User talk:PcGnome

Grandfather paradox[edit]

Sorry, I should have explained why I reverted this edit to Grandfather paradox, but the reasons were: it was original research, did not belong in the lead section, and was not in a correct style for Wikipedia.--Henry talk 18:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

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 ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, PcGnome. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Shearonink (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting reply-posts on talk pages[edit]

Just a general note... When you reply to someone else's post on a talk page, to keep everything visually straight, it is helpful if you indent your reply which is done by typing a : (a colon) before your statement, for instance:

This is an example of the first/original post in a thread.(that poster's signature)

This is a reply.(this poster's signature)

This is another reply.(another poster's signature)

This style looks like the following when it is all typed into the editing window...
This is an example of the first/original post in a thread. (that poster's signature)
:This is a reply. (this poster's signature)
::This is another reply.(another poster's signature).
Hope this helps, Shearonink (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sexism article talk page[edit]

Hi PcGnome your discussion on the talk:sexism page rests on your belief that "Before there was "society", it seems obvious that we're only here because men could chase women, catch them and fu ... fornicate with them forcibly". It's really not that simple:

I don' think there was ever a time that humans weren't in a society- evolutionarily, apes all have societies, so we had societies before we were human. Creationistically, we had society as soon as we had the first family. (The "little green men" theories might be the exception :) )
not that obvious- it's a complex (and fascinating) area (see Sociobiological_theories_of_rape) and I think it is dangerous to assume that this picture of reproduction only happening through rape is a realistic one, or a commonly accepted but unspoken one.

here's some interesting reading I found with a quick google around:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-ryan/always-breaking-news-chim_b_623844.html http://harvardmagazine.com/1997/01/right.chimp.html http://sfsbiology.edublogs.org/2011/03/28/rape-amongst-animals/ http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/despicable-yes-but-not-inexplicable

As you will see- some of it supports your "obvious" belief, but lots doesn't as well.

As I said on the talk page, if we can improve the article, let's do so- but the talk page is not a forum, so please avoid this in future. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, gawd ... !!!! ... holy crap ...

.

Here's my considered opinion: reading those folks you cite will drive you nuts, because every cite is looney tunes to me.

.

My father enjoyed a phrase ap pro po to this: "everybody's crazy, 'cept you 'n me ... and you I'm not too sure about".

.

I remember in grade school when it was brought to my attention what it meant to brand cattle - I was horrified that such a thing was being done. A classmate, seeing my dismay explained cheerfully "it's ok, they don't feel a thing!".

.

There are actually learned idiots who claim insects don't feel pleasure?

.

Scariest thought I ever had was "what if rape was only a ten dollar fine?". Governments would be rich and laws would be passed making it illegal to avoid being raped is my best guess, you know, so it wouldn't hurt the economy.

.

But here's the thing - everything you pointed me to is about rape, like this is the point I raised. Clearly, it's the point you (and seemingly every journalist and scientist in all creation) are clearly obsessed with.

.

But nowhere do any of them, or you, for that matter, address my central question: WHY ARE WOMEN SMALLER, WEAKER, SLOWER THAN MEN?

.

There is only one possible answer and it predates laws and language (seems mighty difficult to consent when I'm walking along and see a pretty girl and I don't know, it just gets hard and I think, she's right there and I know just where I want to put it. Too late, she sees the gleam in my eye (or more probably my new short third leg sticking straight out and pointed right at her) and tries to make a break for it. But, she is smaller, slower ... so I catch her ... and being weaker, I get to stick it where I want to. The hardness and my interest wanes and aside from the way she looks at me, seems undamaged. Until sight of her causes another poor guy to grow a short third leg that demands the chase.

.

It's not rape, rape has nothing to do with it, rape won't be a word or a concept for two hundred thousand years. There is no "consentual" because there is not enough language to even fathom the concept for at least another fifty thousand years. There is no "rape strategy", there is very little thought except that pleasurable annoyance of the hardening that is caused by sight and the species propagates. There is no structure, there is no ... all that crap you're reading that seems to be driving you to put your mind and your sensibilities ... we know exactly how that prehistoric relative felt, it's just that we know the word "rape" and by god, we mean to take care of that hardness, but now we have to do it more subtly, less we be rapists. But only because we know the word and understand the concept.

.

But he knew nothing except the interplay, the physical reaction and the chase, which brings me back the ONE AND ONLY POINT ...

.

WHY ARE WOMEN SMALLER, WEAKER, SLOWER THAN MEN?

.

