Talk:Jamie O'Neill

Discussion
I find it highly ridiculous that this 'empirical' information about Mr. O'neill can be posted, but I cannot post about my direct experiences meeting the man and understanding his personality and intelligence. Unfortunately for the majority of you, you will never get to know the man personally. The fact that I met him and shared drinks and cigarettes with him was highly enlightening, more enlightening that anything any of you could compose or edit or revert on his page. Unfortunately, in your narrow, scientific, societally-imposed mindset of metanarratives, you cannot comprehend a source of information that is personal and honest and heart-felt. For that, shame on you.

In reality, what is empiricism? It's a group of people who take themselves far too seriously, claiming to represent the truth, and to keep ignoramuses from spouting off foolishness. But what is foolishness? What is truth? It's not that I expect a coherent or logical reply to my question, because most people who actively participate on this site are merely compensating for a feeling of emptiness brought on by their state of existence, and I forgive that. However, what is to gain by empiricism? How can you prove my truth is wrong without being me?

You cannot, and you will not. It cannot be done, and never will be done. Just so, a human will never be able to tell whether a machine has passed a Turing test, because we do not even understand our own minds and thoughts and feelings enough to prove that a machine is conscious.

In conclusion, I emptily plead to you Wiki-mavens, you people who devote your precious lives to this site, stop wasting your time. Wikipedia is simply a referral source for real, hard information. Keep it that way. There is no way in the world that you can simultaneously leave this site open for editing, and expect it to become a respect scholarly source. Even if so-called 'vandals' didn't edit your precious pages, you will still never be good enough to be authoritative or empirical.

Join humanity. We are flawed. So are you.

Get over it. It makes life more tolerable and interesting.

Mate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.89.134 (talk • contribs).

Harty's Death
Removed unsourced claim that Harty's death was HIV-related. Also, there's some disagreement as to whether it was Hep B or Hep C. Rojomoke (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Unsure why all references to Harty have been removed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.17.159 (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamie_O%27Neill&diff=448588644&oldid=443506513 should probably be reverted but the article has been heavily changed since then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.126.233 (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

O'Neill At Swim
This paragraph could be tidied up and made to make more sense. For example "The following year..." has no referent... . Which year ?. Likewise ".. the dog was missing...". Which dog, whose dog ? We can, I suppose, assume that the dog was called Paddy, but why should the reader be reduced to making assumptions in what should be a source of reliable information ? g4oep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.60.31 (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jamie O'Neill. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709034704/http://www.ferrogrumley.org/ to http://www.ferrogrumley.org/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)