User talk:Raspor/Archive 01

Captivity (2007) Genre: Thriller Running Time: 1 hr. 38 min. Release Date: July 13, 2007 (wide) Distributors: After Dark Films Cast: Elisha Cuthbert, Pruitt Taylor-Vince, Daniel Gillies, Laz Alonso, Michael Harney Director: Roland Joffe Producers: Mark Damon, Leonid Minkovski, Sergei Konov

WP: NEO
I would invite you to read WP:NEO in regards to your creation of the Caged Kids article. Thanks RichMac (Talk) 13:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

from user raspor to a WP admin (User:Vaoverland)
I am just starting on this. I am trying to get the jist of how it all works. I did a short article called 'Gravelles' and it was immediately deleted. Well everything I have done so far has been deleted without any explanation. I chose your name at random just to get started somewhere. thanks


 * Did you read the message on this page? User talk:Raspor. Apparently, the Gravelles article you wrote was thought not to meet WP criteria. I would suggest working on the editing of existing articles first before creating new ones, and see how your work survives (or doesn't). You should also consider contacting the Wikipedian who deleted your Gravelles article at this link User talk:Gurch and ask for details about why and request guidance. Despite your frustration, I hope you will do that respectfully and thereby get some non-emotional specific answers I cannot provide. I can see that your Caged Kids article was deleted by yet another Wikipedian, and since that action by more than 1 of us rarely happens to good articles, it is likely that you do need some advice to succeed. Good luck. It is always OK to contact me. Vaoverland 13:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the delay. As I said in my original message, Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet, and we can't accept articles about just anyone. You claim your article was deleted "without any explanation"... this isn't really true, if you read my message again you will find links to several guideline and policy pages that give you an idea of what you should be aiming for. The most relevant page in this case is the page about notability for biographical articles. If your article is about a person or group of people it needs to say clearly why they are important or significant. This is done mainly to stop people writing articles about themselves or their family. If the person or people in question are living, then additional guidelines apply, mainly for legal reasons. Essentially, your article failed to meet these standards. You are of course welcome to create a more extensive article that provides an assertion of notability and otherwise meets the guidelines. Thanks – Gurch 00:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Not Accurate
Raspor wrote:
 * ''"Given that psychotherapy is restricted to conversations, practitioners do not have to be medically qualified,"
 * I am new here and told to be 'bold' but I am afraid to change this even tho i am positive it is not accurate. there are many types of 'psychotherapy' that go beyond conversation: attachment therapy, biofeedback, and the eye movement therapy. should I be 'bold'and change this or will that be considered vandalism.
 * gurch
 * i put this under the psychotherapy discussion. i want to change it but i dont want to be accused of vandalism. what should i do?

Hi, the best thing to do is add a comment to the discussion page of the appropriate article and after a while, if nobody objects, change the article (remembering to leave an informative edit summary). If anyone objects at that stage, suggest that they also explain their opinion on the discussion page. Hope this helps – Gurch 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, assuming you are referring to this edit, it was not me that removed your edit but JoeSmack; you may wish to bring the matter up with him. The only edit I made was this one, after an anonymous user removed the entire references section and the list of related topics without explanation – Gurch 01:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I reverted your changes not because I considered them vandalism, there should be no concern about that. However, your added content (shown above) raised my eyebrows enough to revert it for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it does not properly source its statements. Saying 'demonstrates that psychotherapy rarely does more than what the placebo effect, passage of time, and working things out on your own accomplishes' you really do need some reliable source information; more than just a phd 1996 book. I mean, she could be a crank too so multiple sources would be best. See WP:CITE and Reliable sources for getting this done, it'll help a lot in clearing that up. Secondly, especially the second paragraph, sounds very point-of-view (as opposed to NPOV). This means it isn't neutral: I'd imagine psychotherapy isn't expensive in countries where they have universal health care. Claiming that 'health care companies are forcing many who are unable to afford it' isn't verifiable, as well as being POV. See WP:NPOV for more info on this; it is a pillar that Wikipedia was founded on (See Five pillars for others) and is important for a non-biased encyclopedia.
 * I hope I have helped clear things up, and I don't mean to just throw policies at you: I just want you to know why I reverted your edits. If you have any questions at all, pertaining to this issue or any other, please, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Cheers. JoeSmack Talk 16:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope I have helped clear things up, and I don't mean to just throw policies at you: I just want you to know why I reverted your edits. If you have any questions at all, pertaining to this issue or any other, please, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Cheers. JoeSmack Talk 16:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your credibility as a wiki editor
You said (in very strong terms) "Harun Yahya is a forceful, popular proponent of ID"

Yahya himself wrote "Intelligent Design Accounts Could Harm Individuals Sincerely Inclined toward Religion...Intelligent Design Is Another of Satan's Distractions"

This is yet another reason why you have no credibility as an editor of the intelligent design article. Mr Christopher 19:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi!
Hello, I've added a welcome to the top of your page. There's a lot of information there about how to get results in contributing to Wikipedia, and I'd particularly recommend reading Verifiability and No original research as soon as you can: you may feel you know something, but all facts and opinions here have to be properly attributed to a reliable source, as well as being properly balanced in terms of WP:NPOV. We're all learning here, and I'll be glad to help with any questions you have. Look forward to your future contributions, .. dave souza, talk 19:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
Raspor, I've tried my best to stay neutral on this dispute and to be helpful to the newbies. The fact is, I don't see you as "an innocent victim", but I also disagree with some of the actions on "the other side" as well. Anyway, I think the best option for you right now is to look into the Mediation Cabal. These guys are experienced in helping editors work together and helping newbies learn the ropes.-Psychohistorian 17:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

capitalization suggestion from humps

 * Are you aware that sentences traditionally begin with a capital letter? Humps 20:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

3revert rule
Please read three revert rule before you get yourself banned from the intelligent design article. Mr Christopher 21:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

you have accused me of vandalism and have told me that if i revert one more time i will be banned

i believe both of these statements are untrue.

seems you are just threatening me so your biase POV will remain

explain your statements. they seem untruthfull to me

raspor

3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Humps 21:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think enough is enough. He's been warned on several occasions about WP:3RR and continues to violate it.  I have filed a report, since he made 5 reverts to the same thing.  He needs to discuss it first, and he refuses.  time to go.  Orangemarlin 22:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I spent hours discussing it. I did not make reverts I made addtions. I was unjustly accused of vandalism. I was libeled. The addtions I made were cited. You just did not like them.

Good. I look forward to a trial.

raspor 22:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your trial, sir, is here:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Raspor_reported_by_User:Orangemarlin_.28Result:.29 Humps 22:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on January 1 2007 to Intelligent design
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 23:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The reversion trial
Well, obviously there was not one. I did not have a chance to state my case.

I have mistreated since I started posting here. I made a change to an article and was falsely accused of vandalism. I added one sentence and it was reverted immediately which was against the guidelines.

And now I have been unfairly blocked. This just seems like a game where the bullies rule. I was told discuss what I wanted to change and I was told that it all has been discussed and you are wrong.

The Intelligent Design article is biased. I could go on and on about the one sidedness of it but one but cleary exemplifies this.

There was a sentence that stated that '10% of the US accepts Intelligent Design' It was cited. I looked at the cite and found it also stated that 3 times as many college grads accept ID as high school grads.

The article has overall has implied that ID is something that uneducated unscientific people believe. I added that comment and it was repeatedly deleted because it was 'irrelevant'.

I think there is a need for the some representation of the minority position in that article. Right now is is simplly a bash of the concept of Intelligent Design. I have used wiki as a reference many times and found it to be accurate, thorough and balanced. Until this and a couple of other articles.

This is a shameful example of how a group can hijack an article and ruin the wonderful balance wiki in general shows.

This is truly a disappointment to me to see how an article can be taken over by what appears to be thugs.


 * You are not being blocked for content; you are being blocked for breaking WP:3RR. You aren't allowed to break 3RR even if you are correct William M. Connolley 12:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont see how I 'reverted' that many times. Are you saying I am not allowed to edit an article more that 3 times. Every change I made was deleted. So I can deleted others changes and then when they restore it claim that they are reverting??

And why is it that those that attacked me are not blocked for calling me a troll, ignorant, and libeling me by calling me a 'vandal'? why have they not been blocked??

raspor 12:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you don't think you have 4R, then I suggest that you examine your sedits more closely, and read WP:REVERT carefully. Better still, read WP:1R carefully. If every change you make is deleted, you need to get agreement on the talk page - you cannot force these things in against opposition.
 * As for troll, etc: blocking for this is uncommon, unless very blatant. Its a judgement matter, unlike your 3RR, which is rather more direct William M. Connolley 12:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

how about being accused of vandalism??

so i can call people trolls and call them vandals with impunity?

raspor 12:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, and if you're going to be silly I'm not going to bother to continue. Some people *are* trolls. Calling them such is fair. Some people *are* vandals. So calling someone a vandal is not automatically an offence. Breaking 3RR is (except...) William M. Connolley 14:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not being silly. I was called a troll and a vandal. Is that OK?

raspor 14:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are trolling and vandalising? Yes.  Your editing has been highly disruptive.  I strongly advise you to improve your civility and the evidential basis for your edits as a matter of some urgency. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Polling Data
"I'm not sure that throwing polling data back and forth between the Evolution side and the Creation myth side does any good. Facts aren't proven by polls, they just show how uneducated and silly people can be. I forgot the exact numbers, but a substantial number of Americans believe they've been abducted by aliens. So, in the UFO article (and I'm going to check if that's considered pseudoscience, because if I'm going to stand on principle with Noah's Ark and ID, I'm going to do the same with Divining Rods and UFO's), does it qualify as NPOV information to state that in some Gallup Poll or something, 60% of Americans believe in Aliens? That just shows that 60% of Americans need to have their heads examined by a qualified psychotherapist. I don't care how many people believe in ID, it is pseudoscience, it is myth, and it is religion, but it is not factual and it is not science. If Raspor or whatever Mr. 3RR added to the revert war, I don't think Polling data belongs in an encylopedic article. Unless you're going to state how gullible some number of people are to mythology. I might buy that. Orangemarlin 04:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)"

unbelievable. I get blocked for taking out poll data comments and here orange says he is against it yet i was blocked for deleting it. Then when I added comments from the same cite those were deleted.

obvious, obvious bias


 * You were blocked for violating 3rr. An obvious, obvious policy.   You were warned two times here on your talk page about viloating 3rr prior to getting the 24hr block.  You ignored those warnings and continued to violate 3rr and were therefore blocked.  Using your talk page to rally against Wikipedia and misrepresent the reasons for your 24 hour block are in violation of Wikipedia:User_page#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3FMr Christopher 15:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to try to be nice here. I am opposed to having polling data included in any article, even when it supports my POV on an article, because polling is POV.  That being said, I rarely make changes without having a discussion about it first, and that's what I'm doing.  I'm engaging in finding a consensus on this issue.  Yes, I agree with you on polls, but I still don't agree with how you treat others, treat Wikipedia and your philosophy.  The first two is causing you problems, the last one is a point of discussion that is part of Wikipedia.  The first two is preventing you from being effective on the last part.  Orangemarlin 17:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

i found out that nice doesnt work here. thats how i started and was called a troll and vandal cuz i changed an article in good faith just as you did. i really didnt understand the 3R rule. i thought you could not revert and i edited.

i have been mistreated and am just shoot the crap back that i get. there is a mob mentality here. i tried for days to get just consideration and didnt get it. i was just called stupid and ignorant.

the mob here only knows force. they rule by intimidation and false accusations to discredit people.

i was unjustly called a vandal. i was told that they can do that with impunity.

i am new here and was treated like crap. no breaks no compromise. just this bitter attitude.

yes the poll comment was stupid. it was cherry picked. much info here is cherry picked.

look at britanica they are objective. this seems like a bunch of college students with a lot of time just goofing off.

raspor 18:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

whale fossils:

 * "why waste time looking for whale fossils. how has that helped us?" - What a curious statement! Are you, perhaps, unaware that the transitional fossils for the evolution of whales from land animals WERE actually found? Indeed, this is a good example of the predictive power of evolution: we didn't have many of these fossils for a long time, but evolution predicted their existence, and they were eventually found. The same applies to Tiktaalik: there was a gap in the transitional sequence for the evolution of land animals from fish, so scientists went hunting in rocks of the right age, and the gap was filled. Or was this intended as a general attack on scientific enquiry, like "why waste time looking for black holes or the Higgs boson, how has that helped us?" --Robert Stevens 12:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

the point is that the fossil evidence for whale evolution is a few bones. all up to interpretation.


