User talk:Rosenkreuz/Archive

Rosenkreuz Talk Archive

Civility

Once again, you are straddling the line between civility and incivility with your most recent comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. As much as Ireneshusband seems to be trying to make this painful, you need to try to avoid exacerbating the situation. Also, your last edit summary might be considered a threat, but that is assuming Ireneshusband understands Latin ;). --Wildnox(talk) 16:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realised as much after reading the civility policy last night, but I left Ireneshusband a note [1] in order to try to allay any damage I may have caused. Thanks anyway for pointing it out. Rosenkreuz 16:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I had seen the note, but I thought the note was before the comments I mentioned. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Wildnox(talk) 16:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

So your apology only came after a rebuke from another editor. If it were sincere you would have appended it to the discussion itself rather than leaving a little private note on my talk page.

Your apology is entirely hollow. You knew exactly what you were doing. You have carefully pressed all the right buttons to paint me as an over-intellectual and conspiratorial nutcase through your sarcastic personal jibes, while throwing out enough red herrings to make sure the specific issues I outlined were not addressed.

I have, to the best of my ability, tried to assume good faith on the part of the opponents of the motion, even to the point of absurdity given the behaviour of you and a few others. You have made no more than a token effort to return the courtesy.

You claim to have a PhD—in logic of all things—yet you seem incapable of understanding the basic principles of debating, such as the need to define your terms, to address challenges directly and to concentrate on the issues rather than launching personal attacks or trying to intimidate your opponent through personal threats.

So what's your game, Rosenkreuz? Ireneshusband 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, Ireneshusband, I tried to act honorably and decently, but you are evidently unwilling to appreciate that. What happened is this. Tom Harrison slapped the standard `welcome' message on my page, as you can see above. I had been wondering about just how Wikipedia treats issues like arguments and disputes among editors, so I followed links from the welcome page and found the civility policy. After doing that, I left the note on your page, before anyone `told me off' or anything like that. I put the note on your page so that I was sure you would see it, and it would not get lost in the fray which is dominating the talk page of that 9/11 article.

You obviously, and you certainly cannot be blamed for this, have no conception of what the study of logic is like. In debating, while it does one well to be logical, ultimately results come down to rhetoric. Being able to lay out the essence of the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem on the back of an envelope is a wonderful skill, but it doesn't help very much in persuading people that you are right . Fortunately, I happen to be quite good at rhetoric as well, but, as I said, I think I have rather over-indulged in the argumenta ad hominem. I once again extend my apology to you for that.

But ultimately, it's up to you. You can accept my apology with the dignity and decorum with which it was offered to you, and we can move on; or this can turn into a Monty-Pythonesque argument about arguments where I can assure you, you will come out the worse for it. It's up to you. I have no wish to continue this bickering, and I have not wanted to idly toss insults around (hence my apology) but I won't put up with ongoing harassment either. Rosenkreuz 18:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop making threats. You are very cunning, but that is all. Ireneshusband 18:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Coming to think of it, isn't it rather strange that you feel so confident in your knowledge of the policies and politics of Wikipedia that you are able to make your threats so brazenly, even though you have only been a Wikipedia editor for 3 weeks, whereas I (and I firmly doubt that I am unusual in this) have been an editor for many months yet I still feel I am learning the ropes? What are we to make of this? Ireneshusband 19:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

For a start, some people learn very quickly, especially when the subject matter is straightforward and easy to assimilate. I read something, and it sticks; and I am well practiced in inferring 10 more things for every 1 thing I read explicitly. Second, I didn't even know about certain policies until yesterday, such as the very civility policy which prompted me to try to make amends with you in the first place.

Thirdly, I would love to know what `threat' I am making that displays such an astoundingly subtle grasp of Wikipedia policy. I wasn't aware that I was making any threats at all, personally, only that I said I wouldn't put up with harassment (which isn't a threat), and that you would lose in an argument against me (which is a bald statement of fact). But your accusation is self-contradictory, anyway, because if you are so certain that my `threat', such as it is, makes maximal use of Wikipedia policies, how is it that you, who claim to still be learning, feel confident in describing it in those terms?

