User talk:Reginod

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Comments from my early days on Conservapedia

Hello and welcome to Conservapedia! I think that some of the material you deleted as opinion was factual. I have replaced that material along with references. Thank you for your contributions! ~ SharonS 17:27, 21 February 2007 (EST)

If I did that, it was entirely unintentional, and I am glad you put it back. Can you tell me which entry I mistakenly deleted facts from? Also thank you for the welcome. -Reginod

Sir Isaac Newton was certainly a Christian, so I added a reference for that. I also put back the direct quote in Descent of Man along with a more neutral version of the last sentence. ~ SharonS 17:35, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Never mind, I see the replacement you made. Very interesting, I had no idea about Newton—I’m going to put that he said he was inspired by God since we have no way of knowing whether or not he was actually inspired by God (and that was my original concern, since I didn’t know the rest about Newton and there was no citation, I just took the whole sentence out)

I couldn’t figure out how to make the last sentence neutral, and without it the quote seemed out of place. Sorry if I got over eager—just trying to help.

Good point about Newton. Your edit to the Descent of Man was fine. I just thought it would be alright with the last sentence reworded. ~ SharonS

Warning, Reginod: you are deleting too much useful information. I also notice many rollbacks associated with your entries. As a new contributor, you not be deleting so much information by others. Add citations rather than deleting factual info. If this continues, then you will be temporarily blocked to give you an opportunity to read more before you make changes.--Aschlafly 09:12, 22 February 2007 (EST)

I apologize for my earlier over-enthusiasm. I did not intend to delete information—I was simply trying to clear out opinion and make sure the article read cleanly after my edits. I think I’ve stopped that—but if you are concerned that I’m still doing that, please let me know (and, if you would be so kind as to point to specific examples so I can be sure to not make the same mistakes twice, I would appreciate it. I also take it that part of the problem is that I am/have been deleting quotations lacking the citation that the site’s rules call for—is there some way I should handle this other than deletion, can I flag posts or what? Again, thank you for putting up with my sincere, if occasionally clumsy, enthusiasm for this site. -Reginod

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. You can add something to information such as "reference needed" without deleting the information.--Aschlafly 10:28, 22 February 2007 (EST)
Reginod, I'm not sure who added the gossip about Newton being a "confirmed bachelor," but such gossip is contrary to our rules. I deleted it.--Aschlafly 11:16, 5 March 2007 (EST)
I left the “confirmed bachelor” part in—I had no reason to believe or disbelieve—but I did not add it, I’m not much interested in such gossip, but I must admit, it doesn’t bother me either—I’ll try to keep the rule against gossip in mind when editing and try to delete it when I see it. -- Reginod
For what it is worth ( it looks like the line was added by the user "RightOn" on 2/23/07. -Reginod
Thanks much. I think RightOn has been blocked for a much more inappropriate entry.--Aschlafly 13:08, 5 March 2007 (EST)
No problem. As a side note, I've gathered some additional (and more reputable) references about Newton's laws being falsified--should I simply put that information back in the article or would you rather I moved it to the talk page? When, in general, should changes go to the talk page rather than simply into the main article? -- Reginod

Nice addition about John Adams and the Boston Massacre. I really enjoyed that!--Aschlafly 19:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Thank you. I thought it important to add information showing that the Founding Fathers believed that in times of peace even those persons who would soon be our enemies and even those accused of heinous crimes deserved representation of legal counsel.--Reginod 20:16, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Reginold, the 1919 experiments to "prove" General Relativity have been discredited. So your edit on Newton was simply wrong. I did not revert for ideological reasons, but for factual reasons. Please research that point more carefully and skeptically. Thanks.--Aschlafly 23:01, 10 March 2007 (EST)
I’ve done, some, but admittedly not a lot of research on this point, though it was a few years back, and I’ve never seen any suggestion that the 1919 research has been discredited—if you could point me to that information I’d be most grateful. Actually, I’d suggest, given the prevalence of the claim I’ve cited (it comes as close to dogma as any claim could get in philosophy of science, which is how I became aware of it), that the article would be better off to include the claim I added to the article and then the fact that it has been discredited.
That being said, I wouldn’t have reverted, but it looked like I was undoing changes by the user Rp (whose other edits struck me as more destructive than constructive). --Reginod 23:11, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Sir Isaac Newton

