Talk:Transhumanism/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Julian Huxley supports Coercive Eugenics

Dear Loremaster, The article is biased because it is trying to make transhumanism something it is not. Specifically, why is there no mention in this transhumanism article that Julian Huxley was an open, avid, vocal and published supporter of state sponsored coercive eugenics, selective breeding and racial-religious eugenics communities? Why has this fact that the man who invented the term transhumanism was a supporter of WWII racial eugenics been left out? Why have their been attempts to hijack the term transhumanism away from eugenics, when the man who invented supported eugenics so deeply and publically? I ask this with genuine concern and sincerity for making sure this article is not biased. Dnagod 20:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*sigh* It's quite simple, Dnagod. This article isn't about Huxley's transhumanism but More's transhumanism. Furthermore, this article is about apolitical, secular and modern transhumanism. There is nothing wrong with mentioning the original definition that Huxley had for transhumanism. However, unless his beliefs about eugenics (or cosmology for that matter) are integral to his definition, there is no need to mention them since this article is about transhumanism not Huxley. Loremaster 22:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Can someone please find and post here (in the Talk:Transhumanism page) Huxley's concise definition of transhumanism so we can debate it before including it in the Transhumanism article? Loremaster 23:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Does this help? [1] SlimVirgin 23:22, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Loremaster, you are NOT paying attention, you are not comprehending the point I am making. So let me try again. Julian Huxley was an open, avid, published and vocal supporter of eugenics. Julian Huxley created the word transhumanism to describe an ideology of human transformation to higher states, this transformation includes EUGENICS, and infact it could be said that at the time the only possible vision of human transformation that was in reach was EUGENICS and possibly human genetic engineering. The point Im trying to make, is that you go out of your way to hide the fact that Julian Huxley was a eugenicist and that transhumanism includes eugenics, saying eugenics is counter to transhumanism, because a man named James Hughes says eugenics is incompatible with transhumanism does not make it so. A jewish ethnocentrist James Hughes is a self-defined post-marxist socialist (his description not mine) and has no right, along with you, to hijack the term transhumanism. If you want to write an article on Max More, write one on extropy, which he founded. But what your doing is lying, its BOLD FACE LYING, distortion, dishonesty, falsehood, and deception. What your doing is the equivilent of a Neo-Nazi in modern times saying National Socialism no longer holds racial views or animosity towards jews. Its exactly the same thing, you hijack a word and then bend it towards your own agenda. You have hijacked transhumanism and changed its meaning to exclude eugenics, when the man who invented made the central theme of his life bioscience, eugenics, eugenic community planning, selective breeding, etc....
FACT: Transhumanism is and was founded around the concepts of EUGENICS, by a man who was an open, avid, vocal and public supporter of EUGENICS, sterilization etc... FACT. You obviously HAVE NOT done your home work on the origins of transhumanism and the man who invented the word. You are biased, you have an agenda, you have distorted transhumanism to exclude eugenics. This article is BIAS. FACT. These links are valid to be listed under manifesto, but you and the jewish ethnocentrist (not insult, just fact) slimvirgin keep censoring these VALID LINKS. These are VALID TRANSHUMAN LINKS. Please note my capitalization is not screaming, but meant for emphasis. Please also note, i am not making personal attacks or personal insults, Im just stating facts. Dnagod 01:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Transhumanism, like millions of other words, terms and expressions are redefined again and again throughout history. I've included Huxley's definition of the term in the article. However, this article is not about him, his views or his definition of transhumanism. It's about the modern meaning and usage of the term as defined by More. It's completely hilarious and disingeneous for someone like Dnagod who is actively promoting ideologies and websites to accuse anyone of having an agenda. Since a section was created to include some of these controversial links as a compromise to avoid a dispute, the accusation of censorship is invalid. By the way, labeling someone as a "jewish ethnocentrist" is not only irrelevant but needlessly inflammatory. Dnagod's bigotry is beyond transparency and there is no room for it on any Wikipedia page. Loremaster 17:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
For the record: First, James Hughes has traced more than 5000 of my ancestors and the results are about 40% German, 10% German Swiss, 10% French Huguenot, and 40% Britain and Wales. There are no Jews in the lot, his parents were born Methodist and converted to the atheist Unitarian-Universalism that they raised him in. Second, Hughes is an internationalist. So the accusation that he is a Jewish ethnocentrist is absurd and exposes the accuser as a pathological anti-semite.
