Talk:A. K. Dewdney

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old discussions[edit]

Yikes. I read Dewdney's 911 stuff. Terrifying. He is simply insane. Now I really regret writing to him when he was at scientific american. WHAT a nut job. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seminumerical (talk • contribs) 02:16, 27 December 2005.

Name-calling without any specifics. --IslandGyrl 02:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd be interested to know exactly what you find fault with, too. I just found out about the collapse of 7 World Trade Center and it seems pretty bizarre to me. —Keenan Pepper 05:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But operation pearl has nothing to do with the Building 7 collapse. Why don't you read it. Bov 02:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have since read it, and though it's not directly related, I wouldn't say it has "nothing to do with" it. —Keenan Pepper 03:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seminumerical: I had my own thoughts about 9/11, but did not know that such a huge enlightened community of researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 did exist, until I came across this page. Do you sincerely think that all of them would adopt "such a hilarious nonsense science fiction story" if their scientific minds were not profoundly convinced, in view of the evidence, that this is true? They would do this just for fun, or because they don't like Bush? oh, I see: they're "simply insane", of course... — MFH:Talk 01:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell when a person is speaking seriously, and when he is not? 198.177.27.21 (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a generalization of Poe's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law#N.E2.80.93Q), with the belief system in question being the family of 9/11 conspiracy theories:

Without a blatant display of humour, it is impossible to tell the difference between a belief system and a parody thereof.

I, too, feel that A.K. Dewdney has "let us down", those people who, as children, read Mathematical and Computer Recreations and looked upon Hofstadter, Gardner, and Dewdney as the pantheon of wonderful, curious minds bringing us gifts every month in Scientific American. Now, I just see him as a sadly deranged individual. Just read his Operation Pearl webpage: it's either an intricately detailed parody or the most amazing denial of common sense you have ever seen. Now you just have to wonder what's going on in his head.--Petzl (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On this point, whether Kee Dewdney is a nut-job or not, let me add an observation. The Geneva Conventions prohibit the use of mercenary forces in war. Yet, the George W. Bush administration of the United States of America employed a firm known as Blackwater for the purpose of providing non-military arms to the battlefield of Iraq. Clearly, this makes George W. Bush a war criminal. And, Barack Hussein Obama has taken no action to hold any member of the George W. Bush administration accountable for this blatant and unconscionable violation of international law. Given such a clear demonstration of war criminal mentality of the George W. Bush administration, do not the complaints above seem trivial in comparison? William R. Buckley (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a slight addition that others might like to consider. It comes from CNN, today, regarding the use of Blackwater (now renamed XE) in a war zone, by a member of the United States Congress, who basically admits that Blackwater is a private armed force being used in a war zone; i.e. mercenaries - ENJOY!

U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois, said on Saturday she was "extremely disappointed" over the deal and that the former Blackwater shouldn't be receiving more U.S. contracts.
"This is a company whose cowboy-like behavior has not only resulted in civilian deaths; it has also jeopardized our mission and the safety of U.S. troops and diplomatic personnel worldwide. Instead of punishing Blackwater for its extensive history of serious abuses the State Department is rewarding the company with up to $120 million in taxpayer funds," she said in a statement.
The congresswoman has introduced legislation that would phase out the use of private security contractors.
"Though the name Blackwater has become synonymous with the worst of contractor abuses, the bigger problem is our dangerous reliance on such companies for the business of waging war."

The important quote is this phrase: "... reliance on such companies for the business of waging war." William R. Buckley (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim[edit]

Are you sure he is a Muslim? His personal page mentions slightly his 9/11 activities and extensively his environmental activities, but nothing about religion. Besides don't converted Muslims usually take an Arabic name?

