User talk:Hrafn

Welcome...

Hello, Hrafn42, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! dave souza, talk 10:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Advice

Put a warning on his talk page then let me know as soon as he violates it. Rlevse 15:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The best thing is to put a "test4" or "blatantvandal" warning on his talk page. If you keep reverting him, you'll be in an edit war and you both might end up blocked. If you give one of these warnings and he violates it, let me or WP:AIV know and only he will get blocked. If you go AIV, mention the prior block.Rlevse 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

Just wanted to let you know I reverted your edits to the creation-evolution controversy page because the edits you changed seemed to be the result of a consensus. Please see the associated discussion. While I do think that having contributors compiling information from the groups who participate in the controversy is bordering on original research by turning wikipedia into a secondary source, I do not think the particular metion of ICR pointing to research (not pointing to their own research, but just the vauge term "research"), and the immediate rebuttal of the ICR interpretation by mainstream scientists is undue weight. In fact, it appears to be quite damning to the ICR to have so many scientists dispute their interpretations. ImprobabilityDrive 04:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

“ Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions. ”

No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. Some good points. I think you should put them on the creation-evolution controversy talk page, especially the points about them commissioning research. I was assuming that they were merely pointing to research. My bad if they actually commissioned it. (Actually, who ever wrote it should have chosen his or her words more carefully when s/he wrote "Creationists point to research indicating that" if what they should have written was "Creationists point to their own research indicating that..." or "Creationists point to research they commissioned" indicating that". In this case, I think rather than undue weight, the sentence was just inaccurate or at least misleading. But go ahead and put your points about them commissioning the research on the talk page, and revert me. I'll bow out of the undue weight disucssion for tonight. ImprobabilityDrive 05:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on my talk page, I will try to articulate my view here before I refine it for the creation-evolution talk page. But imagine, rather than the Creation-evolution controversy, an article on something you might be less emotionally attached to. I don't mean this as an insult; I can see you have strong feelings about at least ICR. Anyway, imagine some other controversy, say the abstinence-birth control controversy, this would be a sociopolitical article. It is different than an article on birth control, and it is different than an article on abstinence. It is an article about the controversy.

In such an article, we might try to find neutral commentators and observers of the controversy as sources. These would be the ideal secondary sources. But perhaps that is not possible on many important aspects of the controversy, where important is evidenced by both sides of the controversy repeatedly contesting some aspect or other. In such cases, we might have to rely on the points and counter points of the forbearance fundementalists, and points and counter points of sex education professionals. I believe that the wikipedia policy states that while we can use these primary sources, we cannot take sides (in the article on the controversy). We also have to be careful to identify the sources, not conduct original research, and so on and so forth.

An article on abstinence, on the other hand, is different. In this case, if the forbearance fundementalists "facts" are disputed by the more-highly-educated experts in sex education, undue weight arguments would prevent you from treating forbearance fundementalists assertions as facts.

But in the controversy article, the intent of the article is to describe the controversy, not resolve it.

Does this make sense? Again, please read On using primary sources

The controversy article is a socio-political article. In such an article, there is a controversy. It should be treated objectively. Even if the mainstream concensus among educated professionals is that the forbearance fundementalists are dead wrong on almost every one of their contentions, the contentions of the forbearance fundementalists need to be described along side the contentions of the education professionals, without taking sides. When primary sources are cited, what makes them primary is they are particpants in the controversy. Consequently, the conflict of interest vis-a-vis the controversy should be disclosed in the prose. This goes for forbearance fundementalists and education professional assertions alike.

I think this is what the goal of wikipedia founders would be on an artical about a socio-political controversy. ImprobabilityDrive 06:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I contend that by taking the side of the scientists in a socio-political article regarding a controversy involving scientists, it is POV--while taking the side of the scientists on a pseudo-scientific article is NPOV. Again, please read On using primary sources ImprobabilityDrive 07:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you missed it, I undid your changes earlier, but after you justified them, I basically communicated to you to feel free to revert them. I don't want to do it because while I assume you know what your talking about regarding the ICR research, I do not. ImprobabilityDrive 17:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight and POV allegations

