User talk:Mirv/archive 1

good work on Pope Pius XII. A small number of users have been adding ludicrously POV bits into articles linked to Catholicism. That nonsense addition was missed when the article was re-checked after one of the culprits was banned for similar ludicrous additions elsewhere. Welcome to wikipedia and keep up the good work. :-) FearÉIREANN 18:15, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hello Mirv, Leumi has asked that Alan M. Dershowitz be unprotected. Are you happy that a compromise has been reached now and for the page to be re-opened to editing? Angela 23:22, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. It's unprotected now. Angela 00:04, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hello Mirv, I'd just like to thankyou for your help in bringing that link to the ADL letter. It's very much appreciated. As of the moment I'm trying to get the page protected, in order to stop 81's reverting, although he and I are arguing the matter on Requests for page protection. Thanks again, and it'd be great if you could join in on the debate going on in the protection page as well. Leumi


 * Thanks for telling me. I didn't realize non-logged in users had talk pages, as when you click on their page, it only leads into a list of their User Contributions. Also, do you think the addition of personal attacks within the article ("Please note this page is constantly being vandalised by user Leumi") qualifies as vandalism, since apparantly the constant reversions and deletions don't? If so, would you help me with reporting it? If you think it doesn't, then I won't as I wanted a second opinion before I considered taking action.Leumi 00:27, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Oh, I wasn't planning on pushing the second point. I will place the first one on the vandalism report page. Also on the topic of constant reversions, can I point out that "anonymotron" as you put it, is continually changing and deleting mass amount of text off the Dershowitz-Finkelstein Affair page. I keep putting it back to your last edit until he makes some sort of justification. Some action by you would be nice, as I don't want this construed as a persona rivalry, which is why I'm trying to avoid responding to his attacks. Thanks. Leumi 00:42, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hello Mirv, thank you for cleaning up my User page. Hadn't noticed the attack until you removed it. Nosebud 08:00, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Divination page: you didn't take the time to read what was posted.
Please re-read the comments that I posted; they were not "pro-divination," so much as refinements to correct errors and provide categorizations. There is a great deal of bad and misleading information in what you restored.


 * Talking to anonymous IPs is singularly fruitless, so log in if you want to chat. Thanx. MIRV 08:32, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A note for our out-of-state readers: This anonym is referring the changes it made to divination and my subsequent re-insertion of the text that it had removed. Contrary to what it states, I did in fact read the changes, and I am prepared to defend what I did. --MIRV 08:51, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ack
Thanks for your help on the Leumi topic and Guidelines for controversial articles. Best, -- Viajero 15:58, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Hi, I thought you made some good contributions to the discussion on the talk page of From Time Immemorial last night. It seems like a constant uphill struggle defending this and other articles from Leumi. Given his intractablity, I don't know what our options are beyond engage in endless edit wars. Have you any thoughts? -- Viajero 21:01, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Morituri te salutant
Hi Mirv, there probably is a version of the phrase that means "we who..." (whether or not gladiators ever said it at all is another story :)), but I think it would have to be "salutamus." "Salutant" definitely means "they salute." Adam Bishop 23:37, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm guessing "salutami" but I've always stunk at conjugation. - Hephaestos 23:44, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Adam is right (as I realized about 30 seconds after making my now-reverted edit); "salutant" is a third person plural, "salutamus" is the singular. --MIRV 23:47, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Alleged memberships
You caught an editing error on my part. The term "purported to" or "alleged to" should have been used. It's been corrected in the Opus Dei article. Dogface 04:46, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Uruk-hai
In your edit summary, you state ""Mannish" looks silly outside its usual context". I'm wondering what context you believe that is? The term 'Uruk-hai' belongs to Middle-earth, and in that context 'Mannish' is a better term than human. &#8212; Jor 23:50, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * rsp on Darkelf's talk page

Your anti-semitic revert
Anti-semitism was defined as "hostility toward Jews." Censorship of the anti-semitism timeline is hostile toward Jews. Motivation is irrelevant. As for your point on noteworthiness, fine. It was basically a joke edit anyway. Anthony DiPierro 04:26, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Replied to at some length on Mr. DiPierro's talk page. Note that he describes his own edit as a "joke", yet my reversion of that joke -- removing silliness is encouraged, yes? -- is somehow anti-Semitic.

First: I read the definition: "Anti-Semitism is hostility toward Jews."