I removed this unsourced claim. No reference about him being converted to islam on his homepage or CV. --Magabund 10:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AK Dewdney wrote this - http://www.physics911.net/islamnotsuicidal.htm "Finally, it might be asked on what authority a western scientist may write so confidently about the nature of Islam. The author has been a muslim for over 35 years, has studied it closely, has traveled extensively in Muslim lands, and has met over his lifetime literally thousands of Muslims of every race and from almost every country. At no time, in his many conversations with fellow Muslims, has he ever heard any Muslim sing the praises of Osama bin Laden." --75.10.220.86 00:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
readded religious affiliation. 75.10.220.86 00:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is a self proclaimed Sufi Muslim. I know this from personal knowledge of him. Can't disclose my name, don't really want to get involved in religious debate under real name. But he is a Muslim, for whatever that is worth.
See Philip J. Stewart's paper Allegory through the Computing Class: Sufism in 'The Planiverse' by A K Dewdney for more on this. Double sharp (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because of this article I know that the guy who attracted me to my career is now a flake. Thanks Wikipedia :( Gazpacho 13:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gazpacho: Name-calling is not an argument. On the contrary, if one side of a discussion seems to have nothing to offer except name-calling, it could be taken as a sign that the proponents of that side do not have a case. In any case, calling the subjects of articles names ("flake") really ought to have no place in our activity as Wikipedia editors. —IslandGyrl 04:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's his letter as a Muslim to other Muslims in the world.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre786 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems indisputable that he was a proud Muslim, yet his religious orientation is not mentioned in the body of the article at all. It seems to have some mention of religion for most famous people. Anyone want to add something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutchirishman (talk • contribs) 03:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The requirements for this per WP:BLPCAT (still applicable for recently deceased people) are that (1) we have a public statement of faith from the subject, true in this case, and (2) that this can be sourced as being relevant to Dewdney's public life or notability. So what is the relevance here? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I regards to relevance - as per my note, the threshold of relevance seems to be very low; as almost every wikipedia page for a person mentions religion. Dewdney's page is the exception.
In case you doubt this, here's an exercise: find a page of a notable person that does NOT mention religion. Dutchirishman (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Global War on Islam

Unauthorized sequels?[edit]

The main article could be improved if it dealt more with his literary achievements and less with his religious opinions.

Speaking of literary achievements, maybe a link could be added to a list of unauthorized sequels to his Planiverse novel? It strikes me that his Planiverse thought experiment could be improved on, and probably has been improved on, by numerous other authors out there/198.177.27.18 (talk) 04:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cell Phone Do Work High Up[edit]

I recently climbed Kilimanjaro, over 14,000 feet high. Pulled out my cell phone. Full bars. Called a number of friends, texted, sent out mms. Worked without a hitch. From more than one location on the mountain. There are no actual cell towers on the mountain. See someone else's experience here: http://www.mtkilimanjarologue.com/recommendations/cell-phone-coverage-on-kilimanjaro.html . But I bet Mr. Dewdney is in denial (people who put all their belief eggs in one basket have to figure out how to live with themselves when they discover that the basket was faulty. They try to make Omelette out of broken eggs, but all that grit and dirt just doesn't let it work). He will not accept the facts. Not about the events he is concocting conspiracy theories about, but about the falseness of his experiment and evidence. It is just not true, this whole thing about planes, and cell phones not working and all that. Just accept it Mr. D. There are evil people who claim to believe in the same book, the same god, and all the rest as you. That does not necessarily make you evil, but please don't deny the possibility of evil among your own kind (whatever your own kind might be). Not very scientific, mathematical, algorithmic, computational and all that. Come on, be a scientist. Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.245.21 (talk) 05:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where to start, dum bass? Dewdney's experiment, which you didn't come close to duplicating, was about a cell phone moving at 500 mph between cell towers and 30,000 feet above ANY cell tower, not "high up". Maybe you are the one who should try being a scientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.251.203 (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Books[edit]

The main article says, "These have been collected into 3 books". So, what are the books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.231.4 (talk) 07:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alexander Dewdney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A._K._Dewdney&oldid=1217415897"