User:Jim62sch/archive1

Essay on religion..
Jim, I note from your comments on Talk:Intelligent Design that you are writing about religion and stuff. have you come across this study of twins?...have fun, ..dave souza 03:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)   Oops, meant Talk:Intelligent design, but the other talk's an entertaining sideshow....dave souza 03:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Feeding the trolls
don't. Chad is being disruptive, he is engaging in ad hominem attacks, he is baiting you... and you are taking a little of the bait. I know it is annoying to have someone put words in your mouth and twist your meaning, but try hard to rise above it and ignore anything he says which is not germane. KillerChihuahua 12:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Your essay
I moved it off the ID talk page. There's a link to it here. Uncle Ed 03:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I notice it has a copyright notice on it (which is fine and reasonable), but notice that posting your essay to WP technically places it under the GFDL, i.e. makes it freely redistributable. If that's not what you intended, you might want to have it deleted, and post it on personal web-space instead. (Though I doubt anyone much cares about insisting on GFDLing user talk pages, and I don't think wikipedia mirrors bother copying them either.) Alai 04:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Summa Points
Thanks Jim for the feedback. Glad to discuss these issues further.

Yes, I will admit that there is some cultural relativism to account for. In America is perfectly acceptable for women to drive cars while Saudi Arabia will not issue women drivers’ licenses. If your intent to find differences between cultures, you can make an impressive list of such things. However, if your intent is to find similarities, you will come up with a much longer list… although not as impressive because nobody is impressed with the things that are taken for granted. For example, all of the following are considered immoral all across the world: Recklessly driving cars over children. Stealing for personal gain. Rape. Dishonesty. Betraying people who trust you. Killing innocent people. Chasing old ladies down the street with a baseball bat. Being irresponsible. Breaking out the windows of someone else’s property just for the thrill of it. Extortion. Torture. Blackmail. Gossip. And so on.
 * Cultural Relativism

Of course, even though it is clear that such things are considered immoral across the globe, they still do happen. And sociologists will always have a hard time explaining the twisted peculiarities of certain civilizations to ‘go along’ with blatant atrocities like Nazi Germany endorsing racism, or ancient Carthage’s weekly sacrificing of infants to their god ‘Moloch’. But note that the sociologists have to explain these sorts of instances because they are the exceptions that contradict the rule of orderly civil behavior. Sociologists don’t spend hours of research to fill their journals with explanations for why the Roman Empire outlawed stealing and murder or why they thought it the mark of a brave man to defend his country. But they do seek explanations for why the Romans accepted as much prostitution, adultery, and homosexuality as they did.

I'm sure you noticed that it was a pun on Aquinas's Summa Theologica, as quickly as you noticed that I have no talent in Latin. Your suggested Summae Berganis might be a better fit... although it sacrifices a bit of the pun-iness. Thanks for the sharp eye. I'll think it over. David Bergan 21:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Essay title

PS What does "TIC" mean? Comments on our discussion of the "Fundamental Questions" would be appreciated. I like to know if I am wrong about something so that I may correct myself and live with the truth.

David,

A number of the things you mention are actually not morally reprehensible in some parts of the globe, especially in Third World countries. Part of it depends on if they have been introduced to Abrahamic religions or are still animists. Rape, dishonesty, torture, gossip and other things are not considered wrong. I suppose the basic point is not one of cultural relativism, but rather one of the alleged inherent nature of good/evil. Nothing is inherently good or evil, however, we tend to see those things that are disruptive to society as evil, and those things that bring order as good.

Yes, I noticed the pun, but Aquinas actually titled his work, "Summa Theologiae" (Main points of Theology) not Theologica; that change was made later (erroneously) by some not very gifted in Latin. Theologica really doesn’t mean much, as it could only exist in nominative form (subjective case) and would also be a third declension noun meaning that it would need to be Theologicalis to be correct. (Sorry about the Latin lecture, sometimes I get carried away.)

TIC is "tongue-in-cheek". Sorry, but a number of your points did not flow logically from what I said, there was no real nexus. In all honesty, the arguments you made seemed rather trivial.

Oh, congrats on your upconing wedding.

Jim62sch 22:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jim for the response and congrats. How do you suggest that we can verify your statement: "Nothing is inherently good or evil."  I would offer the remainder of your sentence ("we tend to see those things that are disruptive to society as evil, and those things that bring order as good") as observable evidence that there is inherent good and evil... and that (for the most part) cultures have been consonant in what they prescribe as "good" and "evil".  I admit (again) that there are exceptions, but our preoccupation with studying those exceptions only serves to prove the rule.


 * Sorry that my ID comments have no real nexus... I'll try better next time. David Bergan 23:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * PS Someone else offered an opinion on the phrase Summa Bergania. Maybe "Summa Berganiae" is a better spelling, though.

The concept of good and evil is subjective. For proof, consider cannibalism. Any similarities in good and evil across cultures are most likely due to the fact that certain actions were considered as either good (beneficial to the tribe) or evil (harmful) before humans migrated out of Africa and began to populate the planet.

