as a result? Really, that's a joke. In the real world, no one comes up to you and asks you a quick question, and then "Aha, you misinterpreted what I was asking for! Your thirty-seconds later response was inefficient and overcomplicated... You must be hopeless! You're fired!". I don't claim to be the best programmer in the world, but I tell you there are a heck of a lot worse than me (and I have the misfortune of trying to fix bugs in their code). Besides, I should add in the real world, it's not just the ability to identify flaws in other's work that is valued, it's also the ability to express them diplomatically and constructively, something you don't seem to be very good at. If I go to one of the Development Managers at my company and say "I think we could improve the error-handling in this module, it will make life easier for the guys in Support", he'll listen to me, and something might actually be done about it. If I say "This is the worst error handling I've ever seen. Don't any of your staff know how to write a try-catch clause properly? Do they even think when they write logging statements, or do they just throw them in randomly because someone said they have to?", I'm not going to get very far, just going to burn my bridges, regardless of whether those claims are correct or not. Similarly, in this case, if you come along and said, "Here's another attempt, I think it is simpler and more efficient. And I suspect you may have misunderstood what he was asking for, I think he was actually asking for..." I would probably come back with "That's a good idea, I'll remember that for next time...". Instead, you say "You fail at a coder!" Actually, you fail as a coder, because regardless of how good or bad your code is technically, I have to question your ability to work with other individuals and teams, which on any large product/project is an essential skill. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Headline news!!! Coder recognized by a Sourceforge Project of the Month, and solicited directly by Microsoft for employment is fail coder, because she follows the old-school hacker culture. More at 11... To address a specific point: if you can't be buggered to sit down and actually read the problem, don't stick your nose in with a solution. Designing a perfect solution was never a condition of the question, but presenting a solution that actually answers the test case properly is, if you can't spend 30 seconds setting up the test environment to test your solution, then its worthless. If you are indeed any sort of good programmer, you will know that banging out code is only 25% of the job. 50% of the job was reading the specifications and understanding them properly in the first place, and while not applicable here, developing test cases so you know what a correct solution is. Then, the last 25% is testing and debugging your code, because no one (not even Knuth) gets things perfectly right the first time.

As to your "misfortune of trying to fix bugs in their code", I am most certainly not the best best programmer in the world (I think this title sit squarely upon the shoulders of Knuth), but I have been recogized for excellence in programming by independent sources, and as such I shall state that I have the misfortune of looking at your code. (What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?)

My disgust at your "solution" is multipart: first, fail coders the world over fall into the same stupid pitfalls all the time, and it bothers me. If the only bugs we had to deal with were esoteric bugs or typos, things would be great, but instead we have people who rush to bang out code and don't actually pay attention to the requirements put forth. If engineering were treated this way, the world would be a far less safe place than it is today. So, excuse me for being upset that programmers lack the rigor that they really should have. Next, is your failure to admit any sort of error in this matter. Fighting over bugs is an annoying hassle. I presented a real and readily apparent bug, but it seems you took 3 or 4 responses to admit that you misinterpreted the requirements. Why is that? Did you think I had no leg to stand on, and was harassing you just because? Was your throw away code so throw away that you couldn't be bothered to actually do a post-mortem on your code to see what you did wrong? And this again brings me back to the first part of why it bothers me so much... you don't have the rigor that good coding requires, and so you're just another code monkey punching out code pre-designed to fail. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 15:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah Eira, your failure to get the point, it used to annoy me, now it just amuses me.

"if you can't be buggered to sit down and actually read the problem, don't stick your nose in with a solution". Imagine someone walks up to your desk and asks you a quick question. What's the best approach? "Well, here is my answer off the top of my head". Or, "let me sit down and study your problem and I'll come back to you with a solution". The first. Often, better a possibly wrong answer now, than a guaranteed right answer later. If it's wrong, they'll try it, and soon realise; maybe it's close enough they can fix it up themselves, maybe they'll come back for more help. Often, a half-right answer is better than no answer; and a half-right answer now is better than a fully right answer ten minutes later, especially when I'm not going to spend ten minutes investigating their problem, because I've got work of my own to do. In my professional life, I give wrong answers all the time, yet my input is still valued because (1) even though I'm wrong sometimes, my answers are more often right than wrong, (2) even when I'm wrong, my answer often gets them closer to the right one than they were before.

"if you can't spend 30 seconds setting up the test environment to test your solution" I didn't have a test environment in front of me when I wrote that. Guy who sits at the cubicle next to me asks, "how do I do X?" I say "Try X", he says "didn't work". "OK, what about Y?". "Nope that didn't work either." "What about Z?" "Yeah, that's it." He doesn't expect me to test out my advice for myself before giving it to him, that's his job. I'm the one doing him a favour; better three ideas in a row, of which the first two are wrong and the third one is right, than no idea at all.

I find it interesting your breakdown of a developer's task as 25% writing code, 50% reading specs, 25% testing/debugging. Where does having good interpersonal relationships come in? The ability to build and maintain good relationships with other members of your team, with teams developing other products, with management, with other organizations like sales and support, with clients or upstream vendors? Especially because in the real world, there often aren't specs, or the specs are just plain wrong, or woefully outdated. Such a focus on specs also reveals a very waterfall model mindset of software engineering, when the specs are clear and fixed at the outset, rather than being fluid and constantly evolving as the code is implemented. The later is closer to the real-world of much software development; stick too religiously to the specs, and you'll end up with something that implements the specs perfectly, but is no longer what the customer actually wants or needs, or never ever was.

"I shall state that I have the misfortune of looking at your code". You have never seen any of my code. Although a one-liner I write in 5 seconds without thinking too much about it may technically count as code, it is not representative, and so conclusions cannot be drawn from it.

"excuse me for being upset that programmers lack the rigor that they really should have" - which one's reply to a quick question has nothing to do with. It's a quick question, not a project. Quick questions don't call for rigour; in fact, rigour defeats the purpose, when a half-right answer now is better than a correct answer later.

"Fighting over bugs is an annoying hassle. I presented a real and readily apparent bug, but it seems you took 3 or 4 responses to admit that you misinterpreted the requirements. Why is that?" Because of your hostile manner. You'll find in the real world, if you say to someone "Look at this code, don't you think that's a bug?" people will listen to you much more than if you say "Look at how disgusting your code is". That's why you fail as a programmer - because you'll start fights over bugs, which will mean they take longer to fix, rather than behaving constructively, which will get them fixed much quicker.

"Was your throw away code so throw away that you couldn't be bothered to actually do a post-mortem on your code to see what you did wrong?" Someone asks me a question, I give them a throw away answer, it might be right or wrong. I'm not that interested in going into an enormously lengthy post-mortem on my 5 second throw away answer, because I don't care that much. This isn't a broken build or a customer bug or a failing testcase or regression or anything of the sort - it's a question asked by total stranger on a website.

"because she follows the old-school hacker culture" - a culture which has a lot of problems, a lot of limitations, and which some people have this bizarre religious devotion to. It's like a church in which people like RMS or Linus Torvalds are saints, or even gods... Maybe old-school really is old-school, and it's time to move on?

You are obviously highly intelligent, and your intelligence is a point in your favour in terms of being a good programmer. However, your hostile manner, and your ignorance of the extent to which programming is a process which exists within a larger social and economic framework, rather than existing in a vacuum, is a point against. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Your flippant disregard for rigor is apparent. There's a kind of "law" that is out there, I don't know if it has a name: no one ever throws away prototypes. Prototypes in computer science are just extended further, because no one wants to throw away throw-away code and start over. So they end up with spaghetti code and detritus all over their code base.

A wrong answer is still a wrong answer. If you can't give a right answer of the top of your head then you say, "I don't know". People have a strong dislike to answer "I don't know", and it's come to the point where when I ask people for a off-the-top-of-their-head answer, I have to append, "if you don't know, then that's ok". Because otherwise people give me a wrong answer, which they have no real confidence in.

More people need to answer with "I don't know", rather than handing out wrong answers off the top of their head. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

"No one ever throws away prototypes?" Yes they do. "Throwaway prototyping" is a recognized approach to prototyping in software engineering. Besides, a one liner written in 5 seconds in response to question from a stranger on a website is not a prototype of anything.

If I ask someone a question, I'd rather a half-right answer than no answer. A half-right answer gets me closer to the right one; no answer doesn't get me anywhere. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

As an aside here, a fixed string is a regex. Just like all men are animals, all fixed strings are regexes. As well, in the same way that not all animals are men, and not all regexes are fixed strings. As a final summary, the regex /aabc/ is also a fixed string match. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 18:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As another aside, I would like to point out that argument is spectacularly pointless even by the standards of the internet. Neither of you can possibly give a shit, and yet it's getting nasty. Please, Maratrean, just stop feeding the troll your honourable opponent. --67.159.36.27 (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mind feeding the Eira. Her crazed obsession with arguing about such pointless minutiae is actually rather amusing. I want to see when she'll run out of steam... Now Eira, by your argument you would have been correct to say Wrong context-free grammar line... A fixed string is a regular expression is a context-free grammar and so on up the Chomsky hierarchy we go... fgrep can't match regular languages, since while it can do alternation it doesn't have any way of expressing Kleene star. Calling a command line using fgrep a regex line is as silly as calling it a context-free grammar line. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way Eira, something about fish and cats and philosophies and languages??? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Off topic, I'm not talking about it... if I were to talk about it, I would have raised it where the argument was happening. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 15:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Right Eira, and isn't this whole section off-topic? Why didn't you raise it on the saloon bar, where the original discussion was taking place, rather than creating a section on my talk page. Maybe I should create a section on your talk page about "Philosophy of language"? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not off-topic, because the topic is: "Wrong Unix Regex Line". Why didn't I bring it up in the Saloon Bar? Because it had already been placed into the barchives. Now, if you want to make a section in my talk page to address "Philosophy of language" then that topic becomes on topic discussion in that area. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 15:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've created a section on your talk page about that topic. Will you respond? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Made above was a claim by Maratrean that in the real world, spec-driven development doesn't work. I'm wondering how much Maratrean knows about the programming that was done for the space shuttle, or behind TeX and Metafont. You know, the programs out there that are written with the fewest bugs. To note the joke: "if bridges were built like programmers write code, bridges would fail half the time you drove over them". --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

In the spirit of "choosing the right tool for the job", one should also choose the right methodology for the project. Safety critical systems, where the cost of failure is extremely high in terms of human life or financially, such as aerospace, medical, nuclear, military, etc., applications, a stringent specification-driven approach is well-suited to them, including detailed specifications, extensive reviews, formal verification (where feasible), stringent change control, stringent traceability of artifiacts. However, not all projects are like that; such stringency decreases defects at the cost of significant increases in development time and cost, and a significant decrease in agility. So, what's right for the space shuttle isn't necessary right for another project.

I think even some of those projects sometimes go overboard. Once, I was working as a research assistant for a software engineering professor, investigating requirements engineering. He had some defence research contract, so we were specifically looking at requirements specifications for military systems. Issue was, I didn't (and still don't) have a security clearance, so they couldn't give me anything classified. They did however declassify a section of the specs for a missile system so they could give them to me to analyse - but they'd left all the juicy bits out, of course. The unclassified bit I was given was about how to set the clock on the control computer. Several pages of the most verbose and detailed text I'd ever seen, on how to change the time. "There shall be a 'change system time' function on the 'system maintenance' menu. If the operator wishes to adjust the system time, the operator shall select the 'change system time' function from that menu..." Paragraphs of this stuff. I'm sure the spec was far longer than the code to implement it.

Another time, I was working on this project. There where two people assigned full-time to it for twelve months, myself as the developer, another guy as the business analyst. His job was to gather the requirements, my job was design and implementation. Pretty standard project, building a bespoke web-enabled database to replace some cumbersome manual business processes; some interesting aspects included revision control, workflow (for approval of changes), and reports that fed into a DTP system (the end product was essentially a catalogue/handbook they published once a year.) Anyway, his job was to gather the detailed requirements, but while I was waiting I was told to start prototyping based on the broad idea of the requirements we already had. Weeks, months dragged by. He could not get the business to agree to a spec. There were two managers, with diametrically opposed ideas of what the system was supposed to do; at the executive level, the decision had to be made that they both had to approve the spec, but no one was willing to force a resolution. Eventually, he quit in disgust, moved on to better things, and was not replaced; I continued on with my "protoype" (which was by now much more than a prototype), which the business then adopted. It wasn't a perfect solution, there were things I didn't get right; but, at least we had something to show at the end of the project. If I'd waited for a proper spec, I would not have achieved anything, and the money they spent on my and his salary would have come to nothing.

Oh, and Knuth, he's an academic doing research projects. The approach which is right for him won't necessarily be the right one for others working in dramatically different environments. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and Knuth, he's an academic doing research projects. Oh yeah... TeX is a total research project, which no one ever used, nor will ever use... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Win Win! NDSP 09:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

TeX is a research project. That doesn't mean "which no one ever used, nor will ever use". Stop putting in my mouth things I didn't say. TeX being a research project means that Knuth wasn't subject to the same pressures which many other projects face in writing it. So, the methodology which was successful for him in writing it will not have the same results for other projects in very different environments. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ameriwiki

It's back up now.--George (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm near half-way reviewing your 100+ articles there. Most seem to be decent or even good, though POV may be an issue in a few. I started to Ameriwiki POV your Pornograhpy entry this morning. Also Bob M signed up and raised copyright issues. Many thanks for your interest in this project.--George (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ethics

I'm going to continue this here, since I don't want to annoy Eira with a bunch of notifications for comments not actually directed at her. You've more or less conceded the main point I was making, i.e. that there are legitimate arguments against politeness always being a good thing under every possible circumstance, so I won't continue with that. Your ethical views interest me though. Are you saying that there is intrinsic moral value in an act, in a person's character and in the outcomes that they lead to. Bear in mind, I am using the word intrinsic (not inherent) this time. Does intention also have an intrinsic value, or just an inherent one? Suppose someone is under the impression that pressing a button will save someone's life and has very good reasons to believe it will do so, but it turns out taking the life of another person instead (and they had no idea that this was even possible). How do you judge the moral value of their decision? --Danfly (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Forgetting all moral philosophy, and just sticking to common sense... most people would answer that the person has done the right thing here rather than the wrong one. And most people agree that intention is morally relevant. Generally speaking, if one does an act with good intentions, one is morally less blameworthy/more praiseworthy than if you did it with bad intentions. But, one still has to consider the inherent nature of the act, its consequences, the process of reasoning that lead to the act, etc. If I believe doing X will save someone's life, then the rationality of that belief is morally relevant - if I irrationally believe you have incurable brain cancer but shooting you in the head will cure it and thus save your life, then even though I had the good intention of saving your life when I killed you, the irrationality of the belief cancels out the good intention. I suppose, intention can be considered an aggravating/mitigating factor.

The case you've presented could be a good argument against act utilitarianism in favour of rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism judges us to have done wrong despite every best effort to do right. Rule utilitarianism would say, that since what we've done would be right in the vast majority of circumstances, that establishes a rule in favour of doing what we did, hence what we did was right even in the exceptional circumstance when unexpected consequences follow. On the other hand, this is a bit of an "Ought implies Can" argument, and I'm not entirely convinced of that principle.

My own perspective, I am aware of the major theories of normative ethics, I don't want to put my hand up and say any one of them is right to the exclusion of the others. They all seem to have some truth to them, but I am not sure whether any of them are right in all their conclusions. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(oldest talk) (so pibot will archive it)

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, ZackMartin! 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!