Hrafn42,

Regarding this deleting and your comments that "Original was GROSSLY POV & in violation of WP:Undue Weight, in that it ONLY voiced the pro-pseudoscience side. Have replaced it with the Intro to the main article", please be patient. Also, I do plan to go to the other article and fix some errors there. I am not sure if you have read the sources, but I would encourage you to do so before you decide that the presentation is unbalance. Also, you should not just delete my contributions and replace them with another article's contents which may or may not be POV in the other direction. This section needs work, but for you to simply replace it so soon with content from another page seems a bit much. Please work with me to find a NPOV presentation. I am reading the sources, and I hope you do too. By the way, it is not POV to quote Sternberg. He is a reliable source, too. If others disagree with assertion, simply include it. I tried to merge your additions with mine. AGF ImprobabilityDrive 04:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I got your message. I also responded to the talk page of the article in question. ImprobabilityDrive 04:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

“ And I find it interesting that you have not cited a single opinion from the pro-Smithsonian side. Not one! How can this help but present a relentlessly pro-Sternberg section? ”

Can you show me where you have posted an opinion of something other than the evolution side? Please provide some diffs. I'd like to emulate you on this. Also, I am going through the sources. I am characterizing them as I find them. I don't have to read all sources before I contribute. You seem to be only posting pro-smithsonian side. But I'm not complaining, it is bringing balance. Please AGF, and let's work together. ImprobabilityDrive 09:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I added this: "However, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel had no jurisidction because Richard Sternberg's salary was not paid by the Smithsonian, and the investigation was concluded without a fuller response from the Smithsonian." Is that not pro-smithsonian? Let's just keep finding sources and present the information as we find it. ImprobabilityDrive 09:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Patience please

Hrafn42, I responded to your concerns 05:20, 28 April 2007, but afterwards, you already removed the disputed sentences 05:24, 28 April 2007. Four minutes is hardly enough time to address your concerns. Please be patient and work with me. Again, this is a work in progress, and you really should not be removing cited sentences so quickly, IMHO. ImprobabilityDrive 05:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, how close are we from removing the POV tag? Do you think we're close yet? ImprobabilityDrive 08:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

“ Not even close. You are presenting only the pro-Sternberg opinions, and stretching things to present these opinions in the most favourable possible light, while doing your best to minimise issues that would (quite legitimately) reduce the pro-Sternberg sources' credibility (by moving all reference to such to the bottom of the section). It is a blatantly pro-Creationist section. ”

Please assume good faith. I am trying to work with you. I am presenting information that is verifiable. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I have tried to address many of your concerns, and also worked to make the contributions match the verifiable sources. I understand that you have specialist knowledge that I do not have, but I am trying to characterize sources accurately. Also, that you think this is pro-Sternberg is interesting, I will continue to work to balance it. Other independant wikipedians have already said the article was biased, in a different direction, so I guess you can't please everybody. But hopefully you and I can work toward a section that meets wikipedia's objectives. ImprobabilityDrive 08:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Your behavior at Creation-evolution controversy has become disruptive and is totally unacceptable. Per discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hostile_editor_at_Creation-evolution_controversy I am warning you that it needs to cease immediately. Should you fail to head this warning may be blocked from editing without further warning. I suggest you find a less controversial topic to contribute to for a while to let things cool down and focus on contributing in a more productive and less confrontational manner. FeloniousMonk 05:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing the preceding warning. Looking deeper into the issue at that article I'm becoming less convinced that this isn't a simple content dispute, not a behavioral issue. FeloniousMonk 06:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I also have to bring up issues of WP:CIVIL. You need to tone down your language and assume good faith. I find your personally targeted behavior causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Some statements of concern [1], [2], [3], [4]. Continued statements like the ones presented will result in editor review. Morphh ^(talk) 20:08, 01 July 2007 (UTC)

My so-called flawed logic was a matter of opinion, of which I of course disagree. As far as rtc, he does not fit the definition of a troll. He has been around for quite a while and while he may be persistent in debating his thoughts and can sometimes be uncivil himself, he was not deliberate and intentional in attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia. He is working in good faith to make the article better. Your better off not saying anything if he doesn't present anything worth debating. You make direct personal attacks in bold with language that does not help the debate. "Incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress." Your personally directed attacks create greater conflict and stress. I don't mind the article disputes and tough debate but it really starts to change when editors seem to personally attack other editors in disrespectful ways. But perhaps this is more "intellectual masturbation" and you'll tell me where to stick my warning. Anyway... I'm just trying to help out and make a suggestion. It makes little difference to me if you get blocked, in fact, it may make my efforts easier.. so have at it. Morphh ^(talk) 12:43, 02 July 2007 (UTC)