 * Well that's not true is it? There is a plethora of fossilized whale bones. Not a few. Over the past 20 years scientists have been unravelling the evolution of the whale in some detail (remember that there are not enough scientists and funding to do all evolutionary trees for all organisms so there are going to be knowledge gaps due to these constraints at times). Evidence also comes from:
 * embryology
 * comparative anatomy
 * intermediate fossil records (you probably think there are none judging you my your own statements - A simple and clear web site to help enlighten you is at )
 * comparative evolutionary traits
 * comparative biochemistry (of extant whales)
 * landlocked whale skeleton recoveries (up to 10 000 years old)
 * vestigal remnants
 * oxygen isotope evidence
 * There is more but I fear having to explain comparative evolutionary predictions based on similar environmental changes to you.
 * "all (sic) up to interpretation"? Weasley words my friend. Candy 13:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

and if we are looking for pure science without practical application why is ID criticized for not have practical applications. cant have it both ways

raspor 12:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

mob rule
Raspor now has 24 hours to reflect on the importance of 3RR, but I think he was referring to the table "SUMMARY OF KEY QUESTIONS ABOUT HUMAN EVOLUTION– BY EDUCATION" which shows ID support rising from 6% at HS or less to 15% College Grad and 17% Post Grad. Unfortunately enthusiasm for making a point seems to have overcome care with arithmetic or balanced description. Oddly enough, considering the much touted claim that ID includes creationism, Belief in creationism is shown as declining from 73% to 42% as educational attainment increases. .. dave souza, talk 23:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

yes that was my point. we can select positive and negative data from a survey. the darwinists here chose the negative with out showing the other side:

BIAS!!!

yes i am reflecting also on how mob rule works also too raspor 12:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Psycho's rap sheet:
sorry psycho. i can see you have some balls and integrity!

encyclopedia britannica
just read their def of 'intelligent design' very balanced, fair, informative.

not just a bashing of the idea by people who are against it

wiki in this case is a failure

i hope people will realize wiki is not a real encyclopedia. there should be a disclaimer somewhere

i thought it was serious for along time. people use this as a source.

compare brits to wiki's on ID

what a joke wikis is

should warn people that its just a bunch what seems to me to be college student with time on their hands spouting off.

nothing can be taken seriously here

GO PSYCHO!
really i am with you on your edits. you are showing some integrity.

you are being objective. good going! really!

do you think you can get away with being unbiased in this article?

raspor 17:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

the old 'God did it' excuse
Scott explains, "Once you allow yourself to say God did it, you stop looking for naturalistic explanations. If you stop looking, you won't find them

yep that sure stopped newton, pascal, pasteur, etc. etc. etc.

what a lame argument.

most of our science came from guys who thought 'God did it'

raspor 17:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

But you will notice that the only science that survived of theirs was the naturalistic science, not the deistic science or attempts they made. What does that tell you?--Filll 00:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Psycho! I was wrong about you
I will erase you rap sheet. You have some balls.

Yes the point is to be accurate. It does not take a lot of brains to see how fugdet this ID article is.

remember the animal house movie: "bob job" cough::"bob job" cough::"bob job" cough::

the bias stinks like a 5 day old fish wrapped in newspaper out in the august sun for 3 days

felon doesnt think people can see it?

if you present a cleaner case pro-IDers will be more likey to be more objective also

we should stop the bob-job here

raspor 18:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Psycho, hold on till I get out of the 'hole'
I will help you.

I am for accuracy, truth and non-bias. Even if it helps my oppostion.

Hang in there you are showing some tuff stuff.

(Actually I am suprised finding a Darwinist that has some gonads)

raspor 18:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Psycho, FellatioMonk is bluffing
hang tuff!

I only have about 20 more hours in the hole

raspor 18:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Care to explain how your section title above contributes positively to the project, is not a personal attack and not disruptive? FeloniousMonk 00:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

i would like proper decorum here. i am trying to figure out how to get it

was it OK for me to be called a vandal??

this seems like a big bob job. all the requests for input by pro-IDers has been ignored

an article on ID completely written by anti-IDers: a bob job

raspor 01:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Right... Care to explain to us how your use of "FellatioMonk" in your section title above contributes to "proper decorum"? Anyone who makes comments with intentional slurs like "FellatioMonk" instead of FeloniousMonk is apt to be viewed a vandal and a troll, so no sympathy here for your situation. You've gotten better than you've given (or deserved) at Wikipedia, Raspor. FeloniousMonk 01:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Humps 23:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

yes i am against personal attacks also. i have been called many names

someone called me a vandal. do you think that was ok?

i talked to wiki about it and they said they could do nothing

raspor 00:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

User conduct RFC
Your actions are the subject of a user conduct request for comment: Requests for comment/Raspor You can give any justifications for your actions there. FeloniousMonk 00:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

i dont know what you want. i have been attack continuously by many of your group. but that does not seems to bother anyone

raspor 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, stopping stunts like this would be a good start. Learning our policies and abiding by them would be another. FeloniousMonk 00:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

i talked to someone and they said it was ok to be a little sarcastic. i complained about being called a vandal

look felon,

was it ok for one of your mob to call me a vandal???

raspor 01:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on contributions like this, yes. If you still don't see it, read WP:SPADE. FeloniousMonk 01:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mob rule by Franklin
According to our Founding Fathers, democracies were as dangerous as any form of government. Benjamin Franklin defined democracy as “three wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch,” and explained that true liberty is “a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” In sum, any rule of man system, whether mob rule or rule by the elites, is destined for failure.

IF YOU ANTI-IDERS ARE NOT WILLING TO LET THERE BE SOME SORT OF INPUT BY THE PRO-IDERS THEN THIS ABOVE CONCEPT TRULY APPLIES HERE


 * Corrected formatting. Justin Eiler 01:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the last time I'm responding to you, because one of the sure signs of insanity is repeating oneself over and over in the expectation of a different result. I really don't expect a different result, I don't think I'm insane, but this is definitely the last shot.  First of all, describing us as a mob is insulting and demeaning.  This is not anarchy, but it is not a democracy.  Not all information has equal weight.  For example, just because 20% of Americans think that the moon landing was faked does not mean that 20% of the moon landing article deserves attention to these people.  A brief mention in the humor section might suffice.  By court ruling, by the process of science, and by verifiable research, Intelligent Design is a religion, not science.  I'm not going to go into the full details of what defines a religion, but belief in a supernatural being is fundamental to that definition.  If someone wants to rewrite this article as the Church of ID, I'm fine with it.  But it is pseudoscience by definition and by fact, and any attempt to state otherwise is rather silly.  That is not a mob decision, that is what defines Wikipedia--make it encyclopedic, make it verifiable, don't use opinion, etc. etc. etc.  You will serve yourself better by writing a cogent, grammatically correct, and verifiable section of the article; post that section to the discussion section; and finally unemotionally discuss it everyone else.  You have not even attempted to be logical, unemotional, nice, and logical.  So this is it Raspor.  You can try to be civil and logical, or you can continue to call us names.  Your choice at this point.  Orangemarlin 17:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mob rule by Franklin
According to our Founding Fathers, democracies were as dangerous as any form of government. Benjamin Franklin defined democracy as “three wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch,” and explained that true liberty is “a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” In sum, any rule of man system, whether mob rule or rule by the elites, is destined for failure.

IF YOU ANTI-IDERS ARE NOT WILLING TO LET THERE BE SOME SORT OF INPUT BY THE PRO-IDERS THEN THIS ABOVE CONCEPT TRULY APPLIES HERE

MOB RULE —Preceding unsigned comment added by raspor (talk • contribs)

Raspor, how many times Do you have to be invited to write something? Or are you just a troll and nothing else?--Filll 01:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Look i went thru the procedure as stated in the rules. i was polite. i was submissive. i brought up my ideas on the talk page. i wrote a sentence. very innocuous and it was deleted immediately and i was called a vandal.

yes i love that quote about the lambs and wolves voting for dinner

if your mob has any sense of fairness it will allow some input by pro-IDers. jeez after all the article is about ID. cant those who support it have just a teensy weensy say it what the artilce says

this is how good law making works and this is how good article making should work. not dictatorship thru numbers.

the minority should be represented. how can an article on ID be written objectively by people who hate it?

the opposition has used procedural tricks on me since day. no real effort to get me involved. so i see this as a no compromise situation. winner takes all. very unamerican. more nazi or communist

raspor 01:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What would you say your imput has been? Initially, all you did was suggest that the article wasn't comprehensive enough, an issue which we addressed by explaining that the article deals only with intelligent design as defined by the Discovery Institute. Since then, what input have you tried to offer? What useful input have we rejected? -- Ec5618 01:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

well like a big dummy i actually presented my ideas in the talk section where i was told how stupid i was. then i looked thru the archives and saw many before me had wanted the same changes

so then i figure you just have to change it. i made a change in good faith and was called a vandal presumably because it was not acceptable by the ruling regime here.

so then i realized this is all a bob job. its an article on ID completely written by those who hate it. how objective is that. its a bob job. i dont see it any other way

and fellatio knows that

raspor 02:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair, you were 'stupid', in that you didn't know a lot of things that had already been discussed, or which were assumed to be basic background knowledge. You were given links to specific discussions in the archives, but you seem to have ignored them. What more could you expect of us?
 * I honestly don't understand half of what you're trying to say here. Perhaps therein lies part of the problem. "fellation knows what"? "bob job"? Please. -- Ec5618 02:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

no the point is that no matter now much logic is presented to the anti-IDers it is ignored. they have hijacked this article. no input from pro-IDers on ID will be allowed. it is mob rule in it most obvious form. reasoning is useless. they use insult tactics and get upset if anyone returns their impolities in kind. they have brought this down to a a might makes right situation

it is a wiki failure

raspor 12:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure several other editors feel the same way about you. Logic washes off of you. Now, I'll ask again, what input have you tried to offer? What useful input have we rejected? And please, answer the question without using the word bob-job, as I honestly have no clue what it is supposed to mean. -- Ec5618 12:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

i wrote a paragraph and put it here or under ID talk. its gone.

OK i have asked this question a dozen times and no anti-IDer has answered. was it OK to call me a vandal?

the anti-IDers here have a big agenda. anti-DI. they have linked ID with DI and that is illogical since ID has been around for thousands of years. this article is being used to promote anti-DI hate. where is the coolness. look at the beginning of the ID article. you might as well call it: 'Evil ID exposed' really isnt that a better title?

raspor 12:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Intelligent design/Raspor's and adlac's objections. Your contributions were obviously dominating the main talk page, so your comments were moved so that you could take your time to work on them.
 * As for the section you proposed, many of us have tried to explain a simple concept to you, and you obviously still fail to understand it: This article deals with the concept of intelligent design as propounded by the Discovery Institute, nothing more. A separate article deals with the political movement behind the concept of intelligent design as propounded by the Discovery Institute. All other concepts of teleology are covered in the article on teleology. How is this not clear? How is it not clear that the introduction you propose does not cover the article? -- Ec5618 12:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 14:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

mr. christopher. first of all you called me a vandal. can you explain why?
raspor 15:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This merely indicates rudeness rather than a proper willingness to explain your obscure remarks. You will get on much better if you comply carefully with WP:CIVIL .. dave souza, talk 15:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

asking why someone accused of vandalism is rude on my part? wow!
raspor 16:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you red WP:VAND to see what constitutes vandalism in Wikipedia? Inserting - and edit warring over - biased content is a valid use of the term.  Guy (Help!) 19:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

i think you better read it. changing an article is not vandalism.