I agree. Loremaster has already compromised and has been more than fair. BTW, Dnagod has been blocked for violating 3RR. SlimVirgin 19:07, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
The above is unfortunate. This page must be about all forms of transhumanism, not only the sort you prefer. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As I've explained, this isn't an issue of personal preference. the legitimacy of some ideologies as being transhumanist is disputed, this is why as a compromise we created a section for them. Loremaster 14:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Could you please describe, explain ane elucidate as to who has the authority to dispute transtopianism and prometheism as not being transhuman? Although these web sites have links to politically incorrect web sites, the information on their web sites if viewed with an apolitical view point are clearly and undisputedly transhuman / transhumanism web sites. You seem to make the same repetative arguement that transhumanism is based in humanism, yet I have not seen anything regarding the written information on these web sites which goes against humanism. Furthermore, the entire transhumanism article should be disputed for neutrality as the article comes off as being a central rehash of the very political WTA's view on transhumanism. This does not mean that there are not alternative views included, it is just that there seems to be a very exclusitory tone to the discussion and development of this article which very closely mimics WTA political statements regarding so called "disputed" transhuman groups.
I have already answered all these questions and refuted all these charges. I am not going to repeat myself to someon who chooses to remain anonymous Loremaster 17:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As long as you admit you (or they) rewrote history, be honest here dont dodge this. Or does that how it works, someone invents and idea or concept, then 25 years later someone rewrites its meaning. I still don't get how Transhumanism can be against eugenics when the man who invented the word supported eugenics. I just find that to be almost arrogantly silly. Come out and say it, the idea surrounding transhumanism has been rewritten by people who are against eugenics. The best analogy I have heard is someone changing National Socialism to mean kosher cooking, and that it stands, because it become the predominant view. I dont buy it. Elaborate please with out dodging? Is this an issue of one or two people rewriting a terms meaning? Dr. Hughes, if I am not mistaken got to rewrite the meaning of Transhumanism as rooted in humanism, or was Huxley a humanist? Where is the evidence that Transhumanism is rooted in humanism, where is the source of this? Huxley? or James Hughes? Dariodario 13:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dariodario, I am getting tired of your accusations and having to repeat myself: First of all, transhumanism, like millions of other words and concepts are defined and redefined again and again throughout history. Huxley's definition, which is included in the article, was not widely accepted nor used in academic circles or by the public at large. Whether or not Julian Huxley was a humanist is completely irrelevant, post-humanist and transhumanist discourses emerged to expose the limitations of the traditional humanist project. Contrary to what some people here believe, theses discourses are not outright repudiations of humanism itself but efforts emerging out of humanism, a moving on from humanism, which still remains as a point of departure. The word "transhumanism" itself implies "beyond humanism". Max More is one of many philosophers who contributed to these discourses. He is one of many sources. 2. Old, authoritarian and racialist eugenics was pseudo-scientific and anti-humanistic. It is therefore incompatible with modern transhumanism which is rooted in science and humanism. By the way, although German fascists called themselves "National Socialists" they were not socialists because their political beliefs and practices were at odds with socialism. Loremaster 16:28, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Citation requested

Some critics, including most transhumanists disapprove of the emergence of Piercian cosmotheism, prometheism, and transtopianism at the far-right fringe of the movement.

Who says your POV is the majority, and the other POV is fringe? I'd say all transhumanists are pretty "fringe". (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This sentence is actually the result of a radical editing by Shaefer in Nov 2004 of something I had written. My original phrasing would be much better. That being said, transhumanism is a fringe movement. However, there are currents in and outside the fringes of the movement itself. Therefore, disputed would be a less confusing and more accurate qualifier than fringe after all. Thank you for making me realize this. Loremaster 17:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think you should simply make it clear that the term is used by Nazi groups (everything recent I've seen seems to be Piercean, actually), and cite an expert transhumanist distancing themself from Nazism. I understand there is a very real distinction between a cyborg enthusiast or someone intent on conscious evolution and a Nazi, but we can't use turns of phrase like "most transhumanists" without some kind of survey or census (and I'm quite certian that won't be forthcoming). The total population of transhumanists is surely very small, and it wouldn't suprise me if Piercean Nazi's are a signifigant portion of the community. I'd suspect they are the single largest organizaed group, for example. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Your suspicions notwithstanding, you need to produce evidence of that if you want to state or imply it in the article. SlimVirgin 22:10, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Who are you talking to, and what about? I am disputing:
"Some critics, including most transhumanists disapprove of the emergence of Piercian cosmotheism, prometheism, and transtopianism at the far-right fringe of the movement."