Why did you make the claim that "gravity, like evolution, is just a theory and has never been proven to be true"[1]? What do you propose as an alternative? Geekman314(contact me) 11:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I added it because it is true—scientific theories cannot be proven true—nothing based on induction can be proven to be true. I wasn’t at the time proposing an alternative (I remembered learning it had been falsified, but at the time I posted that I hadn’t re-researched the issue)—I’ve since added (and had removed) information suggesting that general relativity is a better theory in terms of predictive power than Newton’s Laws.
Hope that answers your question. --Reginod 11:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Ah. What you probably should have said was "Newton's theory of gravitation…".
Why is there such an anti-relativity bias around here? Geekman314(contact me) 22:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm not sure about the anti-Relitivity bias here, I seem to have, unknowingly, stepped into a very sensitive subject, As far as you other point goes, you are quite right that would have been much clearer.--Reginod 11:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Unicorns and crazy junk like that

I posted my reply on my talk page but I'll post it here too - the reason that the Bible would mention wizards without them being real is that the Bible is not an infallible text - it's a historical document just like any other. Frankly, holding it up as the perfect sum total of the word of God in only a few thousand pages no extra analysis needed seems to me the very height of vanity, and insulting to its divine author, if you believe in Him. St. Augustine agrees with me. Do you?-AmesGyo! 20:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm curious how many people have stuck with the KJV version for unicorn (I wonder if that was an italicized word) rather than reading a modern translation or asking a scholar of Hebrew what the word means (or reading a translation of the Torah). Sure it appeared in a flawed 1611 translation, but surely our understanding of Hebrew has advanced since then. --Mtur 20:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Originalism, Mtur! Be suspicious of progress. It worked so well for the Inquisition/-AmesGyo! 20:47, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
I am by no means a Biblical literalist (see my contribution to the article on Jericho). In point of fact, I happen to agree with you that the Bible is a historical document, but that doesn’t mean that things you personally find implausible are false. However, if you read the Bible as a historical document, you still have to explain why there would be an injunction against wizardry—that it is possible or probable that the Bible has some errors does not prove that any one point is an error, nor does it prove that the passages you doubt have no basis in fact.
Assuming that the passages condemning wizardry (witchcraft and other occult powers) are, in some way in error, what would you think is the most likely explanation for it? I would propose that the author(s) believed magic was possible and that it was (in some way) wrong. Note that a belief in magic occurs in many cultures—the Greeks had witches (Madea pops to mind), the Romans believed in spells (archeologists have found spell tablets), the early Jews did (see the Bible), some modern Jews do (see the Kabala), the early Christians did (see the story of Simon Magus), many modern Christians do, many Native American tribes believed in magic (see for example The Teachings of Don Juan), the people of Siberia had shamans, the pre-Christian British had Druids, the pre-Christian Norse created binding runes, many tribal Africans believed (and believe) in magic (this is the source of Voodoo and Sanitaria—it is also why mobs in parts of Africa still will occasionally kill a wizard), Aboriginal Australians had shamans as well and wandered according to mystical paths, etc.—I can think of no culture that did not believe in magic (I’d honestly be interested if you could). (This means, by the way, that we have more people in more places and at more times attesting to the existence of magic than we do attesting to the existence of St. Augustine, if we are going to trust written accounts for the existence of the latter there needs to be a very good reason to not trust them in the case of the former.) This leads me to believe that, given its wide attestation, magic is more likely to exist (or have existed) than not.
If I were feeling like wasting time, I’d ask you to prove that wizards never existed, but I realize that you can’t prove a negative. So, let me challenge you fairly. If you are right that wizards are fictional beings, then there are not now nor have there ever been any beings (lets say human beings for the sake of simplicity) who have been able to control occult or magical powers. If I am right that wizards are people, then at some point in history, there has existed at least one human being that was able to control occult or magical powers. I’ve laid out what I take to be a good reason to believe that it is more likely than not that people capable of controlling occult or magical powers have existed and may exist now. Why do you think it is more likely than not that no such being has ever existed? What is your argument for the improbability of wizards? In responding please keep in mind that if people are able to do things that modern science is unable to explain then I am going to say they have occult or magical powers (if you are using a different definition or understanding of the terms in question lease let me know so I can respond fully to your position). --Reginod 22:13, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Commandments and Notes