Finally, I don't know what you're on about, actually, and so would appreciate it if you would scarper off and leave someone else messages, someone who maybe wants to hear from you, because at this point in time, I don't. Rosenkreuz 19:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Let it go

It would be better to stop now and let it go, both of you. There is no reason for this to go any further. It was pretty minor incivility in the first place (sadly enough; if you don't believe it, stick around for a while.) He has apologized, and no one should answer incivility with incivility, even if he had not. To the extent that you cannot avoid each other for a few days, both of you should limit your comments to content and avoid talking about the other person at all. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Africa

I just read book and watch films, if i dont know i go to websites and get info. i like fairness and pluraity and truth first.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 13:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

israeli espionage

Hey Rosie, thanks for your immediate suppression of the Israeli espionage possibilities. Did you ever bother to look into any of that stuff? I didn't think so. If you had, you would have seen how widely it was covered in the mainstream media, and you would have seen the DEA's 55-page report. Oh well. Ignorance is bliss for you, I guess, or at least a wet dream. --Fluffbrain 22:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

My dear little hobgoblin, I think you'll find that vulgarity of such a tawdry variety serves nothing to endear you to your fellow man. I might point out that the likelihood of a bunch of dancing Israeli art students causing two aeroplanes to fly into skyscrapers is about the same as the likelihood of a flying saucer landing in the middle of the Arizona desert and being plundered by the USAF for secret technologies — only I very much fear that you would agree with me.

Incidentally, it is ridiculous to expect anyone to believe that a .pdf file on a geocities page purporting to be a DEA publication is genuine. And it is even more ridiculous to believe that the Mossad, one of the most formidable intelligence agencies in the world, could find no better cover for an infiltration into an American governmental agency than to have a bunch of `art students' carrying Israeli passports loiter around the premises. Indeed, the very first sentence renders the `report' highly dubious. It claims that the Israeli students were trying to `penetrate' the DEA offices. You see, the correct term for what the `report' claims they were doing is infiltrating. That is when an outside agent tries to obtain access to a target through clandestine/covert means (not that posing as an art student of the same nationality as the agent is good cover, but anyway). Penetration involves coöpting an official already placed within the target structure and obtaining objectives in that way — and this is usually done by a very discreet approach by a single agent handler, not a team of 8 or 10 buffoons making a nuisance of themselves. What these art students were evidently trying to do by waving their portfolios around was infiltration — and I'm sure that the DEA would know the difference. But, who's to say that they were really Israelis? Why would Israeli agents claim to be Israelis, after all, when the Mossad is in the habit of forging passports from other countries? Maybe these clowns were Congolese or Uruguayan? Who knows?

I've also read a few reports published by the U.S. government, of a very similar sort to the one to which you linked, and they are nothing like your DEA forgery. Moreover, the DEA doesn't seem to have any recollection of publishing that report, and as no source has been given in order to corroborate its provenance, no decision can be made about its reliability, other than noting its dubious web location, unlikely layout, preposterous contents, and total lack of any other kind of plausibility whatsoever.

In short, the link you provided is a load of fucking bollocks, and you'll have to do better if you want to go adding that information to encyclopaedia articles. And it is always a pleasure, my fluff-brained friend, to scupper not only Israeli espionage possibilities, but propaganda issued by the paranoid, misinformed and conspiratorially-minded as well.

By the way, who's Gail Kennedy? Rosenkreuz 23:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've done some more digging, and I think I understand now. The document was allegedly leaked from the DEA, and is purportedly a draft, which would explain why it isn't anything like a proper report. The DEA, however, has neither confirmed nor denied its veracity: which means absolutely bugger all, because that's a standard stance to everything. However, one once again has to question the accuracy of the sources, and the reliability. And, the likelihood of Israeli intelligence embarking on such a daft exercise. No, it's just far, far too stupid. It sounds like either a massive practical joke or some devious propaganda scheme by heaven only knows who, to discredit both the Israelis and the U.S. I wouldn't pay much more attention to it, if I were you. It preys on fear and insecurity, and frankly the sources are not reliable enough to be trust (there are too many weak links in the chain, filled in with inference and journalistic license). It would certainly be foolish to assume that Israel does not have ongoing espionage operations against the U.S., but this is not one of them. Rosenkreuz 01:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Very clever, Creutzfeldt, though to first hold forth with strong opinions on something you quite evidently knew absolutely nothing about, and then, after a cursory skim, to blather your opinions for a lot longer, seems out of character for a supposed expert in "mathematical logic" (a claim of yours I find very dubious), not to mention someone trained by "the Jesuits" (I hope you're seeing a counselor). Moreover, you can't even apply your "logic" consistently -- Apparently, it seems quite reasonable for a 9/11 Conspiracies encyclopedia page to discuss, at length, claims about a remote-controlled rocket having hit the Pentagon, and other unlikely scenarios for which there is a complete "absence of evidence," than for this espionage puzzle, for which there is some evidence, and an interesting flurry of mainstream media attention, but not yet enough evidence for a firm judgement. It would be good someday to have a proper explanation about the "Israeli art students" mystery, and not just your peremptory and prejudiced dismissal of it as "fucking bollocks" (I guess the Jesuits trained you in that particular science). In short, as I have said elsewhere, get over yourself. This overweening weenie-ness of yours is unseemly, as well as wilfully stupid. Practice your multiplication tables, keep up with your super-duper-secret-crypto code-book, work hard, and someday you will grow to be a man. Perhaps the hardware store will have a job for you. Anyway, I don't really care what you think, and I'm not even a zealous or crazed proponent of the "art students" theories. I just thought that it was something interesting to consider in the 9/11 context, something requiring clarification, something that merits, at the least, a bit of consideration. It pisses me off, though, when know-it-all knuckleheads like you arrogate to themselves the right to decide the difference between heresy and blasphemy. Maybe you should go back to the Jesuits for further training. --Fluffbrain 05:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, at least I don't have to be simperingly polite with you. Like User:Ireneshusband, and many other people with whom I have discussions, including off of Wikipedia, it is transparently clear that you aren't aware of what mathematical logic is. It isn't Debating 101, or How To Appear Lucid To Paranoid Loonies 101, either.