and asking for a citation. I'm not looking to place my musings in the article, I'm looking to remove the original research of others. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I was referring to your sentence saying you suspect the neo-Nazis are the single largest organized group. As I wrote, if you want to state or imply that in the article, you'll need a source. As for a citation for the above, there's material from James Hughes online where he distances transhumanism from the white supremacists. SlimVirgin 13:05, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
I don't want to state that in the article, because I have no proof of it. If you'd like to cite James Hughes distancing himself from white supremacists, go ahead, but I don't think its required. The current wording is acceptable, and doesn't claim to speak for "most" of anybody, which is always good.
BTW, I think there ought to be more content on Nazi-esque transhumanism than the blurb about it being disputed under Transhumanism#Moral_criticisms. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:19, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean. I wrote: IF you want to insert x, you will need a source. You responded by saying you didn't want to insert x, but were disputing "some critics, including most transhumanists, disapprove of the emergence of . . . " because you felt it might be original research. I therefore suggested James Hughes as a source for that sentence. Now you respond by saying there's no need for a source and the sentence is fine as it is. You have therefore lost me. But it doesn't matter. In response to your final point, I would say that whatever prometheism is, it doesn't appear to be transhumanism, so the onus is on you to show that it is transhumanism if you want to discuss the white supremacists' views in this article. Just because someone like Dnagod uses the word doesn't mean he's using it appropriately. Given his statements to the VfD, he is not a credible source and nor is the website that he runs. SlimVirgin 13:33, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Have a look at the article. The content I was complaining about is no longer there. Ergo there is no longer a pressing need to cite it. As far as prometheism et all, see [2]
Also, I ask you not to make personal attacks against Dnagod or organizations which he may or may not be a member of. Attack the argument, not the person. Beware of fallacies like Reductio_ad_Hitlerum. Preserve intellectual honesty and logical rigour at all costs. Thats why were here, thats the wikipedia philosophy. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, I believe that is Dnagod's website. -Willmcw 14:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Why? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Because. [3][4] ;) -Willmcw 03:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
All these websites are Dnagod's. There's prometheism, euvolution, the third one mentioned in external links in this article, and there are a few others, for which he's the webmaster and domain name owner. The evidence is too complicated to explain here, but he's linked via a number of names, IDs, e-mail addresses, IP addresses, and mailing addresses he has used elsewhere. When told he was the owner, he admitted it and argued it was irrelevant. SlimVirgin 22:10, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Don't believe everything people tell you. I think he was saying hypothetically speaking so what if he wrote those sites and where including them as they are valid. You then attacked him instead of the value of the sites and said no self promotion. Which is a big joke, as everyone does self promoting here, even you. All your major contributions are a mirror of your interests, just like everyone else. Everyone promotes, writes and contributes on stuff they are interested, not stuff they arent - for the most part. Be good. Dariodario 13:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Dnagod wouldn't know an argument if he stepped on one in the street, and he's not just a member of these organizations, he runs the websites, and the websites seem to be all that exists. Read his parting comment to the VfD on Conscious Evolution to see why he's been blocked indefinitely. I would hope you'd distance yourself from those remarks. I repeat: he is not a credible source for Wikipedia and nor are any of the websites associated with him. SlimVirgin 14:01, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

You don't seem to be getting the point about logic, fallacies, intellectual honesty and rigour. Have a look @ Reductio_ad_Hitlerum, ad hominem, wikipedia:no personal attacks, etc... (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I do very much get it. Someone who forwards posts to Usenet that Jews deliberately caused Aids, and who believes that white people (like Dnagod!) are the most advanced beings on the planet; that Wikipedia is the memory of God becoming; and that the "self-chosen illuminated members of the sentient" are evolving toward divinity, is not a credible source for Wikipedia. There's nothing fallacious about exploring the consequences of a person's stated beliefs. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't keep trying to teach me about types of argument as I studied philosophy for seven years. SlimVirgin 22:10, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