How about giving us an article on your religion? --PsyGremlinHable! 13:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

(S)he also has a blog. Must admit that I hadn't seen Essay:In defence of belief in the existence of the soul before finding the blog but am no wiser now I have. 20:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I lol'd at your userpage. (Sorry, but folks around here tend to have that kind of knee-jerk reaction to stuff like "I am Zarnacy, the Maratrean protoprophet." No disrespect. Blue (is useful) 22:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

is there a wiki you're not on?

http://www.google.com/search?q=Maratrean&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I like Wikis. But yeah, there are heaps of wikis I'm not on. Uncyclopedia, ED.ch, OhInternet, Metapedia(no point trying to argue with Nazis, it is just pointless I believe), to name a few. I have an account on WP, but I haven't edited anything there (I've been lurking WP for a long time, since not long after it first began back in 2001, but never been much of an active contributor...) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Can we leave Maratrean alone please? He seems like a pretty decent guy. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for standing up for me Let Them Eat Cake, but in this case I'm not that bothered by Brxbrx's question. Even if maybe he was being a little snide (although I didn't really get that), he's pretty nice to me on the whole. I can't say the same for some others here. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

He's not on Illogicopedia either.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I was not being snide. I just came across an account of his on Conservapedia, googled "Maratrean" out of curiosity, and I broached the subject wondering as to his affinity for wikis. I actually think Maratrean is a pretty cool guy. As long as he doesn't have an account on wikifur, he should be alright in my book--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

wikifur?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw the title of the section and assumed somebody was having a go at him and as they do with regularity I thought it best to intervene. My mistake. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Pesticides and evolution

Do you accept the fact that insects develop a resistance to pesticides evidence for evolution, at least within whatever time-frame you believe the earth has existed in? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I consider evolution to be a useful myth rather than literally true; but that is a very different position from most creationists, who consider it to be a pernicous myth rather than a useful one. Although, to be more precise, it is a bit more than a useful myth, some elements of it have literal truth to them, like the situation you describe. (Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is another one.) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Useful myth." Reminds me of the George EP Box quote: "All models are wrong, but some are useful." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The only excuse for creating a useful thing is that one does not admire it. The only excuse for creating a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

ASK

I started a few stubs on Soviet history there yesterday. Would it be worth it to write them there, or should I choose Ameriwiki (when Wikkii's back up) or Knowino to work on them? I ask per the chaos at ASK.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ignore the chaos at aSK. Actually, if you steer clear of debates about creation-evolution, and meta-debates about site policy and the behaviour or character of individual members of the cast of players, and you'll have yourself a chaos-free aSK. As to aSK-vs-Ameriwiki-vs-Knowino, up to you really. They are three different sites, each with their own goals, cultures, policies, etc. Contribute to whichever one you feel will be most receptive to your contributions, or all three if you wish. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia

You've been a frequent critic of this site and its userbase. Apart from arguing about content, you've also complained about bad manners and personal insults. Yet now you also maintain a presence at Conservapedia, are willing to help a certain confirmed lunatic with his "Atheism Project", and have even created the relevant page for him. I'll assume that you are familiar with Ken's "essays" by now - if not, then a quick glance at his latest work will really tell you all you need to know about what he's up to. Now, I've got a few questions: do these essays meet your standards for coherent arguments and polite discourse? If not, why are you going along with the wishes of their creator, instead of arguing with him like you're so fond of doing here? Are you willing to ignore the blatantly idiotic nature of his contributions, as long as it serves your mutual interest in refuting atheism? And lastly, are you fine with CP's policies towards the expression of dissent and the liberties it awards to its administrators when dealing with other users? If not, then why have you not expressed your views in the ongoing discussions over these matters in places like Rob's (already defunct) community portal, especially given your penchant for engaging in such debates over here? Röstigraben (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with lot of Conservative's views. For example, I don't agree with him that there is much correlation between atheism and obesity; I think they are largely unrelated subjects. There are many fat theists and many skinny atheists in the world. Similarly, his views on sexuality and gender issues are very different from my own. Actually, Conservative and I have very little beliefs in common; he is "conservative", I am generally what he would call a "liberal". But what's the point of arguing with Conservative? I don't think it is going to go anywhere. Are you suggesting there is no point with arguing with anyone here either? At the end of the day, this site calls itself "RationalWiki", and so I expect it to be rational. Conservapedia calls itself "Conservapedia", and so I expect it to be conservative. CP lives up to its name (for many values of 'conservative'). Does RW live up to its name? I don't think Conservapedia is particularly rational (sometimes it is, often it is not); but that doesn't particularly bother me, since it doesn't go around proclaiming its own supposed rationality. This site puts the word rational in its very name, so I will subject it to higher standards of rationality in judging it. Personally, I agree with RobSmith's position in all of this, but don't think it is likely my speaking up will do anything to help his cause (if anything, it might hinder it). I should also add, that CP management (e.g. Andy) has expressed a disinterest in allowing much space for debating (contemporary American) conservatism with those who disagree, and I respect that. This site claims to welcome those who disagree with its viewpoints, so I am more open with my disagreements here. If this site wants to adopt a policy that, for example, this is an atheist-only Wiki, and those who reject atheism are not welcome, then I will leave without a fuss. Until then, I will continue to state my case. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You are looking at the site name only and ignoring everything else. That's not very rational. Go take a look at this. There's plenty of hypocrisy you can complain about there. -- Nx / talk 12:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No. I have said, I agree with many criticisms made of Conservapedia, as I said right above I don't think Conservapedia is particularly rational (sometimes it is, often it is not). As to whether Conservapedia:Guidelines are hypocritical or not, that depends on how they are actually implemented, which I don't claim to have followed in detail. But, for the sake of the argument, let's say you are entirely right. So what then? I don't see much point in myself saying that to them; it isn't like they haven't heard that criticism before. Whereas, I think I can actually contribute original criticism of RationalWiki. Maybe if you would realise that my tendency to criticise RW much more than CP is actually a compliment of sorts? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

One difference between RW & CP: RW tolerates nutters; CP encourages nutters (until they come up against site ideology that is). Pippa (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

So you think CP isn't worth criticizing because they wouldn't act on it anyway (except, of course, rewarding you for your input with a long-term block). True, the site is run by a bunch of utterly deluded idiots who won't tolerate anyone who questions their worldview. However, that raises the question of why you'd want to edit there at all. You say you'd leave RW if we had a strict atheist editorial line, but you seem to have no problems with staying at a right-wing website, despite the fact that you're a self-professed liberal. That's rather strange, unless you think it's much more important that someone is a theist - any theist, no matter if they think you'll burn in hell - than their politics and stances on given issues. Is that the case here? Is it so important for you to attack atheists that you'll eagerly make common cause with extremists and keep your mouth shut about your opinions so they won't throw you out? Will you look the other way each time they spew their hatred for liberals, homosexuals, atheists, Muslims etc. all over the main page and articles that are supposedly aimed at schoolchildren? Can you seriously shrug and forgive all that, saying "Oh well, they never claimed to be rational, they're just conservative…"? And let's not forget that their extremism hardly squares up with mainstream notions of conservatism, and that few self-identifying conservatives would let them share that label. So it would be just as justified to chastise them for their lack of conservatism as you like to admonish us because we don't meet your definition of "rational". No matter how you look at it, it's decidedly hypocritical to ignore the fact that Ken's behaviour (and that of many others at CP) doesn't measure up to any ethical standard, just because they happen to share a tiny piece of your ideology. Röstigraben (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I have made very clear on CP that I don't agree with its politics. Read my user page there - I don't really share Conservapedia's viewpoint... I identify as a religious liberal.... I don't think theism-vs-atheism is more important than other issues; I actually was thinking about today, how could one change the mind of people like Conservative or Andy Schlafly? It is an interesting question to which I am not sure what the answer is. I don't think the direct approach works, as people here have proven so many times.

Actually, main reason why I edit Conservapedia is so RationalWiki people will read it, and react — the obsession so many people on this site have with Conservapedia is very amusing, and anything I can do to help feed that obsession, I am pleased to help. Throw some more logs on the fire. A bit more girst for the mill. Yeah, yeah. I don't see you ranting on about how bad Metapedia is, despite the fact that no doubt about it, Metapedia is far far worse than Conservapedia. Why is poor Metapedia neglected so much? Maybe people could obsess over NatAll75, Basileus, Hu1, Enadmin, German Garcia Perdomo, the same way they obsess over Conservapedia sysops? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 13:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

So essentially, you're editing CP to troll us? Maybe you should put that on your userpage over there and see how they take it. Although it would probably be another thing which you'd have in common with Ken. Röstigraben (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

How about, sending up your foibles? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 14:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Moved from WIGO ASK

Continued from WIGO ASK

I didn't say CMI was trustworthy. I said there is no evidence they are dishonest. They may well be totally mistaken, but that is different from dishonest. Honesty and trustworthiness are two different things - some five year olds may be very honest, many others probably aren't, but I wouldn't trust any of them to perform neurosurgery. Honesty means saying what you genuinely believe, rather than lying and saying things that aren't what you actually believe to be true. Your genuine beliefs can be totally mistaken. Someone can read a scientific paper, completely misunderstand it, quote it to say the opposite of what it is saying, etc. Maybe CMI does all those things. But none of that is dishonest. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The average person does not know enough about evolution to really make a good stab as to whether it's valid or not, and, with religion being far more accessible to the average person, I would say that most make their decision on their religious beliefs. I can't speak for everyone, but I would say that my faith in the validity of evolution is based on the credibility of a collection of tested hypotheses that fits well into a law with a high inductive probability (albeit, somewhat intuitively, as it's impossible to pin down that number). Which came first, my doubt in belief in the supernatural (weak atheist, not strong, doubter, not a naysayer) or my belief in the credibility of science? Probably the latter. I guess for me it is a scientific perspective that's important. For me, that the major theories of all the branches of science "fit" together leads me to think that evolution is quite valid. (Actually, I would say that my atheism is more from a rejection of vitalism than from evolutionary belief. All chemistry, thermodynamics, kinetics, structure, etc. is the same and consistent with tons of observations, and there is no apparent need for the "strings" of a supernatural; if one exists, what is he doing?) I guess the worldview perspective implies a certain causation (evolutionary belief comes from atheism, or maybe the other way around) that I don't think is legitimate, although there may be patterns of reasoning or thought that correlate well. There are, in my view, atheists that reject religion because of its moral teachings/ambiguities (Sam Harris) and those based on the lack of tangible evidence (Carl Sagan?), and probably some overlap between the two in varying degrees. The former don't particularly spend a lot of time on evolution (and some of the latter don't either!). And, people can hold contradictory points of view, especially if you haven't delved into the contradictions.

CMI does go out of its way to smear evolutionary scientists (certainly Philip does); and it does misrepresent evolution and distort the actual science, and create negative associations in a social Darwinistic sense (lots of eugenics pages for example; evolution is not a moral belief). At some level, if the distortion and misrepresentation has been corrected, particularly numerous times, then I have a problem with the organization. (Add: see also presuppositionalism. sterile ^talk 01:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the theory of evolution relies on certain wordlview assumptions. For example, it assumes a worldview of materialism or dualism, in which matter can exist independently of mind. If instead we adopt the worldview of idealism, evolution, abiogenesis, Big Bang, etc., come to be very doubtful theories, since idealism says the universe only exists because minds observe it, which implies that the universe began to exist when the first mind observed it, so we likely live in a much younger universe than the materialist worldview claims. Now, I don't think we have any real evidence to decide between materialism and idealism, so I think evolution relies on a faith-based commitment to an unprovable worldview assumption (materialism).

That's my form of creationism. Very different from Philip et al's - they seem to me to be dualists rather than idealists, believing that matter can exist independently from mind (which I as an idealist deny), but furthermore asserting that mind can exist independently from matter (which materialists deny). So, given the basic ontology of Philip's worldview, evolution etc is actually possible; I think he believes on the basis of his commitment to the Bible that it is false (he thinks he has some scientific arguments, but they are secondary for him to the Bible). Whereas for me, the basic ontology of my worldview rejects evolution as possible. At the same time, I'm willing to accept evolution as a "useful myth", while for Philip it is not a useful myth, but rather a pernicous one.

You clearly believe in the objectivity of rationality, but why not also the objectivity of morality? I argue the two are very similar (they are both systems of positive/negative valuation, and both have oughtness), so it seems to me if we accept one as objective, we should accept the other. But, if we accept the objectivity of ethics, then it seems sensible to me to accept the rationality of faith - ethics being objective, reality will ultimately and finally provide for the triumph of the ethical, no matter how many temporary stepbacks, and we ought to believe this, not on the basis of any particular evidence, but simply because it is justified as rational by the fundamental unity of rationality and morality. This is a path of thought which I believe leads us to accept by faith the reality of God.

Those who oppose religion on the basis of questionable moral teachings, like Sam Harris, are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, in my opinion. Those questionable moral teachings are not essential to belief in God, one can easily be a liberal theist (like I am) and accept a modern liberal morality in sexual and other matters (like I do) and still believe in God. Those who complain about the lack of evidence, need to answer what is evidence, what makes evidence good or bad, what makes evidence sufficient or insufficient, and how do they know these things. They claim to follow reason, but others conceive of reason differently, and they have failed to give a good reason why their conception of reason is right and that of others wrong.

I think it is true, as a matter of historical fact, that Darwinism contributed causally to the rise of eugenics. That in itself doesn't mean Darwinism is wrong, factually or morally. I think a fair argument can be made that Romanticism causally contributed to the rise of Nazism, but that doesn't mean the Romantics were wrong, facutally or ethically or aesthetically, or that they should be held responsible for Nazi crimes. I think you have to understand, that within Philip's worldview, fundamental errors about the accuracy of the Bible, and fundamental errors about morality, will naturally seem closely connected, even if from outside his worldview that does not follow; so, the real historical link between Darwinism and eugenics is enough to ground a certain story within his worldview, while from the viewpoint of another worldview (such as yours or mine), it looks like the significance of those links is being exaggerated.

Not going to get into the topic of presuppositionalism, but let me just say, that while I don't entirely agree with CMI's approach to it, I am much more sympathetic to it than you are. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"If instead we adopt the worldview of idealism, evolution, abiogenesis, Big Bang, etc., come to be very doubtful theories, since idealism says the universe only exists because minds observe it, which implies that the universe began to exist when the first mind observed it, so we likely live in a much younger universe than the materialist worldview claims."

I actually LOL'd at that. It's so deliciously ridiculous. Idealism is an interesting philosophical position. But extrapolating it quite so literally so as to deny the possibility of evolution because the universe can only be as old as the first mind is so arse about face it takes the breath away. And even if idealism is true (but which one?), that the universe is a construction of mind, how does that impact on the age of the universe? Why should time, as a part of the universe, be an exception? There are so many variables, so many suppositions to make about your version of idealism, that it is utter hubris to draw a conclusion like that. And utterly useless as a rational practical endeavour. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is it ridiculous? There is nothing ridiculous about it. Idealism says to exist is to be observed by mind. Since any time prior to the first mind can't be observed by mind, any such time does not exist. So, a universe with 13 billion years of mindless existence is generally not compatible with idealism.

Not completely incompatible, I'd agree. For example, Berkeley claimed that God (a mind) always observed the entirety of the universe. If that is true, then maybe the universe could be 13 billion years old after all. But, that seems to me to be adding an additional complication atop idealism, so is less likely than the simpler form of idealism I propose. (Although I do believe in Goddess, I can't see why she'd bother with observing those 13 billion years just so they'll exist.) Likewise, maybe with time travel, scientists could go back in time and observe some of those 13 billion years first hand, which would thus cause them (or at least those bits of them visited by time travelling scientists) to exist. So, I can't say evolution,Big Bang,etc., is totally incompatible with idealism, just that idealism makes it significantly less likely than materialism does. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are you being so selective about time? Why shouldn't the past not be "created" by mind as well? I mean, on what inventive criteria do you select what and what isn't brought into existence by mind? Of course it's ridiculous. Not idealism itself - although I see little merit in it - but concluding that evolution is false because of it. You have too many assumptions each of which could be wrong to draw such a conclusion. Bit like your religion. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain the version of idealism to which I subscribe - nothing exists but minds and their experiences (qualia). Experiences can be subdivided into experiential atoms, which are located in a multi-dimensional experiential space. Dimensions of experiential space include type of experience (visual, auditory, etc.), and also further type-specific dimensions (e.g. for vision, we have the horizontal, vertical, depth, chrominance, luminance, etc.) Time is a dimension of experiential space. Physical objects are just patterns in the experiences of minds. There is no room in this model for the existence of an unobserved past. Whether there is room in some other version of idealism, I couldn't say without knowing what precise other version you are talking about. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case, the Roman Empire didn't exist for you because your mind didn't experience it. I repeat, it's ridiculous. Not because it's unbelievable (even though it is) but because it's completely impractical. Formation of the moon? Irrelevant because there were no minds to observe or experience it. Dinosaurs? Never existed. Only their fossils exist. And then only the ones we've found!

It's similar to the idea that we're (or you are) living in a computer simulation. That reality is simply a virtually perfect artificial universe that exists only in an abstract simulated reality. Interesting idea. But does anyone seriously use it to disprove evolution? Only wackos. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't confuse idealism with solipsism. Note I said "nothing exists but minds and their experiences", note the plural. I believe in the existence of minds other than my own. Thus, I believe in the existence of the Roman Empire, because although my mind did not experience it, other minds did. But, the formation of the moon? Yes, never happened; or, to be more precise, neither happened nor did not happen. The universe began with the moon already existing. Dinosaurs? Well, they never existed. (My girlfriend gets annoyed at me when I say that, because she really loves dinosaurs. Then I say, well, we'll make them Jurassic Park style, then they will exist... or someone will time travel back to them, and then they'll exist... or maybe on some other planet or in some parallel universe they exist... maybe they were running around with humans, just like Philip Rayment and friends think, or just like an episode of the Flinstones...)

Are my ideas impractical? How? I don't find them impractical. Computer simulations disproving evolution? Why yes, I agree. Am I a wacko? Define wacko... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Because they are little more than thought experiments and, even if true, so what? There's no point in scientific investigation about the formation of the moon or about dinosaurs because they didn't exist? Bullshit. You have no idea whether your idealism or a simulation hypothesis is true or not, you just feel (why I have no idea) the former is more likely than, say, materialism. It is much more practical to act as if reality is material. At least it is if you have any desire to work stuff out. You have worked yourself into a tortuous exclusive impossibility of believing that everything and nothing are true - the ultimate fence sitter. Completely barking. Your type of thinking, taking philosophical ideas completely beyond anything useful, does nothing to advance our understanding of the universe and does everything to pull a veil over reality. Thankfully nobody else agrees with you. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, an afterlife is much more likely given idealism than given materialism. If materialism is true, an afterlife is very unlikely. If idealism is true, then an afterlife, while not certain, is much more likely. Materialism implies the end of my body is the end of my existence. From an idealist viewpoint, if my existence were to end, there is no particular reason to assume that ending would coincide with the end of my body.

As I have said, I have no problem with say scientific theories about lunar formation, so long as we understand them as useful myths rather than literally true. Thus, we can have whatever practical technological benefits they may offer, without believing them.

You suggest there is a practical advantage to assuming materialism is true, but actually there isn't any. Whether idealism or materialism are true makes very little practical difference. But not none - I remember when my cousin committed suicide, and I was rather distraught, and I confided in one of my atheist friends, and all she could comfort me with was some platitudes about how her atoms will become part of stars, or something like that. Wasn't really helpful. Whereas, if my friend had believed in an afterlife, maybe she could have had some more comforting comfort to offer. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

So this is nothing more than a comfort for you? Your religion is useful because it helps you deal with tragedy or even your own death? By making shit up? LOL, I'm sorry to be harsh but really that is of no practical use apart from as an emotional crutch.