your full of it

raspor 19:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

astrology is not science??? why??
raspor 00:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Scientific theories must be falsifiable, not falsified. Astrology was never a scientific theory. Would you please read scientific method and astrology. -- Ec5618 00:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, just answer me.
 * According to your understanding, is astrology falisfiable? Has it been falsifed?
 * raspor 00:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * raspor, note that scientific method and astrology are both in blue colors. That means they are hyperlinks to articles here of the same name.  Please click on one and read the article(s).  Mr Christopher 00:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it has. Astrology is false, not falsifiable. Nor does it match any of the other elements of the scientific method.
 * Please do me the kindness of assuming for a moment that I know what I'm talking about. And I have taken the liberty of formatting your post. -- Ec5618 00:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * is astrology falisfiable?
 * raspor 00:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * NO. A hundred times, NO. -- Ec5618 00:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * can we run a test on astrology to see if what it predicts is true?
 * raspor 01:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, even testing would be difficult, as there seem to be wildly differing views on the interpretation of cosmic events. However, given that scientists have already tried to test astrology, and given that astrology failed those tests, we can again conclude that astrology is not scientific.
 * Considering that it already failed to be falsifiable, that hardly matters though. We already knew that astrology is not scientific. -- Ec5618 01:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * you are on another planet here.
 * astrology makes very measurable predictions go to the wiki page on it
 * "The Mars effect is a claim that Mars occupies certain positions in the sky more often at the birth of sports champions than at the birth of ordinary people"
 * this is a falsifiable hypothesis. it has been tested.
 * astrology is a scientific theory that is not supported by evidence.
 * the theory that depression was caused by excess bile was a scientific theory. too bad no evidence supported it.
 * the multiverse theory is not a scientific theory
 * CAN YOU TELL ME WHY??
 * raspor 01:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * are you saying that the positions of the heavenly bodies do not influence our lives??
 * raspor 01:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It has not only been tested, it has been proven to be false. Nothing can be a scientific theory, while proven to be false. False, false, false. I repeat, astrology is not a scientific theory, because it is false. False, false.
 * The effects of heavenly bodies on human phychology are negligible, yes. Please consider taking a course in basic scientific thought. -- Ec5618 01:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * hmmm....
 * seems to me the body is very attuned the heavenly bodies. have you heard of the circadian rythmn? mensrtal periods? puberty at 14 years. adulthood at 21. isnt when you wake up in the morning determined by a heavenly body?
 * please consider studying science a lot harder
 * well parts of astrology have been prove to be true. most have not.
 * evolution has never been proven. sorry
 * look up what makes a scientific theory. it does not have to be valid to be scientific.
 * you need to study harder
 * raspor 01:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good god man, how dare you suggest that the circadian rhythm is astrology? How dare you suggest that menstral periods are tied in to the motion of the Moon. How dare you suggest that age universally defines adulthood.
 * Please say something to convince me that you understand any of these concepts: science/astrology/English/evolution/intelligent design/teleology. So far, you have failed to make a single point that suggests you know anything we haven't had to explain to you, and very few points that suggest you have learned anything since coming here. -- Ec5618 01:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * think a second. astrology says that the heavenly bodies influence human behavior.
 * now it is correct on some points. obvious much could be correlational. but if you read the description of science there are two schools on whether correlational stats can be used.
 * and yes the sun influences human behavior there is no doubt about that. saturn: not causal perhaps correlationally
 * i think you are the one that needs to learn. darwinism is not falsifiable. go ahead show me.
 * sorry. did you take any college courses? i taught college. seemed like the kids were smarter 20 years ago. education is not the same anymore.
 * are not tides influenced by the position of the moon. you have heard of tides right? you know the moon affects them right? kids dont learn this stuff now?
 * seem like you can rotely learn but when you have to apply concepts you have trouble.
 * thats the hardest thing to teach. memorization and regurgitation is easy
 * raspor 02:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The tide is not astrology. Again, how dare you suggest that the circadian rhythm is astrology? How dare you suggest that menstral periods are tied in to the motion of the Moon. How dare you suggest that age universally defines adulthood.
 * Must I really repeat myself so often? Astrology is not what you believe it to be, nor are intelligent design and the scientific method. Stop making an arse of yourself. Astrology is not science, damnit. It isn't falsifiable. -- Ec5618 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason astrology is not falsifiable is that even when you show it is wrong, people still believe it fervently. So it doesnt matter if you still believe even when it is shown to be incorrect. That means, astrology is not falsifiable. And I refuse to believe you ever taught college.--Filll 02:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow!! That shows a complete misunderstanding of the term 'falsify'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsify (an excellent article)

"Falsifiable does not mean false. For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be possible in principle to make an observation that would show that the proposition was false, even if that observation is not actually made."

study much, much harder.

I can see what I am dealing with here. And people all over the world are relying on your expertise.

Read that definition over and over and over and over till you get it.

Astrology is falisifiable. It has been falsified. It is a scientific theory that has been invalidated.

Geocentrism is falisifiable. It has been falsified. It is a scientific theory that has been invalidated.

Heliocentrism is falisifiable. It has not been falsified. It is a scientific theory that has been validated.

Darwinism is not falsifiable. It is not a scientific theory. It is a philosophy.

Really I must ask every Darwinist here if Astrology is falsifiable. It they all say no they have no right to be here making an article on a scientific subject.

OK Darwinists. Chime in.

raspor 12:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Falsification's own words: (Popper)
"From this point of view the question of the scientific status of Darwinian theory—in the widest sense, the theory of trial and error-elimination—becomes an interesting one. I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories."

"Theories of history or politics which allegedly predict the future course of history have a logical form that renders them neither falsifiable nor verifiable. They claim that for every historically significant event, there exists an historical or economic law that determines the way in which events proceeded"

Darwinism is a historical theory. As such cannot be falsified and is not scientific. Sorry to burst your bubbles.

There is no Santa Claus. So grow up please.

raspor 12:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent quote. However, the theories of evolution make predictions that can be tested, therefore they are falsifiable. For example:
 * If a population of advanced vertabrate fossils were found in Precambrian rock, that would falsify a whole body of evolution.
 * If the fossil record shows a pattern supporting the idea of common descent, then finding conclusive evidence in other scientific disciplines to the contrary would falsify common descent. (Fossils and geology were all Darwin had to work with at the time). Later, findings from genetics and molecular biology added strong support to the theory of common descent.
 * Darwin's theory of natural selection predicts that species will evolve beneficial adaptations to environmental pressures - and we do observe this, both in the lab and in nature. This theory could easily be falsified by finding a consistent pattern of evolving harmful adaptations to environmental pressures.
 * Other examples abound. The point is, "Darwinism" is quite falsifiable.
 * Feel free to reply here. -Amatulic 00:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Help with policy and NPOV
Hi. I noticed that you asked for my help regarding the intelligent design article, and I just wanted to let you that I think I understand some of your objections. At first I misinterpreted the way you edited as being kind of trollish, but then I realized that you are a very new editor and not familiar with lots of things here on the Wikipedia project. A couple of the most important things here are the environment of civility and WP:NPOV that Wikipedia encourages all editors to take part in, and being unfamiliar with some of the expectations of those often lead to mistakes by new editors which can bring the rest of the community crashing down on them. If you're interested in learning a little more about this stuff and advice from me, just leave me a message here on on my talk page. Like I said, I'd be glad to help you learn editing and how to talk to other users and make yourself heard, and correct errors in a neutral fashion in articles- every editor was new once. :) --HassourZain 21:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, a tip for using colons to talk to other users. This is one indent in, and "replies" to my first comment.
 * Indent each different comment one more than the comment you're responding to. This is 2 indents in, and would "Reply" to the first.
 * To address the first question again, I'd move back to one indent, after the thread of conversation above. Just a helpful hint- using too many colons for one reply is hard to read. :) --HassourZain 01:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, I responded to your comment on my talk page. --HassourZain 01:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What is a "bobjob"?
Just curious; I've seen you using that term and never heard of it (but then maybe my generation is too old to have heard of it). You can reply here. -Amatulic 00:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

i dont think we are allowed to say the b word raspor 00:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

ok i will take a chance. did you see animal house?

raspor 00:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but that was, what, 25 years ago? I don't remember the term, honest. -Amatulic 00:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

a bobjob was when the conservative fraternity tried to get the animalhouse frat off campus and they made a lot of trumped up charges and planted evidence but the frame up was so poorly done that even the judges thought it was ridiculous. its like we know this is BS but sort have to a long with it cuz you own the bats and balls and if we want to play with have to give you 5 stirkes every inning. everybody knows its like a set up or a frame up but everybody goes along with it...raspor 00:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

needlemyer?? reminds me of c a real bobjob type. it can be applied to people to like f

raspor 00:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Aha. I got it now, thanks. I remembered that incident in the movie, just didn't remember the term. -Amatulic 00:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome. doesnt this aricle and those editors just really come of like bobjobs. it is so obvious. raspor 00:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm one of those "atheist anti-IDer" editors you rail against, but I find myself in disagreement with my fellow editors regarding a couple of points.


 * I do agree with you that the article's lead paragraph should briefly mention that the concept of Intelligent Design pre-dates the Discovery Institute, and the DI has recently co-opted the term to their own ends. I would also like the lead paragraph to mention the teleological argument. I would also like to see a section on IDer rebuttals to criticism. I think those things would go a long way to addressing your concerns.


 * I can see how you would find the article biased, but I think it does comply with the "no undue weight" provision of WP:NPOV by explaining scientist's position on Intelligent Design, rather than giving equal and undue weight to the ID position.


 * By the way, I suggest you format your replies somewhat; it helps to follow certain conventions if you want folks to remain civil - you have seen how edgy they've become! No need to create unnecessary irritations. Start a line with a colon to indent it, two colons to indent it further, etc. -Amatulic 01:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * hey ama, i have supported atheists in a fight at a place where i worked. they can be brutalized by christians. i saw it. but the atheists here are doing the same thing. I would also like to see a section on IDer rebuttals to criticism. yes, yes. jeez its an article on ID should not the ID position be at least mentioned. see that's why its an obvious bobjob. you know its like the defense witness gets on the stand with his mouth duck taped and the prosecuter says to the jury: ' you see the defendant has nothing to say in his behalf' the bobjob here is just so, so obvious. and fellatio is so, so obvious. i figured him out in a couple of days. a real needlemyer. and fellatio is not feloniousmonk hes is someone else ;);) yes the article is a giant bobjob. bobjob *cough* you know what i mean. yes they are edgy here. tell me what kind of rebuttal you want raspor 01:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One other thing, raspor- per the above discussion, be sure not to resort to name-calling or anything like that. Sometimes people say something they regret, and usually it's best if everyone tries their best to be civil- being civil, even if the other guy isn't, does a lot more for you than anything you can say, sometimes. Remember that the other editors there are trying to do their best for the article, and they have had a lot of people with a vested interest outside of article quality (such as advancing a creationist or what-have-you agenda via wikipedia), so their mistrust is justifiable- lots of people have come in and tried to disrupt the article, and even if you aren't one of them, some of the things you've tried to do and say have looked like some of the things that they've tried to do and say. Being reasonable and willing to talk in a civil manner will make you look head and shoulders above a vandal or POV editor. --HassourZain 01:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, also, it looks like Amatulic already explained indents above. Well, take what you will. --HassourZain 01:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

response for jan 5

 * So to recap, poor raspor has now found that a few fossil bones can be used by palaeontologists to reconstruct an estimate of the whole skeleton, and so provide the basis for an artist's impression. And so has lost all belief in "darwinism". Of course the "plethora" term came from a response on a talk page, and isn't in the article: one person's plethora is another's paucity. Next week, raspor may find that rainbows are caused by the physics of light so that each one is not miraculously created by God to celebrate the flood. Or alternatively s/he may find that physicists don't personally examine every water droplet, and so lose all belief in physics. .. dave souza, talk 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * no, no, no. what drama and hyperbole! i am not religious at all. see thats what you guys do. if someone doubts darwinims they are a bible thumper. darwinism is not adequate. there are more factors out there. this can be shown by a careful analysis of info in the DNA. erin lazlo and the morph field guy also believe like i do. morphogenesis cannot be explained by DNA. many people see that. i have done research on this for years. if you analyze the info content of DNA is simply will not work. i think i am close to the answer but i sure am not going to reveal to you darwinist clucks. where is the stat analysis of darwinism? control groups? double blind studies? there are none. the cladistics and molecular biology are more and more showing the inadequacies of the theory. yes by sheer happenstance the religious based IDers brought this out. this happened with the drugs for schizoprhenia years ago. they were looking for anti-convulsives and stumbled on anti-psychotics. this is what happened here. the only problem is that since religious people stumbled on all of this the 'scientists' have to squish it. no one is going to take the risk of criticising darwinism. there is no profit in it. raspor 15:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, evolution and natural selection has been demonstrated in microbes and in the field of study of alleles and inheritance, in laboratory conditions and using the scientific method. The theory of natural selection is a broader term that describes inheritance's and genetic evolution on a broader scale, in the recursive environment of sexual propagation and competition for limited resources. To describe it mostly inductive logic applies- that is, taking evidence found in nature, and either confirming it by the theory of natural selection or changing the theory of natural selection so that it better describes what is. The two concepts are seperate, and one samples from the other. It is an important distinction to make, however. --HassourZain 15:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, not to cast doubt on what you say, but if you are going to assert that molecular or cellular biological experiments are showing that inheritance and allele mutation are invalid, please provide some evidence from a reliable source. Assertions aren't useful without the evidence, as you have mentioned before. --HassourZain 15:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * of course natural selection works and so does evolution for minor morph changes. but from my reseach large morph changes are impossible thru darwinism. and DNA cannot account for morphogensis. the reasons are highly mathematical. see darwinism has never subjected itelf to double blind studies etc. it would fall apart if it were. why arent there any?