No one questions your study of philosophy, they question the unfortunate fact you attack peoples motives who makes contributions and additions, and not actually discuss or rationally question the specific additions and contributions themselves. Wikipedia is about the validity of NPOV regarding information and knowledge, not the individuals personal views. The reason is that every human being on earth has his own agenda and political views, thus the best solution is to allow and consider all POVs - even the ones we disagree with. Philosophy requires that you be able to step outside of yourself and consider alternative view points, even if ultimately you do not agree with those alternative view points. Playing the Hitler card is a very unfortunate distraction based in irrational emotion which pervents and takes away considerably from the validity and credibility of enabling a NPOV on wikipedia. Consider striving to focus on the content, and not obsess on the personal political views of people who disagree with you. User: (sig added by (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC))
Oh come on, Sam, what would a rational discussion about the self-chosen illuminated members of the sentient look like? Philosophy doesn't involve stepping outside oneself to consider points of view; it involves the weighing of competing arguments, or is supposed to. Not the same thing at all when done properly. SlimVirgin 05:44, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Thats not me your talking to SV, altho he is largely right. A bit more emphasis on citations and verifiability, and less room for original research (since this is an encyclopedia, after all...), and I'd agree w what he said completely. Philosophy involves consideration of all sorts of ridiculous POVs, like Solipsism for example.
Oh, and hey anon, would you like to form a user account? Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Slimvirgin, you can't be so dopey to think he actually wrote those sites. I think he was saying hypothetically speaking so what if he wrote those sites, they are still valid. You then attacked him instead of the value of the sites he included. dont be dopey. yes, philosophy requires being able to think in alternative perspectives and consider them from their frame of view. Dariodario 13:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am a Transhumanist who rejects Humanism

I consider myself a transhumanist, because I believe in using science, emerging technologies and reason to over come human limitations, but I am not a humanist because humanism conflicts with my political view points of objectivism, Randism and Libertarianism. Having spent 4 years visiting transhuman conferences, meeting and events, speaking with hundreds of people and studying a wide range of transhuman books, articles and essays, it is clear to me that only a small percentage of Transhumanists actually believe in humanism. I believe based on rationalism and NPOV the article as it exists is heavily biased towards a humanist and left of center political agenda and does not reflect a NPOV of transhumanism which is transformation using technology. This article is biased and has an agenda which is obtuse from NPOV transhumanism. Loremaster, I think you mean well, but you are clearly biased and lacking in developing an NPOV through your excusitory practices and censorship of alternative view points Dariodario 13:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but your going to need some citations and references. See what you can come up with and post them here or in the article, along with your edits. Glad to have you, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A transhumanist who rejects humanism?!? STOP THE PRESSES! What's next? A Catholic Christian that rejects the authority of the current Pope!?! There is and will aways be a difference between the principles of transhumanism and the personal views of some or most transhumanists as there is between the principles of Marxism and the personal views of some or most Marxists. Please try to not confuse the two. Anyway, I am not biased. I am simply trying to make this article as concise, accurate and neutral as possible. Since a section was created to include some of these disputed links as a compromise to avoid a dispute, the accusation of censorship is invalid.Loremaster 20:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree that you are no longer attempting to censor (and am still quite thankful), but I also feel that the articles emphasis on humanist transhumanism is unfounded, not the least of which being that the term is not rooted in the ideology of humanism, but rather merely in the concept of being human. Many are "transhumanist" in the sense of desiring to promote human evolution, and their ability to think outside the box (the box in this case being a widespread assumption that humans are done evolving). This definition of the term is quite different from the specific organization that has become the theme of this article. I feel this article should be split into several articles describing aspects and groupings of transhumanism, with one, much shorter central article, neutrally summarizing each variation, and what they have in common. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The emphasis of the article is not on humanist transhumanism as opposed to non-humanist transhumanism. Transhumanism is an extention of humanism due to reasons explained in the Overview section of the article and later expanded upon in following sections. Although the Extropy Institute and the WTA used to be the theme of the article, it hasn't been for a long time after several major edits. Regardless, I think creating a Currents within transhumanism section will be enough to resolves this issue. Loremaster 22:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Clearly I and many others disagree with the "Overview" section on this point, and with the tone and focus of the article generally. A "currents within transhumanism" section might help, but the answer will likely need to be the creating of a series of articles, with this being a far more general and neutral hub. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sam, two points. First, who are the many others who disagree? Second, please bear in mind that any additional information on "currents within transhumanism" must come from credible sources, not tiny minorities like Dnagod and his personal websites. He cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia. SlimVirgin 00:42, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Both those questions have a similar answer, and I don't see my struggling to convince you of it as beneficial here. Let it suffice to say that we disagree on various assessments, as well as philosophically, that this talk page and the archives contain the answers to the first question you pose, and that with the wikipedia being a primary source of information on transhumanism [5],[6], your personal opinions notwithstanding, is among the sources on this subject. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 07:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to be dense, but I didn't understand your answer. I don't see many people objecting, which is why I asked you, and I can only repeat that Dnagod is not a credible source, and that's not a question of my personal opinion. As I said elsewhere, but I don't think you answered it, I could today set up a website dedicated to the new slimvirginism movement, then tomorrow start a Wikipedia article about that movement using my website as a source. It's not on. If you want to use Dnagod's websites as sources, you're going to have to show that he's a well-known theorist/practitioner (or whatever) of transhumanism, and that his websites are respected. SlimVirgin 08:29, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Clearly was produced by a well known practicioner of transhumanism. They have a chain of well made websites on the subject. If that sites creator was or was not ever a wikipedian is not relevant, IMO. Maybe you should compare the alexa rating to other such sites? If you are searching for an expert, most transhumanist sites are utterly lacking in that regard. Frankly I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with anybody other than Max More. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The issue is whether or not transtopianism and prometheism are disputed offshoots of transhumanism (which they cleary are). The quality and quantity of websites one guy has on the subject is irrelevant. Regarless, that link is in article so this is a non-issue. Loremaster 15:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My girlfriend is a Christian and she heavily participates in the Catholic church and choir. However she believes Jesus' resurrection is a metaphor and didn't literally happen. She sees it as a metaphor of man becoming reborn from ignorance, becoming new and living towards a better purpose. She loves the bible, reads the stories and participates heavily in the catholic church. She considers herself a christian and so does everyone else who knows her including me.
You are missing the point, anonymous. It doesn't matter what your girlfriend believes. What matters is the dominant definition of Catholic Christianity not what some fringe Catholic Christians believe. The same goes for transhumanists. Loremaster 14:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I consider myself a transhumanist, but I think humanism is the biggest bunch of superstitious hog wash completely incompatible with my political views based in science, reason, libertarianism, randism and objectivism. I look at things like post-modernism and humanism as dark stains on human thought. I am a transhumanist who rejects humanism. My belief is using science and technology to overcome human limitations, not humanism. In fact Humanism seems incompatible with transhumanism, as transhumanism seeks to over come humanity and become something completely new and better - post human. Humanism is not rooted in anything scientific, humanism is the same in my mind as dogmatic illogical revealed religions and superstition. Most of the transhumanists I know agree on this issue. I still consider myself a transhuman and for years I have been going to transhuman events and everyone I meet and know would swear under pain of death that I am a true transhumanist. Humanism and Transhumanism are incompatible, I'm sorry to burst your bubble here, but give it consideration. Dariodario 09:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As a critical thinker, you should be the fist one to admit that this is your humble opinion and interpretation unless you are claiming to be an expert on transhumanism and humanism. Keep in mind, no one is arguing that transhumanism is humanism but only that the former is partly derived from the latter. Loremaster 14:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would like to see more discussion of this with not just notes, but to explain these connections. Its not enough to say it, but explain how this is so. I would really like to hear your thoughts on this. Maybe this isnt the place for that though. Dariodario 13:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Post-humanist and transhumanist discourses emerged to expose the limitations of the traditional humanist project. Contrary to what some people here believe, theses discourses are not outright repudiations of humanism itself but efforts emerging out of humanism, a moving on from humanism, which still remains as a point of departure. The word "transhumanism" itself implies "beyond humanism". Max More is one of many philosophers who contributed to these discourses. Loremaster 16:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Disputed offshoots