Look, I'm as much agnostic about materialism as I am about idealism. But the point is, what difference does it make? Doesn't mean that it isn't interesting to think about and debate. But what the underlying reality is behind our perception is largely irrelevant to deciding what is practically true. Making a judgement about the moon or dinosaurs based on your belief in idealism just takes the whole philosophy too far. The evidence for dinosaurs and that the moon formed (likely a collision between earth and a Mars-sized object) is overwhelming for the former and very persuasive for the latter. Waving them away by saying that they can't be true because... well, what you said above is totally unconvincing. At least to this reality dweller. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with emotional comfort? I believe that faith is to believe that reality will ultimately be nice to us, whatever obstacles it throws at us along the way. You deny this. But you have no more evidence for your denial than I do for my assertion. However, there are some things I believe, for which I have no further reasons, and can't. "1+1=2", "I exist", "Time exists", "Murder is wrong"... these propositions are self-evident. Why can't the basic validity of faith be a self-evident proposition too?

What you dismiss as an "emotional crutch" is in fact of great practical use. If something makes people happier, then it is practically useful.

Our reasons for believing in dinosaurs, or some theory of lunar formation, is based on OBSERVATIONS+ASSUMPTIONS->CONCLUSION. The observations by themselves are not enough to reach the conclusion, you need the assumptions too. But the assumptions are largely hidden and unquestioned. I am calling the assumptions out into the open and questioning them. That is a good thing. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh FFS, nothing is wrong with emotional comfort and yes it is very useful - in a personal and social context. And no, I don't explicitly deny your assertion, only that you give me no good reason to believe it. Taking idealism way outside its "magesterium" is unconvincing at best, woolly thinking at worst.

And no, you are not questioning these so-called hidden and unquestioned assumptions. Scientists question assumptions all the time. You are simply clouding the issue, trying to cast doubt with mystical nonsense. Everything can be interpreted in whatever way you think is valid, all assumptions can be true, nothing is certain nor ever will be. Of course, that could all be true. Reality could be anything we dream it to be - a construction of mind, a computer simulation, a n-dimensional super-alien children's game, God's game even. But again, so what? They are interesting thought experiments, even profound philosophical positions. But they are not satisfactory routes of enquiry about dinosaurs or the formation of the moon.

Your religious perspective is built on nothing but the shifting sands of philosophical ruminations - the anti-realist's dream. Your evidence is irrational wishful thinking, nothing more - I want it to be true therefore it is. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If there is nothing wrong with emotional comfort, why not take emotional comfort as a relevant factor in choosing beliefs? Why should it be restricted only to a "personal and social context", and not treated as a valid consideration (not an absolute, just one consideration among many) in other contexts too, such as the context of belief-formation?

I don't explicitly deny your assertion, only that you give me no good reason to believe it - you have a choice between materialism or idealism. (Or you could go for some kind of hybrid of both, which is dualism.) Do you pick one of them? If so, where is your evidence for the one you picked? Or, you say you are an agnostic. But, if you are really agnostic about which one is true, then you have to be agnostic also about the literal truth of lunar formation theory; since whether lunar formation theory is literally true logically depends on the answer to the materialism-idealism question. If you insist on the literal truth of lunar formation theory, then you have already answered the question - where is your evidence. Science can't distinguish between "lunar formation is literally true" and "lunar formation is a useful myth"; if you choose the side of literal truth, you've moved beyond science into philosophy. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid science is leaving you behind and has been for some time. Physicists already know about all sorts of strange behaviour like the double-slit light experiment - behaviour of fundamental particles that is changed by observation. While CERN is chasing down the theorised God particle, scientists have known for many decades that what we experience, even at microscopic levels, bears little relation to the actual structure of reality - a reality built on forces, probabilities, and quantum structure so unintuitive it is sometimes said that if you think you understand quantum theory you don't understand quantum theory. Indeed it is so different to what we experience at a macro level that many of your fellow mystics jump at the chance to shoehorn their pet nonsense into the gaps of understanding that modern physics is always uncovering.

But unlike the cranks, scientists take this as an opportunity to discover more wonder, more reality. Not simply to dream up half-baked notions of Goddesses and proto-prophets based on little more than an over-extrapolation of an interesting but largely tired philosophy. But to dig deeper, challenge the boundaries. Who knows, maybe one day, particle physicists will smash together two quarks and find a Intel Inside sticker. It's no sillier a notion than other uninspiring sophistry. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with modern physics, or the kind of research they do at CERN. It is interesting and useful. I don't see it as in any way incompatible with my worldview. Some interpretations of quantum theory I would disagree with, like many worlds, but quantum theory itself is fine. I think some interpretations of quantum theory are particularly compatible with idealism, but we need to distinguish quantum theory from its interpretations (the theory itself does not imply idealism; some interpretations of it may, but many others don't.)

The name "God particle" is a bit of journalistic exaggeration. To discover the Higgs boson would be a major advance, yes; but it doesn't have anything to do with God, and that name misleads people in to thinking it does. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It was a physicist who coined the term but, yeah, I think we all know it doesn't have anything to do with God. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how much of a discussion of philosophy I wish to get (and we're way astray of the critiques of CMI), but there's nothing I can say here to dissuade you from your other way of knowing, and nor is there any way for you to provide evidence for it. What I could ask is, within the realm of biology that you have experienced and know about, is the theory of evolution self-consistent?; is it self-consistent with other sciences, such as chemistry and physics?; and are the observations that imply an existence of life outside your existence consistent with current observations? I suspect that the answer is yes to all three. That is, your rejection of the ability to say that dinosaurs existed doesn't change the measurement of their age by radiometric dating, the placement of the fossils, and their morphological structure. The data are, and evolution is consistent with that data. I guess in the same way, you would expect a police officer to look at you with a blank face after you were robbed because he didn't experience it. The crime didn't happen because the police officer didn't observe it. I guess I find your criticism (which isn't really a criticism) much like the creationist argument that evolution can't be tested because much of evolution happened in pre-history, and yet that ignores that you still can form inductions from observations. (We could also get into what is an observation--can you really trust your senses?--which is an interesting topic for a chemist--I've never "seen" an atom, and yet I think it's valid that they exist, but that's for another day.) sterile^talk 13:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I have no problem with the idea that evolution self-consistently follows from its own assumptions. I don't know it well enough to judge for myself that, but I trust the consensus of the scientific community on the issue. (Unlike CMI, who would probably deny that it follows from its own assumptions, and denies the scientific community is trustworthy in this regard.) However, while I don't question the scientific community's competence to make that inference, I do question their competence to establish their foundational worldview principles as being the correct one, since that is a philosophical rather than scientific competence, but their very inability to see this makes me question the philosophical competence of most scientists.

The police officer analogy doesn't work, because it confuses idealism with solipsism. I don't say that X doesn't exist because I didn't experience it, I say X doesn't exist because no one experienced. If the police officer followed my viewpoint, he'd have no problem with accepting the robbery actually happened, because even though he didn't experience it personally, you did.

As to the atom, an atom is name we assign to a pattern in experience. It is a real pattern, as much as any other pattern in experience is real, but there are different types of patterns. The computer I am typing on, the number seventeen, clouds, the United States government, democracy, and War and Peace are all patterns in experience, but they are all rather different types of patterns. Like all these patterns, all an atom is ultimately composed of is the experiences in our minds which lead us to say that the atom exists. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 15:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that assumptions and observations are the same thing? I am not saying that evolution comes from assumptions; I am saying it comes from observations. These observations allowed scientists to reject alternative hypotheses and support evolution. Or, are observations just "a product of the mind"? (Atoms are an entity of a theory that is extremely young, and has only really been deemed valid for the last 110 years. They are evidenced, and of a different nature than a novel. Perhaps I question your scientific competence!) You have not provided any convincing reasons to reject evolution, and absent that, there is little reason to continue this conversation. sterile^talk 17:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm saying OBSERVATIONS + ASSUMPTIONS -> THEORY, roughly. Evolution comes from both assumptions and observations. Scientists excluded other theories because they couldn't explain the observations, but the assumptions were being held constant. The assumptions are hidden, and are not actually scientific, but philosophical. Science is in a dependent relationship upon other disciplines (philosophy is one, mathematics is another)

are observations just "a product of the mind" - observations exist in the mind. The word just is inappropriate, because it suggests that there are other things which don't exist in the mind.

Atoms are of a different nature from a novel - they are both patterns-in-the-experiences-of-minds, but they are different types of patterns. So I don't know how you can question my scientific competence, when I said the same thing as you did. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The assumptions of science must rock, because science is so successful. When I take a drug, I know it will work with a confidence interval that I can likely look up. When I discover that two people are identical twins, I can predict their genetic similarlity. When I burn wood, I can be sure to get carbon dioxide, water, and nitrogen in the presence of excess oxygen. When I throw a ball, I can be sure that it will follow a parabolic path to my eye, minus a small correction for relativity. And when I look out my window, I can be sure that the tree I look at and the bird that flies by is my long distant cousin. That is, I have no reason to doubt evolution, and you still have not provided reasons for me to do so. sterile^talk 23:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yet, alternative assumptions can produce the very same results, so those assumptions don't rock after all, they are just historical accidents. One can do science with idealist assumptions, and produce all the same practical benefits as science with material assumptions produces. The only difference in outcome is beliefs about distant time and space, which beliefs are not of practical relevance - especially since, idealist science being willing to accept materialist beliefs as "useful myths", any possible practical benefits of those beliefs idealist science can still accept, without accepting the literal truth of those beliefs themselves. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Science need not be practical (much of it isn't), and practicality is not an indicator of validity or even its value. That the laws of nature are different far away in time and space is a useless myth of your idealism. (You rhetoric not only doesn't impress me; it bores me.) Does you idealism allow you to believe in relativity? Likely not, because your perception is just one way of slicing the spacetime continuium, and depending on a person's speed, at least one person's slice incorporates the far away distant past of a non-moving observer. You then are necessarily rejecting the evidence for relativity for entirely selfish reasons.

It works for evolution as well: Evolution is science, and if you, as an idealist reject it, without providing evidence for doing so, then you are rejecting the scientific method and its results. That is, you are not rejecting it because you have falsified it; you are rejecting it because of your own arbitrary reasons. "Idealist science," then, in this conceptualization, is an oxymoron. (I can see why creationism interests you; the pick-and-choose nature of your beliefs would be of interest.) And your philosophical competence is irrelevant.

You still have not justified that CMI is an honest, credible organization, by the way, which is the topic at hand. And this is your third strike for the doubting of evolution dialog. This was vaguely amusing for a few days, but I see why everyone else here has rebuked you. I would warn Maratrea that my personal god Günther is hungry. She may not last the week. sterile^talk 14:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Why bother with science? Because it produces good stuff like technology or medicines or so on. Science justifies itself in terms of practical benefit - not all parts are of equal direct practical application, but science is justified on the grounds that even those parts which are seemingly without any practical relevance now will produce practically relevant outcomes somewhere down the track.

That the laws of nature are different far away in time and space... I don't believe that, and I haven't argued that. I do say, the laws of nature are just patterns in our experiences. I have no particular problem with the theory of relativity.

As I understand it, idealist science is the same in actual scientific content from materialist science, it just interprets some of that content differently. For example, materialist science accepts the theory of evolution as literally true. Idealist science is happy to accept the theory of evolution as, largely literally false, but nonetheless a useful myth. In terms of producing scientific results, there is no reason why idealist science can't produce identical results to materialist science.

I have never argued that CMI's beliefs are right. I have said, they may very well be mistaken about many things. I never said they were credible, in the sense that an expert witness' testimony is credible. I just said they aren't dishonest. Suppose there is a murder trial, and the prosecution wants to call a high school science student as a DNA expert. Obviously, the high school student is not a credible expert on DNA. However, that doesn't mean the student is being dishonest; whatever they believe about DNA, they may well genuinely believe it (which is the criteria for honesty.) Honesty and credibility are two different things. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You've implied it. If you don't believe in evolution because it's before Homo sapiens then you by extension are denying that the laws of science applied before that time. What have you done to falsify evolution such that it's "literally false?" Can you name one individual who considers him or herself a practicing "idealist scientist"? A lot of research, probably most of it, is basic research, which has no immediate, direct "practical" application. That it should be so is a misconception of the layman public. sterile^talk 19:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't deny the laws of science applied before the first mind; I deny there was any time or universe then for laws to apply to. That evolution is literally false follows from my idealist assumptions, which while they are unprovable, are no more unproveable than your own materialist ones. I am not aware of any practicising scientist who does idealist scientist, but I don't see that as an issue, since the scientific practice and conclusions are identical, it is only how we interpret those conclusions at a philosophical level that difers. I don't deny that a lot of research is basic research which lacks direct, immediate practical application; but there is no denying that basic research has indirect, longer-term, practical applications, and those practical applications are a major justification used by the scientific community itself to get funding for basic research. So even basic research is ultimately justified by its practical applications, to a significant degree. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"Literally false," then means, "assumed to be false by me without evidence" or "asserted to be false." sterile^talk 21:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't have evidence for their literal truth either. All the evidence for their literal truth, is compatible with the position that they are literally false yet useful myths. So, I may assume and assert, but so do you. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Science can't "prove" anything, so I don't know what you mean by "literal truth." It can only disprove. You can't say you've shown something to be literally false without providing reasons, or at least, the word "literally" has no meaning as a qualifier and neither does "false". That is, you have not demonstrated that evolution is false. sterile^talk 12:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Science can't distinguish the positions (1)"if evolution predicts X happened 500 million years ago, X actually happened 500 million years ago" and (2)"there was no 500 million years ago, so any predictions of evolution for then are false; but the predictions of evolution in the present are true". Only the present day predictions of evolution are falsifiable, not its predictions about the past. (Fossils, radioactive dating, those are predictions about the present, because the fossils exist in the present, and so does our radiometric testing.) You adopt position (1), I adopt position (2), but there is no evidence to decide between them, so shouldn't we really be agnostic about them? We can't test without a time machine. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice! Another conversation fractured and then dominated by Maratrean! We're all better people now. 20:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Nutty, if you don't have anything worthwhile to say, why bother saying anything? You don't like it when I participate in conversations, because you don't like to hear people arguing seriously for perspectives radically different from your own. But, the undeniable fact is, so many others respond to me. If no one is interested in what I have to say, no one will respond to anything. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Interested? It's more a horrified curiosity. Ajkgordon (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you want to call it. The point is, it takes two to have a conversation, and both I and others are willing to carry on the conversation, so on it goes. The moment one side or the other loses interest and decides to stop responding, the conversation dies. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

But you're not agnostic about your position, even though you claim there is no evidence. And yet you've built an entire religion based on it.

Completely hatstand. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I use faith to break out of agnosticism. But if you don't accept faith as valid, then I think agnosticism is the only other alternative. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

So it really is down to what you want to believe, right? And you base your extraordinarily detailed religion on that? I think we've just come full circle. Ajkgordon (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my religion is based on faith. But, as I argue, the materialist/atheist/evolutionist/etc worldview is also based on faith. Since, without faith, we are stuck in agnosticism between idealism-vs-materialism, omphalism-vs-non-omphalism, etc. The moment you turn from agnosticism, whether in my direction or in some other, you are turning to faith. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

So you repeatedly claim. You'll not be surprised to learn that I and probably everyone else here remain totally unconvinced. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence to decide between idealism and materialism, omphalism and non-omphalism, etc. I decide between them on the basis of faith. If you decide between them on the basis of evidence, please present your evidence. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Rinse and repeat. Material evidence is accepted by the vast majority of sane people because of Occam's Razor, i.e. it requires fewer and less complicated assumptions. Idealism, on the other hand, requires an assumption that a hugely complex entity - a mind (or minds) - creates the universe through observation. The mind itself would need explanation for its existence, its creation and so on. This is simply an unreasonably complex assumption so is therefore rejected by the majority.

The faith that you claim you use to break out of agnosticism is all you have. But faith is normally based on reasonable assumptions, even if those reasonable assumptions (like in established religions) are ones based on an historical culture and accepted wisdom. You have none of that. Your faith and consequently your new religion is, as you implicitly admit, based on nothing but wishful thinking. It's unreasonable and irrational. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand, logically, if you can get the other side to agree to a contradiction ("we can't prove one or the other, so we must accept both/neither" (the two are logically identical as they both make a contradiction. (P and not P) is logically identical to (not P and not (not P)))) then you can prove anything. It's, I believe, the Principle of Explosion. So, if he can convince us to agree that we have to reject both P and not P, then our materialist naturalism is now no better or valid than anything that he could possible spew forth, because we've based everything on logical contradiction. I must applaud Maratrean, it's a brilliant gambit of sophistry. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 14:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I understand what he's doing.

It's one thing to debate interesting philosophical ideas on the nature of reality and even to hope that something might be true based on those ideas. But to use a vague "faith" to extrapolate this preference beyond all bounds of rationality and then to base an entire new religion complete with deities, proto-prophets, and morals on nothing more than contrived logical contradictions and wishful thinking is beyond me. Accepting reality as evidence for the material ("I refute it thus") is enough for proof for most of us. It's a reasonable assumption to make that what we experience is reality (including, of course, the sometimes weird and unexplained results of particle physics and cosmology). It's also a reasonable assumption to make that what we perceive as reality might be something radically different and even beyond our understanding - and even that some form of idealism might be true. But the assumption tells us nothing except that we don't know - a beautifully rich challenge to science and reason.

