RationalWiki's 2018 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.

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

Donations so far: $2835Goal: $5000

Difference between revisions of "User talk:Ed Poor"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Really?: to G.K.)
(Have I got a deal for you!)
Line 143: Line 143:
::And [[user:jenkins|accepted]], btw. -[[User:Smyth|Smyth]] 15:29, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::And [[user:jenkins|accepted]], btw. -[[User:Smyth|Smyth]] 15:29, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:I'm confused...why would CP, a bastion of democracy and freedom, think that Buddhist monks fighting a military dictatorship is some sort of liberal plot?  What is their motivation?  To show that Buddhists aren't as peaceful as Christians?  My brain hurts!![[User:PalMD|--PalMD]][[User_Talk:PalMD|<sup>-Oy, mein tukhas!</sup>]] 15:15, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:I'm confused...why would CP, a bastion of democracy and freedom, think that Buddhist monks fighting a military dictatorship is some sort of liberal plot?  What is their motivation?  To show that Buddhists aren't as peaceful as Christians?  My brain hurts!![[User:PalMD|--PalMD]][[User_Talk:PalMD|<sup>-Oy, mein tukhas!</sup>]] 15:15, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Let's collaborate here at RW on a "true version" of the Buddhist Monks vs. Riot Police story. I'll port back the good parts of whatever we come up with, to correct my erroneous CP version. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|bug me]]</sup> 15:32, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 19:32, 26 September 2007


Let me be the first to welcome you to the mobocracy.--PalMD-Talk 15:59, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Welcome, Ed. Hopefully you can help us with our project. Do you have any experience working with wikis? --Huey gunna getcha 16:01, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

I hope that last part was meant as humor...--PalMD-Talk 16:01, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
Darn tootin'. Not to ring my own bell, but I thought it was pretty good. --Huey gunna getcha 16:05, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
Well, my first step will be to take the lay of the land. I wouldn't want to assume that what goes at Wikipedia or Conservapedia is acceptable here. I suppose I'll comment a bit here and there for now. --Ed Poor 16:07, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
Pretty much :) -Icewedge 16:11, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Welcome, Ed. Very pleased to see you here. --AKjeldsen 16:12, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm happy to be here. I couldn't help noticing the brain drain a couple of weeks ago. I hope you fellas plan to put both hemispheres to good use. ;-) --Ed Poor 16:14, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
I think this sounds like a good place to begin, Ed. As much as I couldn't stand you at CP (in the beginning) I do respect your skills and the eye you bring to all subjects. Welcome aboard and jump in when you get comfortable. Flippin;-) 16:16, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

I hope you're peace-making skills are not needed very much. The idea on CP of walking away from the controversies due to futility will (hopefully) not be needed here. Time will tell.--PalMD-Talk 16:21, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Don't mean to hijack your page, Ed, but I wanted to post next to this comment. I tend to think of RW as a place for all the deleted/blocked/locked and otherwise totally missing articles from CP. We might just address such vulgarities as vagina, deceit and maybe even Jesus, but we aim to fairly. Just wanted to voice my opinion. Flippin;-) 16:26, 23 May 2007 (CDT)


Anything to be a Bureaucrat, eh? --TK /MyTalk 17:01, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

"whistle blows" unnecessary cruelty--PalMD-Talk 17:14, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Comments and welcome

"The ability of "blocked" users to post to their own user talk page." - How convenient that that apparently doesn't work on CP. Or if it does by now, it doesn't matter since all banned users' pages are locked. And "HAR HAR" at your brain drain comment. I'm sure all the (quite forcibly) drained people will laugh along. ;)

Uh, I mean... Yeah, hi, Ed. :P

I don't think you need a "writing plan" here, we're far more relaxed than CP (No 90/10 here!) and people are actually allowed to *gasp* chat and have fun. :) --Sid 17:11, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Kind of like an IRC channel, but with public logging always turned on. --Ed Poor 12:19, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Uncle Ed!