 * any how hassour can you do me a favor. the darwinists use the 'disruption' tactic to keep my ideas squished. i am willing to follow your instructions. i think you are arabic and i like that. i think the arabic culture has been squished here in the US. well thats another story. i think you are sincere. i will follow your guidance. should i just comment here? well you tell me and hopefully the darwinists will quit harrassing me. thanks raspor 16:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, to address your questions point by point:


 * 1) morphogenesis and major physiological changes due to natural selection, by their nature, while some of the subjects of most interest to evolutionary biologists, sometimes have the greatest dearth of field information to clearly be demonstrated. The way in which explaining these natural processes is sometimes difficult to construct an absolute system from due to the way inductive and deductive reasoning work. Inductive reasoning makes an assertion and attempts to create a general rule for that assertion, modifying the assertion to more accurately describe all cases if it is shown to be incorrect. The other branch of logical explanation in the scientific method, Deductive reasoning, sees a variety of phenomena and evidence, and given that evidence, draws a conclusion to adequately describe the cases. Both of them should always be open to having the logic or conclusions questioned, and that by its nature is what the scientific method is about.
 * Now, to tie this back to large physiological change and morphogenesis- with my background in computer science, I understand that it cannot be understated how powerful a tool recursion is. Recursion can provide simple, elegant answers to exceedingly complex situations, and in the system of natural selection, this idea is key. Being that a trait is encouraged or discouraged depending on its efficacy and the survivability of the resulting organism, sexual reproduction gives great leeway to genetic diversity, mutation, and ultimate survivability. The advent of this variety of reproduction is a benchmark in the evolutionary history of life on earth, in that it allows for extremely high potential for change due to a gene-pool altering event. Genetic diversity like this allows something terrible to happen and for a population to still recover, and often results in drastic change or major propagation of a specific genetic trait. An epidemic to which a small portion have a natural immunity would be a prime example for a dramatic change in the gene pool. The same can be true of physiological changes, if some environmental or competitive factor gives a significant advantage to encouraging a certain gene. (My word, that was a long description)
 * 1) Thirdly, I agree that many minority cultures are discouraged and kept from public sight in America.
 * 2) Finally, I think that the best thing you could do if other users bug you, is to learn to talk to them. Without regard to where you post it, somebody is always going to want to talk to you if you say something they disagree with- this isn't necessarily unhealthy. Learning to enjoy debate is one of the best virtues you can have on here, because it makes for a healthy, diverse environment in which many positions are heard. As you may know, the position of intelligent design is one that many researchers and the like do not consider to be of great merit, but the position should definitely be heard proportionally to the support it has in the world. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask- I love helping people understand. :) --HassourZain 16:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As an example, by the way, of the best way to engage other users, I noticed your edits at Attachment Therapy. You appear to have been discussing in a civil, positive way changes or concerns with the page there. If you took the same approach to the other pages, I don't think anybody would have a problem with your edits. One thing, like I said above, though, is that you must remember that there are lots of people with political motivation or other motivation outside of an interest in accuracy and science that come to evolution-related pages with an intent to discredit it. It seems to me like a lot of the people you describe as "darwinists" are just people who are defensive against those sort of people who have mistakenly construed you as externally-motivated. It happens a lot, I have seen some arguments get pretty nasty, for example, over politicians' pages and that kind of thing. It just goes to show how important civility can be. :) --HassourZain 16:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * but hassour, the only thing is when i make good faith edits and they are called 'vandalism' and i make comments about how i think the article is biased and it is called 'disruption' no one came to help me. well phillip saw my point. its hard to be insulted over and over and over again and want to insult back. this is a nasty tactic here by the darwinists. see they dont attack like that in the other articles. thanks for your help raspor 16:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand. As long as you focus on trying to engage people like you've done on Attachment Therapy's talk page, you'll find people are (generally) pretty reasonable to deal with, once you get past their initial suspicion. You're welcome for the help, and just let me know anytime if you need any more advice. --HassourZain 16:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, thanks for dealing with this question in a civil and reasoned way. It's really best to avoid taking over article talk page with enquiries which don't have much to do with improving the particular article, so moving the discussion here is a good idea. Looking again at your first question on Talk:Evolution of cetaceans, it raises a reasonable question in a rather aggressive way, and would have been better without "lets be honest" which implies that you weren't assuming good faith as Wikipedia required everyone to do. The essence of your question was a request that the extent to which limited fossil remains are interpreted should be made explicit. This is fair enough, but the probable answer is that most people with any interest in fossils expect that: a classic case arises with Lucy (Australopithecus) (not to be confused with Lucille Ball). The Lucy skeleton looks pretty fragmentary, but to palaeontologists she's amazingly complete. More telling is that a year earlier Johanson found two fragments of bone, either side of a knee joint, and knew at once it was from an upright walking hominid. Anatomists can tell a lot from a single bone. The limited number of fossils is emphasised, and certainly not hidden to prop up "darwinism". However that's the sort of claim that proponents of ID or "creation science" often make – you might find it helpful to look at the TalkOrigins archive to see what the likely answer is for such claims: for this one, see CC401. And when someone gives you an answer, take the time to think about it and avoid twisting the words used in answers as evidence to support your position. People are glad to help, even if it's drifting away from the strict purpose of improving the article, but a lack of respect for their answers can seem very like trolling.
 * Your research sounds very interesting, but Wikipedia is NOT the place to reveal it, As WP:NOR explicitly states, we can only accept information that has been published in a Reliable Source. You must follow these policies if you want to make a success of contributing to Wikipedia .. dave souza, talk 20:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

ID does assist in better understanding.
"Part of the issue the scientific community has in opposition to ID is that it in no way assists this process of better understanding what the processes are, but instead uses speculated probabilites to reason to speculative conclusions."


 * For instance lets say occasionally my car will not start in the morning. I keep looking at the wiring, changing spark plug, fuel filters, etc, etc to no avail.


 * The I conclude it is not from a natural cause but a designed cause. I think about the possiblity that my neighbor is doing somethin. I stay up all nite and see that in the middle of the nite he monkey with my car.


 * The point is that assuming a natural causes at time will prevent us from learning the truth.


 * And this red herrring where if someone says 'God did it' is a impedence to discovery. In the 1700 they all thought 'God did it' but it did not stop scientists then from figuring out 'God's laws'


 * And when the allies capture a German airplane. Did they say 'The Germans did it. no use trying to see how it works' this argument is so, os bogus raspor 18:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that at the heart of the comment you've made above is sort of a conflation of two ideas- I think that intelligent design would more appropriately fit into the spheres of philosophy, than those of science. If it poses no obstacle to scientists if, like you said, "God did it" or not, then it is more a corollary to the world of science then having important in science itself. Like what I described on the sub-talk page of Intelligent design you made, Teleology (the school of philosophy that explores the idea that the universe as we know it has a meaning or purpose) is decidedly a school of thought that contributed many ideas to the specifics of Intelligent Design. Further, I think that as a philosophy, a strong case can be made for intelligent design as far as philosophy goes. However, in the sphere of science, the observable evidence, rather than meaning or value, is the most important thing when drawing an inductive or deductive conclusion. The purpose of scientific observation is an important thing to remember when dealing with these kind of specifics. --HassourZain 18:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite. An interesting philosophical argument, though hardly original. In part, you're right in saying that science can never exclude the possibility that results are being tampered with. We may consider the film The Matrix to be a graphic representation of a world in which natural laws are far from the whole picture.
 * The concept of intelligent design as you seem to understand it (the rest of us know it as teleology) is a philosophical argument, not a scientific argument. It is in no way scientific. Science is based on the assumption that this is not the Matrix, or that if it is, that learning about the natural laws programmed into it will help us build better things.
 * Now, Intelligent design as promoted by the Discovery Institute is supposedly a scientific endeavour to find design in the natural world, but in reality it is veiled creationism. I'm sorry, but there is no other way to interpret the facts. If you promise to be impressed, I'll give you an example of something that should show you that for the Discovery Institute, creationism and intelligent design are equal in everything but name. -- Ec5618 18:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There are several problems with your example, Raspor. Neither neighbours or Germans are supernatural entities. They can be observed and, for instance, photographed when they are saboutaging cars or building Me-109s. Also, you don't need to invent either neighbours or Germans solely to explain these things. Their existence is well-documented and they are known to do many other things than fiddling with cars and building Messerschmitts. Moreover, discovering that your neighbour is pulling your leg will not help you understanding why your car doesn't start. Unless he tells you, you still have to figure it out on your own. You will do this by using your knowledge of how you car works, not the knowledge that somebody has tampered with it. Finally, there is the Principle of Parsimony which is very important in science. ID violates this principle by invoking some intelligent, godlike entity as the designer of at least some cellular components. Since the entity is ill defined or defined in such a manner that it's existence cannot be proven or disproven and since it is proposed to act in a arbitrary and largely unknowable manner, ID does not assist in furthering understanding. --EthicsGradient 19:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Knowing that something was designed helps you understand it better. raspor 19:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * so what do you call something that was fashioned by an intelligence as opposing to something that happend without intelligent intervention. what word do YOU use? raspor 18:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Te-le-ology. -- Ec5618 19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * so you would see an arrow head and say it was teleologized? I would say it was designed. (unsigned by raspor)
 * Sorry, Ec5618, that's wrong: teleology is the philosophy that everything has a purpose. Something that was fashioned by an intelligence as opposing to something that happend without intelligent intervention could be called an artefact. There may be other terms, but intelligent design has been pinched and taken by the DI. In the same way, the Gay Gordons just doesn't sound quite the same to most people now as it did before the '60s. .. dave souza, talk 20:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite right. A found arrowhead points to a designer. I would call it an arrowhead. -- Ec5618 21:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I might also call it designed. Somehow, intelligently designed seems rather subjective. Even an idiot could make an arrowhead, after all. Where does one draw the line and say: this object is intelligently designed. -- Ec5618 00:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

problem with definition of evolution
"Evolution properly refers to a process of adaptation through cycles of diversity generation and selection characterized with inheritability. It is not restricted to biology[2]. However, in the common parlance, evolution refers to the biological process in which inherited traits become more or less common in a population over successive generations - what is technically referred to as "Evolution as the Theory of the Origin of the Species". Over time, this process can lead to speciation, the development of new species from existing ones. All extant organisms are related by common descent, having evolved over billions of years of cumulative genetic changes from a single ancestor.[3][4]"

OK now if I believe in the biological process in which inherited traits become more or less common in a population over successive generations but do not believe that all species were created thru natural selection and someone asks me do you believe in evolution, what am I supposed to say?
 * To use what I think is the correct terminology, you would say that yes, you believe in evolution, but do not believe in speciation resulting from evolution. (At least I think that's the term you're looking for) --HassourZain 18:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * so then the definition is incorrect. according to what you are saying believing in evololtuion does not necessarily mean i believe species developed thru natural selection. do you see my point raspor 18:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What you tell them is your own business. Perhaps it'll help you to look at it this way: what do you tell them when they ask you whether you believe in gravity? Gravity is a fact; the Theory of gravity explains it. Evolution is a fact; the Theory of evolution explains it. According to the theory, the simplest explanation for the diversity of life is a common ancestor, simply because that explanation is simpler than the explanation that life began several times, especially since all forms of life use the same base components: DNA. Occam's razor applies.
 * In my opinion, it's very unlikely that life formed several times. Since you believe in teleology, perhaps you don't agree. But I don't see what that has to do with the fact of evolution. You can believe in evolution while disagreeing with the Theory that explains it. I would however suggest that you talk to some knowledgable people before you decide that you're in any sort of position to dismiss a scientific Theory. Any scientist would love to disprove a scientific Theory, because that is how careers are made. -- Ec5618 18:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * again the definition is incorrect. one cannot accept the def unless they accept that species were produced by it. i guess i believe in microE not macroE
 * Or, you could read my post. Evolution is not the same as the Theory of evolution. See Evolution, a section dedicated to making this point. You can't expect us to constantly remind readers that certain assertions are based on a scientific theory. Every article on Wikipedia assumes that objects fall down, and every article on Wikipedia assumes that atoms exist. Both these assumptions are based on Theories, but it would do no good to qualify every statement as such. The fact is that there is no reason to doubt the validity of science in science articles, just as there is no reason to doubt that the subject of a biographical article actually existed (unless there are clear indications to the contrary). -- Ec5618 19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

to dave
well the thing that got me is someone said there was a 'plethora' of fossils which simply is not true.

and darwinism should not be compared to gravity. maybe econ or archae. the theory is full of holes. more and more people are saying that. molecular bio is killing it. the wagons are being cirlced as is evident here. raspor 20:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah dear, looks like further irrefutable evidence that you're trolling. Well it was fun trying to explain things. .. dave souza, talk 20:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You tried. But you do know that trying over and over with the expectation of a different result is a sure sign of insanity!  Orangemarlin 00:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Darwinism != Evolution; Darwinism = Theory of Evolution; Evolution=fact; Theory of Evolution=theory (one supported by an overwhelming plurality of biologists)

Tarinth 02:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * why are you hijacking my talk page?? GO AWAY!!!  raspor 14:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

grandstanding
i just wanted to let you know that I see the RfC as grandstanding. G e  o. 07:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * i know its obvious. wiki to me is an embarrassment. a bunch of puers who think they know a lot writing a very poor article. the phrasing in the both the Evolution and ID is terrible. the ID structure is obvious just a place for people who hate right wing christians to get their rocks off. the best thing to do is to let them have their ways. they will make the article worse and worse and people will realize that wiki has no credibility. i thought i was for real. i took it seriously. well i found out. i am for the most part anti right wing religionist. but this is all an embarssment to me. in the US all sides should have their say. it is obvious the atheists have taken over this article and have shown that they can be worse than any church full of bible thumpers. almost none will stand up for what is right and show some integrity. let the other side have its say. oh whats the use. this is just a big joke raspor 13:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What did you mean by "puers"?
 * They're probably not all atheists. Some probably think of themselves as Christians, and some probably are Christians, but they've adopted an atheistic way of thinking about origins and science.
 * ...they can be worse than any church full of bible thumpers. Fundamentalist atheists? (see the "Origins" section, from No. 28 onwards.)