Maratrean's religion is nothing more than breath-taking hubris. Whether that is brilliant or not is a matter of opinion. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

@Eira, I myself would not base an argument on the principle of explosion, since I myself tend to disbelieve in that principle. I am sympathetic to Paraconsistent logic, in particular the work of Graham Priest.

@Ajkgordon: I don't agree with your application of Occam's razor. I think Occam's razor actually prefers idealism, since idealism only posits the existence of minds, their experiences, and patterns in their experiences; materialism accepts all of these, but adds an enormous number of physical objects as well on top, many of which are absolutely unknowable. I don't believe mind needs an explanation for its existence; mind is a necessary existent. Mind is not a hugely complex entity, on the contrary it is enormously simple, having nothing to it other than its experiences and the structure of those experiences - which experiences materialists admit the existence of.

You say my faith is not based on reasonable assumptions, but I dispute that. Idealism is a reasonable assumption, at least as reasonable as materialism is. My faith goes a lot further than idealism, but at every point I believe it is based on reasonable assumptions.

You are mistaken when you think your experience clearly demonstrates materialism. It doesn't. It only seems to because you are looking at the world through materialism-coloured glasses; materialism is so deeply an ingrained habit of thought for many, that they do not even realise it is there. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, there I think we must leave it. We could go on but I believe we are simply going round in circles. I see no merit in your arguments and remain totally unconvinced for the reasons I have stated. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem confused, M. False is not the same as not being able to know. And rabbits in the Precambrian.... sterile^talk 18:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"there was no 500 million years ago, " Maratrean, would you care to offer some support for that position ? 67.72.98.47 (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC) (yes I saw ceiling cat and couldnt be bothered to log in)

Sterile, when I said "most of evolution is literally false, but nonetheless a useful myth", I was stating one of the options. The other option is "all of evolution is literally true". Without faith, we can't know which of these is true. By faith, I claim to know the first is true rather than the second. If you claim to know the second is true, I am not sure how other than faith you would know it. As to rabbits in the pre-Cambrian, since I don't believe in the existence of that time, there were no rabbits then, but then neither were there not. As to the rocks we label "pre-Cambrian", I would not expect to find rabbit fossils in them, since that the useful myth of evolution predicts we won't.

67, as I have said, I am an idealist, I believe things only exist because minds observe them. To the best of my knowledge, there were no minds observing the universe 500 million years ago. Hence I conclude, 500 million years the universe did not exist. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

so fossils which appear to be living creatures do not represent evidence that minds existed ? Do you believe in 1862 or 1912 or 1945 ? Does a mind observing large talking mushrooms prove their existance ? 67.72.98.45 (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

you raise the question of whether other minds exist. I am not a solipsist. I believe in the existence of other human minds. So I believe in 1862, 1912 and 1945. What about animal minds? Well, I think some higher animals have minds as humans do, but other animals are just soulless machines. So, I doubt minds existed 500 mya. Go back a little bit further, into the Pre-Cambrian, it is quite certain there were no minds 600 mya. If the simple "minds" which existed in the Cambrian era really count as minds (which I doubt), there can be no doubt there were no natural minds on Earth prior to the Cambrian explosion. Which, ignoring the possibility of extraterrestrial life, or supernatural minds choosing to observe the universe, implies the universe is younger than 600 million years old. Does a mind observing large talking mushrooms prove their existence? Well, "to exist" for physical objects is to be a pattern in the experiences of minds. A large talking mushroom is an experience in mind, so it exists. But, a private hallucination v.s. a shared experience are different types of patterns (one is private to a single mind, the other is common to several minds.) Does that answer your question about large talking mushrooms? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

DNFTGW. (Do not feed the goddess worshipper.) sterile^talk 10:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed, thanks muchly. Since several people reported the giant talking mushroom I must accept its actuality based on your comments. Your definition of mind is absolutely facinating since without any actual evidence you deny the existance of things. The possibility of swarms of softbodied jellyfish singing complex poetry in an ode to life has never entered your mind. 67.72.98.45 (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to believe in the talking mushroom, good for you. I accept such a thing exists, but it is not of the same nature as say a chair, because there is less consistency in the experience of it (both within the same mind, and across minds) than there is for the chair.

I believe other minds only exist because God loves us, and loving us she gives us what we truly desire, and we desire the existence of other minds, hence other minds exist. The web of love inspires God to create minds for all human beings, and even some animals (like people's pets). But I see no evidence that web of love extends to jellyfish. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you solve a mystery for me?

What happens to an 18 hour bra after 18 hours? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It catches fire in a spontaneous act of rebellion against heteropatriarchial oppression. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm much smarter now. But why does Donald Duck wear a towel when he comes out of the shower, when he doesn't usually wear any pants? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse talked him into it. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I get it! You're a parodist!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Busted! Go back to Conservapedia. This is a serious website and I will not stand worms like you under my ruling. --Idiot number 58 (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You little nasty worm!

Squirm, squirm!

I can confirm

Your account is not long-term!

--Idiot number 58 (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A parodist? And what pray tell am I parodying? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You're doing Bizarre Eliezer Yudkowsky.--^talk 10:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Technical details

mediawikiwiki:Manual:Hooks/SpecialRecentChangesQuery, $conds[] = 'rc_title != Human/The Sanctuary Of MarcusCicero, He who refuses to bend the knee to tyrants, he who refuses to obey the whims of megalomaniacs'; or something like that. -- Nx / talk 21:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

SMITE

I smite your page. The Goddess Maratrea (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I responded here. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to criticize RationalWiki, do it here.

I'm unimpressed. The "Criticisms" section might as well be titled "Maratrean's Criticisms of RationalWiki," especially with a lack of independent sources in the article. I haven't tracked all your edits here, but if you ain't bringing the criticisms here, I have no respect for your bad mouthing RW over at ASK. sterile^talk 21:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, I've made many of the same criticisms here, and on RWW (see e.g. here), and elsewhere. For example, the most recent point I added to that aSK article was "Many RationalWiki editors adopt a position of scientism, ignoring the real limitations of the scientific method, and mistakenly insisting that it is the only way to truth". I have made the exact same point here, actually before I posted it on aSK. See here, "I would argue the scientistic position (very common on this site) is both clearly false, and also self-defeating". And there is a fair amount of subsequent discussion over that point.

I like how you equate criticising RW with bad mouthing it, as if RW is some sacred object which is beyond all criticism. I agree the article is mostly my opinion, but others have read it and made changes, or suggested changes I have incorporated (Philip has done all of these; in fact, now I see that you have changed it too). I am actually hopeful to get some other critics of RW contributing to it, but so far no one other than me has taken a great interest. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I'd like to see evidence of where we invade the privacy of CP sysops. Conservaleaks wasn't hosted on RW, we merely commented on it - according to you that makes us responsible for invading their privacy. By the same logic every person who viewed and linked to the leaked BNP list three years ago was invading privacy. Or every person who tweeted the identities of those protected by super injunctions. If ever someone posts private info on this website the official line is to remove the information and tell the person who posted it where to go - this has happened several times with low and high profile editors. You've been here long enough to know that's the way we do things here Maratrean, and that the actions of RW editors operating off-wiki under other handles do not reflect this website. As far as the "double standard" thing goes I don't recall any public attempts of others to invade RW users privacy. SJ ^Debaser 21:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You cite cases of national or global significance, where one can make an arguable case that the public right to know may trump the individual right to privacy. However, Conservapedia is an insigificant website, which most of the world ignores, except mainly for its own members and many people on this website who are obsessed with it. So, it is much harder to make a case that there is a genuine public interest here which justifies overriding the individual right to privacy.

We have the fact that the main page of Conservaleaks identifies 3 RW editors as its sponsors/editors/whatnot - Psygremlin, Mountain Blue, and Thunderkatz. So that is 3 out of 4. (As to who Wondergoy/Georg Kraml is, I don't know, so I don't know whether he has edited RW or not - quite possibly he has under a different name.) All three are reasonably significant members of the RW community. Conservaleaks seems to have been mainly advertised on this site, and on Psygremlin's blog. There is minimal or no criticism on this site of the leaking of Conservaleaks (if there is any, other than myself, I can't find it, please point me to it.) I don't think the fact that Conserva9aleaks was hosted elsewhere really changes things - the point is that a member (or members) of the RW community were involved in the leaking, many more RW community members (including on this site) have given tacit approval to it by using it, and by not criticising the leaking or those who did it. The boundaries of the RW community don't have some magical border around whether something is on rationalwiki.org or not. The RW community arguably also includes RWW, and interactions between RW members on other websites, and through other means of communication (e.g. email, IM, voice, etc.) RW commenting on say Wikileaks, or the BNP member list, is different, both due to greater public interest in those things being leaked, and through the fact that RW is clearly independent of the act of leaking, rather than having several of its members be involved in it.

As far as the "double standard" thing goes I don't recall any public attempts of others to invade RW users privacy. - just as there is a fair amount of private email interchanged between CP sysops, so is there a fair amount of private email exchanged between leaders of the RW community (the RWF board, the old crats, the current moderators, etc.). If leaking private email of CP sysops is not a privacy violation, will these people be happy for their own email exchanges to be published to the whole world to see? I'm sure we can find therein some juicy behind the scenes tidbits regarding recent HCMs. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me interject here: the moderators do not conduct any secret discussions. Everything we do is open and public.--^talk 07:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

So, no moderator has ever sent an email to another moderator? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No, of course we have emailed each other. But nothing moderator-related has been discussed anywhere but in public, and that will continue to be a firm rule.--^talk 08:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your (and some of the other mods) assumption that things can be neatly partitioned into "this is moderator-related" and "this isn't". (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

...really? It's not terribly hard. When Ace emails me to ask me if I am okay because of an earthquake, that's not moderator-related. When we discuss votes or problems, it is moderator-related. I mean, it's not rocket science, champ.--^talk 08:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

you pick two extremes of a continuum, and ignore the grey areas in the middle. Suppose one mod emails another mod with some commentary on some goings-on on the site, or some particular user. Later, they are called upon as a moderator to get involved in some escalation of that going on, or some issue involving that user. Suddenly, what was an email about a non-moderator related issue has become a moderator-related email, retrospectively even, since that email might be seen to influence later discussions between moderators, even if all of those are (as you say) public. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that hasn't happened with me. Nor do I imagine it's happened with anyone else - although I can't be sure, I very much doubt there's "juicy details" to be had. At most, you might find one of us saying to the other, "Wow, that Maratrean is super annoying." Strictly speaking, that's not ideal (if it's even happened) but since we're all also pretty open about such things (p.s. I think you're super annoying) I don't consider it much of a problem. We're allowed to have personal opinions, after all. And I would absolutely trust that none of my fellow mods have discussed any moderator actions directly and coordinated or anything.--^talk 08:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Juicy" is a relative term... as juicy as Conservaleaks, none of which is particularly juicy at all. Hey, if it it's all boring and harmless, you won't mind uploading an archive of it on to the Internet would you now? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have nothing to hide, then you have no reason to be afraid, eh? A little too police state for my tastes. Just because I haven't done anything wrong doesn't mean I have any desire to give up my privacy, comrade.--^talk 10:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure Conservapedia sysops feel the same way. But no one cares about that. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

So wait... are you arguing that because someone at CP leaked their private emails, then out of fairness we should publish ours? Or what?--^talk 11:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone with the connivance of certain RW members. To be consistent, one would expect RW to either release its own emails, or at least criticise the leaking of CP's as an invasion of privacy. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I guess I know less about Conservaleaks than I thought! Which of the seven moderators leaked the stuff?--^talk 11:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I never said any of the moderators did. You are latching on to moderators specifically, when my point was actually how would you like if influential members of this site had their private emails leaked. This site has no exact analogue to CP's sysops, but the essential equivalent is those in a position of power and respect (however de facto). That is a much broader category than the moderators, although the moderators has a significant overlap with it. As I said, the old bureaucrats and the RWF board are also elements of this category. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, okay. So your argument is that the release of the contents of a private discussion board and emails is not just a violation of trust and an error of judgment, but also ethically wrong. And because the people who did those things were prominent users of Rationalwiki, then Rationalwiki is obligated to vote on an official stance condemning the tactic or every member of Rationalwiki who is a prominent member should publish all of their own private correspondence.

Just so we're clear, this is what you're saying?--^talk 11:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it was the wrong thing to do. I think RW should take a stance; but, it doesn't even need to be that; if there was some serious disagreement about it, that would be enough. If people would spend some of the time they spend on endless silly HCM about MC or whatever, to argue about whether Conservaleaks was the right thing, my criticism would be void, even if no consensus conclusion is reached. So by no means does there have to be a vote on it. But the silence amounts to a de facto endorsement. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

And failing a serious discussion, then you want all prominent members to publish their own private correspondence with all other prominent members, because we don't know what conversations might become relevant or "juicy."--^talk 12:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't want you to. I really don't care whether you do or don't (so long as is a consensual thing of course, rather than being forced upon people, like it was forced upon CP sysops.) It's like a child is hitting another child, and you say to the first child "would you like to be hit? then don't do it to others. if you hit others, surely you won't mind if they hit you back?". I'm not actually advocating that the first child be hit, I am trying to get them to realise that they did the wrong thing by hiting another. And if they don't get it, well I'm still not going to say hit them, but I am going to say they have a problem. Which is exactly what I have been doing. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Well, that's fair enough.--^talk 12:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The thing about your crits there is that you are a member of RW, and a fairly active one at that. As RW is merely an entity consisting of all its members, each contributing their own flavour, you really have to say you're criticising yourself too. If you need to criticise, you'd have to go after individual users, as the site itself doesn't have a personality to describe as flawed. (You're effectively making the same mistake Yudkowsky did when he called RationalWiki "clueless" because of a single misreading of one of Tetronian's posts) We're not as diverse as we'd like, but we're considerably more diverse than a lot of people think. You simply cannot say that the site itself practices a strict doctrine of anything because we have no one enforcing that doctrine. ADK^{...I'll earn your diet pill!} 12:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. The site has a culture that goes beyond any of its individual members. Why can't Conservapedia use the same arguments? Hey, we are nothing but an assemblage of persons, you can't categorise the site as a whole, only the individuals. Oh, and some RW editors edit CP too - if they criticise CP, are they therefore engaging in self-criticism? Yet this site was basically founded to crticise CP, although it has to some extent branched out to other things since then. So your argument makes it impossible to criticise CP, which then basically means RW would never have started.

Yes, I edit this site rather heavily, but I think there is no denying I am a countercultural editor. So, criticising the primary culture of this site isn't really criticising myself. Now, I don't completely reject the site's culture, there are some aspects I agree with (e.g. a tendency towards centre-left politics overall, a rejection of "alternative medicine" like homeopathy or so on). On the other hand there are many other aspects of its culture that I strongly disagree with (tendencies toward atheism, materialism, scientism, "rationalism", rejection of religion, rejection of faith, rejection of objective morality). And I think in terms of Conservapedia specifically - I agree completely that people like Andy Schlafly or Conservative or Karajou or Ed Poor have their flaws, and I disagree with them on many issues, but the obsessive interest some people on this website have towards Conservapedia seems to me to go beyond reasonable crticism and almost becomes a kind of stalking or harassment. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Most criticisms of Conservapedia go into the individuals. Whether it be Schalfly's mismanagement or Conservative's, erm... "specialness". I don't think there's a general "CP is this that and the other", but consdiering that it's a far smaller group of key players (half a dozen, perhaps) compared to RW's ~50, it would be a slightly more acceptable approximation. Obsessive interest in those people, of course, I find hard to fault your reasoning that that is not a good thing (harassment and stalking being almost an understatement). I'm not sure why you would agree with the political slant but not the religious slant, however. If anything I think the political slant is RW's weakness (that is, we attract more left-wing than right-wing, primarily due to it being a response to CP) as it does blinker the views slightly and I think political biases get in the way of clear thought - think Penn & Teller's Bullshit on an off day. The religion thing I don't see as a problem, although it is an area where we could benefit with a tiny bit more diversity, e.g., MDB's (if I recall correctly) comments on the subject. But that's more of a case because there's only so much I can shout at Bob before getting bored. RW can't become "neutral" in the same way Wikipedia is, otherwise we'd just shift off to Wikipedia and be done with the hassle. If we became more generally accepting of it then either articles would have to turn neutral (where we may as well move to WP because there's no point in competing) or we take the view that they're all right, which is an absurdity. More than anything, though, I'm just saying you can't remove yourself from the overall culture as it's composed of everyone and we all contribute to it in some way. Some more than others, granted, but that culture isn't an existent entity and is composed of multiple people with different views. No one individual is exactly as the overall culture. ADK^{...I'll pull your hobgoblin!} 11:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

And isn't criticising the culture actually a way of contributing to the culture? Every criticism is a proposal for change, whether or not that proposal is accepted by others. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So.....

How popular is your Church? Can you handle the flow of people?

Btw, how old are you? --Earthland (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It is still early days for my faith, the flood has not yet come. I'm nearing thirty. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about MC commenting

I'm not offering anyone a sanctuary, but I do think, if someone is going to be reverting another editor's posts from my talk page, that someone should be me.