It can't be Berganiae. Any nominative form not ending in a vowel, m or s is third declension. Berganiae is first declension. As you are not modifying Summa, there's no need to try to force a gender agreement. (Besides, even if you were modifying Summa, third declension nouns can be feminine, and there is no change in the ending.)

Jim62sch 01:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If good and evil is subjective, though, how do you explain the fact that with time more and more cultures gave up cannibalism, and we universally consider this to be moral progress?


 * Or the real mind-bender: If there is no right or wrong, why do you consider my belief in objective morality wrong? David Bergan 01:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the number of cultures participating in cannibalism was not extraordinarily large to begin with. Some have gone extinct (several Amerindian tribes in South America), and others, via colonialism and conversion (oftentimes coerced or forced) to Christianity. Note: this is a neutral statement and is not intended to endorse any perceived merits of Christianity, (although there is a certain irony in the conversion of a people who eat real flesh and drink real blood to a religion where there is a symbolic consumption of flesh and blood).

In any case, with the colonialization and conversion of peoples practicing cannibalism there was a forced changed in their ethics and mores. Thus, they did not "give up" cannibalism of their own realization that "hey, this "wrong"".

I think you misunderstood what I said about inherency. Nothing (speaking only behaviourally) is inherently good or evil, we as a society have determined that behaviours harmful to a given society are evil, and those that are beneficial are good. For example, a growing number of countries have rejected the death penalty as a form of "evil", while some, the US for example, still consider it to be "good".

This has nothing to do with whether or not I think your statement regarding objective morality is wrong: I have expressed an opinion, based on empirical studies of culture and philosophy as well as my own Gedanke experiments and after weighing your position and its alternatives have come to the conclusion that your argument either contains logical fallacies or is philosophically incorrect.

A suggestion: read "Beyond Good and Evil" by Nietzsche, as well as a variety of books on Sociology and Anthropology.

Jim62sch 13:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to discuss
But I don't know what you're objecting to on Talk:Intelligent Design. --ScienceApologist 18:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

fine-tuned universe
I added some scientific criticissm of the fine-tuned universe so I think it's okay to have Gonzalez's point for now. Could you add something about the symetry argument? I don't really know what it is, and it could improve the article. Thanks, Dave (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that for the article's current purposes, all we really need is the cosmological stuff. Thanks for your comments. Dave (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

User page edits
Not sure if the anon is you logged out, but if not, I just thought I'd point you to the edits on your user page. Guettarda 01:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Zen
I'm not Zen enough, I guess. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte
Hi Jim,

A forensic linguistic analysis to determine what edits can be matched with "Bonaparte" and, based on that, which accounts belong to him, would be just phenomenal!

For a database of texts which can unquestionably be attributed to him, you can check ro.wiki aswell (see ro:User:Bonaparte), most of it in Romanian.

First and foremost, I would suggest checking out if he is the same person as User:Anittas, User:Constantzeanu, and above all, User:Just a tag. To be safe, we should probably also check other allied editors-- User:Alexander 007, User:AdiJapan, User:Lysy, User:EvilAlex, even though from my personal judgement it seems unlikely that they are socks of his, or vice-versa.


 * OMG, I can't imagine how naive one must be to believe that if people disagree, they all must be socks of one person, not a healthy view if you ask me. When a lot of people disagree with you, ponder over this for a while: maybe it isn't because they dislike you as a person, it might actually be that your point of view is simply wrong. --Just a tag 18:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as a "wrong" point of view. A point of view is an opinion, and unlike facts, opinions are never "correct" or "incorrect". Anyhow, I still think it's very possible that you are a sock of Bonaparte. And I only suggested checking "other allied editors" -- I'm relatively confident that, for example, AdiJapan is not a sock of Bonaparte, but that doesn't mean it's not worth investigating. Heck, it's even worth investigating if I am a sock of Bonaparte, except that I obviously know I'm not. --Node 20:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If a point of view is not based on factual knowledge then it's not even worth discussing. Wow, cool, I'm a sock of Bonaparte, with an IP from Moldova, neat, dude, if you find a proxy in Moldova, could you tell me about it, the thing is the local traffic is free and the external is not, so if I find a proxy, that would be truly great. How do you obviously (you really love the word, don't you ? makes you feel so confident) know that you're not a sock of Bonaparte ? Heck, maybe you're an intelligent computer virus, first glimpses of AI, hehe =) --Just a tag 21:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you are a sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte, Node, and this should be duly investigated. Alexander 007 20:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Amen. --Just a tag 21:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This was a very revealing insight into Node's psychology. Very disappointing, and it speaks volumes about his mentality and the edit-behavior he manifests. This guy is a fucking joke. A clown. Sorry, I just had to say it. Alexander 007 19:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As I noted to Tag above, there are only 3 people I seriously suspect may be socks of Bonaparte. And calling me a clown and saying I'm a "fucking joke" really offends me. Please refrain from such personal attacks. --Node 20:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, me being at the top of the list, yuppie! Look if you suspect it so much, why don't you go to stewards and tell, look, I suspect Just_a_tag to be a sock of Bonaparte, and since Bonaparte is blocked, it might be that he has been evading the block. Then make sure to check if you are a sock, one never knows. --Just a tag 21:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Alex, there are only two people on this illusionary planet, just Node_ue and Bonaparte, the rest are just sockpuppets. The Matrix has you, Neo =) Oh, did I just log out of "Alex" account to reply to myself ? Cheers ;) --Just a tag 19:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Did I say that? --Node 20:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, what's your point ? --Just a tag 21:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Eventually, I would hope we could use data gathered to determine authorship on the Moldovan Wikipedia aswell, where I suspect he may be using socks now.

