User talk:Philc 0780/Archive 3

Further note from Lewis
Hey Phil,

First off, how the hell does a limey prick like you end up getting barnstars when nobody's ever bothered to give me one? (I'm teasing of course. Just as I hope you realize I was teasing you about the "should of" thing. My humour can be a bit nasty at times, I just want to make sure you never forget that it's all in jest. And of course, now that I've solicited a barnstar, please don't give me one, as it wouldn't count. They only count when they're unsolicited).

I really don't know many "hard facts" about you, as you don't write much about yourself on your userpage. That's not a criticism, you have the right to disclose as much or as little as you wish. What I gather so far, though, is that you're probably rather young (early 20's, I'd say), but more importantly that you're a rather sensitive, kind-hearted guy. In fact I'm sure of that part, as if you were nothing but a prick you wouldn't give the whole situation a second thought. But you're bothered by it, which is actually very admirable in an odd sort of way.

You seem to be committed to make things right with Stu. I really think it's just basically a communication problem. The funny thing is, I just can't help thinking that if Stu just read what you wrote to me, he'd understand.

But I know how difficult it is to stoop down and apologize, when you clearly don't think that you're the only one in the wrong.

I know how difficult it may be, but I also know how, rather counter-intuitively, to admit that one is wrong is actually a sign of strength. Only the weak and the insecure don't have the courage to admit that they're wrong, or that they don't know something, or to pretty much reveal any of their flaws.

I'm sure you've seen my userpage, and my quote from Socrates. It actually makes me feel like a bigger person to have the strength of character to say that I know fuck-all. Conversely, anyone who claims to be 100% absolutely right, with no doubt in their minds, is clearly what I would define as a moron.

Take a look at my last post to Flamarande, and that whole nasty discussion we had about Jews, Christians, Muslims, terrorism etc. He basically wrote a bunch of absurd and personally insulting, yet barely comprehensible nonsense. At first I lost my temper and blew a fuse. That was actually stupid on my part, as it showed weakness. Note however how I just responded. I began with an apology. I don't even believe he deserved an apology, but I offered it anyway. I then proceeded to rip apart his entire argument quite mercilessly! But the apology was key.

My mum has always talked about how the English are particularly astute when it comes to getting a point across very effectively. She referred to it as the English "kill'em with kindness" approach. Phil, no one will pay attention to an angry rant, as eloquent as it may be. They'll just tune you out. Look into yourself and find the true Englishman that you are Phil! Kill'em with kindness, Phil! Kill'em with kindness!

And if that doesn't work, they can go fuck themselves. :-)

Lewis

Tom Morello
Where did you get the idea that he was gay? Nareek 18:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I mistakenly assumed that people would recognize the Seinfeld reference. Nareek 19:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Lewis Again
I like the little discussion we had about pornography in America. You had some very admirable things to say. Yet of course I noticed that you chose to omit Stu from those you agree with, though you clearly agree with him.

Ok, so the whole thing has gone way beyond Stu "himself" by now. It now seems to be much more a matter of pride than anything else.

To tell you the truth, though I like the guy, if you don't, that's entirely your choice and I'll respect it.

But let me just tell you about when I was new to wiki. Somehow, I'm not sure why, I found JackofOz to be a great "mentor". I found myself flying off the handle so many times, but after it all, I came to him to teach me the ways of "wiki". We actually exchanged a few emails. I even got to the point where I called him my "wikimentor".

Now Jack's a great guy, and I'd never say a bad thing about him. He's a true gem. Yet somehow, it would appear that I've outgrown the need for his "mentoring". Now, it would seem, that I'm the mentor! How quickly things change! I haven't even been on wiki for a year yet myself!

In any case, I should just say, that in the beginning, I really had a hard time with Dirk. Perhaps sort of the same way you feel about Stu.

Now I still think Dirk's a total arse! He used to say such offensive, antisemitic things about Israel, which is of course an issue that I have the most emotional feelings about.

But somehow, we seem to have "sort of" made ammends. We've "sort of" agreed to disagree, and now we no longer seem to be butting heads.

If you're curious though, just go back into the archives of the Humanities desk to last spring for example, back then we were totaly ateach other's throats!

Ok then. Dirk's definitely a prick but we've learned to get along. And of course, Jack's always been a great guy. Stu is actually one of my best buddies there, as we seem to think so similarly, and that's why it pains me so much that you two don't get along.

