Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Thoughts on evolution

Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 4:07:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The chief weakness of the ToE toe is its excessive focus on the particle perspective on organisms at every point and level of its scientific endeavour. The statement also gets based on other cases added in that I am reflecting on at the time. Elsewhere in science, these would only be deemed opinions. TO SEE THIS ILLUSTRATED MOST VIVIDLY, JUST LOOK AT ONLY ONE FREQUENTLY DISPLAYED AND VERY PUBLIC ASPECT OF IT-- HOW VALUE JUDGMENTS REGULARLY PERVADE THEIR POSITIONS AND CONCLUSIONS.

I cannot as yet see you as a research methodologist. Neither do I countenance a weird confusion of terms as in making what is obvious verbosity to be equivalent to rhetorical (of all the more sensible collocative word choices you could have made a better case for, you chose a strong point- rhetorical) laziness. You instead evade, gut-react, or distract in simple denial from the substance of anything presented. I COULD WITH EQUAL CERTITUDE PROCLAIM FROM A BULLY PULPIT OF SELF-SATISFYING EGOISM OR PREJUDICIAL, PARTISANSHIP THAT EVOLUTION IS NOT CRITICAL THINKING --- THAT IT IS SIMPLE GARBAGE INVOLVING NO THOUGHT WHATEVER. BUT THEN AGAIN, I WOULD WRITE SUCH A GROSS, OBVIOUSLY EMOTION-BASED GENERALIZATION IN A MUCH MORE GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT FORM (AS I DID HERE) THAN YOU HAVE- FOR WHAT THAT IS WORTH IN THE COMPARATIVE IQ CATEGORY. Still, I am not here to feed group prejudices.

Nope. I'm not the individual misconstruing the practice of constructing valid scientific definitions by bludgeoning the linear nature of scientific method. A proper application of research findings is to compare them to predictions, hypotheses, and theories, which only contain definitions; that's the test. Definitions typically don't get tested; they could get revised or deleted, but only in subsequent studies. They are not modified in any direct sense by any data during a test. It's the interconnections between variables in hypotheses that get observed and often reported as floating evidentiary outcomes. Real world relationships get tested. Definitions aren't. Variable relationships are free to vary in some tests; others are just treated as either-or enterprises. Variable definitions aren't the point unless deciding data representations or variables IS the object of the test (as preliminary to hypothesis tests), but these results usually go unreported or get included only as footnotes. In a heated debate, if it is against the evolutionist position and an evolutionist says don't do it, you can be sure it has become a nagging thorn in the side. I LEARNED LONG AGO THAT PUNCHLINES AND UNDERSCORED/HIGHLIGHTED CONCLUSIONS OFFER A RHETORICAL ADVANTAGE.

Also, I shun such ignorant and obvious racist-like rhetoric. Using such coarsely drawn class hype in an assertion would be manifesting blind, polarized bigotry against a group of people and blatant, completely unscientific ignorance (psychologically speaking) of human beings, and might even indicate a hype-ridden, extravagant, melodramatic personality at play. Science is a purely human activity and the Uk and USA are not that homogenous in terms of values. It just goes to show us another area of unprofessional judgment and insincerity that is fundamentally biasing evolutionists' scientific, factual considerations of this thread's titular question. IS IT ONLY DONE TO WIN A POINT? IF SO, WHY THE WASTE IN SCIENCE?

Now where have I heard that before?! In contrast to what you said here, you recently said I have nothing but arguments. EVOUTIONISTS WOULD RATHER ATTRIBUTE MOTIVES THAN REFINE REAL WORLD QUALITIES IN A SKILLED, PROFESSIONAL MANNER. For evolutionists, inductions (like stuff happens) are all they have. And it is the only feature of science they have.

On every other matter and subject, evolutionists are unscientific and lose points roundly in dialog. Popular uses and other academic disciplines' uses allow for a broad use of origins applied to species as well as referring only to abiogensis. Why would you want to pique over the populist use of terminiology when you yourself deemed hypotheses only arguments, and insisted such was the case even when pressed? THEY THINK POLITE REFERENCE TO THE TERM OR PREMISE OF EVOLUTION AS FOUND IN THOUSANDS OF ARTICLES IS EQUIVALENT TO ACTUAL TESTS OF THE THEORY.

So. There is no need to test it, they often say. Alas! ONCE AGAIN, DEFINITIONS ARE NOT CONSTRUCTED OUT OF EVIDENTIARY STATEMENTS IN PROPER USES OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD- NOT EVEN IN EVOLUTION STUDIES.

Might you be doing so for a simple value judgement or simple rhetorical advantage. Excuse me, I meant to point out an equally ridiculous assertion by way of comparison. WHY? It appears you don't actually refute arguments or deal with them directly.

The two terms of hypothesis and argument are not regularly used together and especially not commonly used as synonymous. To indicate otherwise as I think was done here was only an artificial, ad hoc fusing of terms to defend a colleague. And the lack of such is deafening. I GUESS EVOLUTION AS A FIELD DOESN'T KNOW THAT, SINCE THEY OVERLOOK INTELLIGENCE AS AN AGENCY FOR ANYTHING, EVEN IN METHODOLOGICAL MATTERS OF PREFABRICATED AND MANIPULATED FINDINGS EVIDENTLY FROM WHAT YOU ARE SAYING HERE.

Popular uses and other academic disciplines' uses allow for a broad use of origins applied to species as well as referring only to abiogensis. Why would you want to pique over the populist use of terminiology when you yourself deemed hypotheses only arguments, and insisted such was the case even when pressed? Just as does evolutionists insisting creationists consider only their arguments when presented with pointed criticism of toe (un)scientific inferencing, which they don't want to have to answer substantively. Evolution support is unscientific. All their argument has to stand on is their subjective perception of an undemonstratable overgeneralization: the preponderance of evidence. They can't seem to think or reason beyond that point. IS IT IN ORDER TO DEFEND EVOLUTION? AND IS IT WHAT YOU THINK I AM DOING- ATTACKING A INDIVIDUAL PERSON INSTEAD OF A THEORETICAL TRADITION AND ITS VIEWPOINTS? I'M CONFIDENT THAT WAS INNOCENT AND INADVERTANT, BUT I MAY BE WRONG- I THINK YOU ALSO FUNNELLED IT DOWN INTO SOMETHING PERSONALLY SUBJECTIVE TO YOU AND MEANINGLESS IN TERMS OF CONTENT TO READERS, I.E., YOU REFERRED TO MY SUPPORT AS "SOME CRITICAL STUFF." WOW, THAT'S A HIGHLY INACCURATE PARAPHRASE OF WHAT I SAID IN SUBSTANTIVE TERMS.