Cheers.

Node 21:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A bit paranoid, Node. None of those users you mentioned above are operated by the same person who operated User:Bonaparte, but by all means check. The only one I can't vouch for is User:Lysy, but I'll check in a moment. Alexander 007 13:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And how can you "vouch for" them? You met them in person? Just getting an e-mail from somebody doesn't prove they exist independent of everyone else. I know because I've played practical jokes on people before by making them think a person existed when I was just sending them e-mails using a different account and a proxy. --Node 20:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Paranoia is contagious. I think User:Christopher Sundita is a sockpuppet of yours, Node: how do you like that? Alexander 007 20:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Chris has been backing up Node_ue on numerous occasions, OBVIOUSLY "(c) Node_ue" he must be a sock. --Just a tag


 * No, that's not him either. As usual, I'm not sure whether you are paranoid, or seeking to group all the above users with Bonaparte in some "dark alliance" ("allied editors", trying to equate other editors with Bonaparte and his..err... edit technique), and sow the seeds of paranoia against all those Users... paranoia is contagious. While some of those editors may have cooperated at times when interests met, I don't see an indication that any of those editors are allied in any actual sense. Most of them are as often or more often in disagreement, and I'm sure some of them don't even like each other. Once again, what I see in Node here is either 1) his paranoic vision of a Romanian mafia in Wikipedia 2) he doesn't really believe that, but wants to led others to believe that. Alexander 007 13:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So, in the last 4 minutes, did you visit Lysy at his house? Hah. --Node 20:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Node, you're beginning to remind me of Gerard de Nerval. It scares me. Be careful. Alexander 007 20:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I already decided that they were unlikely (but not impossible, thus I've yet to make a final decision) to be the same user. Jim62sch 13:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Jim, can you please check and see if Node is the same person as Michael Jackson? Thanks. --Anittas 13:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't noticed a propensity for moonwalking yet, or for dangling infants out of windows, but you never know. :)


 * Anyway, as I said to Alex, a cursory look showed no evidence, so I'm not going to be spending more time on this unless I become so ridiculously bored that contemplating my navel is my only other remaining option. Jim62sch 15:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

avoid personal attacks
Jim, respect for other contributors is a key policy for the Wikipedia. I have removed comments of yours from User talk:Jon Awbrey for that reason. See Civility. I understand your frustration with the present situation, but it is important that we keep to the rules. Best regards, Banno 20:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It was humour -- along the lines of the comment by another editor that "time wounds all heels", which you found to be humourous. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  11:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations
You have not posted any comments explaining your tag, nor have you participated in any of the discussions about it. You are imposing your OWN viewpoint without discussion. Remove that tag immediately. Wahkeenah 01:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And who, pray tell, are you? However, I should thank you for posting that tag, since it plays into the hoaxsters' hands, and maybe they'll stop complaining about how slanted the article is against them. Wahkeenah 01:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Minding my own business
Telling me to mind my own business is not only rude and violates WP:CIVIL but is also against the fundementals of Wikipedia - all users are encouraged to be involved with all aspects of Wikipedia. A complaint was put on WP:PAIN against Guettarda for making personal attacks. The diffs provided showed this and I warned Guettarda. It's not my fault that he is refusing to accept the warning. And why are you telling me to mind my own business when I was responding to a report - where are you in all this? I don't care if you want to voice an opinion, but your comment is simply pot meet kettle. Paul Cyr 02:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are misinterpreting his viewpoint. He is not guilty of any double-standard. Wahkeenah 02:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please explain his viewpoint then. Paul Cyr 02:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As Charlie Brown would say, "Don't you know sarcasm when you hear it?" I just find it amusing that this guy has apparently copped the same attitude with you that he did with me, just a few minutes ago. He must be on a roll. Wahkeenah 02:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Use smileys you idiot! :) (The :) means I'm saying it nicely, I'm not actually calling you an idiot, please don't report me :P) Paul Cyr 02:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For failing to use smileys, I plead guilty, on this one occasion, to being an idiot. I am otherwise a model of perfection. :) :) :) P.S. I heard some rumor that this user is an admin. So let's don't shoot him, it will just make him mad. :) :) :) Wahkeenah 02:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was wrong. He's not an admin. Two mistakes in one night. I can't take it, I tell ya. I'll have to go back to my old job, emptying the bit buckets every night. :) Wahkeenah 02:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)