You're here! Good God! Do you know if Andy has any plans to come across too? Maybe he can bring the CP Panel with him. Anyway, delighted to see you. --Horace 21:27, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, please, please get Andy to come here. If he would be convinced by anything, I would be willing to delete my lovely image ;). --Linus(plot evil tech) 19:30, 24 May 2007 (CDT)


Hope this site doesn't disgust you too much. Helios-speak to me! 23:37, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

If we don't disgust people, clearly we're doing it wrong. Bring on the tripe! --Kels 09:16, 27 May 2007 (CDT)


Welcome, Ed. I agree with you about cranks - they are often needed to turn over dogmatic thinking; Galileo, Darwin, Wegener to name just a few. Mad Min 07:55, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

People dismissed as cranks aren't always crackpots. You have to consider the motives and the facts of both the "dismissers" and the "dismissed".
It's like Conservapedia vs. the Exiled Ones who started RW. --Ed Poor 18:18, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
  • "They laughed at Edison! They laughed at Einstein!"
  • "And someday, they'll laugh at you, too?"
  • "And when they do, don't come running to apologize!"
(From a comic strip I liked called "Eyebeam") -- 18:39, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Ed...I'm glad you haven't abandoned us!--PalMD-yada yada 18:20, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Must keep communication lines open - like the "hotline" between White House and Kremlin. --Ed Poor 18:24, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
Nkhrushchev never replies to my email any more. :( --jtltalk 18:27, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
I was thinking it was more like Arkham and the Batcave, but oh well. --Kels 18:27, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

So what's hot over on the Dark Side these days? Aside from under Karajou's collar?--PalMD-yada yada 18:31, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Meet me on #conservapedia or #cp-admin (I'm not good at using wiki for chat.) --Ed Poor 18:33, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
  • I meant #cp-cabal

I won't be on until later tonight. If you're there, see ya then.--PalMD-yada yada 18:37, 30 May 2007 (CDT)


Hi, Ed. Read any genetics books lately? Sterile 07:58, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

No, my approach to science is that it should be explained simply enough that I ought to be able to understand it merely by reading an online encyclopedia article. Please write an introduction to genetics for me! :-) --Uncle Ed bug me 10:50, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
Eh, ok, I'll try. But there is a lot of science that takes more than reading an enc. article to understand. Sometimes there are advanced maths and such, and writing them out removes the "content". That said, a lot of science can be carefully explained using language a university student could be expected to understand. PS, I started a discussion over at cunt after reverting your deletion, using your edit summary. humanbe in 11:11, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
I think SharonS did a whole series of Genetics related articles on CP. If my memory serves me right most of them were quite short and didn't involve advanced maths, so you could trying reading those. Andy said that he learned a lot from DeborahB's stubs so I guess you you couldn't do any worse Ed. God's peed Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 11:32, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Ed, your apparent lack of intellectual initiative (or whatever your reasoning is here) is not my fault. There are subjects in this world that are "hard" and can't be explained in 1" of screen space, and not just in science (in politics, Bible studies and religion, etc.).

If you will like me to send you a "simple" genetics book, that could probably be arranged somehow. Also, I didn't get the impression that you read anything here, and I'm not allowed to edit at the other place. Sterile 11:52, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Some of the relevant parts relating to evolution & genetics (which is, after all, what this is really about) are here and here.Sterile 15:44, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

What is going on at CP?

If CP was ONLY anti-liberal it might not be considered extremist. CP takes plenty of positions that a lot of people would consider to be extremist.--Edgerunner76 09:36, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd love to see a list of extremist positions taken at Conservapedia. Aside from Young Earth Creationism, what else would be on that list? --Uncle Ed bug me 09:42, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Susan's list (for starters)

Resurrection after 3 days (corpses start to smell after 1 day), flood & ark, dinosaurs & humans co-existing, right to bear arms, support of Iraq war, extreme pro-life, extreme stupidity, extremely antigay, extreme intolerance of anyone who disagrees (alright - me too on that one), extremely strange definition of scientific greatness (not Einstein!), extremely Reaganite ... The list goes on and on ... Susantalk to me 10:44, 26 September 2007 (EDT) (probably extreme anti-feminist too- but that's just a guess) Susantalk to me

A pretty good guess Susan - check out feminista. Genghis Khant 10:55, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Wonder what the gorgeous (? Don't know the lady - benefit of teh doubt) Phyllis thinks of that? Susantalk to me 11:02, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Well she is rather elderly now (but probably a corker in her youth judging by the pictures of her lovely sons). While her record would suggest that she would support it whole heartedly. Genghis Khant 11:12, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Wait we have her picture. Genghis Khant 11:26, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
She reminds me of someone. ... Thatcher!11one !!!1 Susantalk to me 11:39, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