For them, this is clearly play, not work, and their standards of scholarship reflect it. We legitimately limit nuances and draw proximal distinctions in use at such times- ones that don't always universally apply. We also legitimately differentiate overlapping terms with what is essentially a usage footnote in such a case. But we keep such particular distinctions out of our dictionaries! THOSE ARE INSTANCES OF STEREOTYPED, BIGOTED, LABELLING STATEMENTS. FUNNY YOU ASK FOR EVIDENCE WHEN IN SOME OF YOUR OWN STATEMENTS THERE CAN BE NONE. Thus the debate goes back and forth, simply hinged on the matter of control of subjects to discuss.

We are not trying to win friends, mince words, or mend fences here. Evolutionists here are trying to co-op scientific terminology for propaganda and discipline-specific purposes. AND LIKE MOST OF THEIR 'FACTS,' THEY CANNOT KEEP THE LEVELS AND DOMAINS STRAIGHT/DISTINCT (EG., GENERALIZED TERM OF ARGUMENT VS. THE MORE SPECIALIZED AND THEORY/METHOD-LIMITED ONE OF HYPOTHESIS). IT MUST HELP BUILD SOME KIND OF EVOLUTION FAQ-GENERATING MACHINE.
:) nac
distraff
Posts: 1,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 4:11:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2016 4:07:16 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
The chief weakness of the ToE toe is its excessive focus on the particle perspective on organisms at every point and level of its scientific endeavour. The statement also gets based on other cases added in that I am reflecting on at the time. Elsewhere in science, these would only be deemed opinions. TO SEE THIS ILLUSTRATED MOST VIVIDLY, JUST LOOK AT ONLY ONE FREQUENTLY DISPLAYED AND VERY PUBLIC ASPECT OF IT-- HOW VALUE JUDGMENTS REGULARLY PERVADE THEIR POSITIONS AND CONCLUSIONS.

I cannot as yet see you as a research methodologist. Neither do I countenance a weird confusion of terms as in making what is obvious verbosity to be equivalent to rhetorical (of all the more sensible collocative word choices you could have made a better case for, you chose a strong point- rhetorical) laziness. You instead evade, gut-react, or distract in simple denial from the substance of anything presented. I COULD WITH EQUAL CERTITUDE PROCLAIM FROM A BULLY PULPIT OF SELF-SATISFYING EGOISM OR PREJUDICIAL, PARTISANSHIP THAT EVOLUTION IS NOT CRITICAL THINKING --- THAT IT IS SIMPLE GARBAGE INVOLVING NO THOUGHT WHATEVER. BUT THEN AGAIN, I WOULD WRITE SUCH A GROSS, OBVIOUSLY EMOTION-BASED GENERALIZATION IN A MUCH MORE GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT FORM (AS I DID HERE) THAN YOU HAVE- FOR WHAT THAT IS WORTH IN THE COMPARATIVE IQ CATEGORY. Still, I am not here to feed group prejudices.

Nope. I'm not the individual misconstruing the practice of constructing valid scientific definitions by bludgeoning the linear nature of scientific method. A proper application of research findings is to compare them to predictions, hypotheses, and theories, which only contain definitions; that's the test. Definitions typically don't get tested; they could get revised or deleted, but only in subsequent studies. They are not modified in any direct sense by any data during a test. It's the interconnections between variables in hypotheses that get observed and often reported as floating evidentiary outcomes. Real world relationships get tested. Definitions aren't. Variable relationships are free to vary in some tests; others are just treated as either-or enterprises. Variable definitions aren't the point unless deciding data representations or variables IS the object of the test (as preliminary to hypothesis tests), but these results usually go unreported or get included only as footnotes. In a heated debate, if it is against the evolutionist position and an evolutionist says don't do it, you can be sure it has become a nagging thorn in the side. I LEARNED LONG AGO THAT PUNCHLINES AND UNDERSCORED/HIGHLIGHTED CONCLUSIONS OFFER A RHETORICAL ADVANTAGE.

Also, I shun such ignorant and obvious racist-like rhetoric. Using such coarsely drawn class hype in an assertion would be manifesting blind, polarized bigotry against a group of people and blatant, completely unscientific ignorance (psychologically speaking) of human beings, and might even indicate a hype-ridden, extravagant, melodramatic personality at play. Science is a purely human activity and the Uk and USA are not that homogenous in terms of values. It just goes to show us another area of unprofessional judgment and insincerity that is fundamentally biasing evolutionists' scientific, factual considerations of this thread's titular question. IS IT ONLY DONE TO WIN A POINT? IF SO, WHY THE WASTE IN SCIENCE?

Now where have I heard that before?! In contrast to what you said here, you recently said I have nothing but arguments. EVOUTIONISTS WOULD RATHER ATTRIBUTE MOTIVES THAN REFINE REAL WORLD QUALITIES IN A SKILLED, PROFESSIONAL MANNER. For evolutionists, inductions (like stuff happens) are all they have. And it is the only feature of science they have.

On every other matter and subject, evolutionists are unscientific and lose points roundly in dialog. Popular uses and other academic disciplines' uses allow for a broad use of origins applied to species as well as referring only to abiogensis. Why would you want to pique over the populist use of terminiology when you yourself deemed hypotheses only arguments, and insisted such was the case even when pressed? THEY THINK POLITE REFERENCE TO THE TERM OR PREMISE OF EVOLUTION AS FOUND IN THOUSANDS OF ARTICLES IS EQUIVALENT TO ACTUAL TESTS OF THE THEORY.