Second: The entire page was listed on votes for deletion. I didn't say that the censorship was successful, I said "Wikipedians try to censor a factual timeline of anti-semitism." As for your revert, I admit that wasn't anti-semetic. I'm not a Jew, so your hostility toward me was not anti-semetic. I just thought it would be a funny header.

Third: Motivation is irrelevant. See above. Besides, even if you want to require that the hostility be directed at the Jews as a group, removal of a timeline of anti-semitism still qualifies. Regardless of motivation, the hostility is still directed at the group.

Fourth: I'm not interested in in building a serious and accurate article on the history of Anti-Semitism. That's why I added that joke. But I did not add a spurious attack, and my attack was not in any way personal. My attack was against Wikipedians. That's not personal. And it's not spurious. It was completely true, based on the very definition of anti-semitism used in Wikipedia. Anthony DiPierro 05:21, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Fifth: It doesn't. See above. That was a joke too. Anthony DiPierro 05:27, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I was merely going by the definition in anti-semitism. Secondly, your definition is untenable. If Hitler decided to wipe out all the Jews because they didn't have blonde hair, that would still be anti-semitism. If he decided to wipe out the Jews because Jew started with a J, that too would still be anti-semitism.

Finally, it was a fucking joke. Get over it. And get over yourself. Anthony DiPierro 06:25, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I consider spaces after punctuation marks as "obnoxious" as you consider their absence...and I have to put up with a lot more of what I don't like than you do.--L.E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2

I loved your "supervillain name" crack on the Talk:Zviad Gamsakhurdia revision history. Does this mean I get to wear my underpants on the outside now? :-) -- ChrisO 11:31, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Done. silsor 04:28, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Oops - will fix that - misunderstodd.The Fellowship of the Troll 05:10, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you notes
I appreciate your factual and language-wise corrections you know where. Humus sapiens 01:48, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting Medical Scientism. I'm trying not to get involved in a one-on-one with Mr NH. Bmills 14:13, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that the only answer is to vote to delete the damn thing. Bmills 14:35, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Good job on Return J. Meigs. I caught the first copyright vio and was about to replace it when they switched violations, forcing me to track down the new site...then hit save to replace the second version when I hit an edit conflict and saw that you had beaten me to the punch. :) I bow to my superior in skills Wikipedian. :)  Have a good one, and keep catching those copyvios! Jwrosenzweig 22:03, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Medical Scientism
''Load of irrelevant garbage from Nutty H wiped. Read the full argument at Talk:Medical Scientism.'' &#8212; No-One Jones (talk)

You've got mail!
Wikipedia deserves an objective presentation of the phenomena of Medical Scientism. And, it will be addressed one way or the other. -- Mr-Natural-Health 05:29, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Alternative medicine is not from me, either!

Ha, ... Hah, ...Ha! -- Mr-Natural-Health 05:34, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You've got mail!
STOP moving my comments! -- Mr-Natural-Health 18:44, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi, User:Mirv :) I suppose it's here that I have a chance to say how impressed I am about vandals not cutting your wonderful introduction. Perhaps they fear serpent-like fingers, like my own : ) Just wanted to say a small thank you for your kind thought of redirecting my little pretentious contributions to something less pretentious than Latin for Greek (Graeca sunt, non leguntur...). Anyway, talking about redirection vandalism... Big thank you for not letting it happen ! Not in the last hour or so : ) Passionately the same, Yours irismeister 18:44, 2004 Jan 20 (UTC)'

If I correctly understand your comments of today protesting that someone would discuss an activist organization on a talk page related to an article written by the activist, what I hear you saying is "Wah, Wah, Wah." Or as you essentially said on the talk page - "Shut up, your insight is irrelevant." Anonym, aka "it".

Paul Vogel
unless you actually enjoy arguing w those on the fringes, I would reccomend you avoid discussions w Paul. I worry that its only going to upset you, and I really don't see any need for that. I deeply appreciate all that you have done for the Cosmotheism article, and I'd like you to keep an eye on it, but I for one don't expect you to keep responding to him (unless you want to, if so, have at it!). I pride myself on my tireless patience, and outrageous openmindedness, and I feel that gives me special abilities in dealing w such folks. I've actually been able to get a racist or two to think hard, and question the validity of their beliefs by not being confrontational, but rather presenting them w hard moral questions (W.W.J.D. is a good one, for Christians). Anyways, to sum up, thank you, you've done alot of good, and I for one don't expect you to have to debate anti-semitism, or any other "fringe" beliefs which Paul might place in front of you. Jack 02:01, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

MIRV and Jack--

I hardly do think that COSMOTHEISTS or Classical Pantheists are at all truely on the "fringes", unless of course by that you just mean, on the "fringes" of not being "politically-correct" and thus by being actually "independent and free-thinkers". I don't care for arguing with bigots of any race or ethnicity or religion, so if mirv just doesn't wish to "discuss" anything with me, the feeling is mutual. :D

There is nothing morally-wrong with being a "racialist" as opposed to being a "racist", which the former is what most true COSMOTHEISTS actually are, and not the latter.

