User talk:St91

Welcome to St91 Talk: Please read the notes below
Hi. To try and keep this page orderly, please follow the guidance below By keeping to this, it may make the talkpage easier to use. Thanks St91 15:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please add your new comments at the bottom of the conversations which are currently open. If you desire a reply, I will leave it on my talkpage, below your comments.
 * If a conversation is closed, I will put --END-- at the end of the coversation. To start a new conversation on the same/ similar topic, please create a whole new section at the bottom.
 * I also ask you to delete the username below the Last Edited section, and add your own in with the 4 ~ sign.

This page was last edited by...
Booksworm Talk to me! 17:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please delete the above username and add your own instead to show who edited last.

Welcome!
I do hope you received my message at Yahoo! Answers...

Enjoy Wikipedia!

Booksworm Talk to me! 17:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

--END--

Coursework on Global Warming
Hi St91!

On Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle you wrote: I was reading this as I need information for my coursework which goes against the theory of global warming. First, while Wikipedia is an excellent resource, you should not rely on it alone. Some schools even forbid use of Wikipedia as a source at all. Secondly, I don't know what topic you are assigned. However, writing something "against" something seems weird. Why don't you write something "about"? Draw your conclusion at the end, when you have all the information, not upfront. Best wishes! --Stephan Schulz 21:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (Copied from my talk pager) I hope this is on the right place, I still haven't got the hange of talk-pages. When you said on my talk page about why not write "about" soemthing, I thought i'd be best to clarify. Our new GCSE Science form is 21st Century Science, which has come under alot of critiscism. Anyway, we have to look at the "ethics" of science and for the topic of the case study, we have to argue for and aganst a subject. I chose Abrupt climate change as it is a topic I know about. However, this is linked with Global Warming, with less ice melting, it wouldn't create it to happen. So, the end of my coursework is to question wether it is possible currently. There are arguments to say the ice is melting, thus slowing the thermohaline circulation, but if it isn't then it should go in. And that is the future of science! More like a RE/Moral issues class but there you go! Should you reply, please do so on on my talkpage. ThanksSt91 16:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. I think I understand your position now. I fear you are overextending the topic, though. Abrupt climate change can happen with and without global warming, and the topic is currently fairly open, i.e. all you will find in the scientific literature are a lot of ifs, maybes, and buts. Global warming, on the other hand, is about as well an established fact as science has to offer. Even anthropogenic causes are widely (though not quite universally) accepted. Anyways, good luck. As for talk page etiquette: I find distributed discussions impossible to follow, hence I ask people to keep all the discussion on the page it started (yours, in this case). It seems to be the more frequent model, anyways. --Stephan Schulz 16:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

--END--

St91 15:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You must have mistyped your password the first time around. The box that appeared (a CAPTCHA) is to protect your account; it makes it tedious for a human to try to guess your password by trying many possibilities until one fits, and prevents automated password-crackers trying to guess your password at high speed. (It won't come up normally, only when an incorrect password has been tried; unless you mistype your password again, it shouldn't bother you again). What you did with the helpme template was fine, by the way; you can place your question either inside or beside the template without problems. --ais523 16:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Get over yourself
Religion in essence is evil; it has done more bad than good. The explanatory powers of science far outweigh those of religion. I'd rather believe in the randomness of the big bang than the ridiculousness of a God who always, is and will be there. Smarred Wolet (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Aren't you the friendly one? St91 (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I probably shouldn't get involved, but I feel that comment was out of line and violates WP:CIVIL. Religion is not evil in and of itself, it is certain people with religion who do evil things. Secondly, religious beliefs do not exclude believing in secular creation theories such as the big bang. Finally, what exactly has St91 done? If this is referring to the Creation Myth discussion, all he was saying was that the title "Creation Myth" offended him and that a term could be found that was less offensive. Don't target people because of their beliefs and let's all work on creating an encyclopedia instead. --Sapphire Flame (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry It was a bit cold and horrible of me. I apologise, however I was unhappy about the Creation Myth thing, and I just so happen to have extremely strong views about religeon. Sorry its isn't 100% evil, only about 40-60& :P. Smarred Wolet (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)