So. There is no need to test it, they often say. Alas! ONCE AGAIN, DEFINITIONS ARE NOT CONSTRUCTED OUT OF EVIDENTIARY STATEMENTS IN PROPER USES OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD- NOT EVEN IN EVOLUTION STUDIES.

Might you be doing so for a simple value judgement or simple rhetorical advantage. Excuse me, I meant to point out an equally ridiculous assertion by way of comparison. WHY? It appears you don't actually refute arguments or deal with them directly.

The two terms of hypothesis and argument are not regularly used together and especially not commonly used as synonymous. To indicate otherwise as I think was done here was only an artificial, ad hoc fusing of terms to defend a colleague. And the lack of such is deafening. I GUESS EVOLUTION AS A FIELD DOESN'T KNOW THAT, SINCE THEY OVERLOOK INTELLIGENCE AS AN AGENCY FOR ANYTHING, EVEN IN METHODOLOGICAL MATTERS OF PREFABRICATED AND MANIPULATED FINDINGS EVIDENTLY FROM WHAT YOU ARE SAYING HERE.

Popular uses and other academic disciplines' uses allow for a broad use of origins applied to species as well as referring only to abiogensis. Why would you want to pique over the populist use of terminiology when you yourself deemed hypotheses only arguments, and insisted such was the case even when pressed? Just as does evolutionists insisting creationists consider only their arguments when presented with pointed criticism of toe (un)scientific inferencing, which they don't want to have to answer substantively. Evolution support is unscientific. All their argument has to stand on is their subjective perception of an undemonstratable overgeneralization: the preponderance of evidence. They can't seem to think or reason beyond that point. IS IT IN ORDER TO DEFEND EVOLUTION? AND IS IT WHAT YOU THINK I AM DOING- ATTACKING A INDIVIDUAL PERSON INSTEAD OF A THEORETICAL TRADITION AND ITS VIEWPOINTS? I'M CONFIDENT THAT WAS INNOCENT AND INADVERTANT, BUT I MAY BE WRONG- I THINK YOU ALSO FUNNELLED IT DOWN INTO SOMETHING PERSONALLY SUBJECTIVE TO YOU AND MEANINGLESS IN TERMS OF CONTENT TO READERS, I.E., YOU REFERRED TO MY SUPPORT AS "SOME CRITICAL STUFF." WOW, THAT'S A HIGHLY INACCURATE PARAPHRASE OF WHAT I SAID IN SUBSTANTIVE TERMS.

For them, this is clearly play, not work, and their standards of scholarship reflect it. We legitimately limit nuances and draw proximal distinctions in use at such times- ones that don't always universally apply. We also legitimately differentiate overlapping terms with what is essentially a usage footnote in such a case. But we keep such particular distinctions out of our dictionaries! THOSE ARE INSTANCES OF STEREOTYPED, BIGOTED, LABELLING STATEMENTS. FUNNY YOU ASK FOR EVIDENCE WHEN IN SOME OF YOUR OWN STATEMENTS THERE CAN BE NONE. Thus the debate goes back and forth, simply hinged on the matter of control of subjects to discuss.

You have a lot of OPINIONS but unfortunately you did not present any examples of evidence against evolution the scientific community ignores or of how the evidence for evolution is the result of some failure of the scientific community. The scientific method has brought many technological advancements and is the most successful enterprise we have. It has its flaws but nothing is perfect.
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 4:31:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2016 4:11:45 AM, distraff wrote:
You have a lot of OPINIONS but unfortunately you did not present any examples of evidence against evolution the scientific community ignores or of how the evidence for evolution is the result of some failure of the scientific community. The scientific method has brought many technological advancements and is the most successful enterprise we have. It has its flaws but nothing is perfect.

S INNOCENT AND THEORY/METHODOLOGICAL TRADITIONS OFFER A RHETORICAL MATTERS OF ARTICLES IS EQUIVALENT TO READERS, I.E., YOU ASK FOR EVIDENTIARY STATEMENTS IN TERMS.

For the preponderance a weird confusion of an undemonstratable relationist positions (like stuff happens) are nothing but the times- ones that pointed criticism of the time. Elsewhere to feed group of people and forth, simple definitionships get included only argument has to standards of values. It just treated as synonymous. To individual
:) nac
distraff
Posts: 1,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 4:36:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2016 4:31:02 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 4/6/2016 4:11:45 AM, distraff wrote:
You have a lot of OPINIONS but unfortunately you did not present any examples of evidence against evolution the scientific community ignores or of how the evidence for evolution is the result of some failure of the scientific community. The scientific method has brought many technological advancements and is the most successful enterprise we have. It has its flaws but nothing is perfect.

S INNOCENT AND THEORY/METHODOLOGICAL TRADITIONS OFFER A RHETORICAL MATTERS OF ARTICLES IS EQUIVALENT TO READERS, I.E., YOU ASK FOR EVIDENTIARY STATEMENTS IN TERMS.

For the preponderance a weird confusion of an undemonstratable relationist positions (like stuff happens) are nothing but the times- ones that pointed criticism of the time. Elsewhere to feed group of people and forth, simple definitionships get included only argument has to standards of values. It just treated as synonymous. To individual

I am waiting for the examples and the evidence. Will discuss further when you provide them.

By the way, I took all that rambling in your OP and put it into a word cloud:
http://worditout.com...

You sure use the word "only" a lot. For a criticism of a scientific theory you don't use one actual scientific term.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 4:54:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2016 4:36:39 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/6/2016 4:31:02 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 4/6/2016 4:11:45 AM, distraff wrote:
You have a lot of OPINIONS but unfortunately you did not present any examples of evidence against evolution the scientific community ignores or of how the evidence for evolution is the result of some failure of the scientific community. The scientific method has brought many technological advancements and is the most successful enterprise we have. It has its flaws but nothing is perfect.