And then of course there's Phil. The stubborn young Englishman who just won't let bygones be bygones.

I'm not sure why, but I care a lot about you, Phil.

In any case, I'll give you my email here TEMPORARILY. By that I mean to say that I reserve the right to remove it after a given amount of time. I don't mind at all you having it, I just don't want everyone else in the world to have it.

So I suppose I'll leave it here for, say, a week, then I'll come back to erase it.

<-- i removed, so you dont get spam etc. i jotted it down, and its in the edit history anyway Philc  TECI 20:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC) -->

Cheers Phil, but never forget my words: Kill'em with kindness!

Lewis


 * Hey Phil,


 * I've made some changes to the above post, just to avoid hurting the feelings of some good guys. I still meant them, but I don't think it's necessary to have them left there. And I know they're in the "history", but better to be in the "history" than to actually be on your discussion page. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about, but if not, feel free to send me an email asking me.


 * I was totally surprised that Stu was behind the whole "ANSWERED" thing. I just wrote a polite, but very strong response. I'm really disappointed in him.


 * Another thing (and though this may seem to be connected to the whole "ANSWERED" issue, but trust me, it's not). It's just that over the past few days I've been feeling a bit guilty about the fact that you interpreted my last message to you as some sort of moral suggestion that you should ultimately apologize to Stu. That wasn't it at all. I was really just thinking aloud when I wrote it, rather than suggesting anything. In fact, the whole dispute is so old that at this point that I'd reccommend AGAINST an apology. (And again, though it may seem so obvious, this has NOTHING to do with the whole "ANSWERED" issue!) I just felt that I was sticking my nose where it didn't belong. You're a man, and an honourable one at that. Whatever YOU choose to be proper is YOUR business, and I'm sure it'll be a good choice.


 * But let me make a couple of final points. I'm actually a bit disappointed in you, too. Just a bit. Don't worry about it, I still think you're a great guy. I just sensed a bit of "childish" pride in the fact that found a bit of dirt on Stu. You're better than that Phil! I know you are! And just as I feel Stu is wrong about the whole "ANSWERED" thing, I won't hold that against him much. It's really a small thing when you think about it. I still think he's a great guy, as I still believe you are.


 * Lewis


 * Loomis 23:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Phil,


 * I think you're putting way too much thought into the whole thing with Stu. I can actually relate, as I know that I put way to much thought into similar things. The honourable guy you are, you want to make things right.


 * I'm pretty sure Stu's forgotten about the whole thing, and quite possibly, if you apologized, he'd just be bewildered, not remembering what the hell you're talking about, or even worse, thinking: "this Phil guy, what's the deal with him? We had an argument a few months ago, and apparently he's been stewing over it ever since?" These things happen all the time. I've gotten into tangles before with certain guys, I've told you about Dirk, but there were other situations where I thought that what they were writing was so outrageous that, on one occasion at least, I called a guy a sociopath. Maybe you remember. And of course numerous times I've blown a fuse and accused certain guys of being anti-semites, (sometimes rightly I believe, but at other times clearly wrongly). In any case, they all seem to have forgotten, and now we seem to have at least a civil rapport.


 * And don't forget, you weren't completely wrong about that whole thing either. It was a debate, where I sort of agreed with Stu more, but not entirely. And besides, you did offer "something" of an apology, and quite frankly, he didn't accept it nearly as graciously as he should have. Just take a look at a couple of recent episodes I've had. Some guy compared Bush to Hitler. Now you have every right to think Bush is a moron (though I disagree), but to compare him to Hitler is simply disgusting. I demanded an apology, he offered a very "qualified" apology (i.e. If I offended you, I apologize, however...). It wasn't nearly the apology I felt was required, but I felt I made my point, and accepted the apology nonethless.


 * At this point, Phil, I'd strongly suggest that you please forget about the whole thing and please DON'T apologize. A much better move, I'd say, is to build up a friendly rapport, as well as build up a reputation for being the honourable guy you are.


 * Though I may have disagreed with you on the silly accelerate/decelate thing, it was a friendly disagreement, and despite it all, I have very high regard for you. Doesn't that count for anything?


 * Just forget the whole thing. Stop stewing over Stu (Jack would love that pun!). Just carry on, say what you feel, and your words will speak for themselves. They have at least for me, in recognizing you as a good guy, and I'm sure that they have for many others. And if that fails, just remember that at least one guy, (myself!), nutty and short-tempered as he may be, is behind you 100%. Forget all the rest.