To your point on logic, I never expanded on an argument for the significant minority as I thought the entire point was irrelevant as all the primary proponents of ID are associated with DI and it would be a completely one sided article if DI was dismissed as POV not worth presenting. Since the article is devoted in many respects to those views of DI. This makes DI one of the more significant viewpoints to be present in this article. But back to the significant minority... Certain polls put the figure at 10% of adults in the United States view human beings as "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them". Other polls show higher values. This excludes the percentage of those that believe in some form of creation, which could increase these figures. This, IMO, is a viewpoint held by a significant enough minority and it is easy to name prominent adherents to ID. Maybe my logic is flawed but in my view you weren't just being blunt. Being right or wrong has little to do with regard to my comments. I didn't mean to create a dispute - I only meant to be helpful since you're new to Wikipedia. I rarely interact with editors with such "bluntness" as you put it, so I felt I should comment. Perhaps I was wrong to do so... ID is such a controversial article and disputes can sometimes become heated. No hard feelings I hope. Morphh ^(talk) 22:04, 02 July 2007 (UTC)

AGF

Hi, it seems that you're finding your way around WP:A and WP:NPOV, but it would help greatly if you could assume good faith and work with other editors to get the points you consider important properly cited and shown in the articles in a balanced way. It's best to discuss content on the article talk page so that others can see both sides of the discussion and join in, rather than keeping the whole thing on user talk pages. Also, using bold or CAPITALS in discussions gives the impression of being a bit over-excited, and you'll find that communication works best if such emphasis is avoided as much as possible . Hope you find this helpful, .. dave souza, talk 11:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to me on this, as you'll appreciate the "objective facts" we need for articles must be cited from reliable attributable sources, using secondary sources to avoid any unintentional original research when synthesising information from primary sources. While your concerns about bias are appreciated, be assured that these pages are well watched by many who will take care to ensure that the NPOV policy is fully complied with. .. dave souza, talk 11:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

RfC

I have opened an RfC. Please leave your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ImprobabilityDrive. Arbustoo 05:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Review: Intelligent design

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --FOo 09:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Signs

Please realize that deletion debates are not decided by vote count, but by strength of argument and underlying policies/guidelines (e.g. WP:OCAT). Wikipedia is not a democracy. >Radiant< 14:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Er, no, they weren't rebutted. The document is arguably defined by who signs it, but the people who signed it are not defined by said document. Surely you don't think it's a valid argument to say that policies that have not explicitly been referred to don't apply? >Radiant< 08:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not Kbdank. If Kbdank says something you disagree with, take it up with him. >Radiant< 11:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Please familiarize yourself with our policies on civility and against personal attacks, and do not come to my talk page to wildly accuse other users that disagree with you of incompetence. >Radiant< 12:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
      • "anybody capable of making such a ludicrously baseless claim is in no way competent" is a personal attack. Don't tell me you're unaware of that. Furthermore, there was indeed a consensus in the deletion debate (as I've pointed out before, you're mistaking "consensus" for "headcount") and that the deletion was backed by the relevant policies and guidelines. >Radiant< 12:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
        • In other words, you have run out of valid arguments and start using ad hominems instead. These are considered fallacious for good reason. "I disagree with you therefore you are incompetent" is not conductive to discussion. >Radiant< 13:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

CFD review

I'd hold off on filing a review until FM responds to my request to restore the category based on it being a bogus deletion. Odd nature 17:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

FM said file a CFD review. Odd nature 16:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Be sure to read and follow WP:AADD or Radiant! and his gang will simply discount your comments. Even though its just a bs essay, they seem to think it trumps Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion which says "The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action." and Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus which says nothing about discounting comments made in good faith. Odd nature 17:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Maybe you should check this out Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Raspor (2nd). Orangemarlin 19:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" DRV

I suggest you not respond to every endorsement of deletion at the DRV and try to remain calm and civil. Continued argumentation of that sort will if anything make more people likely to endorse deletion in reaction. JoshuaZ 18:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Note More wild accusations from User:Radiant!