S INNOCENT AND THEORY/METHODOLOGICAL TRADITIONS OFFER A RHETORICAL MATTERS OF ARTICLES IS EQUIVALENT TO READERS, I.E., YOU ASK FOR EVIDENTIARY STATEMENTS IN TERMS.

For the preponderance a weird confusion of an undemonstratable relationist positions (like stuff happens) are nothing but the times- ones that pointed criticism of the time. Elsewhere to feed group of people and forth, simple definitionships get included only argument has to standards of values. It just treated as synonymous. To individual

I am waiting for the examples and the evidence. Will discuss further when you provide them.

By the way, I took all that rambling in your OP and put it into a word cloud:
http://worditout.com...

Very cool, I just took a random OP from the Religion forum talking about morals, the largest words were "Religion, Beliefs, Violence"

You sure use the word "only" a lot. For a criticism of a scientific theory you don't use one actual scientific term.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
distraff
Posts: 1,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 6:26:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2016 4:54:30 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/6/2016 4:36:39 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/6/2016 4:31:02 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 4/6/2016 4:11:45 AM, distraff wrote:
You have a lot of OPINIONS but unfortunately you did not present any examples of evidence against evolution the scientific community ignores or of how the evidence for evolution is the result of some failure of the scientific community. The scientific method has brought many technological advancements and is the most successful enterprise we have. It has its flaws but nothing is perfect.

S INNOCENT AND THEORY/METHODOLOGICAL TRADITIONS OFFER A RHETORICAL MATTERS OF ARTICLES IS EQUIVALENT TO READERS, I.E., YOU ASK FOR EVIDENTIARY STATEMENTS IN TERMS.

For the preponderance a weird confusion of an undemonstratable relationist positions (like stuff happens) are nothing but the times- ones that pointed criticism of the time. Elsewhere to feed group of people and forth, simple definitionships get included only argument has to standards of values. It just treated as synonymous. To individual

I am waiting for the examples and the evidence. Will discuss further when you provide them.

By the way, I took all that rambling in your OP and put it into a word cloud:
http://worditout.com...

Very cool, I just took a random OP from the Religion forum talking about morals, the largest words were "Religion, Beliefs, Violence"

Interesting. You should do this to some creationist posts. Soon you can use the word cloud to convince them by speaking their language.

You sure use the word "only" a lot. For a criticism of a scientific theory you don't use one actual scientific term.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 6:37:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Definitions don't change as a consequence of scientific experiment? What about aether, for example?

In the late 19th century, physicists postulated that aether permeated all throughout space, providing a medium through which light could travel in a vacuum, but evidence for the presence of such a medium was not found in the Michelson"Morley experiment.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org...(classical_element)

What about humours?

The Greek physician Hippocrates (c. 460 " c. 370 BC) incorporated the four temperaments into his medical theories as part of the ancient medical concept of humorism, that four bodily fluids affect human personality traits and behaviors. Later discoveries in biochemistry have led modern medicine science to reject the theory of the four temperaments...

Clearly, you are filled with such a quantity of black humour, it pervades the very aether!
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 12:50:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2016 4:36:39 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/6/2016 4:31:02 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 4/6/2016 4:11:45 AM, distraff wrote:
You have a lot of OPINIONS but unfortunately you did not present any examples of evidence against evolution the scientific community ignores or of how the evidence for evolution is the result of some failure of the scientific community. The scientific method has brought many technological advancements and is the most successful enterprise we have. It has its flaws but nothing is perfect.

S INNOCENT AND THEORY/METHODOLOGICAL TRADITIONS OFFER A RHETORICAL MATTERS OF ARTICLES IS EQUIVALENT TO READERS, I.E., YOU ASK FOR EVIDENTIARY STATEMENTS IN TERMS.

For the preponderance a weird confusion of an undemonstratable relationist positions (like stuff happens) are nothing but the times- ones that pointed criticism of the time. Elsewhere to feed group of people and forth, simple definitionships get included only argument has to standards of values. It just treated as synonymous. To individual

I am waiting for the examples and the evidence. Will discuss further when you provide them.

By the way, I took all that rambling in your OP and put it into a word cloud:
http://worditout.com...

You sure use the word "only" a lot. For a criticism of a scientific theory you don't use one actual scientific term.

They want to underscore in absolute terms their view that ID and creationism have nothing, meaning no evidence at all. Denying evidence is evidence outright is childish when making it the centerpiece and chief focus of science. This is based on its overgeneralized (almost chaotic) perspective on matters of cause and effect- compared to say physics, with one exception: perhaps in the field of genetics. THEY ALSO RESORT TO AD HOC, SEPARATE COMBINATION OF TERMS FOR CONSIDERATION BASED ON SITUATIONAL ADVANTAGE.

Molecular biologists don't care about such evidence. You apparently have turned to personal attributions and ad hominem instead. RELIGIOUS OVERGENERALIZATION AND BIGOTRY INVOLVES THE WRONG KIND OF THOUGHT, TOO, AND NOT JUST THE PURE EMOTIONALISM OF THE PROGAGANDISTS AND SENSATIONALIST ADVERTISERS. And the lack of such is deafening.

The terms refer to different levels in a hierarchy when not used very, very loosely (and I would argue- even incorrectly), and only WHEN suitably juxtaposed in related contexts that make clear any need for crude references, or nuance-adjusting forms. No, evolutionists want to use scientific terms indistinctly and casually when it piques their fancy. And they want to do so in the same week they deny opponents the same scientific latitude/liberties. That's were their overconfidence comes from- all or nothing viewpoints and a guarded, unswerving devotion to the protection of dogmatic stereotype. THUS IN ANY CONTROVERSY, YOU CAN'T TAKE WHAT MOST EVOLUTIONISTS SAY AT FACE VALUE.
:) nac
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 12:51:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2016 6:37:17 PM, autocorrect wrote:
Definitions don't change as a consequence of scientific experiment? What about aether, for example?

In the late 19th century, physicists postulated that aether permeated all throughout space, providing a medium through which light could travel in a vacuum, but evidence for the presence of such a medium was not found in the Michelson"Morley experiment.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org...(classical_element)

What about humours?