 * Take good care, Phil.


 * Lewis
 * Loomis 23:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Phil! You limey prick! :) Didn't you see I was "baiting" that guy who "rather innocently" asked for a database containing edexcel papers? The whole question stank. It seemed very likely that he was looking for a site where he could "buy" papers to cheat his way through school! Oh well. I thought, if I was right at least (and that was the purpose of my follow-up question to him), that once I was sure that he was just trying to cheat, I'd be able to have a bit of fun at his expense. Don't worry, he might ask some interesting follow-ups! Just you watch and see if I'm right about this one! (I'm so bad!)(Well, not really, I just like having fun with cheaters, so that can't be ALL that bad!)


 * Cheers,
 * Lewis
 * Loomis 23:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

'Did the Jews really kill Jesus reference desk page'
I think your comments claiming that the jews killed jesus were very inappropriate and unfounded, there is little/no evidence to support it
 * There is as much evidence to prove that the jews were responsible for jesus's death as there is for his existence, so really, either,
 * he didnt exist
 * he did and he was crucified by pontius pilot, by order of an unruly mass of jews.
 * The book has no agenda against jews, it was written by jews. Philc  TECI 20:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point, Phil. First off, the Romans were in charge, so "the Jews" weren't in any sort of position to make any orders. It was the Roman authorities of the day that had exclusive authority to carry out any crucifixion. Yes, certain Jews wanted Jesus dead, and did their best to convince certain Romans such as Pontius Pilate to order the crucifixion. Certain other Jews, his apostles in particular, obviously didn't want him killed, just as, I would imagine, certain other Romans.


 * Now what is the modern day collectivity that best describes the decendents of the ancient Romans? (The ancient Romans being not simply the citizens of the city of Rome, but rather the citizens of a larger area that had Rome as its capital)? The Italians of course. Since the Romans bore at least as much responsibility as the Jews in Jesus' crucifixion,(and I don't think anyone really disputes that,) it would therefore seem just as appropriate to say that the Italians killed Christ.


 * But who would go around saying that the Italians killed Christ? Yes, certain ancient Italians killed Christ, but should the whole nation be identified as having killed Christ? Did, for example, "the Greeks" kill Socrates? Did "the Hindus" kill Ghandi?


 * In any case, I know you meant no harm Phil. And I'm sure you weren't taking into account the real problem, that is, that the basis of so much of the suffering of Jews throught history was predicated on the whole "the Jews killed Jesus" idea. I'll always maintain that you're a decent, good guy. :-)


 * Another thing Phil, send me an email if you can, I think you said you wrote down my address...there's something I'd like to discuss "off the record" with you. The walls have ears! Don't worry, it's all good stuff, nothing to do with this. :-) Lewis Loomis 00:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly it is harsh to associate the romans with modern Italians as that empire was well and truly quashed by Germanic tribes. The romans in Israel were probably predominantally recruited in Israel, though commanded by romans. But anyway, yeh I agree we cannot hold modern jews responsible for what happened, as they in no way whatesoever are responsible, and neither is their faith as a group. No one should feel at shame for what happened 2000 years ago. But im simply saying, that jews according to scriptures, and by probability (a majority of israelis were jews) a person or group of people of jewish faith were probably responsible, even if they didnt carry out the act, of the death of Jesus. Though I dont hold this as anything to do with thier faith, no more than I say middle eastern people killed christ, or northern hemispheric people killed christ, all of which I believe are equally true-er statements. Future pas and present jews should feel no connection to this act though, I agree, it has nothing to do with faith wether you were responsible for Jesus' death. Philc  TECI 21:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Phil, I'm disappointed in you. Even the Catholics, of all people, have not merely "forgiven" the Jews for killing Jesus, but far more importantly, "absolved" us of any wrongdoing whatsoever. Phil, I don't understand why you can't come to the same conclusion as pretty much every other Christian denomination, including, even, the Catholics have, in concluding: "CHRIST WAS CRICIFIED BY THE ROMANS". THE ROMANS!!! The Catholics, in Vatican II, re-taught their followers that NO Jews were responsible for the killing of Christ. Rather, it stated that the Jews were the "elder brethren" of the Christians.