Hello Transhumanism Editor Team. I have spent a significant amount of time on the Transtopian web site and IMHO found it to be one of those progressive, reasonable and well thought out transhumanism web sites. However I don't necessarily agree with its radical form of libertarianism and individualism. It does seem to be entirely focused on over coming human limitations and personal empowerment. What I would like to know why it is considered a disputed off shoot? I have yet to here a coherent arguement that is not based in personal bias on the issue. It is not clear to me why there is an urge to push this popular and successful movement to the fringe of the transhumanism movement in this very biased Article on Transhumanism. I have also signed up for all the discussion forums from the various Transhumanism organizations (for quite some time now) WTA, Extropy and Transtopianism, discovering that the forum with the most activity and the highest number of active members was on the transtopianism forum. How is it that a supposidly fringe organization is so popular among transhumanists? Dariodario 08:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dariodario, which websites are you talking about that you feel are not disputed off-shoots, and which discussion groups have you signed up for? It would also be helpful if you could say which user names you've signed under, so we can verify you are not Dnagod, as your writing is somewhat similar to his. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 08:06, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
First of all, I agree with SlimVirgin. Second, as I explained before, the issue is not one mainstream versus fringe or the quality of a website or the number of users in a discussion forum. There is a dispute within the transhumanist community and among contributors to the Wikipedia article on transhumanism about the legitimacy of various offshots due to some holding views that are judged incompatible with the humanistic and scientific roots of transhumanism. Rather than censoring them, a section was created to include links to the websites of these offshots, which mentions the fact that the legitimacy continues to be in a dispute. Any reasonable person would agree that this a fact that should be known. Loremaster 15:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Could you please explain how these web sites which are clearly transhumanism web sites are in dispute over their incompatibility with humanism? This seems like a topic you have dodged and not answered based on what I have seen in these discussions. I would like perfect clarity on how it is that these disputed sites are incompatible with humanism. Something tells me this isn't about humanism, but about the tolerance of politically incorrect racial views held by some of these sites. Please provide clarity. Dariodario 11:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The legitimacy of an ideology as an offshot of transhumanism would be disputed if it holds views that are imcompatible with the scientific and humanistic roots of transhumanism. Racist, racialist or/and old eugenicist views would be good examples but irrationalist and regressive views would be good ones as well. However, the so-called political incorrectness of these views is not the issue. It's the fact that they are both pseudo-scientific and anti-humanistic. Censorship would be the complete exclusion of a mention of these disputed offshots and their links. This is clearly not the case since a section was created to include them. Loremaster 17:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Totally debateable regarding eugenics, racism and racialism. If a bunch of high IQ people from china want to start a transhuman club for only High IQ chinese people, and use their basis as a starting point for over coming human limitations and exclude round eye'd europeans, there is nothing to say they are not transhuman if they practice eugenics or genetic engineering exclusively among themselves and do not allow non-chinese in their baseline. The same goes for any group of people. Eugenics is selective breeding, it was what turned the wild siberian wolf dog from a dangerous animal into a docile animal in 1 century of selective breeding. What arrogance to think eugenics wouldn't work on humans. It's slow as all heck, but it doesnt invalidate it. Sorry to burst your bubble, but eugenics is going on all the time, people tend to be attracted to other people who tend to be physically fit, good looking (symetrical features) and have wealth. Eugenics is going on all around us, people choose their mates based on their traits and attributes. Personal and voluntary eugenics are not incompatible with transhumanism, what are you suggesting random arranged marriages? that is only your opin. Higher evolution will not occur on one vector, there will be many vectors. There will be socialist vectors, fascist vectors, racialist vectors, multicultural vectors, and that is the reality. To say transhumanism only encompasses multicultural vectors and excludes others is total political BS. If transhumanists only want to breed exclusively with other transhumanists (eugenics) you have no right to say its incompatible with transhumanism. If white racist transhumanists only want to breed with other white transhumanists, you cant say they arent transhumanists. If white transhumanists only want to use genes commonly found in the white genepool to genetically modify themselves you cant say they arent transhumanists. Thats pigheaded. Its wrong. Its false. Its your opin. It has no validity. Your agenda really comes through here. sorry loremaster, but you are wrong. Dariodario 13:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dariodaro, everything you just said is nothing more than your point of view. You are free to express it but it has no place in the article itself. Loremaster 17:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Good questions which have not been answered. Does transhumanism in "your version" (loremaster) or the supposid "widely held version" of transhumanism only allow multicultural vectors and only multiculturalists to be transhumanists? Can only multiculturalist post-humanists who support human transformation through science