The Greek physician Hippocrates (c. 460 " c. 370 BC) incorporated the four temperaments into his medical theories as part of the ancient medical concept of humorism, that four bodily fluids affect human personality traits and behaviors. Later discoveries in biochemistry have led modern medicine science to reject the theory of the four temperaments...

Clearly, you are filled with such a quantity of black humour, it pervades the very aether!

Both stupidity and irrationality are signs of sensory and neural activities, which qualify as forms of intelligence. Religious overgeneralization and bigotry involves the wrong kind of thought, too, and not just the pure emotionalism of the progagandists and sensationalist advertisers. You cannot get to the truth in controversy in any other way. I CANNOT AS YET SEE YOU AS A RESEARCH METHODOLOGIST. NEITHER DO I COUNTENANCE A WEIRD CONFUSION OF TERMS AS IN MAKING WHAT IS OBVIOUS VERBOSITY TO BE EQUIVALENT TO RHETORICAL (OF ALL THE MORE SENSIBLE COLLOCATIVE WORD CHOICES YOU COULD HAVE MADE A BETTER CASE FOR, YOU CHOSE A STRONG POINT- RHETORICAL) LAZINESS.

Support stops being only about hypothesis-based evidence in the secondary review process! I learned long ago that punchlines and underscored/highlighted conclusions offer a rhetorical advantage. THERE IS NO NEED TO TEST IT, THEY OFTEN SAY. Twelve minutes of reading must not be enough to provide insight anymore.

Yet I think you discard them in this category. Wow! THE TERMS REFER TO DIFFERENT LEVELS IN A HIERARCHY WHEN NOT USED VERY, VERY LOOSELY (AND I WOULD ARGUE- EVEN INCORRECTLY), AND ONLY WHEN SUITABLY JUXTAPOSED IN RELATED CONTEXTS THAT MAKE CLEAR ANY NEED FOR CRUDE REFERENCES, OR NUANCE-ADJUSTING FORMS. NO, EVOLUTIONISTS WANT TO USE SCIENTIFIC TERMS INDISTINCTLY AND CASUALLY WHEN IT PIQUES THEIR FANCY. AND THEY WANT TO DO SO IN THE SAME WEEK THEY DENY OPPONENTS THE SAME SCIENTIFIC LATITUDE/LIBERTIES.
:) nac
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 12:51:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2016 4:54:30 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/6/2016 4:36:39 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/6/2016 4:31:02 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 4/6/2016 4:11:45 AM, distraff wrote:
You have a lot of OPINIONS but unfortunately you did not present any examples of evidence against evolution the scientific community ignores or of how the evidence for evolution is the result of some failure of the scientific community. The scientific method has brought many technological advancements and is the most successful enterprise we have. It has its flaws but nothing is perfect.

S INNOCENT AND THEORY/METHODOLOGICAL TRADITIONS OFFER A RHETORICAL MATTERS OF ARTICLES IS EQUIVALENT TO READERS, I.E., YOU ASK FOR EVIDENTIARY STATEMENTS IN TERMS.

For the preponderance a weird confusion of an undemonstratable relationist positions (like stuff happens) are nothing but the times- ones that pointed criticism of the time. Elsewhere to feed group of people and forth, simple definitionships get included only argument has to standards of values. It just treated as synonymous. To individual

I am waiting for the examples and the evidence. Will discuss further when you provide them.

By the way, I took all that rambling in your OP and put it into a word cloud:
http://worditout.com...

Very cool, I just took a random OP from the Religion forum talking about morals, the largest words were "Religion, Beliefs, Violence"

You sure use the word "only" a lot. For a criticism of a scientific theory you don't use one actual scientific term.

It is not science, being based essentially on hyperbole and spite. For them, that would only be discussing their views non sequitur. When ridiculed heatedly by opponents who refuse to consider rational or logical criticism in its own right or on its own terms, keep doing it! WELL, I AM JUST NOT YET CONVINCED THIS BLAND STATEMENT ABOUT SCIENTIFIC DATA BEING ONLY NUMERICAL IS WORTH THE EFFORT.

There's quite a bit of doublespeak in this paragraph, and more evidence of a double standard in evolutionists' consideration of what science actually is. As creationists and IDers meet evolutionists' hyped, individual challenges (actually: their categorical, outright, comprehensive denials), evolutionists are compelled to withhold from the public any favorable conclusions piecemeal to avoid appearing to yield any ground to opponents. BUT I SUPPOSE YOU CAN ONLY IDENTIFY "PUNCH" AND S(C)OOP LINES WITH WE(I)RD SALAD. Sorry if I contributed anything to cause that, but I do not see an incorrect paraphrase of my post as fair or just.

When creationists convince using reason and logic, most evolutionists turn to the resentful, intellectually lazy practice of ejecting barbs. In contrast to what you said here, you recently said I have nothing but arguments. STILL.
:) nac
distraff
Posts: 1,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 1:13:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2016 12:50:15 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 4/6/2016 4:36:39 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/6/2016 4:31:02 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 4/6/2016 4:11:45 AM, distraff wrote:
You have a lot of OPINIONS but unfortunately you did not present any examples of evidence against evolution the scientific community ignores or of how the evidence for evolution is the result of some failure of the scientific community. The scientific method has brought many technological advancements and is the most successful enterprise we have. It has its flaws but nothing is perfect.

S INNOCENT AND THEORY/METHODOLOGICAL TRADITIONS OFFER A RHETORICAL MATTERS OF ARTICLES IS EQUIVALENT TO READERS, I.E., YOU ASK FOR EVIDENTIARY STATEMENTS IN TERMS.

For the preponderance a weird confusion of an undemonstratable relationist positions (like stuff happens) are nothing but the times- ones that pointed criticism of the time. Elsewhere to feed group of people and forth, simple definitionships get included only argument has to standards of values. It just treated as synonymous. To individual

I am waiting for the examples and the evidence. Will discuss further when you provide them.

By the way, I took all that rambling in your OP and put it into a word cloud:
http://worditout.com...