 * Phillip that was great. Yes I really think most of these atheists prayed for a bike or something and didnt get it and now they are mad at God. Puer! the cell phone thing was good. and this BS about 'i dont not believe in God, i just dont believe at all' how fake. what bull. at least admint you DONT believe in God or like me I just really dont know. its a crock. and they haunt places like this for some bizarre psychopathological reason. they taunt god-believers. they are really weird and sick. and they do not respect other people. i keep asking them to stay away and they keep stalking me here raspor 15:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * almost none will stand up for what is right and show some integrity. Why should they?  See here.
 * Philip J. Rayment 14:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * puers are usually men who like to play games and waste time. its hard to explain. thanks for the links. raspor 15:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What is your definition of an atheist?
 * Are Catholics Atheists?
 * Muslims?
 * Hindus?
 * scientists?
 * people who believe in natural selection?
 * people who are not sure that there is a god?
 * people who believe in evolution?--Filll 15:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * look i told it was disruptive not to use colons and now i use them. why dont you? are you rude? PLEASE GO AWAY??? YOU ARE NOT WANTED HERE !!!! raspor 15:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you looked at the things we'vev said above, or just dismissed it all as atheist propaganda? Please, I you're not going to listen to us, or respond when we listen to you, then what sort of cooperation effort are you expecting here. -- Ec5618 15:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * quit spamming my page. GO AWAY!!! I DONT SPAM YOUR PAGE. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED !!! raspor 15:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor, can I give you some advice?

Do you remember being told as a child to ignore bullies, and they will go away? In certain circumstances, it is still good advice, and ignoring some of the comments people are posting on this page may prove useful.

When you do criticise, make sure that you get the criticisms correct. Putting unwanted comments on your talk page is not necessarily spamming, nor is it vandalism. It was wrong of you to be called a vandal for re-editing Intelligent design; don't make the same mistake of calling others vandals unless they really are.

Colons are used to indent paragraphs on talk pages. You should use one extra colon for each reply you make. That is, if you are replying to someone who used two colons, you should use three colons for each paragraph you type in reply. Don't use four, five, or six; use three (if they used two). Also, sometimes the indents get excessively large, and it is then acceptable to start again from the left margin (i.e. have no colons). Sometimes people will include a comment saying that this is what they are doing, but not always. It is also proper to use no colons if it is not a direct reply, but a new comment or question, such as this post of mine, or Filll's question about atheists above (although I don't really know why he asked that).

Finally, show some more tolerance, even when they aren't showing tolerance of you. Don't go down to their level. Be the better man. Two wrongs don't make a right. And all other applicable clichés. :-)

Philip J. Rayment 01:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Phillip, lets talk about some changes to the evolution and ID article
I feel they are both biased maybe we can convince some atheists who have at least some sense of fair play that it needs to be change

But how can we stop the disruptive spamming of my talk page?

That has to be the first thing taked care of. Some these editors will troll, spam, harrass, and insult so that people who have a diff POV will not be heard.

How can we stop this spamming and stalking??

raspor 15:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the things we've said above, or just dismissed it all as atheist propaganda? Please, if you're not going to listen to us, or respond when we listen to you, then what sort of cooperation effort are you expecting here? -- Ec5618 15:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * is your name Phil??? I know you will never cooperate. I am trying to find open minded people. GO AWAY AND QUIT SPAMMING!!  raspor


 * please stop the spamming! raspor 18:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

phil did you see this?:


 * "Intelligent design stands in opposition to biological science, which relies on the scientific method and works from observable and measurable phenomena such as the fossil record, mutations in the genes, and natural selection"

they are saying ID and i guess creationism is in opposition to bio science. there is no cite for this. and ID believes and supports most of present biology as does creationsim. acutally most biology was developed by creastionists. i dont see how they can say thing which are simply true. is there anything we can do about these inaccuracies?? raspor 18:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that that modified intro has since been changed back to the old one. Certainly this version is POV (and I notice that FeloniousMonk in changing it back commented that he was doing so as the previous version was more concise and readable, and just as accurate; he didn't comment that the new version was POV).Philip J. Rayment 01:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've said on my user page, I'm not wasting my time with endless arguments with anti-creationists/anti-ID people, because I haven't got the time nor the patience (and I'm a patient person). Also, if I was going to take them on, I would not pick the Intelligent Design article, because I'm not as familiar with ID arguments as with creationist arguments, and neither would I pick the evolution article because the opposition would be far stronger there (numerically and by motivation; not by strength of argument). So if you want to take on either fight, you will have to do it without me, I'm sorry. Philip J. Rayment 01:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes to ID article
Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2][3] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the evil Discovery Institute,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] assert that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[11]

The scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,[12] as pseudoscience[13][14][15] or as junk science and as evil.[16][17] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own and if their idea gets popular acceptance we will be back to the dark ages and all progress will stop.[18]

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature therefore evil.[19]


 * I have a few problems with it:
 * "the evil Discovery Institute". Evil?  What version did you copy and paste that from???
 * "The scientific community views intelligent design as...". This implies that the scientists are united on this, which is not true.  The "majority", and possibly even the "vast majority" of scientists view ID this way, but the implication that they all do is incorrect.
 * If this is meant to be an introduction, putting the opposing view so high up (if at all) is POV. It is meant to be an article about ID, not about what's supposed to be wrong with ID.  I would eliminate the second paragraph except for the first sentence and put the third paragraph further down the article, in a section about the history of ID or a timeline section.  Of course, making either change would be totally unacceptable to the opposition who will absolutely insist on extensive and prominent criticism of the idea.
 * Philip J. Rayment 01:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * phil i was being sarcastic. but this is what i think they are trying to imply raspor 02:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Talk:Discovery Institute and WP:POINT warning
Read WP:POINT. Please do not continue disrupting this article. FeloniousMonk 02:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

you can believe in god and still be a good scientist
and the DI was misquoted. they never said anything about driving a wedge into a 'heart' vert dishonest quote raspor 02:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok so give me some names of creationist scientists that are great scientists.--Filll 02:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * pasteur raspor 02:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're wrong. Pasteur accepted the transmutation of species, but he was a follower of Lamarck.  Pasteur did not disprove abiogenesis, he simply proved that microorganisms were not spontaneously generated in fermenting or decaying matter.--Mr Fink 03:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ummm.... Pasteur believed God created life and the universe therefore he was a creationists raspor 13:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * However, TalkOrigins's claim is rebutted here, showing that TalkOrigins.org is engaging in quote mining, the very thing it accuses creationists of. Pasteur stands, alongside scores of others listed here.  Philip J. Rayment 05:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I could not find any quotes by Pasteur in the first link. In fact, I'm not sure if there was any mention of TalkOrigins.org in the first link, even.  I couldn't tell what that essay was talking about, aside from "thought is corrupted by sin."  As for the second link, I don't think it's very honest to claim that all of the notable scientists who lived before the birth of Darwin, or those contemporaries who had not heard of Darwin or his studies as being Young Earth Creationists.  It's like declaring all the people who lived before the birth of Christ as being satanic atheists.  Furthermore, neither link explains why someone who has been apparently identified as a Young Earth Creationist would acknowledge that there has been life continuing on for hundreds of millions of years.--Mr Fink 06:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I intended to make reference to the side box in that first link; it wasn't in the main article itself. And no, they don't actually mention TalkOrigins, but they are clearly talking about the same thing that TalkOrigins is talking about.
 * The issue was expressed in two ways. First, the heading to this section, "you can believe in god and still be a good scientist".  Whether or not you can believe in God and be a good scientist (i.e. follow the scientific method) is not changed by the arrival of Darwin's story on the scene.  Second is the question that Filll asked in response to that heading, "give me some names of creationist scientists that are great scientists".  The people on that list fulfil that requirement; that is, they believed that the world is the product of a creator.  Again, Darwin's story does not change that.  (And of course, although Darwin popularised the idea of evolution with a scientific-sounding proposal, the idea had been around long before that.)
 * Finally, with regard to the suggestion that Pasteur believed in millions of years, there are two answers. First, there are people even today who reject evolution but accept old ages.  Hypothetically, it is quite possible for this to be the case with Pasteur, and the question was about a scientist believing in God or being a creationist, not about being a young-Earth creationist.  Second, the first link (in the side box) does suggest an explanation for that—that the reference to millions of years was not Pasteur's but was a parenthetical insertion by the person quoting him.
 * Philip J. Rayment 07:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What part of "Pasteur accepted Lamarckianism" does not compute with you?--Mr Fink 16:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The bits where that is referenced (the TalkOrigins link didn't mention it), and the relevance. So what if he thought that creatures could pass on acquired characteristics?  That doesn't have to mean that he believed that all life evolved from one original creature, nor that he didn't believe in a Creator.  Philip J. Rayment 11:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can believe in G_d and be a good scientist. They are not mutually exclusive.  It has always seemed like that Evolution=Atheism when I listen to your side of the story (and yes, please, I know your side of the fence is about as vastly populated with an extreme range of ideas as my side of the fence).  I'm sure from your side of the fence, it seems like all we say is Science=Truth.  But religion has a place in science.  I think they have to come to some understanding with each other however.  Orangemarlin 15:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What I originally posed, or intended, was can a scientist, alive today, personally believe in biblical literalism, biblical inerrancy, miracles etc and be a scientist in an area that is impacted by biblical teachings (evolutionary biology, not computer science for example) ? I think it would be very hard to find five. And I would dispute most of the names on that list, although of course the argument that most were alive before Darwin is a good one.--Filll 15:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * bull you never said bible literalims you said creationist. quit lying. all i said was that person can believe in god and be a good scientist. see how you lied about what you said raspor 16:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Raspor, he was a bit disingenuous with claiming "What I originally posed", but he did also say, "or intended". We have to accept that this is what he intended, even though, as you point out, it is not what he actually said.  It is not at all helpful to accuse him of lying.  On the other hand, Filll, it would also help if you were a bit more accurate in what you post.
 * I also find it telling that, before he's even been provided with a list of five names, he's already made up his mind to dispute them!
 * Philip J. Rayment 10:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I said you cannot put the supernatural in science without ruining it. And creationists want to put the supernatural in science. If I mistakenly implied something else, then I apologize.--Filll 16:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * define supernatural! is telepathy supernatural?? define your terms raspor 16:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Telepathy has been tested repeatedly and found not to have any scientific basis or to be demonstrable. Telepathy is supernatural, and its study is pseudoscience, to me.--Filll 17:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at my article on Harry Rimmer. Comments?--Filll 16:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * what is your point? how does apply to what we are talking about??? raspor 17:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding telepathy (which I'm not about to argue for), I find it strange logic that if science has been unable to support something, it is therefore pseudoscience or supernatural. If science was able to test it, it was falsifiable, so doesn't qualify as pseudoscience, if falsifiability is the definition of pseudoscience. It may be wrong, but its not automatically pseudoscience just because science has been unable to confirm it. It appears that "pseudoscience" is a label you stick on anything that science hasn't shown to be correct, regardless of why. Philip J. Rayment 10:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Creationist Challenge
I would like to challenge anyone to find me 5 creationist scientists that are currently prominent scientists. The requirements are:
 * currently alive and actively working in science
 * believes in biblical literalism and biblical inerrancy
 * works in a part of science that overlaps with creationist claims, such as biology and in particular, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, genetics, etc. --Filll 17:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Darwinist challenge:
Define supernatural as an operational defintion raspor 17:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you not find your dictionary? And what does this have to do with Darwin, and how is it a challenge? This is a bizarre post, but since I was here, I linked the word for you. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