The resurrection, especially within apologetics, has always fascinated me. Christian apologists take the stance that the resurrection must have happened because Christianity could have continued and wouldn't have survived to the present day without it. However, I see a simplier scenario when I look at that story. I see eleven/twelve (give-or-take Judas) who suddenly find that they have wasted a significant portion of their lives. It seems that most will get over it and move on. My scenario sees one of them unable to accept this outcome (it happens plenty often when someone is confronted with something that destroys their worldview). He empties the tomb and goes on a bender with some of his companions. They eventually start seeing things. My vote for who is Thomas. It is always the skeptic that is the prime mover behind the scenes. The refuting of the skepticism reinforces the desired belief in the others. That's my take.--Edgerunner76 11:23, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
It fascinates me not. The writings, after the event, of those with a vested interest are always suspect and 2000 (nearly) years ago - say no more. If only he'd waited 'til now - there'd have been photos, cd roms & webcams (cryptcams?) - but being omnipotent he'd have known that, ... wouldn't he? Susantalk to me 11:34, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
For someone who claims to be not interested in religion at all, you sure spend a lot of time talking about it. ;-) --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 11:41, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
I guess that I should specify that it is the willful ignorance that fascinates me. It is such an incredible phenomena. My interest/disinterest in religion is in a "Know thy enemy" sort of way. Or, to quote Homer Simpson, "Just because I don't care doesn't mean that I don't understand."--Edgerunner76 12:48, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

My interest is in the folly of others and their attempts to ram it down my throat. I don't have any interest in pædophilia but I'll talk my head off to dissuade anyone against it. Susantalk to me 12:57, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Yada, yada, yada......clunk. Genghis Khant 13:01, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Oh and yes, I do think that indoctrinating children with the myth of religion is child abuse. Susantalk to me 13:40, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Don't forget Santa Claus & the tooth fairy. Genghis Khant 13:58, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
At least everyone admitted they were fake - eventually. Susantalk to me 14:06, 26 September 2007 (EDT)


In relation to what you wrote about in the second part of your userpage, are you really Ed Poor? The Anti-Conservapedia 10:01, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

And did you have anything to do with the "dissociated press" cut and paste yesterday, which showed familiarity with Kenservapedia, Rationalwiki and WIkipedia, as well as computer algorithms and just happened to originate from New York? We won't block you , but would just like to know. Genghis Khant 10:42, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
I always post as Ed Poor, everywhere I go. --Uncle Ed bug me 15:30, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Buddhist monks

For his incredible
spin in the Breaking
News and on the talk
page, Ed Poor receives
a (hastily constructed)

Ed. I have to ask: Are you aware that this is a complete fabrication and basically in direct contradiction of what every major international news service is saying - or do you actually believe this? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 13:28, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Ed, You are a fucking pestilence of a man. I suppose those violent monks broke those poor soldiers rifles with their skulls? The Anti-Conservapedia 13:30, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Well, DAMN! Two newbies rip your little fairytale apart on cp:Talk:Main_Page, and your reaction is to dish out blocks against both of them while pretending to seek discussion? AHAHAHAHAHAHA! --Sid 14:03, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

One of my favorite things that CP sysops like you do is to block and then reply to particularly damning arguments. As in, where someone points out just how dumb your argument is, you block them & then reply, so it looks for the record like the party quit the debate, admitting your superiority somehow. Deceit, much?-αmεσ (mission accomplished!) 14:14, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Worse, the replies look like he's trying to be a calm and polite debate partner while at the same time he's driving his opponent bat shit insane by blocking them in the middle of the discussion. Should be interesting to see if Jenkins falls for it once he races out of his 2-hour block. Graham can lean back and watch the potential Fatality, so I figure that his reaction might be more moderate (unless he figures that CP is a steaming pile of shit and does a Hero's Last Stand). --Sid 14:19, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
I especially like the part where he lies about Jenkins making personal attacks on him. A real class act. --Kels 14:20, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Graham, not Jenkins, unless he made another claim elsewhere. Not that that claim is correct, either. Graham called for revoking sysop rights and banning... something that's not TOO outrageous when you consider that the front page news right now plain out LIE. But then again, sysops have special rights. They are allowed to make up shit as they please and post it as fact. :) --Sid 14:24, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Jenkins has received an invite to RW.-αmεσ (mission accomplished!) 14:20, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

And accepted, btw. -Smyth 15:29, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
I'm confused...why would CP, a bastion of democracy and freedom, think that Buddhist monks fighting a military dictatorship is some sort of liberal plot? What is their motivation? To show that Buddhists aren't as peaceful as Christians? My brain hurts!!--PalMD-Oy, mein tukhas! 15:15, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Let's collaborate here at RW on a "true version" of the Buddhist Monks vs. Riot Police story. I'll port back the good parts of whatever we come up with, to correct my erroneous CP version. --Uncle Ed bug me 15:32, 26 September 2007 (EDT)