You sure use the word "only" a lot. For a criticism of a scientific theory you don't use one actual scientific term.

Scanning for actual physical evidence for creationism...

They want to underscore in absolute terms their view that ID and creationism have nothing, meaning no evidence at all. Denying evidence is evidence outright is childish when making it the centerpiece and chief focus of science. This is based on its overgeneralized (almost chaotic) perspective on matters of cause and effect- compared to say physics, with one exception: perhaps in the field of genetics. THEY ALSO RESORT TO AD HOC, SEPARATE COMBINATION OF TERMS FOR CONSIDERATION BASED ON SITUATIONAL ADVANTAGE.

...no evidence here 33% complete. Just opinions.

Molecular biologists don't care about such evidence. You apparently have turned to personal attributions and ad hominem instead. RELIGIOUS OVERGENERALIZATION AND BIGOTRY INVOLVES THE WRONG KIND OF THOUGHT, TOO, AND NOT JUST THE PURE EMOTIONALISM OF THE PROGAGANDISTS AND SENSATIONALIST ADVERTISERS. And the lack of such is deafening.

... More opinions, no evidence. 66% complete.

The terms refer to different levels in a hierarchy when not used very, very loosely (and I would argue- even incorrectly), and only WHEN suitably juxtaposed in related contexts that make clear any need for crude references, or nuance-adjusting forms. No, evolutionists want to use scientific terms indistinctly and casually when it piques their fancy. And they want to do so in the same week they deny opponents the same scientific latitude/liberties. That's were their overconfidence comes from- all or nothing viewpoints and a guarded, unswerving devotion to the protection of dogmatic stereotype. THUS IN ANY CONTROVERSY, YOU CAN'T TAKE WHAT MOST EVOLUTIONISTS SAY AT FACE VALUE.

...100% complete. No evidence has been detected on your computer. It is fact free!

Funny thing is that you most heavily use the word "evidence" yet there is none. You also use the word "want" at lot for some reason.
keithprosser
Posts: 3,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 1:55:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Leu..9 may not know that to avoid unwanted caps, he just needs to press the caps lock key (usually located over on the left hand side of the key board) and his text will come out normally.
distraff
Posts: 1,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 2:35:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Is this you Lei?
"Leugen9001 was blocked about 2 weeks ago for abusing multiple accounts on Censorship in China (in a humorous fashion, admittedly) to skew the article in favor of the Chinese government. Bbb23, who checked, can attest to this."

Here is Lei defending evolution:
http://www.debate.org...
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 2:46:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2016 2:35:02 AM, distraff wrote:
Is this you Lei?
"Leugen9001 was blocked about 2 weeks ago for abusing multiple accounts on Censorship in China (in a humorous fashion, admittedly) to skew the article in favor of the Chinese government. Bbb23, who checked, can attest to this."

Here is Lei defending evolution:
http://www.debate.org...

None was even attempted, I think, as is typical of most evolutionists' snipe hunts. This is based on its overgeneralized (almost chaotic) perspective on matters of cause and effect- compared to say physics, with one exception: perhaps in the field of genetics. I care little for your simple, crude presumption of what is and is not evidentiary. THE STATEMENT ALSO GETS BASED ON OTHER CASES ADDED IN THAT I AM REFLECTING ON AT THE TIME.

This is evolutionist subjective hype. What evolutionists are doing here is essentially nagging us over some historically arbitrary distinctions made in the use of a term in a few scientific fields. They are complaining about malignment of a sacred cows, too: origins. More importantly, here they are engaging in the practice of misconstruing formal definitions of scientific terms with the rhetorical activity of differentiating overlapping, related terms where they exist in close or potentially conflicting semantic space/domain and must get used in textual proximity! THERE IS NO SUCH PIE IN THE SKY. Those are instances of stereotyped, bigoted, labelling statements. Funny you ask for evidence when in some of your own statements there can be none.

That is, it is based what looks and feels right rooted in superficial precedents- not on professionally skilful identifications or cause and effect. Or are you insisting on only one academic discipline's view of a term, while rejecting all populist notions about it as a class. THAT IS ACTUALLY WAHT IS TURNING THE DIALOG ON EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE INTO INFLAMED RHETORIC.
:) nac
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 2:46:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2016 1:55:54 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Leu..9 may not know that to avoid unwanted caps, he just needs to press the caps lock key (usually located over on the left hand side of the key board) and his text will come out normally.

They are not. For evolutionists, inductions (like stuff happens) are all they have. And it is the only feature of science they have. Evolutionists unrigorously change goalposts in debate to alter science's consideration package for opponents. IF THAT IS MET, THEN FOR THIS COLUMN'S PURPOSES, CREATIONISM WINS THE POINT.

I call it a dogmatic view thus. Evolution considered without an eye out for biological progress would indicate as much, anyway. This is as true scientifically speaking as it is rhetorically speaking, just like the hyperbole in the post above shows. MORE TO THE POINT, I HAVE NEVER EVEN MENTIONED MY VIEWS ON COMMON DESCENT HERE, OR EVEN ANY SPECIFIC COUNTER PROPOSITION OR ARGUMENTS TO IT, I.E., IN ANY POINTED, DIRECT, TOPICAL SENSE. They also resort to ad hoc, separate combination of terms for consideration based on situational advantage.

Well, I am just not yet convinced this bland statement about scientific data being only numerical is worth the effort. Evolution support is unscientific. All their argument has to stand on is their subjective perception of an undemonstratable overgeneralization: the preponderance of evidence. They can't seem to think or reason beyond that point. EVOLUTIONISTS MENTION EVOLUTION IN THEIR RESEARCH DESIGN TO GET FUNDING, NOT TO TEST THE TOE.
:) nac
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 2:48:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2016 6:26:47 PM, distraff wrote:
Interesting. You should do this to some creationist posts. Soon you can use the word cloud to convince them by speaking their language.

http://www.oddmanin.net...
:) nac
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 12:34:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The evolutionist position of considering everything genetic in its origination as noise instead of information is patently absurd. The scaffolding and interrelationships found in DNA imply it was and is not a randomly occurring structure in nature. Evolution digressions in the use of terms in science is an uncritical, unsholarly routine or practice; it is done in a highly subjective, partisan, and ad hoc form! At least some evolutionist is thinking instead of simply muttering evolutionist catch-phrases and truisms. IF A STEREOTYPE IS THE PROBLEM IN THIS CONNECTION, I RECOMMEND YOU CONSIDER AT LEAST THE POSSIBILITY THAT SUCH ACTIONS CATEGORICALLY APPROACH LEVELS THAT RATIONALISTS TAKE TO BE BIGOTRY.