and technology be transhumanists? What if multiculturalists transhumanists only want selectively breed themselves to reproduce with other multiculturalist transhumanists exclusively, are they practicing selective breeding eugenics and does that exclude them from being transhumanists if they want to start an organization? What if a group of (insert your political party) transhumanists agree to only and exclusively reproduce with other (same political party) transhumanists are they practicing eugenics and thus no longer transhumanists? What if Jewish transhumanists only want to selectively breed themselves producing only with other jewish transhumanists to preserve their social, cultural, or genetic distinctness - is this against transhumanism? They form a club, are they now disputed because they don't want others to contaminate their vector? I know many Jewish transhumanists who will only marry and reproduce with other Jews, are they now disputed as transhumanists? Tchardin 03:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Since you write and sound like Dariodario under another user name, I will not engage in this debate that is become increasing tangential and absurd. Loremaster 04:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Where does this idea about humanist roots come from? Do you have a cite on that? Is Max More a humanist, for example? Or Julian Huxley? Where is the humanist, and what about humanism led to transhumanism. Obviously its clear to me that there is little or no connection. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not Max More or Julian Huxley are humanists is irrelevant, post-humanist and transhumanist discourses emerged to expose the limitations of the traditional humanist project. Contrary to what some people here believe, theses discourses are not outright repudiations of humanism itself but efforts emerging out of humanism, a moving on from humanism, which still remains as a point of departure. Max More is one of many philosophers who contributed to this discourse. You can read his key essay on this subject here. Loremaster 19:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What would make a transhumanist movement one that would be in dispute or a disputed offshoot? Is it that it lacks in humanism, or is it because of its politically incorrect racial views which it tolerates. I was under the impression the censorship in this topic transhumanism of so called disputed transhuman or offshoot sites had to do with with these sites lacking in humanism. Having clearly reviewed the history and censorship of certain topics and web sites, these disputed sites don't seem to lack in humanism, but have questionable racial views tolerated. Would you please provide clarity on this topic regarding the connection of humanism and dispute. I have read the archives and like others who have brought these issues up on here, I do not understand the nature of censorship in this topic other than it being agenda based. Dariodario 11:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As I said in the section above, the legitimacy of an ideology as an offshot of transhumanism would be disputed if it holds views that are imcompatible with the scientific and humanistic roots of transhumanism. Racist, racialist or/and old eugenicist views would be good examples but irrationalist and regressive views would be good ones as well. However, the so-called political incorrectness of these views is not the issue. It's the fact that they are both pseudo-scientific and anti-humanistic. Censorship would be the complete exclusion of a mention of these disputed offshots and their links. This is clearly not the case since a section was created to include them. Loremaster 17:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dariodario, you might want to read Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. What these make clear is that, although minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, if a view is held by a tiny minority, it is not welcome. What this means in practice is that Einstein's views on relativity are welcome, but my Auntie Gladys's are not. Material published in Wikipedia must to some extent have entered the public domain; be recognized by experts on the subject, and so on. The websites you're referring to are run by one anonymous person who is a white supremacist, and who holds views that are not compatible with transhumanism. Even if the latter were not the case, it would still be a bunch of websites run by one anonymous person, and for that reason they can't be used as sources in Wikipedia. Loremaster has already agreed to include a reference to them, which is more than generous. There's probably no point in discussing the issue further, as we're all just repeating ourselves. SlimVirgin 04:16, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Loremaster, It was like pulling teeth and climbing a mountain with my bare hands to finally get a straight, dodge-free and direct answer from you. What can I say but thank you, thank you, thank you! I don't understand what the reservation was about being honest regarding your political and social views on race. Don't be shy man, just be honest and open about your views! Set yourself free, we all already know where you stand on these issues and you werent shy in the past, so there is no need to hide this fact and be shy now. The dispute here is over racial views, not overcoming human limitations using science and technology! This was what I was trying to get you to directly say - cut to the chase man - so it would be out in the open and we could discuss it and flesh it out. Thank you for coming out of the closet on this issues, doesn't it feel good? Be free man, be free. Why are we wasting 5,000 words, to just say something that can be quantified in 19. Life is short man, and we dont have immortality yet, so lets not waste it.
