User talk:TheHerbalGerbil

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3

Translation

Salut NRen2k5,
Merci pour ta proposition !

En quelques mots :
Je suis l'auteur principal de l'article fr:Batailles de Latroun (1948) qui est AdQ (FA) sur la wikipedia francophone.
Depuis une dizaine de mois, j'essaies de le faire traduire vers en:Battles of Latrun.
It is not easy for me because my level in English is not good enough to translate small nuances. I can do the job from "English" to "French" and I understand the nuances but I cannot from "French" to "English" !
Si tu es intéressé par participer, tu es le bienvenu :-)
Merci, Ceedjee (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oui, c'est bon, un menage-a-trois!

Je peut faire francais -> anglais mais ni l'autrefois. Je pense, c'est mieux si les francophones faire les refs etc et je fais la traduction. Il fault also make sure that je n'ai pas mettre les erreurs factuelles.

Excusez-moi mon francais affreux, je peut pas comprendre assez bien mais parce-que je ne utile souvement, je trompe en ecriver.

Peut-etre son avis: J'ai traduit Léon Gard et un francais, le fils du peintre, est tres heureux! C'est bon! Je ne suis pas sur traduire les titres de les oeuvres ou rester en francais? Quest-ce-que vous pensez? SimonTrew (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest we move these discussions onto the talk page of the article itself? It will keep it in one place and also help keep the history of the article (not of the subject, but of the article's creation) all together? SimonTrew (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If you use AWB could you maybe scan over the article, only a couple of sections left to do. SimonTrew (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Have finished doing the remaining sections obviously needs someone else to go over it. Doing it oneself, one can't see the meat for the potatoes sometimes.

The next major task is fixing the refs Ceedjee says he will do this at the weekend. SimonTrew (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The cyber-thuggery clouds your judgement

Your continued incivility at controversial sites like PETA, Homeopathy, 9/11 Truth Movement and others, is unwelcome in the wikicommunity.
It is precisely because of thuggery like yours that wikipedia has evolved into a big joke.
or little joke, really.
a little pond and you just want to be a big fish here in the worst way.
the weird thing is, you have fleeting moments of reasonableness and constructive contributions.
Perhaps you are schizophrenic. Or just a child lashing out when you dont get your way.
its just too bad that your petty bickering trumps the good side.
12.36.128.89 (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I’m sorry, have we dated? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 00:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Do worry, it's been resolved on the admins incedent board.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 00:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi NRen. I have an eerie feeling I once dated someone like that too! (joke) And I thought I had it bad. Sorry you're getting this stuff. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't been proven?

Your statement, this, at 911Truth, caught my interest?

Except that the official story hasn’t been proven to be full of holes and based on thin evidence.

It catches my interest because it looks like an all-encompassing negative claim about what has not been proven. It makes me wonder how anyone could have arrived at such a conclusion, rationally, without having read all the books and watched documentaries that exist? If you have done so, I wish you had said so on the talk page, to make your comment more credible or understandable. Perhaps you are saying that mainstream media has only begun to identify the holes in the 911 Commission Report. Have you read this NYT article?

NYT Experts urge broader inquiry Government engineers find high temperatures puzzling (and criticize their own investigation) --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The investigations already carried out answer the important questions: How and why the towers collapsed. No matter how much you rant and point at puffs of smoke, hot spots and paint chips, it won’t change those answers. Anyway, your article is from December 2001. Maybe you think things have only gotten worse for the “official story” since then? I think they got better. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 05:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Rust, aluminum and paint chips ?

At 911Truth you ask:

Maybe you’d like to explain how finding rust, aluminum and paint chips in a skyscraper collapse supports controlled demolition?

I fail to see how that could be regarded as a serious summary of someone's academic paper, or as someone's view. Anyway, this other paper is probably scientifically less technical, and likely a better starting point for the possible discussion you might welcome.

TITLE Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

QUOTE Reports by FEMA and NIST lay out the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. In this Letter, we wish to set a foundation for productive discussion and understanding by focusing on those areas where we find common ground with FEMA and NIST, while at the same time countering several popular myths about the WTC collapses. http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not much better than the nanothermite paper. At least not completely ridiculous. But why do you think you need to slam a paper on my desk? Are you trying to force some kind of discussion? Do you really think there’s any discussion to be had other than to have it explained to you for the thousandth time why your conspiracy theories are ridiculous? Look, if you want to question what happened on 9/11, that’s your prerogative. Just don’t browbeat and bullshit the rest of us into going along with you. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 05:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That’s just fucking surreal!

Those are your words at 911Truth, right?

I don't see how that counts as professionally, reasonably, providing information. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don’t remember being contracted to professionally, reasonably provide information. The information’s already out there. All you need to do is find it. I’m happy to direct people to it if it pleases them. I’m even happier to choose misinformation to smack down at my whim. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 05:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Established truthers

At 911Truth you claim that certain authors are "established truthers".

To say an author is an "established truther" in itself only raises a possible concern, it doesn't establish that the concern is valid or problemmatic. They are not being paid by government or industry to writer those papers. Remember, in the NYT article, it is government scientists themselves that raise doubts about their study. You are welcome to read the article and share your thoughts. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Working for the government is one thing, but forming your conclusion before you’ve even started an experiment is something else entirely. Jones et al began with the assumption that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition, and then grasped at straws to find something – anything – that would “prove” controlled demolition. That isn’t academic. It’s not even serious. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 05:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The blog regarding reliability of Bentham

The post you refer to regarding Bentham seems to be on a personal or informal blog. I find it hard to take this seriously as a source regarding Bentham. Now, you might well be able to argue that a certain journal is not prestigious, or has had a flaw of some sort.

But such a case would merely place this journal in the fine company of the NY Times, featuring the likes of Judith Miller and Jason Blair. In other words, reliability needs to look at the context pretty closely. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The author understood people might have trouble taking it seriously, so he made sure to source all the quotations he provided. Of course there will always be some people stupid enough to accept or deny something so quickly. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 05:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Part of the second sentence ("always") is unclear to me, but I'll take the general thrust. What do you mean the author made sure to source all the quotations he provided? When I saw it was a blog I didn't look closely. Are you saying he refers to sources on that page? That info in the discussion would have been useful. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, in a nearby discussion, I can't tell whether a certain comment "Reverse-worked bullshit" was the commenter after you, or part of your comment. I don't assume the page was changed and I must have been mistaken in inferring the signature. So, I have added my correction to show my prior understanding was probably mistaken. Apologies for the confusion. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep it to yourself

When you can heed your own advice about not personalizing disputes and distorting the truth, I'll stop countering your pro-whaling arguments. Until then, keep your hypocritical warnings to yourself. PrBeacon (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)