I saw you wrote "I’ve been recording, for personal use, what sysops have said about the rules (as a sort of collection of Conservapedia dicta if you will) and I’d be more than happy to post that to an appropriate page (it takes up something like 5 pages in Word so I don’t want to post it here)". I would love to see that stuff, why not keep it on a sub page of your user page? Ask if you don't know how to do that. But I bet you do... Please let me know if you do put it somewhere it can be read. Human 19:37, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I’ve not yet figured out how to make pages off of my user page (haven’t really had a reason to do so before now) but it you think it is worth doing (I’ve been a bit reluctant to share since I worry it may come across badly) I’ll give it some more thought. But if you want to tell me how to prepare a page for it, I’d be most appreciative.--Reginod 19:50, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Basically, to do it you do it the way you make any wiki page - create a link to it, and then click on it and edit it. You would enter this on your user page: [[User:Reginod/newfilename]]. If you are fmailiar with the syntax, you will note that it creates the file as a subdirectory of your user page. It's also a good way to work on half finished files, later copying them to the main space. Human 21:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to see that too, as would others. Sterile

Ok. I am posting my observations at User:Reginod/dicta please let me know if you see any problems (or if you find them particularly useful).--Reginod 09:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Two problems:

  1. They are boring and seem pointless
  2. You put words in my mouth.

What are you doing here, anyway? --Ed Poor 17:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I apologize for misunderstanding your comment, this is why I specifically invited sysops to correct any of my misunderstandings. I’d love it if you would write exactly what you intended to say and sign your view, but I’m also fine with you striking through the offending text, or simply deleting it. Indicate in any clear way where I’ve made a mistake and I’ll correct it ASAP.
I’m sorry you find my work boring, please feel free to ignore it or anything else I do that does not interest you.
If by “here” you mean Conservapedia, I joined because I want to get involved in a potently valuable wiki at the ground level. I have stayed because I think I can make a positive contribution and I’m enjoying myself (I love sharing what I know, engaging in intellectually stimulating debate, and learning more about interesting topics). If by “here” you mean the dicta in particular, I started them so I would, personally, have a better idea what the rules were (I like, as I’ve noted before, clear rules and a solid understanding of what they are)—after mentioning I had created such a list, others asked me to share, so I decided to share.--Reginod 17:40, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

This is very interesting. Apparently unlike Ed Poor, I think it is very important to keep an eye on not just the rules themselves, but also how they are actually being implemented. Keep up the good work, Reginod. AKjeldsen 17:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Academic standards

You need to got along with your colleagues, which means learning how to express disagreements without being disagreeable.

If you have strong feelings about a topic, write about the topic. Don't get into arguments with senior staff. In fact, don't argue at all. Just explain.

If no one listens, or if your work is deleted, you can email me for further advice. --Ed Poor 11:53, 30 April 2007 (EDT)


For coming to my defense against Ashfly on Talk:Deceit. 90/10 violation, indeed... he just thinks that if he sees your name a lot in discussion, that must be all you're doing. Anyway, are you really blocked for arguing? I couldn't find your user name in the block log. Human 18:10, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

No problem, I see a lot of “you are in violation of the 90/10 rule” when people disagree too much, so I’ve decided to point out what the actual stats are when people are not, in fact, in violation of the rule.
I was blocked for arguing, I’d have thought that would be taken off my page when the block was over – I guess I’d better take care of it, even if it does count against my 90/10 total.--Reginod 23:34, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
OK, that was weird, cos I thought you were gone. But I do appreciate your sticking up for me, and yes, my edits are far more productive than that silly 90/10 thing. Again, thank you. Human 01:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)


I hope you are keeping an off-site copy of this? Since apparently Mr. Poor feels free to remove quotes he thinks weren't his (did you have a permalink on that one?). Actually, it's a shame it would be huge trouble to maintain an entire off-site backup of this site, it's going to be one hilarious archive someday. Human 13:07, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I mistakenly moved them to the talk page. And yes, Reginod now has an off-line copy, lest someone 'disappears' it overnight.--WikinterpreterLiaise with the cabal?
I do have an offsite copy – I’m not seeing where a quote was removed by Ed—I think this is just a slight misunderstanding about how Wikinterpreter was trying to help clean up the page.--Reginod 13:17, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes, you're right, the context was lost when it was moved and I thought some of what "it" was was the reason for moving it. All is well in muddville again. And I'm glad you're keeping a back up. Some journalist is going to love the work being done for them already! Human 15:26, 12 May 2007 (EDT)