Because God, nature, alien tinkerers ... wanted us to catch 'em & fuck 'em, so there'd be a next generation. If God, nature or alien tinkerers didn't want us to catch 'em & fuck 'em ... women would be as big, fast and strong as men and when the knob strikes erect, tough luck, she got away and twenty minutes later the hardness went away and we looked for dinner instead. but no next generation and the homosapiens (or whatever predecessor) just died out for lack of propagation.

.

So, I look forward to any links you may have that address my CENTRAL QUESTION. But only idiots mentally masturbate over rape and war. Lest you forget and get sidetracked ... it's a simple question that you nor anyone else I've ever met and certainly not the rape-o-phile scientists and journalists have even contemplated:

.

WHY ARE WOMEN SMALLER, WEAKER, SLOWER THAN MEN?

.

OK, specifically, why were they that way BEFORE laws, Before language, before ... well, before EVERYTHING ELSE YOU'RE THINKING OF BRINGING UP ...

.

Whatever you want to divert the question to because of some point in history you know (presumably) a lot about ... what about a hundred thousand years before the logic you (and I) know so well now. Or a million years before that? We came from somewhere all the way back to about 3 billion years ago. As soon as there was something to get hard, there was a smaller, weaker, slower female to stick it in. Sticking it in came first. And it only got stuck in because we could catch 'em to stick it in. There were possibly those species who tried it the other way round, but they're not here any more because they didn't have any children because they couldn't manage the one imperative to survival in the wild. You gotta catch 'em to fuck 'em.

.

Maybe other species do it differently, but we don't. Having the son of a one term president stealing the white house and lying to invade the country of the man who tried to kill pappy, I'm ashamed we're not the people we could be. As a matter of fact, I've already scheduled my suicide for early March, 2023 and hopefully I'll be reincarnated to be a bonobo.

.

Seriously, could you see inviting me over so I could copulate with your mother, sister, daughter, wife, girlfriend, or any female in the neighborhood, just because it feels THAT GOOD? And all of us having a good time at it?

.

Oh, how I want to get this human stink off of my soul so I can become something respectable, preferably OFF THIS DAMN PLANET.

.

Apologies for using the word "fuck", but as this is my talk page, I think the steam I feel merits it and if there's rules against it - have me banned, I'll confess willingly.

.

I seriously wonder how many of you seven billion realize how insane you all actually are. It's not a slam as such, I just can't get past the crazy to get through to anyone. BTW March of 2023 is my 69th birthday (now 59) and I just can't stand the idea of filling out my alloted three score and ten here. Escape I will, escape I must.

.

pcG

70.36.138.18 (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

apologies - just realized I wasn't logged in when I quadruple-tilded this. The date is right on the line above this (when) and the line below identifies me as the author (who) ... apologies.

PcGnome (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be ill-informed on the facts, PcGnome. First of all, patriarchal behavior has not always been the norm for humans. There are plenty of sources for this, but I'll point you to "The Origins of Sex Differences in Human Behavior: Evolved Dispositions Versus Social Roles" to start with. Secondly, our closest ancestors were not all rapists. Take a look at Bonobo#Social behavior. You also seem to misunderstand the way evolution works. Social behaviors drive evolution, not the other way around. (Read Frank B. Livingstone for more on this.) I would suggest doing more reading and less pontificating. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.

Helpful hint: Skip to the last statement of this response for what the subject I raise IS as MOST of this response is an ever lengthening list of what the subject I raise IS NOT, so please forgive me for not taking the time to follow links that have nothing to do with what the subject I raise actually is.

.

So, I stick with my observation that the entire human race is nuts ... at least the representatives I've run across, no offense, but while your statement is short and concise (a talent you may have gleaned has so far eluded me). But when I ask a question, I think it incumbent to try my best to answer it, just to give grounding to what I'm thinking and what I see as it pertains to the subject I raise.

.

Sadly, I'm going to have to consider shorten things up (not there yet), because you think my "first attempt" at answering my own question is my point ... this is decidedly NOT the case.

.

I guess I'll just have to keep correcting the continuing mis-perception of what the subject I raise so simply actually is, which is in the form of a question. Fixating on my personal OPINION concerning what the answer to said question does nobody any good. I think I've been VERY clear ... you can tell by the fact that I repeat it THREE TIMES, in all CAPS, so you must be doing some very odd mental acrobatics to (seemingly deliberately) completely miss the actual subject.

.

The subject is NOT patriarchal behavior, so following that link (I highly suspect) would just drive me as nuts as the first three links suggested above that mistakenly assume the subject is rape.

.

The subject is NOT rape, nor the oddly associated ramblings of how human beings became war like (presumably in the aggregate, as few, except some very famous "revenge porn" movies, all fiction, war is almost always a group effort).