 * Phil, in order to rid you and I, both decent guys, both people of faith, both fearers of God, of this nonsense is for you to state ONCE AND FOR ALL: "CHRIST WAS KILLED BY THE ROMANS" and not at all by the Jews. But if you can't, you can't. I'm curious as to how you conclude that scripture teaches you that the Jews killed Jesus. Loomis 23:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for that little rant, Phil. I guess I had just woken up on the wrong side of the bed that day. My opinion of you hasn't changed. I guess there's still a bit of "hot-head" left in me! Anyway, relax, we're just having a civil discussion here, and I hope you didn't take my remarks too harshly. :)


 * Lewis Loomis 22:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see you're back, Phil! I was starting to worry about you and was about to send you an email when yours popped up. Please forget about the Jesus thing, it's all nonsense (not Jesus, but our little disagreement!). I'm just glad to see you back.

Oh, and "chill"? I'm actually quite chill, and I'm actually also quite proud of what I wrote there...some of my better stuff, I think!

In any case, why were you away for so long? I hope it had nothing to do with what I said. I don't know the correct teminology in England, (I wouldn't want to use the term "mate" the wrong way! I remember being at a pub in England when someone leaned over to me and asked in a hushed tone: "fancy bumming a fag, mate?" (huh?) :) I knew what he meant, it just sounded odd to my ears.), therefore, I'll say it in Canadian: "Phil, eh? You'll always be my good buddy, ok?" :)

Oh and I was just wondering, what part of England are you from?

Take care, and come back to the RefDesk. It isn't the same without you.

Lewis

Loomis 20:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Message from StuRat
Phil, I just wanted you to know that, while I had a rather negative opinion of you at the time of the name-calling, I don't any more. This is because, it seems you are genuinely sorry and wish you had apologized, and also because you seem to show more maturity and restraint than most people would at your age.

As for my statement, "please don't swear at me or insult me in the future", that reflects my desire to avoid such conflict entirely, rather than have conflicts followed by apologies. I will also try not to swear at you or insult you, or anybody else, in the future.

As for your desire to become an Admin, I hope that you eventually make it, assuming you've now learned to control your temper, of course.

As for myself, I apologize for originally "correcting" your use of the word "accelerate" to "decelerate". I didn't know that the word "decelerate" wasn't used in the UK, or I would have put it like this, instead: "To those of us in the US, that means decelerate". StuRat 22:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of Google hits
While Google hits can be misleading, I don't believe they are entirely useless. Just view them as "raw data", which then must be interpreted correctly. For example, let's say I want to know the most common name of the big cat known as a cougar, mountain lion, puma, catamount, panther, or painter. I get this many hits:

HITS SEARCH TERM ===== ============= 50.3M puma 40.6M painter 36.2M panther 12.0M cougar 10.7M mountain lion 1.4M "mountain lion" 0.8M catamount

Note that the quotes are needed around "mountain lion" to eliminate matches like: "I have pics of a mountain and a lion on my wall". While many false hits might be found for each, like John Cougar Mellencamp, Ford Cougar, Puma athletic shoes, and the Black Panther Party, those things are at least named after the animal, and the number of things named after a particular term is also a rough indicator of that term's popularity. There is a problem, however, with the term "painter", which will have many hits in no way related to the cat, but rather related to one who paints. So, those results should be ignored. I happen to know that "painter" is a rather rarely used term (only in Appalachia, I believe), so I would discount that entirely. I would conclude that "puma" is the most common term for the cat. Now, it could possibly be "panther", as that is somewhat close on hits, but by no means could the most popular term be "catamount", that's what Google told us. Also note that short sequences of letters, like "blof" or "puma" are bound to get some hits just by chance, while long sequences are less likely to be produced by any random process. However, by testing a few random 4-letter sequences, I've found those hits only number in the thousands, so the 50 million hits for "puma" are almost all legit. StuRat 22:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching
Yup Phil, I guess we are still your coaches, but this is turning out to be too slow. I guess you'll have to take the initiative, and pester us to help you. BTW, is there any time you're online on IRC/Gmail/MSN etc ? -- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 03:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * IRC clents: mIRC, X-chat, ChatZilla, are all easily available/downloadable. I would recommend X-chat, though it's not free on Windows. Chatzilla is available as free FireFox plugin, and mIRC is also downloadable. -- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 17:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summaries
Do you think you could vary them a bit-- they are starting to HMMMM a bit too much! Thanks. --Light current 02:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Football AID 19 November - 26 November
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week. Old Firm has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Intermission-Nine Black Alps
Hi,