And moreover, Brainfluff, having a link to Geocities on a Wikipedia article isn't going to tell you anything, anything at all, about these `Israeli art students' that you don't already know. Or that you can't learn, by clicking on the Geocities link.

That Geocities DEA document is a forgery, plain and simple. So my initial suspicion was correct. It may contain text similar to the original DEA document, but it doesn't have names of agents, for a start, which means that if it were real, it is probably leaked, and someone blacked it all out in order to safeguard themselves from whatever the American version of the Official Secrets Act is; but we then have to ask ourselves whether someone who is prepared to leak restricted documents onto the InterNet is someone we can trust to vouchsafe for the veracity of said documents. But the simple fact of the matter is that your Geocities page contains links to documents that are not authentic, and that therefore there is no place on Wikipedia for links to that page. WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:V, etc. Rosenkreuz 11:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You were never even un-simperingly polite, starting with your sarcastic comments as you reverted my changes. Also, as you were unable to see in your two-minute glance, DEA Special Agent names are given throughout that document. The Americans don't have an equivalent of the Official Secrets Act, though the Bush-ites have been clamoring for one; True, I won't learn anything else from the documents, but other people might, and there could be more discussion in the country about them; The DEA memo is archived at many other places, and the "Israeli art students" are mentioned in many places besides that site; The Geocities site neatly collects the relevant materials in one location; I know very well what mathematical logic is, it's just that you don't use any of the normal kind. Your bloated sense of self-importance and propensity for snap judgements about matters on which you are completely ignorant show that even if it's true that you're an adult (unlikely), you have the emotional maturity of a 14-year old. As I said before, I am not an evangelist for this issue, so I will now leave you alone to celebrate your brilliant mind. Hope Mommy and Daddy got you all the toys you wanted today. --Fluffbrain 14:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"Minor edit" flag

This is not by any stretch of the imagination a minor edit. Please do not abuse the "minor edit" flag in future. Ireneshusband 11:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed a minor edit: it was reverting paranoid drivel and geocities linkspam, not changing substantial chunks of established content. Please do not issue spurious warnings on my talkpage. Rosenkreuz 22:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

They huffed, and puffed, . . .

Thank you for offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard (2nd mfd). Look forward to seeing you around in 2007 at Conspiracy Central! For a little fun, check out Brad Greux's video blog at The Most Brilliant and Flawlessly Executed Plan, Ever, Ever. Good cheer from The Mad Dog, Morton devonshire 20:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested in...

this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked_User:Fluffbrain. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Time travel into future

Hi Rosenkreuz--I don't really agree with your argument that it's "nonsense" to call time dilation a form of time travel into the future, please come to the talk page to discuss it when you get a chance. Hypnosifl 03:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks/NPOV

Thanks for your work to make better sense of those ideas, but NPOV tags apply to the reporting of the content not the subject of the content. I'm not going to remove the NPOV tags as I in no wish to get in a tussle over them, but do I feel you are being influenced by the subject matter rather than manner in which it is reported, and you also may still feel that the reporting of the subject matter is still not neutral, even after your work.--Alf ^melmac 11:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Rosenkreuz 12:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Exclusive or