He rejects all dictionary definitions and operational definitions. Because of his belligerence, I am thinking the RfC is quite warranted.--Filll 17:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * DUH! you never gave me an operational def. when was that? raspor 17:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have had enough. You just want to fight. I guess next stop, community ban. Maybe IP block.--Filll 17:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * stop responding to me and the 'fight' is over. you are constantly insutling me and if i say anything back you get upset. how mature! raspor 18:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Discovery Institute
Please stop trolling and disrupting the project. FeloniousMonk 19:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

hey fel*******. that is an erroneous quote. did you write that bull? is that why you wont change it??
Though first a reminder: this page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for telling each other ghost stories. Anyway, if raspor's correct about the "citation" from the wedge document, that's a valuable point and the statement should be revised to match what the document actually says. Thanks for picking that up, raspor. .. dave souza, talk 18:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Damn. Raspor made a valid point here. I did a LexisNexis search and I couldn't find where a Discovery Institute document or interview ever said drive a wedge into the heart. Orangemarlin 15:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

raspor 19:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed from Talk:Intelligent design
the lead is a bobjob. fel****** must have wrote it. thats why he wont change it. its been this way for years and nobody wanted to change it? you got to be kidding me raspor 20:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked from editing, currently for one week, per Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Jayjg (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Phil you made some great points

I am in the gulag now. Typical of what happens when one dissents in a dictatorship. 1984 thought control. "how many fingers do you see?? i see three. no you dont there are four" he ended up loving big brother. i read your comments about the Ark.

yes the Ark theory is not scientific. why? becuz it is wrong? why? becuz we have proved it. then it is scientific isnt it. shut up. how many fingers do you see. you see three becuz your are sick

the same old story. interesting how trumped my my charges and trial was. this is is such a great study in oppression. and Fel**** stole my credit. how many times has this happened in history? keep up the good work Phill.

i will still be working on things here in the joint. but please write and tell me how things are on the outside

keep up the good work,

rasp.

raspor 13:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a word to the wise: I suggest you take this seriously and not write such things. You know this block can be lengthened easily? To 1 month? To a permanent block? You know that your IP address can be blocked? So keep a civil approach to this. A. Guy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.201.13 (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

now what did i do that was wrong?? i dont remember a trial. i was unable to confront my accusers. where was the judge? it was all trumped up.

raspor 13:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

""""" From what I read at Talk:Discovery Institute#i just read the wedge document it appeared to me that raspor started that section by stating two points. Accepting the comments on the page without further checking, the first seemed to accurately describe a problem with citing quoted words – that's a point worth raising, and it appears to have helped the article. The second point was nonsense, but unfortunately that was the first thing responded to, and the discussion rapidly went off topic. I'm always happy to give praise for constructive edits, and did so at the same time as trying to get the discussion focussed on improving the article. If my assessment was wrong in any way I apologise. Unfortunately raspor's continuing arguing and point scoring present problems. They divert editors into trying to provide personal tuition or debating issues, which is not what Wikipedia's for, and so disrupt community work. They also damage raspor's reputation. Here, your reputation is what you have to go on. Effectively, raspor has been a very disruptive troll and thus damaged his/her credibility. Given that the definition of trolling involves motives or intentions, I am unable to say whether this is trolling, but it's had the same effect. Although raspor could be effective in researching and questioning points in articles, his/her argumentative approach has to end to make these contributions worthwhile. .. dave souza, talk 21:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Raspor"

""""

yes dave you showed integrity when you stood up for what was right. the quote was wrong and biased.

now what was this second point that was 'nonsense'?

and this thing about accusing me of 'arguing' well it takes 2 to argue. if i am guily of arguing then the person who argued with me is just as guilty...

NO ONE HAS TO RESPOND TO ME!

if you think i am a troll dont feed me. if you feed me then you must not think i am a troll

if you think i am 'arguing' dont respond. otherwise if you respond you must think i have a valid point

are these things that hard to understand???

you guys know self-defense has limits. if i attack you and you attack me back you are just as guilty

raspor 13:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

guy's fuck off comment
Am I allowed to say he can fuck off yet? No? Kindly fuck off? No? Oh well. I'm off to make a new award, the Banstar, for banning those who are obviously not here to help. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Yes, in this case you're allowed to say that. God knows I've been saying it under my breath a lot lately. FeloniousMonk 02:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

raspor 20:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hysterical. Orangemarlin 20:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * see they taunt me even while i am in the joint. wow! raspor 21:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:your Message
Sorry for the long response time. If a user has used up the Community's patience, an admin can ban them from Wikipedia, provided that there is Community support. You should probably get an Advocate who can give you advice, unless you have already found someone to advise you. G e  o. 20:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, what I would do, is go to other users talk pages and post a vague apology message, then explain what you would like to add to ID with cites.

This will probably take the steam out of their "raspor is evil" train. Also you may want to fill your userpage with content about yourself. G e  o. 20:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Geo. this whole conflict is about the fact that i am saying the ID and related articles are biased. See in order to even mention that there is something wrong with the artilcles one has to endure endless insults, taunts and intimidations. And not be able to repsond in kind. There reason there are so few pro-IDers is that they have been driven off like they are attempting like me. They can say 'fuck off' etc but if i say fellatio its a major crime. where is the balance in that. this is all an obviousl bobjob. I dont think the ID article will ever change. People with half a brain can see it is a fix. So maybe i should just let it go. thanks for visiting while i am in the joint. raspor 21:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should pay a visit to Free Republic, and mention your treatment here G  e  o . 17:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * i dont get you. what good would that do? raspor 17:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That is particularly bad advice, Geo. That's called expanding the conflict offsite to recruit meatpuppets, and it's highly frowned upon by the community and would almost certainly result in a permanent ban for all involved, just ask User:Jason Gastrich. I suggest you think twice before offering any more suggestions along these lines. FeloniousMonk 18:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with FeloniousMonk here. Attempting to recruit meatpuppets from an uninvolved community is a good way to get permanently banned. A better solution would be to attempt to edit in a less confrontive fashion here, and pay special attention to neutral point of view policies. --HassourZain 18:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * jeez now what?? i dont even know what a meatpuppet is. now i am getting blamed for what geo is telling me?? really hassour ( see i call you by the first half of your name) was i efver nastly to you?? hey anybody that treats me with respect gets respect back. and FM has a name like feloniousmonk and then he bitches if people take his name with humor??? do you see what i mean? what if i call myself dumbmonkey? do you see what i mean.
 * No, Raspor, you were never nasty to me, and I was talking to Geo, not you, when I mentioned that involving another community would be a bad idea. I think that some users have been a little over-defensive about some of your edits, but at the same time I think that some other of your edits do give cause for concern. Like J. said in another section, just learning to extend the hand to other users is pretty important. I think in the future that if you just try to engage other users one subject at a time that you might be able to improve the tone at the pages you're interested in. --HassourZain 18:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * well see the felonious thing bothers me. its like saying 'my name is asshole' then you say how are you doing asshole and someone gets offended. he chose a comical name and then is really, really serious about it. its a setup i think. and i read about jason above. see this is where i think FM is being deceptive. jason did not get banned for meatpuppets it was sock puppets. and what is wrong about a person telling their friends about wiki and getting them involved? see this is what i dont like about FM. he uses these sneaky tactics. do you see that?? raspor 19:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (Return indent) His name is a play off of famous musician Thelonious Monk, though, and while the wordplay may be funny, I don't think it's an invitation to make fun of it. To address your second point, though, getting friends and other uninvolved people to "help" anybody's cause on Wikipedia is a tremendously bad idea for this reason: Wikipedia decides things, everything from policies to specific things about articles, by the consensus of users that edit here. Making an account to look like another person that agrees with you ("Sockpuppetry") is disruptive and can get a user banned. Getting friends who are not editors to help advance something they haven't been involved with ("Meatpuppetry") is even more disruptive and faces repercussions often worse than sockpuppetry. Wikipedia is a free-participation project- those who are willing take part, and get to help create and shape what's going on here. Other friends of yours who may or may not think like you are welcome here, but as long as they've come to participate in Wikipedia, and not to participate in disruption of a discussion or to make one point of view heard disproportionately. I hope that makes why those policies are around clearer for you. --HassourZain 19:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Had you read thoroughly Gastrich's procedings, you'd see that one of the problems was that he tried to recruit meat puppets offsite. And that is the same issue with Geo's advice here. FeloniousMonk 19:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They (FR) may be able to help source what he wants to add G  e  o . 19:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not that was your intention, telling a user to ask a strongly partisan opinionated community to "help" at Wikipedia is a tremendously bad idea, because even with the best of intentions, asking politically motivated people of either side to involve themselves in an unrelated dispute is essentially swinging a stick at a bee's nest and will not be pretty for any involved party. --HassourZain 19:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. The freepers have an established history of trolling and disrupting that particular article, and you know that. FeloniousMonk 19:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice back peddling, Geo. You wrote "Maybe you should pay a visit to Free Republic, and mention your treatment here".  Mr Christopher 19:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * i just paid a trip to FR and searched for Wikipedia, Sorry, i didn't realize that Wikipedia is on their brown list. G  e  o . 05:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * what do you mean wiki is on their brown list? raspor 12:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * i mean that Wikipedia is hated by FR. G  e  o . 16:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ok but did they say that? how do you know?? why do they hate wiki?? raspor 16:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * They call it, Liberalpedia, in some posts. G  e  o . 00:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

guy's fuck off comment. i thought his name was banstar and now i cant seem to correct it
i dont know why. guy was the one that made the fuck off commnent not banstar.

why is it he can say that and i cannot say fellatio. come one fellatio is not vulgar

raspor 21:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User names
Raspor, you know that I've argued at length that you've been provoked, that is, that your opponents are in no position to criticise when they do similar things. However, one thing that I have not seen them doing is twisting your user name. In this particular point, you are at fault in a way that they are not. I suggest you take a bit more effort (I'm assuming it's laziness or carelessness as much as anything) to ensure that you type others' user names correctly when you refer to them. This will also give them one less thing to criticise, and especially one less criticism that is valid. Personally, if the user name is complex or long, I will often simply copy and paste it (mouse to select, ctrl-C to copy, go to the insertion point, ctrl-V to paste&mdash;on Windows machines at least). Also, apologies for getting their names wrong in the past would be helpful. Philip J. Rayment 02:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks Phil. yes i just called pscyhohistorian psycho cuz it was shorter i call you Phil and i call feloniousmonk felon. i didnt see what the big deal was but i get the idea now. they will jump on anytyhing to discredit someone. i am wondering if it is worth it.


 * the article is so obviously biased that maybe its better that way. i read it and went 'wow this is all wrong' then when i tried to correct it i was attacked. frankly i dont think about atheists the same way anymore. i actually thought they were just sort of different. now they do seem evil. not even allowing just a tiny bit of the opposing view. you have been so balanced here. i just cant control myself when they start insulting. and they are so unfair. i wanted to show them what is like to take so much abuse. but they are blind to how abusive they are. you made a good point. i hope when i get out i can control myself when they start taunting me. they successfully baited me. wanted to see if there was fairness here and now i know there is not. its hard to fight such a big gang. they keep taunting till you finally lose control. well thanks Phill raspor 12:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You did not call him psycho for convenience. You created a section on your talk page called "psycho's rap sheet" and copied unflattering remarks from an RFC about him as a means of discrediting him.  See your edit here.  I asked you to remove it and you refused.  When you read something he wrote that you agreed with you deleted it.  You seem to overlook the fact that everything you write here is is archived.  Mr Christopher 15:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * look thru the records i called you MR. filll= fill dave souza, dave. duh you AIDs have not tried to discredit me? this is my point. when someone does to you what you do to them you are all upset. i am not going to argue this. thats how you bait me.