Then please do it. If you don't, someone else will, per the new community guideline.--^talk 00:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I hid it instead. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, but from how I see the new guideline, that is insufficient. The community voted that he was banned and his IP edits should be reverted, and then further voted that no one could allow a "sanctuary" where his edits could remain. That means you can't have a separate little page or a hidden section or any other sanctuary. I'm sorry, but this is clearly what people voted.--^talk 00:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I should have realised that attempting to compromise with you is hopeless. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This isn't my will or some sort of authoritarian power grab - when Human had his sanctuary, I specifically defending its right to exist based on our rules about people's talk pages. At that point, no one had any right to delete troll comments from someone's talk page if that person wanted to keep them. But after the community agreed by a 19 to 1 vote not to allow such sanctuaries (unsurprisingly, you were the 1), you don't get to "compromise" with the rule and only partially ignore it.--^talk 00:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That vote was about having a subpage explicitly advertised as a "sanctuary" for MC. That is not what I am doing. I am simply trying to exercise my own discretion, on my talk page, as to whether he is allowed to comment on it. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

So you're not trying to provide a sanctuary where a troll can stay and comment, just a special section where a troll can stay and comment. Hm.--^talk 00:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No, not a special section. I welcome anyone to comment in any section of my talk page. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ok. So you're not trying to provide troll sanctuary where a troll can stay and comment, you just want to let the troll stay and comment. Unfortunately, the community took a vote and disagreed. I apologize for any inconvenience, and especially for the fact that you seem to feel persecuted.--^talk 00:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not being persecuted, you are just being extraordinarily petty. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You're next

If AD is unwilling to compromise, I will just delete the whole conversation. If anyone wants to read some comments by Marcus Cicero so outrageous that they have to be censored, you can look at the page history. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, this is getting sad... --★uːʤɱ sinner 00:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue, of course, is not the comment of the messages. But a recent vote on the community guidelines has provided that if a user is blocked and we're reverting their IP edits to limit their trolling, then no one user can defy the whole vote of the community and just ignore that policy by operating a sanctuary.--^talk 00:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in discussing the finer points of site policy with you or anyone else.

That being said, surely you see there's a difference between adhering to the guidelines of a community that you choose to be a part of and disobeying the law when the stakes are mass murder or genocide. Please don't tell me you think those are exactly the same thing. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 04:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No, they aren't the same thing. But they are at two ends of a continuum. We use the extremes to clearly justify the principle, then we can ask whether the same principle can be applied to less extreme situations also. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This is all getting far too silly. MC was dick, had been a shit stirring prick for almost 4 year, everybody got sick of his bullshit, he had plenty of opportunities to defend himself and stop being a fuckwit, he didn't so we got fed up with him. What's the big fucking deal? Ace^{of Spades} 04:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And what was the harm in Human's sanctuary? Especially once hidden from RC? None actually... If you want to ban MC, fine; it is this "anti-sanctuary" policy I disagree with, rather than the original ban. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Because MC has been a pain in the ass for four years and we got sick of him. This is a fucking website, not the UN. You wanna talk to MC then fucking email him - I have his address. Ace^{of Spades} 04:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Why all the anger? Why do you let MC get to you so easily? Why can't you just ignore him? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

MC doesn't anger me, but you are. The community made a vote - if you don't like it that's tough. he had plenty of opportunities to defend himself and stop being a fuckwit, he didn't so we got fed up with him. The vote carried. Tough shit buddy. Ace^{of Spades} 04:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

So I anger you because I disagree with the majority? Why all the anger? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I am always angry, drunk and unreasonable. Now I am off to be felated by your goddess, stand aside. Ace^{of Spades} 04:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Instantly she transforms herself into an obese elderly man, then agrees to your sexual proposal. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh snap. I have been bested. Ace^{of Spades} 04:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

your protest

MC is banned. Try and understand that letting his comments stand after his ban defies his ban. He is banned, and therefore does not get to post. --User:Brxbrx/sig 01:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There are two different understandings of "democracy". One is "winner takes all", where the majority lords it over the minority and gives no quarter. Another, better, understanding, is where the majority is willing to show some respect to the minority, and try to compromise them, even if they have the numbers that they don't have to. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Good thing this isn't a democracy, it's a corporation owned and ran by trustees who delegate authority to the moderators. Please Google "Devolutionist" before arguing further. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) The most successful democracies run a middle ground between majoritarian tyranny and a rigid consensus model in which one naysayer can hold up the entire parade. This is why we have the moderators in the first place: before, a consensus was needed to take any action on anything, so we could get nothing done, causing a catastrophic failure during the crisis in May. Now, a majority vote can cause a user to be banned, but only if the moderators call the vote based on some wrongdoing. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Right, and Conservapedia is owned by Andy Schlafly, yet people on this site object when CP is insufficiently democratic for their tastes... I suppose, we can't criticise the actions of the RWF board or the mods, because the RWF owns the site and the mods are their delegates... in the same way that we can't criticise the actions of Andy Schlafly or CP sysops, since Andy Schlafly owns CP and the CP sysops are his delegates. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Fifteen bucks says you didn't even Google it. Still, I will point out that Andy is criticized for mismanaging the site t the point where it could devolve into a toxic community of power-obsessed sociopathic admins. RW is simply instituting order when there previously was none, or very little. I fail to see what's so bad with having enough rules that the wiki doesn't explode into HCM the instant somebody says something someone else doesn't like. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

We can criticize Mr. Schlafly and his pals, just as we can criticize the trustees or the moderators, but we have always acknowledged that Mr. Schlafly has the right to run his own Wiki his own way, no matter how much we dislike it. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that you are free to both contest and vote in both the board and moderator's elections. - π 02:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And I voted in the moderator elections (I thought about running, but decided not to this time, I might next time). I wasn't around when there was a boardvote (what is the term?). But, the ability to vote doesn't negate the validity of criticism of an elected body. When someone criticises a politican, do you respond with "If you don't like them, vote for someone else, or stand for election yourself". That isn't a very useful rejoinder. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. To be exact, I reply that they were legitimately elected by the will of the majority, however misguided as that may be, and that the minority should respect that decision and abide by it until the time comes around to change the occupant of the position. Before you jump on it, I did not apply this to Bush II mark 1, so there's no cognitive dissonance there. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

So, except for rare cases where there is a question about the integrity of the election process (e.g. George W. Bush's first term), I take it you refrain from criticising the decisions of democratically elected political leaders? If that's your approach, fine, but most people don't see things that way. People have a right to disagree, to criticise, to protest, even to engage in civil disobedience, against political leaders, regardless of how large a margin they were elected by, regardless of how free or unfree, fair or unfair, perfect or imperfect, the process of election was. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you do not refrain from criticizing the elected leaders; you refrain from breaking the law. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC)There is a difference between "academic disagreement over the law" and flying in the face of authority by refusing to obey it by working against it. You seem to think no such distinction exists. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 03:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

So you reject civil disobedience? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I do, yes. I am aware that this is an unpopular view that many people don't share, but that's fine, because I don't need to go around yelling that the majority is oppressing my views because they're the majority and that THEY SHOULD RECOGNIZE MY VIEWS INSTEAD OF THEIRS BECAUSE I AM SPECIAL. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 03:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I am not too hot for civil disobedience; but in any event, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s justification of civil disobedience included the caveat that all violations of the law must be performed openly and with a full willingness to accept any legal penalties. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

@TheEmperor: Let's suppose, hypothetically, that there is a political party called the "Kill all Odinists party". They win a majority vote in a free and fair election. They then come around to round up all the Odinists to be taken away and killed. They also make it a crime to hide Odinists from the death squards. Even though I myself am not an Odinist, I feel this law is very wrong, so I decide to hide some Odinists in my attic. I am breaking the law, and defying the will of the majority. How would you judge my action?

@ListenerX: same hypothetical for you — isn't it true that sometimes we should break the law, even secretly, even try our hardest to escape the consequences of doing so? But anyway, in this case, I have been quite open about my actions, whether they are "breaking the rules" or not. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't hide between stupid hypotheticals. We're not idiots. The words you were looking for are "Nazi" and "Jew". Use them, to do otherwise is insulting to us and you. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 03:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) There is a very similar principle in Odinism, although it is somewhat weaker. One is expected to behave in an honorable fashion and take the penalty for any violations of the law, but one does not have to sound a trumpet before him during the act of breaking the law, as required in Rev. King's formulation.

As to your "hypothetical," that is actually no hypothetical; the man who led the historical "Kill All Odinists Party" was named Charlemagne. And, since it was believed that the king represented the lawful authority, when he ordered the pagans to convert to Christianity, they really had no plausible grounds for refusing. Germanic-Christian missionaries converted entire countries by convincing kings to become baptized. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

@TheEmperor: Even if my example is partially inspired by the Nazi persecution of the Jews, I intentionally didn't use that as an example, because it leads to arguments about history that are irrelevant to the hypothetical. For example, were the Nazis democratically elected? Possibly in Germany, although people will argue about that; but definitely not in the occupied countries. And while they were open about their antisemitism, one could argue they weren't so open about how murderously antisemitic they were, and that people who voted for them might not have if they realised this. But all these things are beside the point of my hypothetical. I actually originally was going to use <insert group here>, then because I am talking to ListenerX I settled on Odinist instead.

@ListenerX: So, do you think they did the right thing, obeying Charlemagne? Maybe, Charlemagne's actions revealed that their ideas about law and kingship were somewhat mistaken? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

How about instead of using ridiculous hypotheticals, you either use 1) legitimate historical examples, or 2) plausible hypoheticals? That would make it so much easier to debate, rather than you just running in circles going "Well what if...?". --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 03:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The validity of a hypothetical is not determined by how plausible it is. Philosophy is full of very unlikely hypotheticals, even impossible ones. In some ways, the less plausible the hypothetical, the better, because it gets people's attentions away from the irrelevancy of "could it happen?", on to the actual point which is "what should we say if it did?" (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the reason no one listens to philosophers. As to Charlemagne, Christianity was the religious equivalent of bubonic plague; there was nothing that could have stopped it. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of people listen to philosophers. Much of what atheists say about their atheism is just cribbed from philosophical critiques of God; likewise, much of what theists say in defence is likewise cribbed from philosophical defences of God. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

┌<span style="display:inline-block; overflow:hidden; width:em;">────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Those are just amateur philosophers, though. Ordinary people are more concerned with what flavor of coffee is served in the church basement after the service. In its very early years, Christianity did not draw in suckers with high-falutin philosophical concepts, but with love-feasts, giving out free bread to the poor. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of so-called "common sense" is just what philosophy turns into given a few generations. I agree though, that free bread does attract people. Actually, I propose to attract them with a free spitroast instead. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit break 1

(EC) Likewise the RWF, and its delegates, has every right to run this wiki however they like, and I have every right to criticise them for the way they choose to do it. Which is exactly what I am doing here. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to imagine some scheme where a community vote would no longer be held to be binding, but would have to then be a starting point for a compromise made with each person who didn't like the results. Like say we voted to remove someone's editing rights because they kept protecting a bunch of pages to eliminate an opposing view, would we be oppressing him if we didn't agree to let him just protect a couple of pages that he never wanted anyone else to edit?

Obviously, community votes need to be binding on everyone in their full extent.--^talk 03:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to imagine what could be the possible harm in MarcusCicero commenting on my talk page. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

He is banned from the Wiki. If he edits any page he is violating the ban. That it is your user talk-page is really of no consequence. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

But people can interpret "banned" in a more or less absolutist fashion. If one took a less absolutist view, one could say e.g. that most of his edits be reverted, but if he edits a user's talk page, let that user have the discretion to decide how to respond to him. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The incident on Human's page pretty clearly established that "banned" meant "banned from editing the site". At this point, the fact that you are debating something so non-debatable is ridiculous. Thunderkatz^Ho! 03:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I know, this is just ridiculous. It's like the community voted that the background of the site be white, and Maratrean is saying, "Well, I want it to be black. So how about we make it gray?"--^talk 04:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that if MC wanted to chit-chat with you so badly, he could just drop you a line at one of your various made-up religion sites instead of posting here. Just sayin'...--Inquisitor (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The whole Human's talk page incident showed how petty many people here are. Nx's solution, of keeping the "sanctuary" but hiding it from RC, was a perfectly reasonable compromise. But the mob wasn't willing to compromise, it was baying for blood. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

We are following what is actually a common precedent across the Wikisphere: if a user is banned, the user cannot edit any page; if the user circumvents the ban by using another IP, that IP is blocked. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Think of it this way: MC broke the law, and is now in prison. Democracies do that.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ever heard of a man called Draco? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have. We're stopping MC editing one website amongst millions, not chopping off his head. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 04:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not just let him edit my talk page? Ban him from the rest of the wiki, but let those editors who want to let him edit their talk pages do so. A simple compromise. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, we took a vote on that very issue. And there was enormous agreement not to do that. I'm sorry you don't like the outcome, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore it.--^talk 04:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And I am free to object to, criticise, protest, and condemn that outcome, and you can't stop me from doing so. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I would never try to stop you from objecting to, criticizing, protesting, or condemning anything on the wiki. I will always defend your right to say whatever you want on RW, and you should always be able to criticize any decisions by the mob or moderators with leather-lunged strength and tenacity. You just can't ignore the outcome of votes, is all.--^talk 04:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can ignore whatever I can get away with ignoring, can't I now? We'll see what happens, won't we? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I guess if you want to try to break the rules as much as possible and see if you get caught or "get away" with it, you're free to do so.--^talk 04:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Protest all you want, that's fine. Break the rules, though and you'll pay the price. Legalism really is remarkably simple that way, innit? --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 04:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Would I? I've been here long enough to know that in most cases, the consequences for breaking the rules vary from slight to non-existent. Then again, maybe there is one rule for the insiders, another for Ausländer such as myself. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I can think of three cases in the past in which the rules were enforced vigorously: firstly, that of Fall down, the misogynist vandal; secondly, that of TK, banned for making legal threats; thirdly, that of UncleHo, banned for making death threats. The rules will be enforced against people who push the community hard enough. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, but I haven't done any of those things. So far all I have done is (1) Unreverted a comment of MC on my talk page (2) Put {{collapse}} around MC's comments on my talk page (3) Complained when AD reverted (2). None of that falls into those categories. Even if I was to repeat (1) or (2), which I haven't as yet, it still wouldn't fall into any of those categories. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Rulebreaker here! Yeah, there are consequences--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You folded. Rather than vigorously fight attempts to desysop you, you desysoped yourself. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I avoided unnecessary conflict. Quite the opposite of what you are doing. Please just drop this.--User:Brxbrx/sig 11:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not allowed to express my disagreement? Are you suggesting I should stop expressing opinions which others disagree with? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm suggesting you make the choice not to stir shit and remain silent. It is your choice, but to me the answer is clear. Cause strife for the sake of MarcusCicero, or peacefully go about your business? That poem, "first they came for X, then they came for me" didn't mention rapists, did they?--User:Brxbrx/sig 11:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand my objection: I want to be the judge of what gets reverted on my Talk page. If other people want to revert MC on their Talk page, let them. In fact, I even tried to compromise with the reversionists by hiding one of MC's post, but the reversionists don't know what compromise is. Frankly, a lot of what MC posts is rather silly, but I'd rather let him post his silliness than silence him. And, are you accusing MarcusCicero of rape? I am not aware of any evidence of that. That is a pretty serious accusation to be making against someone. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't sacrifice yourself

You must survive to fight another day. Don't provoke them anymore than you have to. Email me if you like, you have my adress I communicated with you before. 86.46.169.205 (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Who will be next to mess with my talk page? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and MC, I don't mean you by that — as far as I am concerned, you are welcome to post on my talk page whenever you feel like. I mean the person who will come along and delete your comment against my wishes. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Buddy

You have been at RW what, 6 months? These MC issues have raged 4 years almost with many, many solutions proposed, put in action and failed. Now we have mods and the mods in association with the RW community made a decision. It wasn't some fascist do as I say rule. There was a vote, there was discussion and a final decision made. Whether or not you like it is irrelevant, it has been decided by popular vote. Please respect the decision. Ace^{of Spades} 09:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because something is decided by popular vote, doesn't mean I can't criticise it or disagree with it. You are essentially saying that I should stop expressing my opinion. No decision is ever final; whatever decision is made can be revisited or adjusted, either by another formal vote or simply de facto by the way the situation evolves. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion, I never said you can't have it. But nonetheless the RW community decided something - so please respect the community decision. No decision is ever final; whatever decision is made can be revisited or adjusted Then propose a vote but continual complaints without action just makes you a pain in the ass. Ace^{of Spades} 10:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If I see the topic being raised, I reiterate my objections. I don't bring the topic into unrelated conversations, do I now? And don't pretend I'm the only person who disagrees with the decision, I'm not. We have Human, Eira (one currently a board member, the other was one until recently) who have expressed the same disagreement, and others too. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

OK but by raising issues already decided over and over by the community at large expect to a) not be taken seriously and b) told to get over it. Ace^{of Spades} 10:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

We have Human, Eira (one currently a board member, the other was one until recently) who have expressed the same disagreement, and others too. Yeah but the majority decided against you so, you know, deal with it and either propose a new vote or get over it. Ace^{of Spades} 10:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, it is irrelevant who the board members are - they have no special rights to the matter. Ace^{of Spades} 10:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As much as you wish it would, this issue isn't going to go away. It might die down for a while, but it will re-erupt sooner or later, I promise. Given the history of all of this, do you really think it is going to go away? You try to "solve" it, but the so-called solution just gets people off-side, which doesn't bode well for its long-term success. Maybe the real long-term solution here is to aim for consensus rather than majority wins, to try to find a solution that as many people as possible can support, as opposed to just whatever can get a majority vote?