Sorry about this extremely late reply.I've been having exams in college and been busy for a while. I'll try to get the chords as soon as I can. Meanwhile try these chords (that I put together in a haste). I haven't had much time to double-check them out. So they most probably maybe wrong. And since this is my own effort, they'll certainly be wrong. :-P. But if you can work around them a bit,maybe you can get the right chords yourself.

e-0---0-0---0--0-0-- B-1---3-1---0--1-0-- G-0---2-2---0--0-0-- D-2---3-3---2--2-2-- A-3---0-0---2--2-2-- E-x---x-x---0--0-0--

1)play the first chord 6 times, and play the bass strings and then treble strings alternativily. then the play next two chords quickly..

2)then repeat the second set of 3 chords, 4 times one after the other and end on the 5th chord the 4th time.

That was just the intro and the verse. Hope it made some sense. :-P. I got one more of my mates working on it too, so if anything comes up, I'll give ya an update.

BTW, would you happen to know the tabs of the other Nine Black Alps acoustic song, Headlights.. Its a great song and I cant find the tabs anywhere.

See ya around, Cheers! Jayant, 17 Years, India  • contribs 20:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops! The song I was talking about was Behind Blue Eyes.. he he.. sorry about that.. :-P.. What kind of guitar do you have? How long have you been playing? and Are you in a band? What kind of music do you play? :-) Jayant, 17 Years, India  • contribs 14:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sigur Rós
Phil, your question about religion and premarital sex on the reference desk made me curious about you, so I went to look at your user page. I just thought I'd say that I, too, am a big fan of Sigur Rós. (Though I am concerned that, to my ears, they haven't been able to keep up the high standard they set in Ágætis Byrjun). Cheers. Marco polo 16:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:ADOPT
Hi there,

As a user looking to Adopt with the Adopt-a-User program, there has been some ongoing developments that we would like to bring to your attention, as well as request help with the backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user.

You should know that the way the adoption process works has changed slightly. To decrease workload at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user on offering adoption please change the   template to    on the user's user page, and this will add the user to Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption. Users that have already been offered adoption can always have a second or third offer, but by separating out those users that have not had an adoption offer yet, it is hoped that no one will go lacking. Once adoption is complete please use the templates found here on the Adoptee's and your user page.

Also numerous Adopters have been adding their details to a list of users available for adopting, to offer a more personalised service and allow new users to browse through and pick their own Adopter. The quickest way to adopt though, is still to contact users at the Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user.

Furthermore a new Adopter's Area has been created where you can find useful resources and other Adopter's experiences. Please feel free to add any resources you have and if you know of any useful resources for new users / Adoptees then you can add them here.

So I hope you get adopting soon - and if you have any general questions or suggestions about the further development of Adopt-a-User please bring them to our talk page. Cheers Lethaniol 15:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Cameltoe
Ok fair enough mate. Sorry. The point is, Morris is not considered an authority (at least in physiology; he has some claim to expertise in ethology, I admit). I am a physician and I can tell you that while the clitoris and labia minora are erectile tissue, the labia majora are most definitely not. So the idea that they engorge during sexual arousal is false. Morris may have made a genunine error (let's give him the benefit of the doubt). But in any case, just think about it - a woman walking down the street sporting a toe is unlikely to be sexually aroused, although I admit it's possible. But the idea that her toe will increase if she is aroused is, I am afraid, not the case.Bobble2 21:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Science doesn't generally go in for negative evidence. Otherwise there would be even vaster piles of information than there already are (eg Bats don't cause herpes. Iron is not made out of jello etc.). However, if you check out this link, http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec22/ch241/ch241b.html you will see that it describes the minora as erectile and does not so describe the majora. From the context, I think you will see what I mean. In fact, you can see by inspection that the majora and the minora are of a different nature. The former are essentially smooth, fatty tissue covered by sebaceous skin containing hair follicles. The minora have no sebaceous surfaces or hair follicles and are altogether softer, more delicate and rugose (ie with a crinkled surface).Bobble2 19:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, I apologise. It was rude of me. I was actually being dismissive of Morris (who in my opinion went off the rails years ago). Not you. Anyway, cheers.Bobble2 21:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)