I see you recently moved this page back after a consensus to move. If you believe a move should be undone, please take it back to the talk page, and go through WP:RM again. Once there is consensus to move, and the move is done, then it should not be undone if the discussion is closed. Thanks! Patstuart^talk|edits 21:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Langan and deletion, a short history

The arbitration committee ruled that User:Asmodeus and User:DrL were banned from editting the article in question, though they are still allowed to comment on the talkpage. It has been suggested by a variety of editors that Langan is more-or-less notable because he has received a fair amount of media attention regarding the claim that he has the "highest" IQ in "the world". This is claim is based primarily on "high-aptitude" psychometric tests that are of questionable rigor due to small number statistics and considering the already dubious nature of psychometrics. In any case, this conflict arose when an article entitled Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe was deleted (or merged with Christopher Michael Langan, depending on how you count these things) for being original research. One of the arguments used for deleting CTMU was that it could be described in proportion to its notability on the page devoted to Langan. Together with User:Tim Smith, three editors made quite a to-do over being allowed to wax eloquent with regards to the material components of Langan's CTMU. Kilobytes of text were wasted in these discussions over how best to present the material with supporters of Langan arguing that it should be given at least a fair shake in the direction of being a revolutionary explication of reality and detractors attempting to marginalize and mitigate such accolades per WP:NPOV and other policies.

In the course of all this, it was discovered that Langan (perhaps unwittingly) allied himself with the Discovery Institute and was involved in a nasty lawsuit regarding high-IQ societies. As editors began to include these points in the article on CML, the pro-Langan editors naturally balked. User:Asmodeus is simply reiterating his complaints.

I really don't have an opinion on the notability of Langan or the appropriateness of the lawsuit section. I would have to read the AfD nomination before I would know whether I supported it or not. I can see arguments to the effect of why the article could be deleted, but the appropriate guideline to consider is not just WP:PROF but is actually WP:BIO. My gut instinct is that the guy is probably notable and is just sore over the fact that Wikipedia editors have been able to find rather unfavorable points to include in the article. You can't please all the people all the time.

If you have any more questions, don't hesitate to ask. This was probably more than you wanted to know anyway.

--ScienceApologist 21:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello thanks

Thanks for the kind message. Do forgive me, but after that experience I am checking edit trails for evidence of sound sense and like-mindedness. I am glad to say yours passed pretty well. (I particularly liked "What complete and utter codswallop. Why did you post this here?" anything on those lines is evidence of overall good judgment). So I will put you on my trusted list for now! Let me know if you need support. Perhaps we should have a 'flying squad'. Dbuckner 15:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

PS do check out my Museum of nonsense. All contributions welcome. Dbuckner 15:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Difficult stuff

Welcome toe the Wiki. It's great to have folk around who know what they are talking about. I am an administrator here, and am happy to provide help or support if needed. Leave a message on my talk page or contact me via email.

Ludvikus' strange behaviour has been the focus of much discussion in the last few days. The processes in the Wiki for dealing with misbehaviour are slow; but they do eventually bear fruit. Please bear with us. Take a look at WP:SOUP Banno 10:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank Mel for the soup link. Yes, Wiki is a fun place, isn't it? I find that four weeks is about my limit; then I head off to the comparative sanity of the forums(!?) for a break. Banno 10:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Quine

Thanks - I'm on the case and will report back. Dbuckner 11:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy

I've practically given up on this. For what it's worth, the dispute on that page has been traditionally about whether philosophy should be characterised as 'rational enquiry' or something of that kind. The 'inclusivists' want it out, because they want to include astral planes, crystals, meditation, that sort of thing. Also, they see 'rational enquiry' as being 'Western' or whatever. (I'm not sure that's true, but never mind that).

Against them are those who would prefer just the rational enquiry stuff.