 * i most respectfully diagree with your assessment, Mr Christopher. i believe your assertions are erroneous raspor 15:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of thing you need to avoid. Copying and pasting someone else's RFC into your own to attack or discredit them is not appropriate behavior, nor are the other things which Christopher detailed how any editor should act in that situation. Stuff like that is confrontive, uncivil behavior- if you have concerns with an individual user, the way to handle it is to talk to them about it, not use a talk page as a soapbox like in the diff above. --HassourZain 15:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * hassour, i was baited. thats the way i look at it. i just did to them what they did to me but they have the numbers. if any of this went to a court of law they would be found guilty of prosecutorial misconduct. i mistakenly assumed there would be a fair hearing. it is just numbers here. i realize that now. this really might not be worth it to me. i thought there was some voice of reason in wiki. i havent seen it. they baited me. raspor 16:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that there has been an amount of hostility toward you, but looking at the record, it was not entirely unjustified. On the day that you began editing the Intelligent Design article, you tried to take complete control of the article and turn it into something that consensus had been against several times. Then, on your talk page and the article's, you raised objections, not to the way the article was presented, but in favor of the idea itself. I'm pretty sure you didn't know that that all was wrong at that point, but I'm trying to help you understand why people acted defensively when you raised many specific objections in favor of a stronger POV for intelligent design on its talk page. Whether they were genuine mistakes or not I cannot know, but the other editors were not attacking you when they questioned some of the edits you made, and it's important that you understand that. --HassourZain 16:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * when i try to 'take complete control'??? what edits did i make?? they were tiny changes that i had discussed ad nauseum. i was told to be bold and i was not even bold. i talked and talked and talked and then made a tiny change. i made i think 2 tiny changes. it was a misquote. and then i didnt understand the 3Rs and to this day i do not think i reverted more that twice. i appreciate your concern tho. the article i obviously biased. actually i like it that way. if it was subtlely biased people might take it seriously but it is so bad anyone with half a brain would not consider it a real source  raspor 17:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are still parts of the article that concern you, please point them out to me so I can help you either fix what may be biased, or help you to understand what consensus in this community has come to an agreement as far as neutral phrasing goes. --HassourZain 18:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ok hassour maybe i will just work thru you from now on


 * Raspor, I'm not sure if you're still interested in listening to what I have to say, but my advice is this: if you state your ideas in a civil manner and argue them like that, people will be more than willing to talk to and debate with you. From what I can see of your editing history, when you started editing, people saw that you violated some rules. You probably didn't know the rules at that point, but they assumed it was willful disruption instead of unintentional, because evolution, intelligent design, and related topics here at Wikipedia are very common targets for disruptive/POV editing. Because they responded defensively and tried to engage you normally in various areas, you may have misperceived their engagement and questions as attacks, or something like that. I don't think that editors have taunted you, except in the one case you mentioned above where the one editor said some unkind things at the ANI regarding you.
 * The one thing, though, that you have done which is not acceptable, however, is calling other users names and continuing confrontive editing. Neither of those are ever acceptable, and while you may have perceived their original efforts to debate with you as attacking or condescending, please note that no user participating in the RFC against you has ever personally insulted you or your username, but rather tried to talk to you reasonably at the various articles you have edited. In this sense, attacking or insulting them just makes the situation worse, and leads (as I've said before) to a downward spiral, in effect. If you try (when the block is lifted) to talk to other editors while keeping a cool head, I think that occurrences like this can be avoided in the future. If you want any of my advice on the best way to do that, and avoid situations like these, please just ask me any questions you have here (or at my talk page, when your block expires). --HassourZain 15:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Final warning before page protection.
I have spent the past hour and a half reading your edits and the context surrounding them, including the incident report at WP:ANI and the RFC filed. And, given the fact that your block has not caused you to cease making personal attacks or causing disruption, I'm inclined to think that you do not want to abide by Wikipedia's rules and are therefore not willing to be a part of this community. Claiming that calling someone by the name of a sexual act is deserved because his name is ... well, I'm not even sure what your justification is for that. Because it's an adjective that refers to a person who has committed a crime? Whatever: it holds no water. You're backpedaling to justify your name-calling. The only reason you feel attacked and persecuted is because you are deliberately agitating people while claiming to be a blameless victim. If you're going to spend your time while blocked continuing the very behavior that got you blocked in the first place, I will protect the page to prevent further disruption. When the block is lifted, the page may be unprotected. I would not be surprised if the block were extended, though: you have yet to show any signs of reform, or even remorse. It's up to you: you can learn about Wikipedia's policies, make an concerted effort to behave in a civil fashion and contribute constructively, or you can engage in name-calling and disruption. At any rate, one more puerile comment will result in this page being protected until the block is lifted. --  Merope  19:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * what did i do wrong?? look i told hassour i should not have called FM felon. i was calling everybody by the first part of their name. FM made me mad when he said i was stupid. so i stared calling him fellatio. i am not going to call him that anymore cuz it gives him fuel. can i call him FM? i have seen others call him that. i contributed i think very well one time and FM took credit. see he does that. but i will not call him fellatio anymore. what personal attacks have i made since i have been blocked?? i am atlking to hassour and telling him i wont call FM fellatio anymore and i will call him FM if that is agreeable his name is just too long. now i call fill fill cuz it is short.

now really is calling someone the first part of their name name-calling. yes i admit calling FM fellatio was name calling. i was wrong OK? he just made me mad when he insults me. and geo just told me to go to the republic. we were talking about meatpuppets and hassour, one of the few people i trust here told me not to. i didnt even know what a MP is

and i did not revert over 2 times. i still cant figure that out. even dave souza praised me for catching an error in an article.

OK so i should not be talking to anyone at all while i am locked up?

remorse: i am sorry for calling FM fellatio. i was wrong. OK? and i wont call people by the first parts of their names. OK? is that reform?? but do i have to let FM take credit for my ideas? i dont think that is fair.

i think 99% of the articles here are great but can i say what i think of the ID one? is calling it a bobjob wrong? how can i in good faith try to improve it if i have to lie and say i think its great.

i did get off to a bad start here. i really just didnt understand this consensus thing. i thought there would be a minority right. and i asked about banning and nobody answered. i didnt know if they were just trying to scare me. what do i know. i thought FM was just trying to get me to not criticize the article. am i allowed to say i think it is bad?
 * To speak in your favor, Raspor: you did have a very rocky start here, and you didn't know anything about consensus, and I'm not sure if you completely understand how it and NPOV work. NPOV (neutral point of view) is more important than consensus. Neutral point of view says that for articles that deal with issues that have two sides, both of them should be fairly represented. The way that works with consensus is that the people that edit the article in question come together and decide if the article, as it is, accurately portrays the topic as it is in the world. The editors decide if it needs to be made stronger here, or if one side is being given undue weight, etc, and try to phrase the article as neutrally as possible. There isn't a minority in the first place, because each editor gets to have their say, as long as they talk to others civilly and calmly.
 * The way these work together is sometimes hard for new editors to take in all at once, so I understand how you've had a tough time learning all this. To summarize, though, everyone is able to question and criticize any part of an article they want, it's just vitally important that they do so without ruffling other people's feathers unnecessarily. Because you didn't know many of these rules, and some of the edits you made looked like edits that some very disruptive people have made to topics like evolution/ID, the editors in question assumed that you were like some of the other editors that came to edit for a political reason instead of out of a genuine concern to see the article's accuracy improve.
 * I would like to say that I'm glad to see you have taken some things in stride, like not malforming other users' names (using initials for long names is usually ok), but there's still a way to go. Like I said, I can help you here or at my talk page if you have concerns, and I would be happy to do so. Remember, though, that since you have had community action taken, you have to walk the straight and narrow- you can still ask questions of other users (you always have been able to), but it's more important now than ever that you say whatever you want to say without ruffling other people's feathers. That's the key to getting along with others, here and everywhere. --HassourZain 20:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks again hassour, i guess i dont still understand a lot here. i dont get this:

"Neutral point of view says that for articles that deal with issues that have two sides, both of them should be fairly represented"

see the ID side is not represented. i really thought FM was wrong and was trying to scare me. i thought the authorities would see how he was disobeying this rule. then he took credit for my idea. really in a court of law FM could not get away with what he is doing. and i did not revert over 2 times. i made sure of that. i thought the judge would see that. but it seems like as long as say 8 people say you are wrong you are wrong despite the facts. right now i am involved in the gravelle cagekids case. the judge thru out felony counts that he view has not supported by the evidence. i thought something like that would happen here with me. i thought it was petty that my trivial rearrangements of names would be more important than NPOV or taking credit for someone elses ideas.


 * thanks hassour. i really am trying to understand it here. i am more used to the way a court works where the evidence is so important raspor 20:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand, and I appreciate your effort. However, there are a couple things that you should consider, in the context of your above statement:
 * Since Wikipedia is a user-run community, a good analogy would be if the jury, or the community itself were the judge. Some people have particular powers (administrators), but every editor with an understanding of policy should treat every editor as if they are an equal.
 * Because of this, insulting or attacking another user is viewed very gravely- to use your analogy, Wikipedia keeps absolute evidence of everything that happens within it, so individual lapses are kept for the public record, and in the case where one user attacks another peer, it shows a disregard for the system and requirements for civility that the project expects from everyone.
 * To address some of your concern for whether Intelligent Design is proportionally and fairly represented in the article, consideration must be made for the fact that it is not an idea that currently holds much ground in the world of research. Its points and central ideas need to be in the article, decidedly, and the article must not take a stand on the actual validity of it, or any, theory. At the same time, it is advocated for mostly by a vocal minority, and the majority of the academic community does not believe that it has strong merit. The article has to reflect both of these facts in order to maintain neutrality. It is this area that most good-faith efforts by both sides are most often misconstrued as something bad, because this is where the crux of many disagreements lie. Any concerns that you have in this specific area are some of the ones I'd like to help you with.
 * If there's any point above that I haven't addressed, just let me know, or if you'd like me to explain in more detail any of the processes involved. --HassourZain 20:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "treat every editor as if they are an equal." i dont think they did that with me
 * yes i understand that ID is not accepted but neither is astrology or phrenology. look at those two articles and you will not see the same biased presentation. in both those cases the basics of the theory are laid out in the first paragraph THEN they go on to say that is not accepted. and the ID side is simply not presented. also in the evolution article there is no mention that there are evidence problems thanks again raspor 21:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If the layout for phrenology and astrology does not make sufficient mention of the fact that they are not considered worthy of merit by most researchers, I think that that's a problem with those articles. Secondly, I think that they didn't originally treat you as an equal because of some disruptive things you did. In the future, they are prepared to, as long as you act carefully and tactfully. Lastly, in the article on evolution, there is indeed mention made of gaps in the record and other objections, but because it is a theory with wider support, the tone of the article reflects that. If there are specific changes you'd like to see made to Astrology or Phrenology (the articles), let me know, I'd be glad to address any concerns you have there. --HassourZain 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor's violation of the Three-Revert rule
Raspor keeps objecting to the claim that he violated the WP:3RR, and although I can't find it at the moment, I believe that someone said that he had reverted eight times. I include here a listing of what actually happened, for clarification. along with my comments. Sorry it is so long, but I wanted to be thorough.

That was the end of that sequence of edits. In summary, Raspor clearly DID violate the 3RR rule, but just as clearly, his concerns noted in the edit comments were initially simply dismissed out of hand with incorrect claims. Philip J. Rayment 02:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Raspor made this edit to the ID article, with the edit comment:  "this addition takes a study and cherry picks stats that support a personal point of view without giving an accurate picture of what the whole study is saying".  The edit was to delete content that he considered misleading.
 * 2) Humps reverted with the comment, "don't remove relevant sourced information".  Of course, there is no rule that sourced information can't be removed, and whether or not the information was relevant is a matter of opinion.  What had not been done was to actually address Raspor's concerns.
 * 3) Raspor reinstated his change (Revert 1), with the comment, "the source was not correctly cited. it cherry picked biased info".
 * 4) Humps again reverted with the unhelpful comment, "yeah but don't do it"
 * 5) Raspor again reinstated his change (revert 2) with the comment, "cite was biased quoted"
 * 6) Mr Christopher reverted with the comment, "Undo revision 97792222 by Raspor (talk)rv vandalism".  On this point, Raspor has several times asked how this constituted vandalism.   I have also commented, more than once I think, on this.  Yet as far as I've seen, no-one, with one exception that I'll deal with in a moment, has justified this accusation, apologised for it, or even agreed that it was wrong.  The one exception is Guy  who pointed Raspor to WP:VAND and briefly commented that "Inserting - and edit warring over - biased content is a valid use of the term.".  However, Guy is wrong.  WP:VAND specifically says that NPOV violations are not vandalism.
 * 7) Raspor again reinstated his change (revert 3, the limit allowed), with the comment, "the source was not correctly cited. it cherry picked biased info".
 * 8) Mr Christopher again reverted, with the comment, "Undo revision 97792888 by Raspor (talk)rv vandalism see talk".
 * 9) Raspor then made a different edit to a different part of the same paragraph, with no edit comment.  This edit was to insert some new information to (in his opinion), provide balance.  However, WP:3RR does say, "Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention."  I don't know for certain if this edit of Raspor constitutes a violation of this rule or not, but I doubt it does.
 * 10) Humps reverted this edit with the comment, "oh dear".
 * 11) It was only then that Raspor's concerns were addressed, by Mr Christopher, on the talk page.  There was still no justification for the "vandal" tag, which had been repeated on the talk page.
 * 12) Raspor made a different edit to the same sentence, with no edit comment.  Does this also count as a reversion?  I doubt it.
 * 13) Mr Christopher reverted this, with the comment, "Undo revision 97802148 by Raspor (talk)rv irrelevant material see talk".
 * 14) Raspor reinstated his change, with the comment, "If the % of US who believe in".  Regardless of the previous two changes, this is clearly a reversion, and, unfortunately for Raspor, is caught by this rule from WP:3RR: "There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count".  Thus, technically, Raspor DID break the 3RR rule with this edit, if not before.
 * 15) Dave souza reverted, with the comment, "remove off topic assertion again".  Regardless of the merits or otherwise of Raspor's edit, I fail to see how a poll about acceptance of ID is "off topic" for the ID article!
 * 16) Raspor reinstated his change with the comment, "it is relevand see my last commnet"
 * 17) Dave souza reverted the edit, with the comment, "Reverted edits by Raspor (talk) to last version by Dave souza".


 * yes exactly phil, i did not know how the 3R worked. as far as i knew i reverted twiced. then i made changes that were different according to FMs assessment. i think it was a setup again. raspor 12:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

While your documenting raspor's victimhood and how he was ignored by most of the community, would you mind noting every single insult to the editors and disparaging remarks about the article and Wiki itself made by raspor? You might as well document every single instance where someone tried to help him and he ignored or told them to fuck off and every single instance where he was given links to policies or policies were explained to him that he also ignored. Thanks in advance, Phil, for being so fair and unbiased in your thorough investigation. I'm looking forward to you documenting the whole series of events and not just the ones that paint raspor as a victim. Mr Christopher 03:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * lot fo the things you say are insults are ususally


 * 1) . My criticizing the logic of someone
 * 2) . My insulting back in kind
 * 3) . MY saying the article was biases


 * i knew nothing of how things worked here. i thought FM was just trying to itimidate me and scare me away. raspor 12:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no need for me to note all the insults he has made to others; others have been doing a fine job of that themselves. My defence of him is, as much as anything, to provide the balance that he hasn't been getting enough of from others, so asking me to be more balanced is laughable.  The only person I noted using the F word was somebody saying it to him; if he has used it, perhaps you could do the research like I have above, and actually point me to it.  But let's look at that a bit closer.  How many people told Raspor that he shouldn't misuse FeloniousMonk's name?  Quite a few, including me.  How many people told Guy that he shouldn't use the F word against Raspor?  As far as I'm aware, nobody.  But it's worse:  One editor told Guy that doing so was okay!  Now what was that about balance?  I would also be a little less inclined to defend him if some of his opponents actually admitted that they too were in the wrong, and I still haven't seen you admit that it was wrong to describe him as a vandal.  Philip J. Rayment 04:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * yes i never did understand the guy F work comment. fellatio is a accepted, almost scientific word. it is not a vulgarity. in fact wiki has an article on it. now what guy said was not only a vulgarity but an assault. and FM approved of it. F--- Off or F--- You is also considered an assault. now fellatio i admit was wrong to call FM but i thought it was a clever twist on his name. yes Phil you are correct. Guy should have been warned not to use the true vulgarity F--- here. now come on we can use the word fellatio here and also on TV and radio but we are not allowed to use F---. yet when Guy used it against me FM approved it.


 * yes and although i have admitted i was wrong to call FM fellatio and i admit i was wrong to insult back when people insutled me. no one here has apologized for calling me a vandal. i was very new, talked about a change, made a very small good faith change and was called a vandal. when do i get my apology? now that i think back i was thinking 'well it seems like there are no rules here. so when someone insults me i will just shoot back' so in retrospect i think they taunted me to the point where i would insult and then they had something on me. i tried to report their misbehaviors several times but didnt get a response. so i thought thats the way it works here. they insult you, you insult them back. yes why were not my complaints addressed? thats why i called it mob rule. and if you look it up thats what it is. ben franklin talked about this. the minority is oppressed here. and when the minority tries to assert itself it is squashed by insults. then when the minority responds in kind they are prosecuted. thats the way i see it. but dont worry. i am not going to make the same mistakes. i see the deck is stacked against me and will have to work around that. raspor 12:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

is ID science ???
now i want to talk about this again. am i allowed to????

please someone tell me before i am charged with a violation??

raspor 12:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

y:Always glad to oblige: Whether ID is Science. Please read carefully. .. dave souza, talk 13:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * so i am allowed to discuss it? please someone tell me before i charged with a violation.



(1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. """


 * ok dave, answer me this: is lamarkism a scientific theory? raspor 14:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My, that was quick! Now you'll have noticed that I didn't give my opinion, because that would have been "original research" – instead I gave you a reference to a detailed "reliable source". Since I don't have a source to hand giving an answer to your next question, you can try looking for one yourself: try google. Of course if what you want is my opinion so that you can argue with it, that's what we call trolling. Not recommended. .. dave souza, talk 15:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ok i went to wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarkism and it says lamarkism is a theory. there are no cites. should there be?? it says that lamarkism is a theory but does not use a reference. Can we start the ID article off with 'Intelligent design is a theory.... "???raspor 15:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There has been a recent discussion over whether we should state "Intelligent design is a (concept, argument, theory, notion, etc)". This very topic surfaces often and the current editorial consensus resulted in "Intelligent design is an argument...Mr Christopher 16:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * MC, OK now this i do not understand about editing. it has been decided that it should begin "Intelligent design is an argument". there is no cite for that is there? and in the above example there is no cite for "lamarkism is a theory" shoulndt there be cites inorder to show it is not just opinion??  raspor 16:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor, please do not edit my own comments as you did above. I'm changing them back to how they were prior to your edit.

I can't speak for the lamarkism article, the editors there may be able to answer your question(s). "Intelligent Design is an argument..." is cited. If you read the lead you'll note we say ID is an argument (with a cite) and then we outline what that argument actually constists of (with numerous cites). Mr Christopher 16:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

More - > Here is how the opening sentence reads:

Intelligent design (ID) is an argument[1] that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[2][3][4]

The [1] is a cite, and [2][3][4] are all cites (that link to sources that verify the claims being made). So you can see it is in fact cited. Mr Christopher 16:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * yes i read that. but it does not state that ID is an 'argument' it states 'the argument for ID' (concept). well thats the way i see it raspor 16:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

this is the complete quote:

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. " raspor 16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And that is an argument. An argument is a statement (premise) or group of statements (premises) offered in support of another statement (conclusion.  Again, after a lengthy discussion the editorial consensus was either term was sufficient but "argument" was deemed more precise than the term "concept".   Mr Christopher 17:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Raspor, are you asking why we do not use the word "theory" when describing intelligent design? Mr Christopher 17:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * am i allowed to ask that question?? and is it not wrong to quote just part of a sentence? one could really change the meanings of things but not quoting an entire sentence. am i allowed to ask these questions ??? raspor 17:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not aware of any "bad" questions, I believe all questions are considered fair. The Discovery Instute and their affiliates assert ID is a scientific theory.  The scientific community does not consider ID to be scientific or even a theory.  So we cannot call it a theory, yet we do note in the article that ID proponents consider it to be a scientific theory.  On the top of the ID talk page, in the "Please read Before Starting" box, you'll note it says:


 * ''Notes to editors:
 * This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theory


 * According to the scientific community ID is outside of recognized scientific theory. This (and other reasons) are why we do not call it a "theory" in the opening sentence, to do otherwise would be misleading the reader and giving undue weight to a minority/pseudoscientific viewpoint.  In short, describing ID as a theory would be violating more than one Wiki policy (and also contradicts reality).  Mr Christopher 17:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One more thing, Wiki states it is an argument (which is true and verifiable) then we follow up by saying ID proponents say ID is a scientific theory (which is true and verifiable). That is a textbook example of being NPOV.  Mr Christopher 17:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

DEVOLUTION Why intelligent design isn’t. by H. ALLEN ORR

this is cite #17 saying that ID is junk science. it is from the new yorker magazine. is that really reliable source for science. and how is allen orr? raspor 18:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you Google "H. Allen Orr" and you can answer that question for yourself. And I don't have time to discuss the merits of every cited author with you.  Good day.  Mr Christopher 18:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * now dont get upset. it really seems that cite is weak. first of all it did not say Dr., it was in the NewYorker. It should be from a peer-reviewed journal. raspor 18:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Lamarckism or Lamarckian evolution is a theory put forward by the French biologist" then this must be erroneous because it i not a recognized scientific theory and they should say 'argument' or 'concept' what is good for one article should be good for all of them ' raspor 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Phrenology (from Greek: φρήν, phrēn, "mind"; and λόγος, logos, "knowledge") is a theory which claims to be able to determine character, personality traits, and criminality on the " then this should be changed too, right??? raspor 18:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "In astronomy, the geocentric model of the universe is the theory that the Earth is at the center of the universe and the Sun and other objects go around it. " this one too?? raspor 18:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theory thats why i thought this article was biased. all other articles about unaccepted theories refer to them as theories but here it is considered wrong. so all the others should be changed if we are going to be consistent, fair, and unbiased, correct?? raspor 18:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Isaac Newton disproved the æther "vortex theory" of planetary motion but later proposed' seems to me that theory everywhere else seems to me a proposed explanation whether it is accepted or validated or not. raspor 18:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Those are theories because they are falsifiable, not because they're accepted. ID is not falsifiable, therefore it's not capable of being a scientific theory. That in and of itself doesn't make it "false"; it just means it's not science. --  Merope  18:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

""The marginalist theory of price level runs counter to the classical theory of price being determined by the amount of labour congealed in a commodity.""


 * so you disagree with MC who says that we should not use the word theory if it is acceptable. thats what i am not understanding. isnt the theory that the earth is 6000 years old falsifiable? and is not theory that aliens seeded the earth falsifiable? raspor 19:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, I thought I might regret this and I do. If you're on Wikipedia solely to make ID look like a scientific theory, then find another project, please.  You can propose objection after objection, but you're only doing it to push POV into one area.  I don't really have the time or energy to engage in a debate with someone who hasn't, after repeated requests, taken the time to read and understand our NPOV policy.  --  Merope  19:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not allowed to aske these questions? I asked at the beginning if I could. So I am not allowed to bring this up correct?


 * [[Image:DoNotFeedTroll.jpg|60 px]] This has gone on long enough. It's time to stop offering the troll food. Earnest discussions with him are pointless; he's impervious to reason, evidence and policy. FeloniousMonk 19:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Orr, have a look at http://www.tsujiru.net/?p=209 Guettarda 19:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ID is not science because it can never be proved false by definition
 * ID is not science because God is involved
 * ID is not science because the supernatural is involved
 * ID is not science because it has proposed no hypotheses that have been tested
 * ID is not science because it has no peer-reviewed publications to speak of in the scientific literature
 * ID Is not science because it has not passed through all the hurdles that are required to be an accepted part of science; testing by multiple scientists, passing the tests, publication, acceptance, etc. It is just pure crap some jerks thought of to try to get around the law; they are closer to criminals than scientists

Good day sir. A Guy

FM am I allowed to respond to any of the above? If not I wont. I just wondered why phrenology was referred to as a science but ID was not. If I am not allowed to ask these questions please let me know. I do not see how the theory in my mind that aliens seeded the earth during the cambrian times is unscientific. It does not involve the supernatural and it can be tested just as much as if the phyla arose thru natural selection. But if I am not allowed to talk about this I will not. Many ecomonic theories cannot be falsified but they are referred to as theory. I did not say ID was science just that it was a theory. Sorry if I brought up something not allowedraspor 21:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The victim pose is getting really tiresome. I suggest you'd be better off contributing to the ID wiki, www.researchintelligentdesign.org FeloniousMonk 00:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you Anti-IDers should spend more time working on the article and less time harrassing Raspor.
raspor 18:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting: wasting time and space
The amount of space and time the Anti-IDers have put into trying to discredit me far exceeds all of my comments and supposed rants. If they really think I am a troll and stupid why don't they just ignore me.


 * Why: they want to silence me because I show the weakness in their assertions and arguments. Really just ignore me. Why do you keep feeding a 'troll'?? raspor 20:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, that is what might be done. You might get banned from certain articles, or Wikipedia altogether. I can't say you didn't ask for it. A. Guy


 * and what was my violation??? raspor 20:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Disrupting the project. FeloniousMonk 20:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * actually i would like to get banned from this article and evolution article. i wasted too much time here. would that make the Anti-Iders happy? I have better things to do. raspor 20:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why force the community to take action? Just leave and stop disrupting the project and the issue is settled. The fact that you don't is what leads many to think you're a troll. FeloniousMonk 20:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * the point is i still want to edit other articles but you people keep harassing me. just quit repsponding to me. quit making comments on my talk page. thats why i think you are the trolls. you will not leave me alone. i want to talk only to phill and hassour right now. so go away please and quit trolling my page. i dont want you here. please leave raspor 20:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)