User talk:TerryH/Archive2

Terry, you have indeed been promoted to Sysop, in recognition of your numerous high-quality edits. Welcome!

As Sysop, you can and should block vandals and obscene users by checking "Recent Changes," and you can also edit locked pages. In terms of blocking, please block for immediate duration any user who posts obscenity, or has obscenity in his user id. Don't all those users to return with a shorter block. The same is true for clear vandalism. Silliness, inappropriate entries, or repeatedly unproductive edits should be addressed by a warning on their talk page and/or a short block. Many Sysops have access to Checkuser and IP addresses, but use those only to track down and report vandalism to the appropriate entities.

The pages are locked for reasons including repeated vandalism or, in a few cases, high-quality efforts that should not be diluted or degraded. Caution should be exercised before editing them, and feel free to ask me first if there is any doubt. You can probably sense why a page was locked, and if it was due to vandalism then please feel free to improve it however you like.

Again, welcome, and a good Easter to you!--Aschlafly 10:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Welcome, Terry! Never any lack of work here...;-) --~ Sysop-TerryK ^MyTalk 17:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Hi, I'm another sysop. I used to be a sysop, bureaucrat and Developer at Wikipedia, but I fell afoul of The Cabal. ;-)

Anyway I wanted to ask you about a phrase you wrote which piqued my interest.

the sufficiency of total materialism to explain anything and everything

I think this is good material for our Materialism article. Materialists don't just sit around believing in materialism. They used their beliefs as justification. They speak, write and act. I'd like to know more about what materialists use their perspective for. --Ed Poor 14:39, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Hello, Ed. Thanks for dropping in.

My experience with "materialists" is, I admit, limited to sitting in a classroom and getting the materialistic perspective on biology--from teachers who expressed that supreme confidence that matter was everything and matter could explain everything. But it also comes from viewing so many television shows that took a materialistic perspective, and checking up on how other shows dealt with issues of evolution. The Star Trek franchise, for example, was as materialistic as it ever got. They ended up going with Francis Crick's directed-panspermia hypothesis, and featuring a race calling themselves "The Progenitors." Check it out on Wikipedia, if you like.

The materialist perspective justifies--or at least removes a key objection to--the use of human fetal tissue not only for stem-cell extraction but also for transplant sources. The materialist says, "A person is not a person until it behooves the state to grant him personhood." Materialist morality's standard-of-value is "the greatest good for the greatest number," and thinks nothing of sacrificing the individual.

Even Objectivist morality would have a problem with pure materialism--which is why Objectivism is not a purely materialist discipline. Materialism says that all we are, are collections of chemicals. Objectivism says that we have minds, and that mind and matter are not the same.

Materialism is very close to modernism, about which we really need an article. Modernism says that, given enough research time, grant moneys, et cetera, we will find the relentlessly rational answers to every problem. Postmodernism says that some answers are unobtainable, and that there is no such thing as truth. But modernism says that the truth is that there is nothing beyond the natural and material, and that what is unknown today--say about life origins--will become known tomorrow.

I admit that I have no references. All I have are my personal impressions from having had materialist professors, in high school, college, and medical school. Maybe this will help.--TerryH^Talk 15:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Hi, same user as BDobbs here. I got a bnotice I was banned, and my IP was banned, for using the "Bias" template without being a Sysop.

Seeing how nobody MENTIONED they were sysop-only, that seems a trifle harsh. --Cdobbs 16:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT) (I think you were the sysop that did it, but I don't know how to find out for sure.)

The order came down from TerryK, not from me. You might want to address your protest here. For the record, your block will come off in three days.--TerryH^Talk 16:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Your work on creating articles for Theater and Motion Pictures has been excellent. MountainDew 16:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. I should say that my perspectives on motion pictures and theater come from my own personal observation of theater in all its media. This includes a scandal at the Paper Mill Playhouse in Millburn, New Jersey, near to where I live. The worthies in charge introduced several productions that relied on vulgar language. And now guess what? Attendance is down, and so are revenues, and the PMP might have to close!

Of course, I've been wanting to publish something here on Conservapedia about theater and motion pictures for some time--but not repeat not because I envision any "films project" similar to that at Wikipedia. If Conservapedia embarks on such a project, then I would strongly recommend discretion in any films selected for commemoration. Perhaps we can limit it at first to films that address a concept that other articles address--like The Ten Commandments, or any of a number of classic biopics.--TerryH^Talk 17:04, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Happy Easter to you, Terry!

