Difference between revisions of "User talk:LowKey"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(16 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
[[/Archive 1]]
+
== I think we would all appreciate it ==
  
−
== Switch to your real first name and last initial ==
+
If you didn't suddenly destroy a conversation--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:35, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
:Conservapedia has a policy against negative personal comments. LowKey was within his rights to remediate that unseemly conversation. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:47, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
::And we all know that conversation isnt going to go away because a user decided to replace a bunch of comments with "personal attack removed". Besides, If they are personal attacks, that would be hiding the evidence they existed, forcing a judging synop to go through the history to see the original remarks,. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:56, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::Believe what you like, SeanS. No judging sysop except RobSmith has yet gone through any history in the last 8 months of people complaining about "Conservative's" behavior, including his most recent tear of really nasty comments against individuals (editors here and otherwise) and whole organizations (the Catholic Church). I don't expect anything to change since multiple discussions of this nature have occurred on Andy Schlafly's talk page and the Community Portal and he's declined to intervene. LowKey might as well put a better face on an awfully unseemly discussion that is going nowhere. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 11:16, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
::::If conservative is so uncaring about the rules, why would hiding his comments do anything? That conversation won't disappear because you hide them, and it isn't going to have a change in tone or words because you hide them, all it'll do is get you to be an enemy of conservative. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 11:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
  
−
"Lowkey", I've grown tired of reverting your silly edits, and even more tired of your user id.  Either request conversion of your id. to your real first name and last initial and improve your quality, or please move on.  Lots of other sites with lower quality would welcome you. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 15 January 2009 (EST)
+
SeanS, I replaced the personal attacks with the template that is prescribed by policy.  If you disagree with that policy, then take it up with the policy makers.  Your assertion about "hiding the evidence" makes little sense, as no-one was seeking censure ''for'' the personal remarks, but simply annihilating them for the sake of civility.  I am a completely disintereted party who read through the "conversation", saw the civility policy invoked, read said policy and enacted it as written.  I do not think I should be the one criticised for the fact that up unitl then everyone failed to follow the policy. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:13, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
  
−
::Andy, I am taking a short-to-medium break while I consider my options. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 17:23, 17 January 2009 (EST)
+
== Slight change. ==
  
 +
I think it would be fair to say I [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=894934&oldid=894584 clarified] your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=894584 edit]. What say you? --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 00:24, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
:I don't know that it's a clarification, so much as a slight change of meaning.  Some scientific controversy is '''not''' driving advancement, which I left room for in my edit.  As it currently stands, the article says that controversy ''necessarily'' drives advancement, which is not necessarily true. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 20:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
  
−
== Excluded middle edits ==
+
== Extra privileges granted ==
  
−
:And don't make ideological edits like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Law_of_the_excluded_middle&diff=prev&oldid=611475 this one]. It is only evolutionists who insist that every criticism of evolution is necessarily a "religious" argument - on '''their''' [[excluded middle]] grounds. This is a fallacy, because it leaves out "unknown" causation.
+
You've been granted blocking and SkipCatcha privileges. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
−
 
+
:Oh.  Thanks. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 00:49, 23 August 2011 (EDT)
−
:If life did not emerge because of know physical causes, this doesn't mean a supernatural cause is the only other possibility. They are just using that to have a '''legal''' excuse to suppress criticism of evolution. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:58, 16 January 2009 (EST)
 
−
::Ed, there is not a correct statement in your post.  The law of the excluded middle is in invoked by '''creationists''' on '''logical''' grounds.  It is not a fallacy, it is a valid logical argument. The options are ''not'' "physical", "supernatural", or "other"; they are "natural and "supernatural", evidence against one origin (natural) are necessarily arguments for the other origin (supernatural). The argument that you present above is the one that ''evolutionists'' actually use to suppress criticism, and the law of the excluded middle is invoked by ''creationists'' to refute the evolutionists.  Sorry, but you have it backwards.  My edit there was not ideological, but was an example of how the law of the excluded middle is used. Odd how you seem to have assumed I am an evolutionist, when my only non-neutral edits have been anti-evolution and pro-creation.  New standard number one in action again, it seems.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 17:23, 17 January 2009 (EST)
 

Latest revision as of 04:49, August 23, 2011

I think we would all appreciate it

If you didn't suddenly destroy a conversation--SeanS 10:35, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia has a policy against negative personal comments. LowKey was within his rights to remediate that unseemly conversation. Nate 10:47, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
And we all know that conversation isnt going to go away because a user decided to replace a bunch of comments with "personal attack removed". Besides, If they are personal attacks, that would be hiding the evidence they existed, forcing a judging synop to go through the history to see the original remarks,. --SeanS 10:56, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Believe what you like, SeanS. No judging sysop except RobSmith has yet gone through any history in the last 8 months of people complaining about "Conservative's" behavior, including his most recent tear of really nasty comments against individuals (editors here and otherwise) and whole organizations (the Catholic Church). I don't expect anything to change since multiple discussions of this nature have occurred on Andy Schlafly's talk page and the Community Portal and he's declined to intervene. LowKey might as well put a better face on an awfully unseemly discussion that is going nowhere. Nate 11:16, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
If conservative is so uncaring about the rules, why would hiding his comments do anything? That conversation won't disappear because you hide them, and it isn't going to have a change in tone or words because you hide them, all it'll do is get you to be an enemy of conservative. --SeanS 11:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

SeanS, I replaced the personal attacks with the template that is prescribed by policy. If you disagree with that policy, then take it up with the policy makers. Your assertion about "hiding the evidence" makes little sense, as no-one was seeking censure for the personal remarks, but simply annihilating them for the sake of civility. I am a completely disintereted party who read through the "conversation", saw the civility policy invoked, read said policy and enacted it as written. I do not think I should be the one criticised for the fact that up unitl then everyone failed to follow the policy. LowKey 23:13, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Slight change.

I think it would be fair to say I clarified your edit. What say you? --Chouston 00:24, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

I don't know that it's a clarification, so much as a slight change of meaning. Some scientific controversy is not driving advancement, which I left room for in my edit. As it currently stands, the article says that controversy necessarily drives advancement, which is not necessarily true. LowKey 20:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Extra privileges granted

You've been granted blocking and SkipCatcha privileges. Congratulations!--Andy Schlafly 12:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Oh. Thanks. LowKey 00:49, 23 August 2011 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:LowKey&oldid=904578"