Interested about the mathematical logic. I wrote a some of the stuff on traditional logic e.g. Term logic a long time ago. I am currently translating some of the commentaries on the Perihermaneias (e.g. by Abelard, St Thomas, and others). I did some work with Charles Stewart here, who is a good guy, but I think he left. I'm not sure I'll be doing much more with WP. There are an awful lot of nuts, and they are growing in number, whereas there are a fixed supply of qualified people, and they have been leaving in droves. I will support you if you have any problems, however. Dbuckner 09:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Just having a break

Will be back soon. No point in doing any work while that maniac was loose. Dbuckner 19:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

PS love the work you are doing on David Bohm. Dbuckner 19:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked some more at this. Bohm was a respected physicist, wasn't he? So is it that he had some perfectly sensible ideas that have been written down here in a way that seems like what in England we call b-llocks, or was it actually b-llocks. Famous and respected scientists are well known for doing this when they stray out of their limited fields (e.g. Cantor, Kepler, even Newton I believe). I'll take another look and see if I can make sense of it. Dbuckner 19:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"It is also written in some garbled language which bears only the most superficial resemblance to English" - excellent, Dr Johnson. You have quite cheered me up. Dbuckner 19:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ockham and other things

1. Ockham is a far greater being than Quine!

2. On the benefits of the machinery of modern logic, I'm one of those who are suspicious of it. I wouldn't go so far as to say that traditional logic gives us the right logical form for natural language, but it is certainly closer than the predicate calculus, in my view. My view, roughly, is that term logic gives us better insights into logical form than predicate calculus, but that's about it.

3. On Quodlibeta Septem, I'm interested. I'm not familiar with it. Are you reading in Latin, or English. Can you recommend an edition?

4. On the same subject, I've just been reading Locke's remarks on Faith and Reason in the Essay. Mostly very sensible, as you'd expect, but one bit is very obscure. Locke says we must distinguish between having a true belief that has been revealed by God (and which counts as knowledge in a sense – what could better count as knowledge than a true belief imparted directly to us by the omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe), and knowing that it was revealed by God. His argument is that the mere content of the belief is not enough to guarantee its revealedness (suppose God reveals the proof of some mathematical theorem to me, but in such a way that it seems to me that it just came to me). One has to show that the knowledge was revealed. This strikes me as difficult and obscure. Why can't the content of a proposition directly show it to be revealed? Does Ockham say anything about this?

5. On the New Age stuff, my policy has been to maintain a strict apartheid between the philosophy and the other sort of stuff. Thus, I removed all New Age stuff from the 'Metaphysics' category, to remove any suspicion that the subject matter of the book that came after the Physics, and which mostly is dry and difficult analysis of the relation between predicate and subject, and the different forms of predication that can occur &c, has any connection with crystal healing, astral planes and all that sort of stuff. I say, leave it in peace, but make the boundaries clear. The Bohm case was an obvious example of the boundary getting blurred, so well done.

6. Appreciate any help you can give us ('us' is mainly me, Mel Etitis who is in fact quite a well-known philosopher, and KD and a couple of others) on the Philosophy sections. I'm planning a major scouring of the Shire in the coming weeks, starting with Analytic, Continental, and the Philosophy article itself. See my comments on the talk of Analytic philosophy. Dbuckner 08:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

7. Just seen Oneness (concept). It's getting better all the time. Your edit trail would make an amusing weekly column.

Tendentious editing on Being and Time

See my message on the talk page of that article. Dbuckner 19:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Lucas

I am gathering evidence against Lucas, who is proving a 'difficult editor' for a number of us. I have started a page here. This includes most of his recent edits, but nothing on his articles that sadly ended up as cases for deletion. Anyone with suitable diffs, please put them there, or on my talk page. Let's clear up this town once and for all. Dbuckner 12:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Ludvikus got banned for 6 months, so I am taking the opportunity to develop the Philosophy article. Yes, Ontology got onto my list, this time in another piece I wrote around the WP:VITAL philosophy articles. I think Reality takes the biscuit, however.

I'm putting some work into Medieval philosophy, which was a dog. All comments welcome - remember you don't have to be an expert! Dbuckner 17:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense tag

I just found this on your page. Did you design it, or did you find it in the tag collection. Much needed! buckner at wiki 11:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Medieval

As you say, the trick is to get the balance right. WP is the only encyclopedia I know that is right about the myth of Ockham's razor (it wasn't his) and that mentions how Duns Scotus died (horrifically, buried alive). Unfortunately it has lots of other facts, randomly inserted at strange points (often duplicated, by editors who haven't bothered to read that far), plus things that aren't facts at all, some of which are meaningful in some way, but false, others which are devoid of semantics, or main verbs, or any other trick you can imagine. The real difficulty of writing an encyclopedia is, what (e.g.) are the three facts you would like the eductated reader to take home about, Aristotle (or, King George III, whatever).

I was puzzling over the early medieval bit. See my comments on the talk page . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dbuckner (talk • contribs) 15:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC).