Talk:Time Cube/Archive 7


 * I think we can all (all but one) agree that this discussion will lead nowhere. Therefore I am putting it here.  A note to anon: if you attempt to continue this discussion on the main talk page, I will personally move all of your comments to this page. &mdash;Sean &kappa;. + 15:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anon's attempt to continue a pointless discussion

 * I find the above comments unimpressive. Kosebamse says: "I would like to warn everybody not to enter any arguments with him". One must indeed caution flat-earth followers against arguing the round-earth truth, for otherwise they could risk overcoming their religious brainwashing and learning to think rationally.


 * Sean Kelly says: "we will never be able to have any sort of meaningful contact with this vandal." This is incorrect; aside that I'm not a vandal, I have taken much time to discuss Time Cube with users interested therein. Perhaps by "meaningful" you mean "threatening with an IP block".


 * Anonymous editor says: "All the "justifications" provided are pretty poor, but it just isn't worth my time going through and trying to rebut them"' -- bad excuse for anti-Cubic bias. The justifications are strong, and they stand.


 * It is my hope that Kosebamse and other users might break free of their irrational pedantic indoctrination. Evident in Kosebamse's anti-Cubic crusade was a lack of substantation for anti-Cubic beliefs &mdash; presumably due to which, Kosebamse is now resorting to NineteenEightyFourBigBrother obscurantist techniques. But awaiting mental transcension of the corrupt Academia-cube, there is a latent power of Opposites &mdash; existing within the magnificent symmetry and fractalic life-patterns of the Ineffable Cubic Truth of the Universe.


 * For enlightenment, see TimeCube.com and Cubic Awareness Online.

Wow, you go away for a little while and everything changes. I suggest we actually try a poll or something as to how to best deal with the issue. Given the fact that the "proposed" page isn't even stable I don't see that unprotecting the page any time soon will be useful, and I agree with Kosebamse that editing a page under protection isn't ging to be a good idea unless we have something resembling a larger consensus on the issue. I don't think the proposed page is really that much better than what we have now - it still needs a lot of work really: the whole "criticism and reaction" section is rather underdeveloped and needs some serious editing. Cheradenine 23:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "Underdeveloped" in that you would like it to include more anti-Cubic propaganda, Cheradenine? Maybe you should actually disprove Time Cube, if it is so patently false.


 * UPDATE: Also unimpressive are reversions of my comments. Am I not allowed to express an alternative view? Users expressing anti-Cubic views have happily dubbed me a "vandal", and called my contributions "nonsense" and "crap". Do these really lack the "inflammatory" character ascribed to my posts? I would appreciate a little more tolerance from those who differ with me.


 * You're treading on personal attack territory, anon, and it's also become quite apparent that your contributions to this article aren't very helpful. Normally I would have jumped in to revert the removal of comments on a talk page like what was done to yours, but in this case I think it might be necessary if we're to keep making progress here. Calling our work "anti-Cubic propaganda" and "irrational pedantic indoctrination" is hardly an indication of tolerance yourself, and we've bent over backwards trying to accomodate you until now. I've only been involved in this dispute for a month or so now and I'm at the point where I'm not going to bother answering your points from here on out either, unless you do something really dramatic to show you've changed your attitude (like for example registering a user name). Bryan 08:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Calling me a "vandal" is indeed a personal attack. Users have tended to ignore the justification I have set forth, preferring instead to revert my contributions; thus, all I have to go on is that they are initially biased against Time Cube. I am unsure as to why a registered username should be required.


 * I was about to say something, when I found that Bryan said something better than I ever could. And if you Mr. Anon would like to discuss (I mean an actual discussion) the -1*-1 thing, I believe I have a significant understanding of Principia Mathematica. LMK. (Oh, and please get a username and actually be a part of Wikipedia if you have any semblance of concern for how Wikipedia results) McKay 08:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Time Cube/Archive for previous discussion of why -1*-1=+1 is Stupid and Evil. If you can offer a refutation of the mathematical stupidity and evil demonstrated therein, I'd be interested in discussing it. Wikipedia results in creation of encyclopaedic articles; this may occur regardless of whether editors go under usernames or anonymity. Thus, I fail to see the relevance of your suggestion.

There has already been an extensive discussion about that mathematical point (see archives of this talk page) where 211.28's idea has been demonstrated to be reducible to a system of mathematics which is essentially meaningless. 211.28 has engaged in many more extensive discussions for two years now, but has not convinced anybody of the slightest piece of his philosophy. I dare say his philosophy is extremely unconvincing. If two years of experience can prove anything, I would say it's proven to be utterly hopeless to conduct discussions with 211.28. Furthermore, I would say it's proven that he disrespects any consensus about article content, trying to sneak his ideas into articles again and again. Discussion being hopeless, a way should be found to deal with this problem, and I do think we should ask the community for clarification (in the form of an RfC perhaps?). Kosebamse 09:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Kosebamse, all that is meaningless here is your insistent anti-Cubicism. You are ignoring the mathematical explanations of why Time Cube explains reality in a more complete sense than the 1-corner Academian mathematics which you worship. Why can't you shift your brain into a rational gear and use reasoning to find the Truth?