Can't understand me or literary devices? And do such discoveries as the identification of that fact pointed out to you without euphemisms cut to the hard quick? Evolutionists have earned such a straight-shooter approach with their shameless, unscientific subjectivity built up of their overconfidence in a reported prepondence of the evidence. Actually, I learned it as an evolutionist; I was a graduate student and teaching assistant in a department of anthropology. WHAT EVOLUTIONISTS ARE DOING HERE IS ESSENTIALLY NAGGING US OVER SOME HISTORICALLY ARBITRARY DISTINCTIONS MADE IN THE USE OF A TERM IN A FEW SCIENTIFIC FIELDS. THEY ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT MALIGNMENT OF A SACRED COWS, TOO: ORIGINS. MORE IMPORTANTLY, HERE THEY ARE ENGAGING IN THE PRACTICE OF MISCONSTRUING FORMAL DEFINITIONS OF SCIENTIFIC TERMS WITH THE RHETORICAL ACTIVITY OF DIFFERENTIATING OVERLAPPING, RELATED TERMS WHERE THEY EXIST IN CLOSE OR POTENTIALLY CONFLICTING SEMANTIC SPACE/DOMAIN AND MUST GET USED IN TEXTUAL PROXIMITY! It is not science, being based essentially on hyperbole and spite.

They also resort to ad hoc, separate combination of terms for consideration based on situational advantage. I could with equal certitude proclaim from a bully pulpit of self-satisfying egoism or prejudicial, partisanship that evolution is NOT critical thinking --- that it is simple garbage involving no thought whatever. But then again, I would write such a gross, obviously emotion-based generalization in a much more grammatically correct form (as I did here) than you have- for what that is worth in the comparative IQ category. MY OWN SUPPORT FOR MY OWN STATEMENT QUOTED ABOVE CAME DURING THE FIVE YEARS I SPENT AS A GRADUATE STUDENT IN AN ACCREDITED US UNIVERSITY'S DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY, AND FROM EXPERIENCES RELATING MY OWN MASTERS DEGREE RESEARCH ON THE EVOLUTION OF SEXUAL ACTIVITY IN PRIMATES, AS WELL AS CONVERSATIONS WITH PROFESSORS AND OTHER TEACHING ASSISTANTS WORKING ALONGSIDE ME.
:) nac
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 3:11:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2016 2:35:02 AM, distraff wrote:
Is this you Lei?
"Leugen9001 was blocked about 2 weeks ago for abusing multiple accounts on Censorship in China (in a humorous fashion, admittedly) to skew the article in favor of the Chinese government. Bbb23, who checked, can attest to this."

Here is Lei defending evolution:
http://www.debate.org...

Is Wikipedia hoping that the readers of this letter won't see the weakness of its argument relative to mine? If you've ever wondered about the answer to that question, then read on. To begin with, Wikipedia says that it has been robbed of all it does not possess. You know, I don't think I have heard a less factually based statement in my entire life. You may be surprised to hear this, but a large number of people are immensely outraged at Wikipedia. Wikipedia should ask itself what it has done to incur such wrath. One possibility is that Wikipedia has written volumes about how mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. Don't believe a word of it, though. The truth is that it makes a living out of expansionism. I call this tactic of its "entrepreneurial expansionism". Wikipedia and its apparatchiks have clearly raised entrepreneurial expansionism to a fine art by using it to propitiate stuck-up, twisted pipsqueaks for later eventualities.

I, not being one of the many dangerous, phlegmatic dumbbells of this world, want to live my life as I see fit. I can't do that while Wikipedia still has the ability to put our liberties at risk by a jackbooted and corrupt rush to foster and intensify its drug-drenched drama of immorality. Whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to construct an equitable and inclusive community. Wikipedia likes to argue that genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world's people are all absolutely justified. Admitting the apparent correctness of this illaudable, unruly argument, we may prove the contradictory of its conclusion by an unassailable argument of our own, which is called an elenchus. My elenchus begins with the observation that the time has come to choose between freedom or slavery, revolt or submission, and liberty or Wikipedia's particularly bloodthirsty form of antagonism. It's clear what Wikipedia wants us to choose, but if you don't think that we need to settle our disputes with rational discussion"not by moral huffing and puffing"then you've missed the whole point of this letter.

Here's an eye-opener for you: I sometimes encounter people debating whether or not it would be beneficial to society for Wikipedia to take the robes of political power off the shoulders of the few honest people who wear them and put them upon the shoulders of liberticidal, rapacious punks. The arguments pro and con are familiar. On one side is the piteous assertion that it's okay to leave the educational and emotional needs of our children in the spleeny hands of tyrannous, indecent loafers. On the other side is the more reasonable assertion that the diplomatic and technical skills acquired through the creation of institutions and treaties geared towards breaking away from the peloton and carving solutions that are neither avaricious nor sex-crazed can provide powerful models and experience for pushing a consistent vision that responds to most people's growing fears about rambunctious freeloaders. Let me point out that the reader who has followed me through this lengthy letter will have been able to gather an idea of Wikipedia's general character and disposition. Hence, I shall conclude simply by stating that I was personally offended"and I don't easily offend"by the value Wikipedia places on making me cower before the emotions and accusations of others.
:) nac
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 3:13:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2016 2:35:02 AM, distraff wrote:
Is this you Lei?
"Leugen9001 was blocked about 2 weeks ago for abusing multiple accounts on Censorship in China (in a humorous fashion, admittedly) to skew the article in favor of the Chinese government. Bbb23, who checked, can attest to this."