Board membership isn't irrelevant; it is one measure (not the only measure) of community influence. One does not have to be a board member to be influential, but there is no denying that board members are more influential than average. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that in this case 'consensus' means the rest of the wiki roll over and go along with whatever you think is right. We have tried for consensus. LArron just put up a graph that showed that RW has 250 unique editors per month. I can think of four editors who have come out in support of MC, and at least two of them seem remarkably resistant to anything that isn't 'let MC do as he likes'. Trying to get them on board isn't consensus - it's letting a few people hold up a parade. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

there is no denying that board members are more influential than average ...See here. I am going to bed with your goddess now. Ace^{of Spades} 10:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Their official role is completely irrelevant to whether they are influential or not. Anyone who manages to get elected has greater influence than average, regardless of the parameters of the specific role you are elected to. Hope you have fun with her — did you know that, in an act of sympathy with HIV victims, she has made herself HIV positive for today? Don't you worry, she'll cure herself tomorrow. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That fallacy there is that other members (myself included) have come out opposed to letting MC have free reign on this Wiki. So putting the argument for letting the troll roam free into that perspective, the numbers of Board members who think he should be allowed to post versus those of us who oppose letting him post or who (like me) don't really care so long as the troll isn't fed cancel eachother out. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 08:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. The Goddess Maratrea (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Quiz: How many times has the Goddess Maratrea been infected with HIV? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In an act of sympathy with the poor folks suffering from affliction with a Y-chromosome, I have decided to turn myself into a man for today. Now, if my prophet would be so kind as to bend over... The God Maratreus (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Didn't anyone tell you about the whole colostomy thing? The hole you are seeking cannot be found... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying you know more about me than I know about me? You really make it seem like you're making things up as you go along. The Goddess Maratrea (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ask Taba. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

My bat sonar says you ARE making this up. Taba (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This is why I consider it inadvisable to make up one's Gods on one's own... ListenerX^TalkerX 14:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

ListenerX, my servant, I completely agree. You will never get this problem with following me. Other gods suffer impostors to edit this wiki pretending to be them; I will permit not any such thing! You can know, that any words of mine which you read upon this wiki, are truly my words. And anyone who dares to impersonate me, I will strike them down, they will be dead by the end of the day. The God Odin (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Silly Odin. You cannot strike me as dead, as I am the most powerful:

“”Maratrea is the greatest power, for there is none who exceeds her in power, for there is none who can resist her will. Lesser gods will say - I commanded you, but you did not obey - but so great is the power of Maratrea, that none have the power of disobeying her. Everything that ever has been or ever has been, has so been by her will and her power; and whatever she wills to be not, by her power it is not, never was and never shall be. She has all power to be had, and whatever power she has not, there is no such power.[2]

This is what happens when you let Norse gods on a wiki. Next that loud Thor guy will be showing up and making all sorts of racket. The Goddess Maratrea (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If you actually understand what that section is saying, it is saying that whatever happens is Maratrea's will. Thus, if Odin (or "Odin") came here, it is only because it was Maratrea's will that he do so. Seems somewhat strange to be complaining about something that you ordered, doesn't it now? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

But may be Maratrea's will that she complain! She is choice-less in the matter. NDSP 16:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Certainly "fake Maratrea" has no choice but to do what real Maratrea says... Real Maratrea made him/her come here, and say what he/she said. But, real Maratrea, she has choice, in a sense — indeed, in a sense, she is the only one whose choices are truly free. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

So Maratrea is not omniscient, as she doesn't know what her actions will be. As her actions affect us, and she doesn't know what they will be, she does not know the what the effect on us will be. If she doesn't know what the effect (of her actions) on us will be, does she (in any real sense) control us? NDSP 10:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, whatever anyone knows, she knows; whatever she knows not, no one knows, and is not that it might be known. She of perfect memory, perfect is her recollection of the future.

She knows what she will do tomorrow, for she remembers what she did tomorrow — in circular time. But that does not make her choices unfree — her choices are a necessary consequence of her own nature, but they are free for there is nothing outside of her influencing or controling them. She cannot do other than as she does, for she cannot be but who she is, and she is what she does; but still, she is free, for she is subject to no one other than herself. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I know what my pedantic protoprophet will write on this wiki. The Goddess Maratrea (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Maratreanism?

What exactly is Maratreanism? I've have never heard of this religion until now. When was it founded? Does it have any "scripture?" Please explain. ^{— Unsigned, by: Moderateman3345 / talk / contribs}

He looked at several of the existing religions and thought "hmmmm, none of these seem quite preposterous and ridiculous enough. I know, I'll make up my own one!" And that's the truth. Really. Poor fucker eh? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 07:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a sample. It is in no way altered from the source, the Maratrean Wiki (members: 1)

"The Terror Taba is a gigantic bat which lives beneath the earth, in a subterranean cave. He is seven cubits tall and has fangs and claws one cubit long, and a seven cubit wingspan. The holy Prophet Travancus taught that he waits patiently the passage of aeons, sleeping in his subterranean cave, until the final days. To the Saviour to Come shall be revealed the rite of his evocation; thus shall he be called up to the surface, to fight in the final battles, unto First Triumph. A great bat, upon whose back many may ride as he flies throughout the air; and who shall drop great stones upon the armies of the enemies of the Cause, to crush them therewith."

I couldn't make this stuff up.--^talk 07:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that really is bat-shit crazy. :) --Schroedinger's dog (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What the fuck? Did Xenu bury him in his "subterranean cave"? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No. I did because I am more powerful than all the gods of every single religion. You know why? Because I am real!!! The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 08:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

On a more serious note - this guy creates endless tl:dr edits here, on ASoK, on his own wiki, on his blog, in fact anywhere where he can find an audience. It would appear that promoting his silly religion is his sole occupation - but then, I guess, he's the protoprophet.

Maybe he needs to get a life. Jack Hughes (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we need to block his motherfucking ass? His huge walls of pointless rambling text do my head in, is there any way we can automatically add the collapse template thing to any of his edits over a certain length? (say 10 bytes?) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 09:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No point in blocking. He's mostly harmess. If the tl;dr stuff annoys you then just scroll down. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah we don't block people for being annoying.--^talk 10:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

How about people worry about actual trolls rather than the mythopoeic minority? ListenerX^TalkerX 02:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

He only does it to get backwards links to his Google sites page to boost the rank: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], although he seems unaware that MediaWiki adds nofollow to all external links. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

A few points. I am no longer the only member of my Wiki, I recently welcomed none other than our very own Ace McWicked. I do know about nofollow, I am not putting those links there for Google, I am doing it in the hope that a human being might follow them. AD, you are focusing on a rather peripheral aspect of my religion; the more important points are here. You also ignore the second paragraph of the page you quote, which has the Prophet Claretta saying I do not believe them... For these were but tales he told for the amusement of children. In fact, it is no requirement in Maratreanism to even believe in Travancus or Claretta. As to Moderateman's questions, it is a rather new religion, and does not as yet have scriptures, but does have some protoscriptures. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If by "it is a rather new religion" you mean "it's a rather made-up religion," then I suppose you have a point. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 10:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of people here will say all religions are made up — how is mine any different from the rest of them? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's start here: who, other than yourself, actually practices your religion? The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 10:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

A small group of people. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This isn't one you can win, Goonie. No one can win this. Just don't get too close to the whirlpool of crazy-words.--^talk 11:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC)How small? 3 people? A dozen? 3 dozen? 200? And how long have they been around practicing this religion? A month? A year? The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 11:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

At the smaller scale of the options you give. I have only been a Maratrean since, well, I am not sure, it would have been 2008 maybe. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

But, you miss the point — being old, or numerous, doesn't make you right. Nor does being new, or few, make you wrong. You have to judge the beliefs for themselves, not on the basis of how old they are, or how many believes in them. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

He is actually totally correct here. A greater amount of followers wouldn't make any of his bat...stuff any less crazy. BTW, I think, maybe we should all read Poe's Law. :o) --Schroedinger's dog (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Out of what evidence (oral or physical history, for example), does your religion base its various stories and explanations? For example, Christianity uses the various accounts recorded by various individuals in what later became the Bible to back up its stories. What events or actions back up your religion? The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 11:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

My religion isn't really focused on history. Well, it does have its stories, but no one is required to take them literally. For me, it is based on faith. But really, we have to answer the high-level question "Is faith valid?" (without reference to the particular kind of faith) before we can drill down to my religion's faith in particular. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Taba is Batman. Taba (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

“”The Terror Taba is a gigantic bat which lives beneath the earth, in a subterranean cave. He is seven cubits tall and has fangs and claws one cubit long, and a seven cubit wingspan. ... A great bat, upon whose back many may ride as he flies throughout the air; and who shall drop great stones upon the armies of the enemies of the Cause, to crush them therewith.[10]

Mmmm.... Can't you understand your own metaphots? Batman. To the batcave! The Goddess Maratrea Taba (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As soon as you have a creature somewhat larger than a grizzly and with short stubby wings (compared with a real bat) then, as soon as it gets airborne, you know you have a true miracle! Fuck that bitch, the goddess, I'm a follower of the bat! Jack Hughes (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I will know the end days are nigh when I see a square bat hurling through the sky. Hamster (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This story makes no sense. There's a giant bat with badass claws, but it defeats armies by dropping rocks on them? You could make these scenes a lot more awesome, I think. Maybe start with some Godzilla movies for inspiration. Also, has Maratrea really still not adopted the metric system? --Benod (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

People are ignoring the second paragraph of the page AD quoted:

“”Now in the days of Claretta the Prophet several went unto her, saying, We wish to believe every word which the most holy Prophet Travancus spoke with his mouth; but these words, which he spoke, we cannot bring ourselves to believe. But Claretta replied: As to these words of his which you do not believe, I do not believe them either. For these were but tales he told for the amusement of children. Yet, if some among these children still believe these tales when they are children no longer, what harm thereby eventuates? And, if any believe in these tales with enough earnestness, they may even cease to be mere tales, but become thereby truth.

That passage makes it clear that one is not required to take this particular tale as literally true. Certainly, I am not inclined to accept it as literally true. So, those above who are trying to poke holes in its possibility, that is rather besides the point. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If Maratreanism does take off and becomes a huge religion over the next few hundred years, RW might get unearthed from some dusty server deep in a basement and be lauded as the 24th century equivalent of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

So, Maratrean theologians will be pouring over our various mutterings and divining all sorts of religious connotations out of them.

We could some fun! Ajkgordon (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

From the wiki

“”For these were but tales he told for the amusement of children. Yet, if some among these children still believe these tales when they are children no longer, what harm thereby eventuates? And, if any believe in these tales with enough earnestness, they may even cease to be mere tales, but become thereby truth.

So if enough of us really believe then Tinkerbell the giant bat lives. Come on guys, close your eyes and start believing. This one has got to be worth a try. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If you believe in him with sufficient seriousness, maybe he really will exist, if not in this universe, then maybe some other one. But I doubt you have it in you to actually believe that with such seriousness; so, if it does become true, it won't become true on your account. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 13:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Typical woomeister hand waving. If the published result fails to appear then it's down to lack of faith and/or it really happened but you didn't see it. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The "multiverse" theme seems to be popular among wooists. A friend of mine (who is also a bit crazy, but not about bat-stuff) has this explanation about why homoeopathy seems to work for some people, while it has been shown not to work when tested under controlled conditions: Every person lives in his/her own "personal parallel universe", and in some universes, well, the laws of physics are just a little different, so for some homoeopathy works, while for others it doesn't. That's why it's also inherently untestable. According to the friend, this is state of the scientific knowledge. QED. :o) --Schroedinger's dog (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the universes are ever-dividing. But their division is non-instantaneous. And what can divide can also merge. This leads us to the idea, that maybe I exist in multiple universes simultaneously. There is no my universe, there are only my universes. Thus something may be both true and false at the same time. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Most evidently so. The only thing you forgot to mention is the Flying Spaghettimonster, which appears in all parallel universes, as it created every one of them instantaneously (think instant noodle soup), see our holy scriptures for evidence, RAmen. --Schroedinger's dog (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I never claimed any "published result" would appear. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No, your woo has all the typical hallmarks of appearing to promise without actually doing so. And then, when the apparent promises fail to happen it's blamed on a mixture of insufficient faith - the same excuse psychics use when the fail under proper investigation - and weasel words about not actually promising. You know and I know that giant bats are never going to happen in this or any other universe where the same laws of physics apply. Jack Hughes (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No, your woo has all the typical hallmarks of appearing to promise without actually doing so. I appear to promise without doing so? I don't think I appear to promise anything about a giant bat. Nowhere have I promised a gigantic bat.

And then, when the apparent promises fail to happen it's blamed on a mixture of insufficient faith - Since no gigantic bat was promised, the lack of one is not a failure of any promise. Even if you had sufficient desire (note I said desire, not faith), you still might not get your giant bat, because sufficient desire only promises it will exist in some universe, which may well not be this one; insufficient desire does not promise it will exist in any universe (although it might as a consequence of another's sufficient desire, or as some unintended consequence of some other sufficient desire of yours).

and weasel words about not actually promising. - you misinterpreted me. I have never promised anyone a giant bat. Yes, I have a Wiki page describing a giant bat, but I never intended anyone who read it to necessarily believe there is such a creature. The second paragraph of the page should make that clear. And anyway, even if it maybe is less than perfectly clear, you should interpret it the way I meant it to be interpreted - I am right now providing clarification of what I meant by it.

You know and I know that giant bats are never going to happen in this or any other universe where the same laws of physics apply - that may well be, but what about other universes with different laws of physics? (Actually, maybe same vs different laws of physics is not an absolute, but rather a continuum, of laws nearer to and further from ours.)

(((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious: so if you don't think that the giant bat does exist or necessarily will exist ("in our universe", if you prefer) then what is the point of the story? Could you have written a story about a giant rabbit, instead, that would have been just as valid under Maratreanism? Are you consciously and knowingly writing fiction that your beliefs hold to be able to become possible fact if you wish hard enough? Because that's what it sounds like, and that is bizarre and Time Cubishly strange.--^talk 11:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

One day I suddenly became completely obsessed with bats, I don't know why. To me, I understood this as the revelation of the bat god Taba. If you love bats, you might appreciate the story. If you don't love bats, it will seem peculiar.

I have no particular desire for this story to be true. But, as a general principle, I do believe that if one wants something to be true, strongly and deeply enough, then it will be true, if not in this universe, then in some universe. If it does not come true in this universe, Maratrea will create you another one in which it does. That is how much she loves us - she loves us enough to create entire universes for the fulfillment of our desires, if our desires be deeply-felt, as opposed to mere whimsies. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Please define the exact difference between the two. NDSP 23:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

We can't define everything exactly. Define love exactly, hate exactly, democracy exactly, Poland exactly, desire exactly, knowledge exactly, belief exactly, humanity exactly, the list goes on and on and on... But, I can give you an approximate definition. Would you kill for something? Would you die for something? Would something make your dreams come true? Or destroy them? Something that would make your life worth living, or make your life worthless. These are the matters of life, and death, of our deepest dreams and fondest loves, these are the matters of deep desire. If Anders Breivik gunned your boyfriend or girlfriend, sister or brother, son or daughter, or best friend, surely would you wish that they had not died but instead lived — that is true desire. If you wish the Pittsburgh Steelers had won Super Bowl XLV — that is probably not, even if you happen to be a big Steelers fan. But, the very same object can be true desire for one but not for another. The teenage Neo-Nazi sits daydreaming in class, "I wish Hitler had won World War II" — that is probably not true desire. On the other hand, suppose you are Helga Goebbels, 12 years old, and it is 1 May 1945, and you are struggling in vain against your parents' plans to murder you and your siblings, and you think "I wish Uncle Adolf had won the war" — well, that probably is true desire. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I am Batman. Taba (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I bow to your superior battiness. Just keep flapping those wings! Jack Hughes (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"she loves us enough to create entire universes for the fulfillment of our desires" I remember some desires as a teenager that never came true. What good does it do me if the object of my desires is put in a different universe to myself. Hamster (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

After death she will grant you knowledge of another universe, so intimate, so complete, you will near forget that it is not your own. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Let us worship!

Behold! Taba!

Jack Hughes (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Taba (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Let us pray to the holy bat lords... aren't they cute? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: I've come to bid you greetings.....

You popped in and asked me a couple of questions pertaining to my note to Amitakh Stanford..... so I thought I'd return greetings. I didn't want to copy/paste what I wrote on my TLOS|talk page to here..... I thought you might have already read what I wrote back..... However, I feel that as with splinter religious groups, multiple ideas have raged over the centuries within so many different cultures that the questions of the beginnings is being affected and effected ( consequences and influences thereof ) by far to many. What 'We' as the One's who exist now must keep in 'mind' is that the truth is the only answer. The problem with that is the question: Where do We find the 'Truth'??? It is fine to say this is it or that is not ..... but needless to say none of Us are really right or wrong for that matter. If Our individual connection is what is supposed to be the 'Truth' for that particular individual - who is anyone to say that there is a right or a wrong in anything. Most of the carbon dating of the recent 3 sites found, one of the coast of India and one of the coast of Japan - exceed time dates of up to and including 32,000 years.....I for One will never question 'What Is' for that Is What it Is..... As for any type of religion - I can't take One direction over another ..... Labeling is like trying to charge money: for example: Rael..... This whole connection is not about descriptions or thought processes - it is about knowing within One's Self the 'Truth' and experiencing that 'Connection' to 'What Is'..... If 'We' have to place names and numbers to these types of understandings with One's Self - then it all ends up having No meaning at all..... So ..... sometimes sitting back and listening, doing One's inner work more emphatically - do 'We' then have a chance to 'See' a bit deeper into Our Own 'pandora's box' of 'whatever is in there'..... cleanse out the hurts, etc, etc, etc..... of the past and end up being given and intrinsic view of Our Intuition therefore allowing it to take over - as it should be the one thing that does control our path - that to which is Us. Only Our Own Intuition has the right of way ..... like lying in a raft, floating calmly down a stream, no big rocks in the way, no waterfall at the bottom, only the deep blue of the sky above, watching the dancing clouds make their beautiful pictures. There are no paddles and this is on purpose for We are to float faithfully down this lazy stream and let what is to be..... just be. Sometimes it is necessary for Us to realize that there is only some control over things ..... the rest is on the leaves of Trust and Faith that all is going to reveal..... patience is the main key here..... nothing can happen before it is to happen. That is the Law of the Universe..... and No One can change that course ..... Thank you for sending me a note - I am glad you connected..... TLOS 11:34, 21 August 2011

Fast writing.

3 articles in 15-ish minutes. That's fast.--En attendant Godot 00:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

PS are these stubs, or is that pretty much "all there is to say" about the books. I know some of the NT letters of Paul took forever to try to write, cause there was just nothing to say.En attendant Godot 00:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I copied them from elsewhere. They are however entirely my own work. I originally wrote them on aSK, and then copied them to my Wiki, and from there to Amerwiki, CP, and now also here. Anyway, its just a start, I expect the articles will evolve in different directions on each Wiki.

If you look at how long WP's articles are, one can say a fair bit more. But, I don't think the aim of RW articles should be to duplicate WP, they should give a brief summary of the topic, and any particular points which might be of specific interest to RW people. The meaty details can live on WP. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Then I don't think there is a point in having them. To me, articles on wiki should never be "summaries" or "glance overs" of WP. we are never going to be WP. at rw, we have points of view - we are trying to push agendas slightly (hopefully rational ones). So I hope we focus on things like the politics of including or not including these works; the importance of authorship to show that it's not literally true, etc. But that's just me. one editor among many.En attendant Godot 00:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you get the factual core down, and then you can move on to focus on the politics etc. as well. If you think its pointless having articles on these books, well the same then could be said for many of the books of the Jewish and Protestant canons. If individual books of the Jewish Tanach / Protestant Bible are worthy of articles, surely then individual books of the Catholic / Orthodox Bibles are also. I think the rationality is to try to cure a lot of the Protestant myopia that goes on, not just among Protestants — even many who aren't from a Christian background at all seem to equate the Protestant position on things (including the Bible) with the Christian one, when Protestants are only one branch of Christianity. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The sort-of-stubby overview nature of these articles would provide a good launching point for commentary and snark, but I wonder if there's any overlap with the "Guide to" series of articles?--^talk 02:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, i think it's pointless to have most of these books in there. Genesis, levi, maybe teh synoptics as they relate to a "real jesus" - but no one will ever read our article on Galatians -- i don't think anyone has ever even read galatians. ;-) but, people wanted it, and I loathe shoddy work more than I am going to stand on principal, so I wrote, edited, or expanded most of them to be something at least factual. It was a project 2 years ago - trying to prove the bible was "wrong" or something. I don't know.... anyway. When i edit, my philosophy is always "what will I get out of an article here, that I won't get at wiki" -- if i can't answer that, i don't add it. I think lots of people add articles here, just cause they can and not cause they are really thinking about what this article says about us, or what we say about it. (Sapho, as an example)En attendant Godot 02:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally, i hate the "stubby" stuff. It is just more stuff to have to clean up. my take, only.En attendant Godot 02:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm relocating the "guide to" articles, by the way. they really are not "guide tos" they are just articles about the various books in the bible. we intended a "guide to the bible" 2 years ago, and the books were part of that, but it is just an odd title for them. Mata's stuff isn't overlapping, though, since it's from the deutrocanon.En attendant Godot 02:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yeah, that move sounds like a good idea. I guess I'm ambivalent about the articles, but then I'm an inclusionist, and I usually vote to keep things rather than delete.--^talk 02:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a community page, so you are very right. I don't tend to delete (unless it's uber stupid), but i do tend to ask "hit and run" or stub writers if they would consider what they are writing, first. or, i just add it to my list to "fix" "someday" "when i think about it". my list is long. En attendant Godot 02:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You've been here long enough

..to know better than to drop in an article with no links to or from any other articles, right? B♭maj7 So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. 01:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed (((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Still no links out. B♭maj7 So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. 01:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Better? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"Holy Maratrean Sigil"

Might I be permitted to upload a vectorization of your symbol? Your most recent employment of it makes me dizzy. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. Yeah, I should make it an SVG... my graphical abilities are not that great though. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There you go; I am not dizzy anymore. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to upload a png version, if you type [[File:HolyMaratreanSigil.svg|140px]] the wiki will automagically create a 140px png of it. -- Nx / talk 10:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

But then the background is transparent, and I wanted it to be a solid colour, to cover up the RW logo underneath.... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah. -- Nx / talk 21:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Block

Why did you block Nutty Roux and AD? Kirk Johnson (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Given they can both unblock themselves in 5 seconds, does it really matter? Not Maratrean (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I hurt his feelings and he is under the impression that people can give out serious-time blocks to sysops at will. Which I guess isn't so bad, but I think he's overreacting to what is just a weird text glitgo away Maratreanch.--^talk 12:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The length of time one blocks a sysop for is irrelevant, since they can remove or change the block themselves. If it was a non-sysop, different story, but Maratrean didn't block any non-sysops (unlike Jack Hughes). Really, being a moderator, you should be trying to encourage everyone to get along, not inserting mean remarks about others and then reverting them immediately... that is why you deserve metamoderation. Frankly, you all do, your contribution as moderators has been rather lacking. Not Maratrean (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I blocked a non sysop on the knowledge that it was the sock of a sysop so the effect would be the same. The non sysop could get have got the person they are a sock of to unblock them. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

He's not a sock, he's a handkerchief. And he just died. Dear old friend of mine... I feel sad. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a reason that people who block each other for non-trivial time (anything more than a few seconds) usually either mean it or immediately undo it. For one, it's symbolic. For the other, this is really fucking annoying.--^talk 12:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As if it hasn't happened to me or to you before. Doesn't matter if the block is for 1 second or 1 year, if it happens to be active when you hit submit, that happens. And hey, you and SR and Nutty are pretty "symbolic" too. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Surprisingly, it does matter. In fact, the odds of that happening within the year are about 31 million greater if you block someone for a year rather than a second. Just take it under advisement: we generally try to give blocks for serious lengths of time only when we are serious about them. And if you were serious about them, then you didn't have a good reason and it was block abuse - if of the mildest sort. Just FYI.--^talk 12:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

{ec}Mara, please stop pissing people off just to prove some point. You're a nice guy, so stop acting like a petulant shit (I'm going to level with you, I am not entirely sure what petulant means and I don't feel like looking it up). RationalWiki is still free. Of late there have been stirrings of rebuking members for acting like dicks, but is that so bad? I would say that it's good, actually. If someone showed up to you house and took a dump on your couch, you'd kick him out too, right?--User:Brxbrx/sig 12:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

And people get so "pissed off" by an infinite block of someone who can unblock themselves in 5 seconds? Or are they "pissed off" when others disagree with them? They rebuke one or two "dicks" (really dumb word, should be stricken from the vocabulary), while some other just as big "dicks" get to strut around with their heads held high, even get elected "moderator". If the residents use the couch as a toilet, can they really complain when a guest does it? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It's annoying having to unblock yourself. And I think the site is moving forward with regards to civility. There are malcontents, but we are progressing.--User:Brxbrx/sig 12:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not going anywhere as long as certain of the "moderators" are actually among those malcontents. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Next elections, I suppose. Additionally, I'd like to point out that upon donning the mantle of moderator, some have begun acting more responsibly. I'm thinking of Ace, who's even gone against Human once or twice in order to uphold the law.--User:Brxbrx/sig 12:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Is that because he values the law? Or is that the Marcus Cicero exception? Frankly, some of the mods aren't that much worse than MC, but MC is the guy who it's cool to hate. Personally, MC has never posed me such a problem as some of the mods have. His insults have such an air of hyperbolic self-deprecation about them I struggle to take them seriously. On the contrary, while MC's insults are just play (even if from time to time he takes play too far in a juvenile way), certain of the mods say things which one gets vibes of real hate from. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Maratrean and Brxbrx tag teaming each other to paint me as the worst moderator on RW is a delight. Others who've paid attention realize that Brxbrx is sore because I've taken him to task for being the worst rights abuser we've ever had on RW and I was the first one to get Maratrean's number and openly wish he'd go away. You two are among three editors who believe as you do about me because you're among the three editors with whom I've had very strong words. Keep bringing me up in conversation after conversation to carry on your grudges all you want. You guys are the ones who look like assholes, not me. 13:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Nutty, you are the number one reason why the entire concept of "moderators" is a joke. The moment I saw you had been elected I realised the whole institution was a doomed farce. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 13:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you had been elected would a law have been passed that we all have to convert to Matreananismisticthingy? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No, on the contrary, if I was elected, people would be free to believe what they wish, and to advocate for what beliefs which they wish about the big questions of philosophy, theology, politics, science, etc. I would however seek to ban certain things, such as swearing in an aggressive (as opposed to flippant) way, and turning debates about an idea into debates about the person proposing it. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 13:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Fuck that, you crank _joking! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Goddessspeed! (((Zack Martin)))^™ 13:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course you feel that way, Maratrean. You're an unwell and petty crank who's unable to see that my response to you has been radically different than my response to the wiki at large. Unlike you, I deeply care about RW's continued existence and furtherance of it mission. And I work on that without other motivated editors in the background. You've been busy concern trolling all over the internet about how RW isn't rational but that you somehow are because you're civil (you're hardly civil) and because your fake religion is somehow internally consistent with your deeply flawed views on a number of subjects. I'll leave it to the good people of RationalWiki to evaluate my behavior and judgment on their own. Looks like nobody takes you seriously anyway. I don't know why I would. 13:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the only person with such an opinion of you, there are others with a similar opinion to my own, as you are well aware. I'm not aware any of those others share my beliefs about religious or philosophical issues. No one is perfectly civil, but people have called me civil who will not say the same of you. But, let me offer you the hand of peace, and say that I will try to be nice to you, and you will try to be nice to me. Will you accept? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 13:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably not, somehow Nutty only stop shooting when there's nothing to shoot with anymore. Also, you are right about that, Maratrean. --★uːʤɱ kant 20:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

seek to ban certain things, such as swearing in an aggressive (as opposed to flippant) way Yet you rebuke us for banning MC who would have been the worst abuser of the law you'd seek to impose? Ace^{of Spades} 21:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I voted goat on banning MC. I have opposed the obsessive, over-the-top, enforcement of the ban, but did not oppose the original ban itself. Anyway, MC swears aggressively sometimes, but so do some of the mods, so if we are to ban MC, certain moderators should be banned at the same time. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, MC swears aggressively sometimes, but so do some of the mods, so if we are to ban MC, certain moderators should be banned at the same time. But you are the only one suggesting people be censured for swearing aggressivly. What's this "we" business? Ace^{of Spades} 09:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's standard English usage, and surely you must know that. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you idiot. Why should certain moderators be banned? Ace^{of Spades} 10:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

For personal attacks, aggressive swearing, etc. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Since when is swearing a bannable offense? -- Nx / talk 10:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeated aggressive swearing should be a bannable offence. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

But it was you who said I would however seek to ban certain things, such as swearing in an aggressive (as opposed to flippant) way followed by so if we are to ban MC, certain moderators should be banned at the same time. MC was never banned for aggresive swearing so who is this "we" that should banning moderators when it was you that proposed you would do such a thing if you were a moderator? Ace^{of Spades} 11:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Banning MC may well be an example of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Who is this we? It is the we of we should do X. It is talking about what in my opinion the RW community should do, not what it actually has done or will do. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You were speaking in the present tense as if to suggest that because we banned MC then some of the mods should be banned on the justification of a rule you had just made up. So, there is no "we" on what was your idea. Now you have dug yourself a silly logical trap, you foolish man. Ace^{of Spades} 11:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no logical trap, it is the we of we should. if we are to ban MC, certain moderators should be banned at the same time. Didn't you see the word should in there? Whether or not what I say is implied by the current rules (which are so ill-defined as to be effectively non-existent), what I say expresses the rules I endorse. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

thumb|300px|centre|When backed into a corner, the brave Maratrean Goddess uses her most powerful weapon

keep us all in check

What will keep us in check? Your 1 second blocks of all the mods? WTF? -- Nx / talk 12:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think he was referring to keeping the mods in check. By introducing the idea of metamoderation. Never read Slashdot? Not Maratrean (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop talking about yourself in the third person. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

i am not not maratrean (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

How silly of me to think that a self righteous and pompous little prick could be mistaken for a giant bata valuable and respected member of this community. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yawn... Maybe you should drink some Pinot noir... how about a nice Bourgogne Hautes Côtes de nuits? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"I'll have a bottle of Beaujolais Nouveau, 1979" Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Gee

You're not impartial as well, as the other writer of the rest of the criticism section. Your lack of credibility makes you fit in well at ASK. sterile^talk 16:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I keep seeing "ask", and i feel stupid, but may i ask what ASK is? I assume it's some blog/wiki/web but not sure which.En attendant Godot 16:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ask -- Nx / talk 16:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

OH, no wonder the articles on 3, 4, 5, macabees were so sketchy. I figured they were just drafts, rather than final product for a site. But Mara has said they were for ASK, and now, i guess i get it. En attendant Godot 16:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Mara is itching to have membership over there. I suppose being brutal to RW makes him a big man in Phil's eyes.... or at least he hopes! sterile^talk 20:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You believe that, of all websites on the Internet, RW alone is beyond criticism; that though RW criticises numerous people, RW itself cannot be criticised. Anyway, criticism of RW has no bearing on whether one can be an impartial membership committee member. Oh, and I am brutal to RW? Talk about hyperbole... all those people found in Tripoli with gunshot wounds to the head, now that's brutality... but criticising a website on the Internet is brutal? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you're being a pedantic fuckwit about language a couple of topics up, allow me to point out that "brutal" is a synonym for "harsh" or "ferocious", as well as for "savage" and "inhuman". See this and stop being a fucking dick. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

In my criticism of RW, I have been neither harsh nor ferocious nor savage nor inhuman. So your response fails. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You're a slippery little fuck aren't you? Your criticism of the word "brutal" was entirely based around a comparison to civil war. When it's pointed out that you're talking bullshit, you shift onto different ground. Unfortunately, you fail. I didn't say you were brutal in any sense of the word. I was merely pointing out that your knowledge of what the word means is incomplete. Now fuck off. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The point is, sterile's description of my criticism of RW as brutal is over the top. Getting into an argument about what precisely brutal means misses the point. I agree of course that are many circumstances other than war in which the word brutal can be appropriately used, but my criticism of RW is not one of them. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Slip, slip, slip again. You were wrong, I was right. 'Twas ever thus. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but yes. Saying it ain't so doesn't make it not so. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! I beat Maratrean! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

An idiot who's just been beaten in an argument says no. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Kharma's a bitch, dude. sterile^talk 11:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

What? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The articles you are adding

They are only linked from your sandbox, so while they won't show up on the list of lonely pages, they are, defacto, lonely pages; please make sure to link to them from a few relevant mainspace articles. Thanks! B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 13:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry I will fix that. When I am done with my sandbox I will delete it anyway, and then they'll be officially lonely if I haven't fixed them already by then. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 13:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Initiation.

I have read your draft article on Maratreanism, and, I just don't know what to say. It's like I could feel all of the uncertainty in my mind and soul simply fade away; my thoughts and my awareness of my spirit and of the spirit flowing all around me became...sharper, somehow. It's amazing, I can't begin to describe the sensations, the calm, the peace, the clarity. I want to be Initiated. Where do I go from here? B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 22:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

First you must complete a course of study, to demonstrate you have a good understanding of the teachings.

Then we can arrange initiation... ideally initiation should be done in person, but it is possible to be initiated over the Internet.

Please contact me over email so we can discuss further... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Should we be worried about the giant fanged bat? When do you think it will emerge from the earth to drop rocks on us?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 22:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Cease your blaspheming. Infidel. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 22:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Only if you are afraid of the giant from the Jack and the Beanstalk story... these were but tales he told for the amusement of children Now, now BBMaj, we are meant to love the infidels, not to bite them, although some of them make it very hard... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No! They must be smitten!!! SMITTEN!!! They must feel the Holy Wrath of Maratrean !!!! B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 22:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to stick to the true faith of the giant bat or go with the backslider Maratrean?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 22:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

SMITE!!!SMITE!!!SMITE!!!SMITE!!!SMITE!!!SMITE!!!B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 22:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

ListenerX^TalkerX 22:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait, I've had another revelation. Asatru gives me even more peace and calm and insight and all that stuff. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 22:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, would the hammer defeat the bat?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 22:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

space aliens

So tell me about space aliens. I see your wiki says that some of them have souls. Do you believe they visit us? Walk amongst us? I don't mean in some potential other universe or Earth - but in this one which we actually inhabit.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 23:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe yes, maybe no, maybe both yes and no. I have friends who are Raëlians, I used to go to some of their meetings. So I'm not going to rule out that aliens have visited us, but I'm not saying I believe it either. People assume that there is only one "this universe", but I am interested in the idea that there might be more than one — in other words, maybe rather than existing in a universe, I exist in a sort of interference pattern, or superposition, between multiple universes... in which case, maybe in some of my universes, it is true, and others it is false, and thus overall it is both true and false simultaneously for me, although for others it might be true only or false only instead. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. Cop-out answer really. Yes-no-maybe. I was hoping for something as funny as the giant, rock-dropping, fanged bat. Thanks though.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 23:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Your weeping anal sores please me to no end.