From "Fame of a Dead Man's Dead's" by Griffin:

"Other characteristics of pantheism that shed light on Pierce's Cosmotheist beliefs include:

It needs to be underscored that most pantheists are not monists. They aren't saying All is One. They aren't contending that there is only one Being and that all reality is either identical with it or modes of it. They are pluralists. That is to say, they believe that there are many kinds of things. They don't regard the existence of real, finite entities as inimical to unity. As pluralists, these pantheists don't see just one human nature but various human natures. Pierce carries this idea over to race. Where some would see one human race, he sees a number of human races."

"Anti-semitism" is always being falely presented as being mostly a problem that is due almost entirely to the "Gentiles" but the "semitism" or the Jewish "behavior" of some Jews or of some "semites" that are actually causing most such hostile Gentile "reactions" are almost never identified or condemned.

Could all of the "Gentiles" all throughout human history have been exclusively the "haters" whilest the "Semites" were always entirely blameless and innocent?

Not likely.

Best regards,

Paul Vogel

http://www.cosmotheism.net

Scientific Skepticism (SS)
Reddi's claims about skeptics is opinion and is entirely unwarrented. Saying that some "scientific skeptics" are closed-minded is irrelevent to what scientific skepticism is. It's just an attempt to discredit a group he dislikes. - Lord Kenneth 22:48, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * 1st ... thank you for ur contribs to SS, Mirv ...
 * Lord Kenneth's edits on "skeptics" are to POV it ... rv'ing his exclusion is entirely warrented. Saying that some "scientific skeptics" are closed-minded is HIGHLY relevent to scientific skepticism. Because one view of someting is "invalid and unacceptable" does not mean they shouldn't be in (IF they are relevant and toipical and qualified (i.e., nothing applies to everything)). Is it an attempt to discredit skeptics? No ... just state the facts ... personally I like some skeptics ... Sincerely, JDR

When criticisms are invalid and unacceptable they simply shouldn't be put up. Trying posting a cricitism of science in the science section (if there is one). Try posting criticisms of "round earth theory". Again, saying "some skeptics are closed-minded" brings no point against scientific skepticism. I'm going to revert your POV changes until an admin tells me otherwise. - Lord Kenneth 23:09, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Kenneth, your reverts will be met in kind ... though that isn't desirable to me. As to "posting a cricitism of science in the science section"? that is not what is being discussed ... it's real and psuedo skeptics ... [snip "round earth theory" straw man arguement]. Saying "some skeptics are closed-minded" brings points against scientific skepticism, as they will deny advances [till years later]. Sincerely, JDR

If they aren't skeptics, then they aren't skeptics. It doesn't matter. And you have yet to support your arguments.


 * And no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge, either! :-) It isn't necessary to justify arguments, only to report that they have been made. "X says Y about Z", remember? &#8212; No-One Jones (talk) 22:02, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But being a "pseudo-skeptic", which is what JDR's criticism is based off of, is certainly not a skeptic. If they don't fit into the definition of skeptic, they ARE NOT A SKEPTIC. - Lord Kenneth 05:45, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

I know the philosophical basis for science well. However, the assumption that earth is the center of the universe because a god made it is not scientific. - Lord Kenneth 16:20, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

...So? You could butcher the facts enough to make Jupiter the center of the solar system. The very reason it was assumed was not scientific. The reason we think the earth orbits the sun is. As for conciousness, the only parsimonious explanation is, of course, the one maintained by biology, which we are all different organisms. - Lord Kenneth 16:32, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

I know more about philosophy than you do. Hell, if you knew anything you wouldn't be catholic. Yeah, that's a real defendable position to hold. Anyway, assuming the world exists outside of conciousness is the only position that is explainable through observation and so requires the least amount of assumptions itself. To assume that conciousness creates the world begs the question on how that comes to be, and no evidence can support that position because no observations can be made about it. - Lord Kenneth 16:48, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)