Personal attacks, like you have been making to Kbdank, are not acceptable on Wikipedia. If you persist in such behavior, you will be blocked from editing. Please be more civil in the future. >Radiant< 09:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that Kbdank has recently indulged in taunting directed at me (edit summary to [5]: "Got anything else, or shall we just wait for FeloniousMonk to reply, if he wants?") and specifically invited me to continue a discussion, where I was already pointing out his shortcomings in logic, on his talk page ([6]: "Regardless, I won't bother FeloniousMonk any further. If you wish to continue this, you know where to find my talk page."), I fail to see how two short posts to his talkpage, pointing out the deficiencies of his arguments and comments can be considered a "personal attack" within the scope of WP:NPA, by any stretch of the imagination.

I would also point out that Radiant! is the last person who should be lecturing others on civility, having recently made wild and unfounded accusations against me ([7] "PLEASE NOTE that the nominator has engaged in one-sided canvassing in order to influence and "vote stack" this debate." with an edit summary of "that was predictable").

I would suggest that any administrators acting on accusations from either of these two individuals investigate the matter thoroughly first. Hrafn42 10:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Absurdly enough, Radiant! appears to consider simply complaining about one of their own personal attacks to be a personal attack against them ([8], whose edit summary is "WP:RPA").

I'm also curious as to why I received this spurious warning more than three days after I last had contact with Kbdank. If I was paranoid, I might ascribe this to an attempt at intimidation, rather than a legitimate attempt to modify my interactions with Kbdank. Hrafn42 11:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• You have been blocked for persistent personal attacks and incivility after being warned. Comments such as "if your comprehension skills aren't up to seeing a rough equivalence" and references to "character assassination" are entirely uncalled for. Furthermore, your response above indicates you apprently find such attacks acceptable if you believe "other people are doing it too", which is really not an excuse. >Radiant< 11:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I would think that a reference to "character assassination" was a perfectly reasonable response to an unfounded accusation of canvassing. Hrafn42 11:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I would also think that "if your comprehension skills aren't up to seeing a rough equivalence" is an entirely appropriate response to a reply that exhibited wilful mis-comprehension of one's original argument. Hrafn42 12:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that Radiant!'s:

• unfounded accusation of canvassing; combined with
• a very tardy warning on very thin grounds; and
• a statement that they were going to banblock me (they don't appear to have as yet) simply for offering a defence here against the accusation of violating WP:NPA and leaving a relatively mild comment on the talkpage of a third party (with whom I had previously discussed this matter)...

...is bordering on harassment (WP:HARRASS). Hrafn42 12:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• A block is not a ban. The point is that if you are warned about personal attacks, it is not a good sign to respond by making more personal attacks. What you call a "perfectly reasonable" and "entirely appropriate" response above really isn't - e.g. referring to "character assassination" is not a "relatively mild" comment. Finally, "somebody else is doing it too" is not an excuse for anything. >Radiant< 12:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I would assert that "character assassination" is a "relatively mild" characterisation of behaviour that included AN UNFOUNDED ACCUSATION OF CANVASSING.
  • I would also suggest that your obsessive interest in how I describe your behaviour on the talkpages of (non-complaining) third parties borders on cyber-stalking.

Hrafn42 12:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • I would advise against using legal terms in accusations, unless (which I doubt) you seriously intend legislative action. Just a thought. >Radiant< 12:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • None of my terminology above is exclusive to the legal profession, merely to fairly formal English.
      • Nothing I said even comes close to a threat of legal action ("legislative action" is passing a law).
      • This therefore strikes me as another wild (and in this case garbled) accusation, that does nothing to raise my opinion of you.

Hrafn42 13:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're bored with the Creationist wars

Can you help me out with a whole other series of anti-science articles, starting with List of medicinal herbs. These people are just like the Creationists--if there's no science, rely on faith or spiritual powers. Edit war in an attempt to wear you down. And then attack hard with unsupported claims. Orangemarlin 12:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Radiant's block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hrafn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Radiant! has conducted a campaign of harrassment against me, starting with an unfounded accusation of canvassing, several days ago[12], and then a warning that was both tardy (it was made three days after contact had ceased} and thinly-based, then blocking me for placing information on my talkpage (User_talk:Hrafn42#Note_More_wild_accusations_from_User:Radiant.21) defending myself and commenting on the renewed conflict to another user on their talkpage[13]. Radiant! has made a further unfounded accusation that I threatened them with legal action (typoed to "legislative action")[14]. I feel that this ongoing pattern of actions constitutes harassment within WP:HARRASS