.

No, I gotta say it separately, I suppose ...

.

The subject is NOT war and certainly NOT how we became warlike.

.

You seem close when your link starts with "sex differences", but you veer wildly off with the "in human behavior". So close in verbiage, so far in content.

.

So, strictly speaking, human behavior is NOT the subject I raised. Although part of the same link, I'll address the second and third parts with ...

.

The subject is NOT evolved dispositions.

.

The subject is NOT social roles.

.

The subject is NOT our closest ancestors.

.

The subject is NOT rapists, any more than when I said the subject is NOT rape.

.

The subject is STILL NOT the Bonobos nor their social behavior.

.

The subject is NOT evolution or the way it works (I prefer the term "natural selection" ... also NOT the subject).

.

The subject is NOT the cause / effect order of two things I state here are both NOT the subject individually or in tandem.

.

Yes, your last point is somewhat biting, because my pontificating is my attempt to ANSWER THE SUBJECT. So many indenting colons, so little time ...

.

So, no, my pontificating is also NOT the subject, just my feeble attempts to ... ahem ... ANSWER THE SUBJECT.

.

You must see that attempting to answer the subject, I think it's safe to say, is pretty much the epitome of NOT the subject.

.

I gotta say, I am completely flummoxed. But I am nothing, if not persistent. Perhaps saying it multiple times in all caps somehow makes it invisible? Here's my latest attempt, such that you have probably decided something above is the subject you want to take issue with.

.

NOTHING ABOVE THIS STATEMENT IN THIS RESPONSE IS THE SUBJECT, ARGUING WITH ANY OF IT IS POINTLESS AS ... AHEM ... I REPEAT ... NONE OF IT IS THE ACTUAL SUBJECT I RAISE.

.

The subject is simply a question, so if I end this with THE SINGLE SIMPLE SUBJECT I RAISE, maybe someone will deign to address it?

.

This IS the ONLY subject I raise -=> WHY ARE WOMEN SMALLER, SLOWER, WEAKER THAN MEN?

.

PcGnome (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{removed indents so this is easy to find ... hopefully}

OK, I've had a good long think on all of this, and it seems to me I can turn this discussion away from contentiousness on the one hand and much like herding cats, I think I can narrow the focus and point out how this should be handled on the other hand and with any luck, what seems to make pretty obvious sense to me stands a fair chance that many and hopefully most will agree with my structuring of this discussion so it's easy to understand and I will leave you with a clear path where all agree that this makes the most sense.

1) back to simple, not dozens (hundreds?) of ideas and cross connections, but one simple question, my (again) one simple answer (as I see it, an opinion, not any facts to be cited). And the only thing I ask is if you don't like / agree with my conclusion, then address the initial question and provide an alternative theory. I don't care if you've a lot to cite or just your gut opinion. Just please don't reject my answer because you don't like it. I think this would be a "zero-point" underlying allegory to Occam's Razor (all things being equal, the simplest solution is probably the best). But my point is simpler even than that - the only solution, lacking ANY alternative has to be more correct than no solution and certainly better than pretending the question doesn't exist.

================================ Starting Fresh (take one):

The question that (maybe to just me) BEGS to be answered is - Why are Women smaller, slower and weaker than men?

My answer is and has remained constant - I may not have phrased it well (natural selection clearly does NOT have the capacity to want men to do anything to / with / for women [but God and alien DNA tinkerers might]), but so far only I have asked the question and thus far, only I have posited an answer.

All I can think is that this is too toxic to handle. That men lust after women and (happenstance?) has provided them a clear title on the question of who can best see their intentions realized. I clearly am now leery of slapdash comments as goodwill towards trying to understand my point seems so far below ebb that none can see that far down.

But, if no one will reference this question and that void denies any alternate answer to mine (however imperfect my phrasing) ... it would seem my work is done here and lacking any taste for contesting it by presenting an alternative ... my position is without challenge ... so I win?

pcG PcGnome (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Complaints About Elitist Knowledge[edit]

Your recent posts at WP:Teahouse/Questions complaining about the use of non-free knowledge are becoming tendentious. Non-free knowledge includes not only knowledge located behind twenty-first century paywalls, but also knowledge that was published in the twentieth century and located in books that are in libraries. It appears that, by restricting Wikipedia only to on-line free sources, you would impoverish Wikipedia; but maybe you aren't stating your case well. In any case, if you continue to complain without addressing other comments seriously, your posts may be collapsed, or someone may request to topic-ban you from posting to the Teahouse. Please either explain clearly what you want, or stop complaining. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]