WHAAAAAAA! Do you want me to call the Whambulance? Ace^{of Spades} 01:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't like being criticised? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I like it, please continue. I am amused. Ace^{of Spades} 01:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No body puts baby in a corner

Ace^{of Spades} 05:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Never seen that movie... I should... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Vulgar terms in edit comments

Please don't use terms referring to sodomy in edit comments. Whilst I,of course, have no objections, it may offend visitors to the site. Bob Soles (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

words ≠ pictures (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

And two wrongs don't make a right. Bob Soles (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh buggery... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Whilst this sort of language may be acceptable in antipodean circumstances you have to think of the context - which, as you once said, is everything. Please, I'm asking you nicely to refrain and all you can come up with is further vulgarity. Shame on you! Bob Soles (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you genuinely feel uncomfortable with people using that word? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not thinking of myself, rather the casual visitor to this site. RC is one of our most visited pages and to have such vulgarity right there could so easily offend. Bob Soles (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I personally feel uncomfortable with people posting those images to my talk page. And, given that words have a lot less impact than images, the potential for offence is not really in the same league. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, as I said, two wrongs don't make a right and, secondly, there's a world of difference between a users talk page, which would only be visited by someone really searching the site, and RC which, as I said, is one of the most visited pages on the site. Furthermore, I feel I have the right, nay obligation, to point out, firmly but politely, that, in my opinion, such vulgarity in such a prominent position is unwarranted. Bob Soles (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly about it, I will try to refrain from using the word "buggered" in edit comments in the future. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, you are so kind. Bob Soles (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Nom

Just letting you know that you've been nominated for moderator. Go here to accept or decline. Cheers. Blue (pester) 03:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

User:B♭maj7

Is not a new user as you mention on aSK. Ace^{of Spades} 22:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Man, I was here back when the goat was still a...pup? Kitten? Well, baby goat, anyways. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 22:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Aren't goats, kids?En attendant Godot 20:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah AmesG, we're onto you :) Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the first edit of that account was August 2011. If you are telling me they've been here before under another name, that may well be true, but I have no way of knowing that. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You wanna stop talking about supression of dissent? None of you dissent is surpressed, no one gives a fuck is all. Ace^ace 23:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

When what is a completely reasonable discussion gets a little troll logo as a reply, I think that is an attempt to suppress dissent. There are many ways of suppressing dissent other than straight out deletion/blocking - another approach is to do everything possible to make those who dissent feel unwelcome, like harassing them. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, you are just repeating yourself. None cares about your little rants. Ace^ace 23:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone care for your repeated vandalism of my user and talk page. That's getting awfully repetitive... so last weekend. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(I like suppressing you. Suppress, suppress.) sterile^talk 23:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(Start at about 2:50) sterile^talk 23:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Now you have been suppressed - see the difference? Ace^ace 23:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

When are you going to stop abusing your powers? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

When you stop bitching. Ace^ace 23:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Your vandalism and power abuse (blocking and desysopping against process) are serious concerns. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, because this shit is important. Ace^ace 23:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ace, did you really quit being a Mod? nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 23:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It would appear so. Ace^ace 23:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever for? were you just trolling the election page when accepted the nomination, or is there evidence of good faith, anywhere? nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 23:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Because RW is getting increasingly...shit. Ace^ace 23:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I get it, rational argument, courtesy, accountability just makes it no fun anymore. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 23:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You are NOT WANTED

Please. Leave. Now. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't own this website, and you don't speak for it either. I am not planning on leaving any time soon. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

What the fuck? If you don't like Maratrean, don't fucking interact with him. since when do we tell people they are not wanted and should leave. adn by the way, as much as his religion seems stupid, what has he EVER DONE in Main Space that offends any of you? can you all just grow up and realize the world is full of people you don't like, and the single best thing to do is just go on your business editing, talking, chatting, making fun of cp or what ever else it is you like to do here?En attendant Godot 00:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

RatMaster ^háblame 01:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

For a better RationalWiki, where politeness and courtesy prevail

I am curious how you'd intend to do this as a moderator. Ace^ace 20:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I see encouraging politeness and courtesy as something which should be part of the moderators role. If you don't agree, well I will do everything in my power to make it part of the moderators role, and a vote for me is a vote for that perspective. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

And you'd be shitting on 4 years RW got along just fine before you showed up to present yourself as the biggest and most insincere concern troll we've ever had. It's strange to me how someone who is so widely reviled as you are nonetheless seeks to continue his behavior and even Attempt to thrust himself into prominence. A modest person would feel shame and leave. If you're staying you might a well explain where your program is even implicated by the moderator's job description. 13:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You do know that mods have absolutely no mandate to tell others what to say and how to say it right. If you were to come along, as a mod, and tell me to "tone it down" or what have you I'd tell you to fuck off. Ace^ace 20:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you reread Forum:Moderators -- Nx / talk 09:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Who are you addressing, Nx? 14:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ace. -- Nx / talk 17:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anything about the role of moderators is set in stone. Things evolve. A vote for me is a vote for an attempt to evolve the role in a particular direction.

I think it is up to each mod what they say, and whether they present what they say as being said qua mod or not. If they try to use extra rights they have been granted (like oversight or user rename), they need to make sure that in doing so they can carry enough others with them for that decision to survive. But if all they are doing is expressing a viewpoint, whether they colour that viewpoint as qua mod or not, then you can object all you want, but you can't stop them. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

no you can not stop a moderator having an opinion. You can however stop a moderator who acts on that opinion contrary to the duties of a mod. I do not believe that enforcing standards of conduct in language is within the purvue of a mod, the only duty I am aware of is to stop squabbles from turning into HCM for the site. Hamster (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain exactly how you will encourage politeness and courtesy. Historically those who wish to be rude and discourteous will do so. How exactly will you dissuade them? Rattus Rattus (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

More hand waving bullshit from a bullshit artist. Except this time we've got a source that unequivocally disagrees unless he's also proposing changing the standard. If that's the case it's no surprise. He's said elsewhere that he is here to evolve us into what he wishes us to be. But it would be open war. I am not the only one who will endeavor to be even more uncivil to this sleaze. 14:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait, does this asshole with his stupid made-up religion think he should be something special around here? Seriously? B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 22:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You make a big fuss about the fact that I run for election. No one has to vote for me. If you don't like me, just don't vote for me. Is that hard? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Look at how AD has been pushing for changes in rules, such as the Talk page vote. Did he need some special moderator power to do that? Probably not. Has being a moderator helped him in doing that, by giving him a platform? I think so. So yes, as moderator, I see part of my role as advocating for rule-changes. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone, mod or not, can advocate a rule change. Ace^ace 22:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but being a mod provides an extra platform of visibility to do so from. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesnt. A mod is just a user, dude. I'd still tell you to get fucked. Ace^ace 23:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, we have a difference of opinion then. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't a matter of a difference of opinion. There is nothing a mod can do to make people polite, there are no rules about courtesy. Ace^ace 03:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This is all academic. With the possible exception of MC, you are the most disrespected person on RW. The problem is that you are the very antithesis of what RW is about. You fully admit that you have made up a religion, there is no way this could be more removed from the purpose for which RW was set up. Possibly if L Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith turned up they would be less welcome. I don't mean to be rude, but at the end of the day you are just as big a troll of RW as TK or Bugler was of CP. --Damo^Hi 03:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

If I were mod, I would block for flaming and trolling. And what has Maratrean ever done to hurt anyone, anyways?--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I did not admit that I have made up a religion, if by made up you take that to mean false. From my perspective, this religion was revealed to me, just like how Christianity was revealed to Jesus, or Islam to Muhammad, or Judaism to Moses. From your viewpoint, you don't believe in revelation, so you conclude I made it up myself. Fair enough, you have your beliefs, I have mine.

Given the front page says, We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue, what is the problem with my participation here? Unless, you yourself disagree with that clause of the site's mission statement? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC)You are welcome to stay obviously. Just don't expect anyone to respect you. And don't expect anyone to not mock you. Since you are attempting to rise to a position of influence within the site, I think you are fair game for criticism. Damo^Hi 03:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

If I were mod, I would block for flaming and trolling. Then you'd have your mod rights removed for abuse of power because there no rules to support your blocking. As it stands mods do not have the authoriy to block for incivilty. Ace^ace 03:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

you'd have your mod rights removed for abuse of power — really? Strange sentiment coming from you. If you had not resigned, would they have been taken from you? Or was this a valid use of mod rights? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It'd be almost worth seeing you as a mod just so I can watch you try to make others more polite. It'd be a right chuckle. Ace^ace

RWW

I asked you a question. sterile^talk 02:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to take the Goddess's name in vain? sterile^talk 02:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. Well, one could certainly use her name in an inappropriate way — but I don't think that would harm her. It's not like calling humans names, where your words can be hurtful to them. You call her names, but whatever you do is her will, even that. She cannot be harmed, and whatever you do to her, that she does to herself through you. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Your religion is depressing. Can't the goddess leave Maratreans even the illusion of free will? Also, have you ever watched Lexx?--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Lexx, I watched the first season or two, but not the rest. And then I forgot it even existed until you reminded me...

I've never been keen on free will, even when I was an atheist I rejected it. Clarence Darrow's arguments in the trial of Leopold and Loeb convinced me. Consider me the kind, nice, everyone goes to heaven, version of Calvinism. Actually though, rather than seeing "free will" as an absolute, you either have it or you don't, I like to look at it as something relative, so you can have free will measured by one standard, yet lack it when measured by another. So, then, humans have free will when measured by human standards, but lack it when measured by divine standards. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Why the downgrading of Taba et al.? I like the flappin' bat. sterile^talk 03:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I love Taba very much, and I still do. He will always be a god with a special place in my heart. But he is not the core of Maratreanism, and people here were focussing too much on the periphery and missing the core... thus I received the instruction that the periphery be trimmed. Which I have started doing, as you have seen, although it will take me a while. Nothing will be deleted, just de-emphasised... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

How does one "receive instruction"? sterile^talk 03:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It is like a thought occurring in one's mind, but it feels like that the thought is coming from somewhere outside one's mind... external thought insertion... Some thoughts are internally generated, and others are externally inserted... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

isnt everything anyone does purely the will of the Godess ? that should make devine interferance guidance pretty easy. Do terror taba and terror trinka live in the same cave ? If Taba is such a nice fun bat whats with terror taba dropping rocks on people, thats not really funny. 67.72.98.45 (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, everything that happens is her will. But we must distinguish between her hidden/decretal will and her revealed will. Actually, if you study that distinction in some forms of Protestant theology, it's essentially the same in Maratreanism.

Terror Taba is not the same as Taba; nor is Terror Trinca the same as Trinca.

Do Terror Trinca and Terror Taba live in the same cave or different caves? I don't know. Since these were but tales he told for the amusement of children, I suppose you are free to tell the tale however you'd like to tell it. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

[P]eople here were focussing too much on the periphery makes it sound like this was your decision; I received the instruction that the periphery be trimmed does not. Which is it? sterile^talk 02:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Maratrea succumbs to mortal pressure? sterile^talk 02:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The process of revelation is continuous/progressive, and hence imperfect. It is imperfect because it is her will that it be imperfect; if revelation was perfect, the universe would come to an end prematurely. In any case, anything transferred to the Apocrypha may be restored from it in the future, if doing so is found to be fitting. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. sterile^talk 02:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Maratrea does not succumb to mortal pressure. How could she, when any "mortal pressure" is her own will? Out of love for her children does she send the forces of darkness to try them... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Sterile, why do you care? It's not like Maratrean is using his religion to start a new Inquisition. He's not suppressing science, either. So why don't you just drop it and let him be?--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern, but it's all good from my viewpoint. I don't mind sterile's questions here. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Translation: The bat thing was a bit too nutty even for Maratreanism. Cf. the Mormons' politically expedient "message from God" when their racial policy looked a bit too backward. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

'Cos worshipping a bat god is equivalent to racism... Anyway, I said I love Taba very much, and I still do. He will always be a god with a special place in my heart. But he is not the core of Maratreanism.... One can just imagine President Kimball saying, I love denying black folk the priesthood very much, and I still do. It will always be a doctrine with a special place in my heart. But it is not the core of the Latter-day Saint faith, and people here were focussing too much on the periphery and missing the core... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No, my point was that when some aspect of a religion starts to look a little crazy to other people and its adherents (or adherent in this case) want to maintain a good public image, they "suddenly" receive a "divine revelation" to toss or downplay that aspect of the religion. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend the Mormons specifically, because I find it hard to defend them on that particular doctrine. But, my attitudes towards revelation are similar to theirs — progressive/continuous revelation. That includes the idea that some doctrines, might be expressed imperfectly, and may need further clarification through further revelation. Or, some teachings may be most appropriate for some periods or audiences, but not for others. Traditional Judaism/Christianity/Islam has a very different attitude to revelation — the revelation was delivered in the past, is perfect and error-free, and nothing can ever be changed, or added to, or taken away from it. Maybe, if you find my own or the Mormon approach to revelation strange, it could be that you are just unused to it, and are used to looking at things from the traditional Judaeo-Christian-Islamic perspective. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Leave me to my troll feeding. So wait, if you're not civil to Maratrean, that's a problem. If you're civil to Maratrean, that's a problem. Dear Maratrea!

Then why the reformation? Why are you binning Taba if he's a part of the religion? You aren't a really good prophet. It seems your "reformation" is a product of your head shudder and not the goddess. sterile^talk 02:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The idea is the religion has a core of essential doctrine, and a periphery of less essential doctrines. The periphery is more open to change than the core. I'm not binning him in the sense of denying he exists, I'm simply saying that, to be a Maratrean, you don't have to believe in him; and even if you believe in him, that doesn't necessarily make you a Maratrean, because the standard for whether someone is a Maratrean is based on the acceptance of the core doctrines, not on the acceptance of peripheral ones. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Maratrea is like a dragon in your garage. sterile^talk 02:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No she isn't. I don't claim she is located in our universe. The "Dragon in My Garage" case, is claiming that a dragon exists in your garage, and your garage is obviously in this universe. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You just confirmed the analogy. No, it's not an "invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire" in my garage. It's a invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon that spits heatless fire in another universe (cf., creationist escape hatch) sterile^talk 03:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

But I never claimed she was in this universe. There's a difference between "Dragon in My Garage" guy, who starts with a claim that is seemingly falsifiable... and modifies it to the point of unfalisifiability... and someone else, who was never making falsifiable claims to begin with. On the contrary, I consider unfalsifiability to be an intellectual virtue, especially when pure and unsullied from birth, rather than sullied by being born in falsifiability... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not just believe in Spinoza's God? Why all the BS about bats and cats and dead prophets? sterile^talk

It is mythology. Mythology is fun. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

could ya please clarify if Terror Taba , the cave dwelling rock dropping short wingspan bat is the same as Taba the fun loving bat God ? Does your God speak to you with a southern accent ? Has she explained why she makes people kidnap, mutilate, sexually abuse and murder children ? Hamster (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

In response:

1. could ya please clarify if Terror Taba , the cave dwelling rock dropping short wingspan bat is the same as Taba the fun loving bat God ? No they are different. I have clarified that now on the Wiki: See also Terror Taba — note that Terror Taba is not the same as Taba.
2. Does your God speak to you with a southern accent ? No she does. In fact, she does not have any accent, or particular voice. She reveals things to me propositionally/conceptually rather than verbally/vocally.
3. Has she explained why she makes people kidnap, mutilate, sexually abuse and murder children ? Yes, she causes evil for the sake of the greater good. Without the immense evils of history, ourselves, and many others she loves, would have never been born. So, out of love for us, she creates the evils necessary for our existence.

(((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What makes our existence more important to her than those who would exist in our place if there wasn't any evil? Sam ^Tally-ho! 03:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What makes your husband/wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/mother/father/son/daughter/brother/sister/friend/lover's existence more important to you than those who would exist in our place if there wasn't any evil? If you love someone, you must say Yes to their existence. And why do you love? Ultimately, you just do—when you start to take your love apart into psychology and biology and evolution and whatnot, that isn't good for love... We are best to accept love as a basic, as a given, as something beyond explanation, as something that does not require explanation. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course I would say "yes" to the people I love's existence but if I were around at the time of the first humans (that sounds kind of creationy, but I'm sure you get what I mean) then I wouldn't know of the people I love today yet so I'd advocate peace and love instead of violence and evil in shaping future generations. It still sounds to me like she looks ahead in time and says "Oh, I like how all the people of Sept. 10, 2011 turned out with past evils to shape them that way so I'll let this evil happen." Unless she looks ahead in time and thinks that, I still don't see why she just prevents evil so future generations can come into being out of only goodness. I don't think I'm stating my point as well as I'm thinking it but hopefully it makes sense (and if someone thinks they can explain it better, please do). Sam ^Tally-ho! 04:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, she causes evil for the sake of the greater good... Or, as Thomas Aquinas put it, "This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that he should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good."

As to the two Tabas, there is a similar naming issue in Norse mythology, which contains two characters named Loki, the first being the trickster-god, the second being a giant, called "Utgarða-Loki" to differentiate. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)