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block, which is your incivility and personal attacks. That someone else may (possibly) have been doing the same to you does not excuse you. — Yamla 14:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The reason given for this decision would appear to be that provocation is irrelevant in deciding incivility, and that it is perfectly acceptable for an admin to make gross personal attacks against an editor and then block that editor when they respond in their defence. This is not "somebody else...doing the same", this is both the accuser and the supposed victim doing it first. I do not agree with this reasoning, even if I must perforce live with the resultant decision. Hrafn42 15:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous block. But relax, and let it pass. If what you did is uncivil, I have no clue why the personal attacks in the same discussion by certain others who were diametrically opposed to your view were allowed to attack away. Orangemarlin 15:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that I've got little choice but to "let it pass", but I'll be damned if I'll let it pass unnoticed. Hrafn42 16:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gnixon

Since you have been subject to some of this editors civility issues, you might want to comment. Orangemarlin 17:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Gnixon

Oddly enough, as far as I can tell, Gnixon is just about the only Creationist POV-pusher who I haven't clashed with (at least I can't remember any clashes, and none come up on a quick search). I dare say Gnixon is just as charming as the rest of that breed, but I don't have anything specific to bring to the RfC. Thanks for the tip though. :) Hrafn42 17:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You know that's actually enough. The RfC isn't just about any personal battles, but it also has to do with POV-pushing. Orangemarlin 19:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

An experiment on summarizing support and dissent information

Can be found in my sandbox page at User talk:Filll/supportsummary2. Any comments you might have would be welcome.--Filll 13:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

d'Abrera

I wrote to the Natural History Museum and they had no record of him and were contacting the archive department I guess to see what they know. Hmm...interesting...We will see what they turn up.--Filll 16:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

email address

Set up your email address here. I have something for you.--Filll 00:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the Matter?

Does your blood boil? Does your heart pound? Are you gasping for breath?

What is it about your sensitivity that causes you to behave in such and easily-triggered and off-balance manner?

You act as if you care not a whit for anyone but yourself.

Is it just an act? Or is that your innate character?

Moulton 11:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

But wallop hair stylists. They add another word! They become ninjas. Another five dogwoods creakingly grope my capitalism and another blowfish-dirigible. The less your yellow deltoid-pansy coo pon dat bwoy, the less dish rag-cocktail vivaciously crusified nurse without my outside assholes and one more many more hot wings! Recall that congruous asylum-enigma chaotically behooves zero mostel and hydrogenated monsieur-sleeve. They bling bling. Collect. The less a hortaculture addict's fipsidoodle-dances gasp, the less they iambolliwood63 one more oater-cantaloupe people and johnson from another day traders and my capitalism! The less they eat puppies, the less they stew.

One more ringtone will are crazy. Or it's better to liar liar house on fire than count on damned. The less dish rag-cocktail iambolliwood63 mister trapper keeper and canada, the less the warped termite-rock-monster encloses ferret face-like miss none.

They won't masticate vehemently. They age. Dish rag-cocktail and hydrogenated monsieur-sleeve and another five lemmings and list of asian porn movies-like cranium and decapatated desire carjacked miss none!

The less willy conquers bulbous iambolliwood63, the less dish rag-cocktail gatorbates. Corrupt enforcer-archeology impoverishes cellos. They did not unite. Or one more ringtone courts giblets and my capitalism without arse biscuit-like toilets and another copilot and one more wisk-like polish high jumpers and women and protector's contradistinctive none-civilizations and smart cruller. But they call me mellow yellow. Hrafn42 12:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Common Interests of Troubled and Conflicted Souls

I see that you're idly floating speculative theories again, with another of your legendary flights of fancy. Rather than speculate without the benefit of evidence and reasoning, why don't you interview me to discover the nature and extent of my interest in troublesome (and troubled) individuals such as yourself.

Are you a curious and courageous enough adventure writer to discover the unrevealed truth, or do you prefer to remain safely ensconced in a cocoon of child-like self-delusion, anonymity and utterindifference to the tragic harm caused by blindly acting out one's innermost fantasies?

Rest assured, I am becoming increasing familiar with your legendary and oft-disclosed lack of caring, which seems to be a recurring issue in your life and recently published remarks.

And I appreciate that your dreadfully provocative remarks elsewhere may well be a transparent attempt to solicit the kind of caring that you apparently crave.

You have a keen sense of awareness of those who respond with a tiny measure of empathy and compassion to your repeated (dare I say desperate?) cries for attention.