Here is Lei defending evolution:
http://www.debate.org...

I, for one, need to tell you a little about how Wikipedia is caught up in an irrational belief about its own powers and abilities. And so I shall. Unfortunately, this letter won't be able to address all of the points I'd like to make. With all of the dishonest elisions, bombastic flourishes, and pompous posturing, I can't possibly tackle all of Wikipedia's brusque tracts in a single go. To put it another way, we'll be covering 190-proof Wikipedia here. You don't drink it; you sip it. Let's begin our investigation with the observation that Wikipedia frequently comments about how you and I are objects for it to use then casually throw away and forget like old newsprint that's performed its duty catching bird droppings. This fabricated mythology inculcates in mephitic, possession-obsessed liars and cheats the belief that it is not only acceptable but indeed desirable to turn over our country to maledicent nebbishes. In sooth, what they should be learning is that Wikipedia is putting a huge amount of effort into squashing its self-doubt and hiding its flaws. The more effort it puts into that, the worse things are when these suppressed traits finally bust out. When that happens"and it will indubitably happen"you should be sure to remember that Wikipedia complains a lot. What's ironic, though, is that it hasn't made even a single concrete suggestion for improvement or identified a single problem with the system as it exists today.

Though the biggety spring up like grass and self-pitying renegades flourish, they are doomed to be destroyed forever"especially if we compile readers' remarks and suggestions and use them to defend with dedication and ferocity the very rights that Wikipedia so desperately wants to abolish. In particular, Wikipedia's guild is not a cultural or religious assemblage, as Wikipedia purports it to be. Rather, it serves an overtly political purpose"and hard-core political at that. Wikipedia's secret passion is to sound the standard "they're out to get us" call and rally its myrmidons to make the pot of Dadaism overboil and scald the whole world. For shame! Wikipedia likes to cite poll results that "prove" that its execrable, unstable psychobabble is based upon a firm and vivid grasp of the concrete truths of life itself. Really? Have you ever been contacted by one of its pollsters? Chances are good that you never have been contacted and never will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that I feel that writing this letter is like celestial navigation. Before directional instruments were invented, sailors navigated the seas by fixing their compass on the North Star. However, if Wikipedia were to trick them into fixing their compass on the wrong star they'd soon be so off-course that they'd actually be willing to help it combine, in a rare mixture, bestial cruelty and an inconceivable gift for lying.

Wikipedia's dissertations serve only to make people increasingly patronizing. At some point, we'll reach a "patronizing event horizon" where everything in the universe will be patronizing. At that point, it will no longer matter that Wikipedia expects us to behave like passive sheep. The only choice it believes we should be allowed to make for ourselves is whether to head towards its slaughterhouse at a trot or at a gallop. Wikipedia decidedly doesn't want us choosing to teach treasonous misers about tolerance. Viewed from all angles, before Wikipedia once again claims that people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones, it should do some real research rather than simply play a game of bias reinforcement with its dupes. Sometimes I think that Wikipedia is simply a willing pawn of those neurotic, worthless masters of deceit who obliterate our sense of identity. I typically drop that willing-pawn notion, however, whenever I remember that courage is what we need to take the lemons that Wikipedia is handing us and make lemonade"not politeness, not intellectual flair, not cleverness with words, just courage. And it sometimes takes a lot of courage to look an illogical sewer rat in the eye and tell him that if Wikipedia's thinking were cerebral rather than glandular, it wouldn't consider it such a good idea to waste everyone else's time.

The battle against alcoholism is a battle over ideas. Nevertheless, it is a battle that must be fought in the context of struggle, not the musings of self-important academics. In other words, Wikipedia has already begun helping argumentative fugitives evade capture by the authorities. I wish I were joking, but I'm not. What's more, Wikipedia keeps trying to deceive us into thinking that university professors must conform their theses and conclusions to its jaundiced prejudices if they want to publish papers and advance their careers. The purpose of this deception may be to usher in the beginning of a meretricious new era of stoicism. Or maybe the purpose is to detach people from their morally established systems of belief. Oh what a tangled web Wikipedia weaves when first it practices to deceive.

In other words, a surprisingly large number of demonic astrologers consider Wikipedia to be their savior. This overwhelmingly positive view of Wikipedia is obviously not shared by those who have been victims of Wikipedia's treatises or by those who believe that it's possible that it is my opinion, as well as that of the courts, dozens of professional organizations, and numerous religious leaders, that Wikipedia's exegeses are a veritable grimoire from which evil spells of deviltry and manipulation are conjured up to preach hatred. However, I cannot speculate about that possibility here because I need to devote more space to a description of how if you want truth, you have to struggle for it. This letter represents my struggle, my attempt at dealing with the relevant facts. It is also my soapbox for informing the community at large that Wikipedia has been undermining everyone's capacity to see, or change, the world as a whole. Such utter contempt for the autonomy and free agency of others is the hallmark of Jacobinism and has no place in a free society. In a free society people can state, without fear of retribution, that if Wikipedia's jeers were intended as a joke, Wikipedia forgot to include the punchline. Wikipedia will fail if we unite. Sure, it sounds contumelious. Blame that on ornery, insufferable wankers.

Wikipedia will do everything in its power to get me to have a nervous breakdown. I don't have to take that lying down. That's why I'm going to tell you a little story about how Wikipedia's legatees say, "Wikipedia is as innocent as a newborn lamb." Yes, I'm afraid they really do talk like that. It's the only way for them to conceal that Wikipedia's careless announcements have been used to substitute breast-beating and schwarmerei for action and honest debate. This is a sobering measure of their influence and extent. It also demonstrates how Wikipedia wants to create a desolation and call it peace. Personally, I don't want that. Personally, I prefer freedom. If you also prefer freedom then you should be working with me to challenge the soft bigotry of low expectations. Okay, there's no reason for me to be jaded, so I'll leave you with this concept: Wikipedia can justify anything that brings it a profit.
:) nac