The eleven disciples went to the hill in Galilee where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him, Jesus drew near and said to them, "I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Go, then, to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples: baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you. And I will be with you always, to the end of the age." Matthew 28
Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him. “We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” —Acts 10:34-43 NIV

--~ TK ^MyTalk 05:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

(Can't post this on that Sysop hangout page since it's locked) If I understand you correctly, you can already do that. There is a "Namespace" field right at the top of Special:Contributions/TerryH. Set that to "main" and you're ready to go. Or any other official namespace. The same also works on the Search, Recent Changes or My Watchlist, btw. --Sid 3050 09:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks! As long as I've been a registered user on Wikipedia, I ought to know this. The trouble was that until I came here or to CreationWiki, I never had occasion to look up anyone's contributions.--TerryH^Talk 09:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

You're quite welcome! :) I'm one of those weird people who try pushing every button and poking every menu whenever they get somewhere. It helps in such cases, but it's probably why people will never let me into missile launch facilities. ;) --Sid 3050 09:56, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Since you're the current king of the hill on the sysop page and brought up this topic, here's a fairly important addition: The problem is not just that the debates are currently bleeding into the mainspace, but also that they will become inaccessible if we create a "Debate"/"Debate talk" namespace set right now. Check out this link for reference (just under the first blue-border box).

The explanation (from what I gather) is: Right now, we got an article with the full name "Debate:Blah". If we then create "Debate" as a namespace, calling "Debate:Blah" will actually show "Blah in the Debate namespace" instead of "Debate:Blah in the Main namespace" - two quite different things.

So a sysop will have to revert those moves before the new namespace is being created. Good news is that there's a "revert" link next to each move. Bad news is that there are many things that have to be reverted.

Maybe a joint effort of sysops can crunch down this problem without requiring one poor guy to do it all? --Sid 3050 13:09, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

ARTICLES I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WRITTEN AT CONSERVAPEDIA:

ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:

• Abortion alternatives
• Abortion procedures
• Culture of life
• Dilatation and curettage abortion
• Dilatation and Evacuation abortion
• National Right to Life Committee
• Prostaglandin Abortion
• Partial birth abortion
• Right to life
• Right to life books
• Right to life movement
• Saline abortion
• Suction abortion
• Sanctity of life
• Silent scream

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Conservative (talk)

Never mind my e-mail, Temlakos. The block has expired. I still think it was outrageous though Scorpion^{Step on me and get stung} 08:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Your sig is outrageous. If you will follow the rules of decorum, you can express just about any idea you wish. I consider 'step on my and get stung' at best a distraction. --Ed Poor 08:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

For the record, it wasn't my project, someone else started it (I just corrected the spelling and submitted the first answer). Also, the torture in the discussion was incidental, it was the nature of the discussion I was trying to focus on. Czolgolz 10:10, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The history of the project suggested otherwise. Let us close the curtain of charity on this matter (Mark Twain).--TerryH^Talk 10:13, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Since when are we locking blocked user talk pages? I've been a sysop since mid-March and never seen anything like that said before. ColinR^talk 00:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

• Since they started being hangouts for socks and trolls, Colin. Does it bother you greatly? Why? Please explain. --~ TK ^MyTalk 01:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think it's a good idea to lock them unless they become a problem. Users might need to get in touch with that person and email doesn't always work. If socks and trolls are a problem, then I have no problem locking pages, but I think it should be done on a case-by-case basis. ColinR^talk 02:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

• Well, that is what I am doing with each and everyone I block. You can, or not, I don't care. You are only back on a "trial" basis, anyway, or so your page says, so don't sweat it. [[1]] --~ TK ^MyTalk 02:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a proposed block policy Tell me what you think. --CPAdmin1 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --BenjaminS 00:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

All kidding aside, I appreciate your listing me as one of your "favorites." To what do I owe that honor?--TerryH^Talk 21:18, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

mostly to your defense of Creation and Christianity on the various talk pages. --CPAdmin1 21:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh, no, I wasn't asking him for sysopship. I was simply requesting that a centralized location be created for the requests, in the correct namespace, so that other users could easily review the applicant, and so that such requests wouldn't have to be place on his talk page. --Hacker^{(Write some code)} 18:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Great article!! We sure could use more like that one. Say, I'm working on an article on the film Titanic. Right now I'm just working on the synopsis, but we'll need a cast, poster and of course a Christian analysis. I daresay your work is fairly complete with the need for a few touch-ups here and there. Say, what was that Lucas guy experiencing anyway? A hallucination? Scorpion^{Tell me what you think} 22:50, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I guess you could call it that. And, seeing that I've already "spoiled" things quite enough (assuming you can even get hold of a copy), I might as well tell you. Astronaut Lucas did something that probably would be considered "breaking training." He walked into a room having only one door, and it slammed shut on him. Of course what happened to him next wiped out his memory of just how he got into that room--which was not just a room but a complete, self-contained holographic simulator. And as it happened, the antediluvian commandant had just used that simulator himself, to find out what was happening on earth at the time.