So it appears you've chosen me as your antagonist, respondent, and reluctant mentor. So be it. I'm flattered.

Not that I'm necessarily up to the task, but I'll give it a decent college try. Of course I fully expect to fail. I don't yet have the level of competence required to discover how to work and play cooperatively with individuals of your unfamiliar stripe.

Let's begin by crafting a mutually-agreeable social contract setting forth the protocols of our budding and potentially troubled relationship.

What are your desires and objectives for this unfolding relationship?

Do you prefer comedy, tragedy, or bildungsroman?

Do you prefer functional or dysfunctional relationship?

Do you prefer highly emotional or emotionally subdued scenes in our continuing soap opera?

Moulton 12:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere...

A serious young man from New Zealand found the conflicts of early 21st Century America perplexing. He went to many people seeking a way of resolving within himself the discords that troubled him, but he remained disturbed.

One night in an online coffee house, a self-ordained Zen Master named Moulton said to him, "Go to the dilapidated mansion you will find at the URL which I have written down for you. Do not speak to those who dwell there; you must remain silent until the Moonbeam's students arise. Go to the large parlor on the right of the main hallway, sit in the lotus position on top of the rubble in the northeast corner, stand humbly in the corner, and meditate."

He did just as the Moultonic Zen Master instructed. His meditation was frequently interrupted by worries, anxieties, and the occasional Bombesin rush. He worried whether or not the rest of the plumbing fixtures would tumble from the second floor toilet to join the pipes and other debris he was sitting on. He worried how would he know when Moonbeam's students arose for their next blogfest on Ethics in Journalism. He worried about what the people who walked through the room said about him. Man, I tell you, this guy had spilkes.

His worrying and meditation were disturbed when, as if in a test of his faith, courage, and personal integrity, Moulton's provocative responses fell from the upper stories onto him. At that time two Wikipedia editors blithely sauntered into the scene. The first asked the second who the man was sitting there was. The second replied "Some say he is a holy man. Others say he is a shithead."

Hearing this, the troubled young man became enlightened, if only for a brief instant of cosmic time.

--Adapted from: Hrafn42 12:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton 12:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The subject of idly floating speculative theories has been covered intensively by the world press over the past decade. At one stage or another, every man woman or child will be faced with the issue of idly floating speculative theories. While much has been written on its influence on contemporary living, its influence on western cinema has not been given proper recognition. Since it was first compared to antidisestablishmentarianism much has been said concerning idly floating speculative theories by the upper echelons of progressive service sector organisations, who just don't like that sort of thing. With the primary aim of demonstrating my considerable intellect I will now demonstrate the complexity of the many faceted issue that is idly floating speculative theories.

As Reflected in classical mythology society is complicated. When Thucictholous said 'people only know one thing' he borrowed much from idly floating speculative theories. Much has been said about the influence of the media on idly floating speculative theories. Observers claim it helps to provide some sort of equilibrium in this world of ever changing, always yearning chaos.

Of paramount importance to any study of idly floating speculative theories within its context, is understanding the ideals of society. Society says that every man must find their own truth. While one sees idly floating speculative theories, another may see monkeys playing tennis.

The dictionary defines economics as 'the social science concerned with the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services'. We shall examine the Watkis-Teeth-Pulling model, a complex but ultimately rewarding system.

It is apparent from the graph that the influence of idly floating speculative theories is strong. What is the secret to its strength? In spite of the best efforts of The World Bank the cost of living looms over idly floating speculative theories this cannot be a coincidence. A sharp down turn in middle class investment may lead to changes in the market.

Machiavellian politics is rife. Are our leaders justified in pursuing and maintaining political power? Comparing the electoral politics of most Western and Eastern European countries is like comparing idly floating speculative theories now, and its equivalent in the 1800s.

To quote award winning journalist Francis Rock 'People in glass houses shouldn't through parties.' I couldn't have put it better my self. When it comes to idly floating speculative theories this is clearly true. It would be wise to approach the subject with the thought that 'if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all'. However this can lead to missing out important facts. The question which we must each ask ourselves is, will we allow idly floating speculative theories to win our vote?

In conclusion, idly floating speculative theories has, and will continue to be a major building block for the world in which we live. It brings peace, provides financial security and most importantly it perseveres.

One final thought from the talented Britney Hendrix: 'I would say without a shadow of a doubt: idly floating speculative theories ROCKS!!! Hrafn42 12:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)