As to where the simulator got its input, the antediluvian government had set up total surveillance of everything. A fat lot of good that did them when their society went to pieces shortly before the Flood. But the surveillance system had enough of a record to re-create an experience on earth for any member of the base crew who wanted a quick getaway.

Here's the key: the commandant rushed out of the simulator and forgot to reset it. Lucas walked in, thousands of years later, and was treated to the experience that the machine created for the commandant. And then the machine went on to show Lucas the final forty-eight-odd hours aboard the moon base, when everyone realized that their world was flooding itself out. They panicked. Some of them killed each other. Some of them sacrificed one of their own. The rest of them fled--to nowhere, of course. The base commandant committed suicide, and his body was the body that Lucas and Shepherd would later discover before they barely made it to the base in time to save themselves.

Tellingly, the machine even predicted that Noah and his sons would heed the word of God and leave him behind, had he actually been there.

But while Lucas might believe that he traveled back in time, that is not in accord with the law of time as God set it up.--TerryH^Talk 23:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

So basically, the book says that the Flood didn't happen on Earth, but on the moon? That's not consistent with what the Bible says! Scorpion^{Tell me what you think} 16:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

No, it doesn't. It says that the Flood occurred on earth, but that a recording of the Flood was transmitted to the Moon for "playback" in the holographic simulator on the Moon base. That's how Astronaut Lucas could re-live it.

Okay. I was kind of confused there. Scorpion^{Tell me what you think} 19:28, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

What's your username on Wikipedia, just out of curiosity? Mine's the same one as it is on CreationWiki. I looked up "Temlakos" and the profile didn't match yours. Scorpion^{Tell me what you think} 19:32, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Believe it or not, it is Temlakos. The trouble is that I have little or no control over my userpage on Wikipedia. But here and on CreationWiki, "a user's user page is his castle."--TerryH^Talk 19:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Does this ring a bell? I have had the quote saved for some time now, seeking an attribution! --~ TK ^MyTalk 20:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

“The depravity of man is the one cardinal doctrine of Christianity which can be empirically demonstrated. The triune nature of the Godhead was revealed to us in Scripture. The incarnation of the Word of God in the person of Jesus was also revealed in the Bible. But the sin of man is revealed to us every day in the newspapers, every day at work, and every day in each sinner's heart and mind.

But even though the presence of sin may be demonstrated in this way, the nature of it had to be revealed in the Scripture. This is because, being sinners, we want to heal the wound lightly. We do not want to understand the gravity of our situation. But before we can understand the good news of God's complete salvation in Christ, we must first comprehend our complete ruin in Adam.

The Bible does not teach that men are sick in sin; it teaches that they are dead in sin. "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked. . ." (Eph. 2:1-2). The minister of the gospel does not come into a hospital ward with the mission of persuading the patients to take the medicine. He has been brought by the Spirit of God to an impossible situation; he has been commissioned to preach in the graveyard. The result of Spirit-empowered preaching is not recovery from illness, but rather resurrection. "And He said to me, 'Son of man, can these bones live?' So I answered, 'O Lord God, you know.' Again He said to me, 'Prophesy to these bones, and say to them, "O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord!"'" (Ez. 37:3-4).

One of our generation's principal heresies is the belief that deep down "I could decide for God." But the Bible teaches that ruin and misery mark our paths, and that we do not know the way of peace. In Adam we all died, and it is only through Christ we can be made alive. But mark it well: we do not help Christ raise us. When Lazarus was in the grave, he was not thinking about the miracle he and Jesus were about to do. As dead men, we cannot do anything pleasing to God. We cannot contribute to our own salvation at all. We must repent, but we cannot. We must believe, but we cannot. We must hate our sin, but we love it. We must love God, but we hate Him. Wretched men! “

Douglas Wilson, "The Sin of Man," Credenda/Agenda, 1(4). Retrieved April 16, 2007.--TerryH^Talk 23:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

• (Grins) Thank you! --~ TK ^MyTalk 23:02, 16 April 2007 (EDT)