Now, to rehash the painful, after reading endless discussion and questions on this, you finally answer the question, which no offense, you and others have been dodging it.
So lets break this down, because I feel really good you finally stopped all the muttering and nonsense side step avoidence talk. The logic goes something like this: Transhumanism is based in humanism, because these disputed sites allow discussion on racial issues or even hold politically incorrect racial views, and because (you believe) racial issues are thus incompatible with humanism, when humanism is based on science. My God! Why couldnt you have just answered this question which was asked by several others and asked over and over and over again. Just answer the question dude, break it down, no need to yammer on and not get to the point.
So once we cut through all the funk, dodges, side stepping, avoidence, changing of the subjects, personal attacks, personal insults, blather and other non-sense we come to the single question and answer of dispute regarding the politically incorrect racial views or tolerance racial views of these disputed offshoot web sites. I am honestly flabbergasted as it was exhausting reading endless dodges on the issue by you and I wont even mention slimvirgin - he is hopeless on getting a straight answer from (no offense).
So to restate this! What this really comes down to is the issue of whether racist or racial views held by some transhuman groups can be bound or proven with science, research, reason and logic. Thus the belief that racial views are not rooted in science which is not rooted in humanism which is the reason these web sites are in dispute. Sorry for being repetitive, but I had to repeat it over and over and over, because I couldnt believe you finally answered the question!
So one more time: Racial views are incompatible with humanism, because humanism is based in science, and racial views are incompatible with science!
19 words, verses 5,000 words of dodges to answer this question.
One more time for the record: Racial views are incompatible with humanism, because humanism is based in science, and racial views are incompatible with science!
Loremaster, thanks, thats all I wanted to hear from you on this issue. Now arguing that racial views are based in science is not an arguement I want to get into with you, because no matter what facts, proof, research, reason, objectivism and science I give you, you will not accept it. I'm ok with that. Now, slimvirgin, im not even going to waste my time answering you. Basically what your saying is that majority rules. I just don't buy that, but thats a person opin. Dariodario 04:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The majority doesn't rule. Minority views are welcome. Views from lunatics are not welcome, however. And I am a she, not a he. SlimVirgin 07:34, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Forgive me for having ignored you, you seemed to come off as a little rascal who has a dim understanding and comprehension of the sphere of ideologies involving neo-eugenics, conscious evolution and transhumanism. It is quite amazing and revealing this wikipedia, all one has to do is read about ones major additions to understand the deeper and personal demographics of the individual in question. I do find this fascinating and revealing. After reading your personal web page on wikipedia and thus examining your major contributions, I was able to figure out your specific: gender, religious affiliation, sexual preference and several political affiliations. I apologize for having thought you were of the male gender, that was sexist of me. Dariodario 13:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dariodario, first of all, unlike some of your allies, I never resorted to personal attacks or intellectual dishonesty. Second, you are oversimplifying this debate, in which many related and unrelated issues were involved, the most important ones being whether or not transhumanism was an extention of humanism and what constitutes a legitimate offshoot of transhumanism. Old eugenics, racism and racialism are only some of the many views that are incompatible with transhumanism. Ultimately, even if your views on transhumanist offshoots and race were to be proven to be true, it wouldn't change the fact that the legitimacy of some offshots are the subject of a dispute within the transhumanist community and on Wikipedia. This fact cannot be denied and was mentioned in the article. That being said, SlimVirgin may be right that I am being too generous. Loremaster 16:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Loremaster, I think you are OK for the most part even if your agenda leaks out here and there. I have seen a lot of improvement away from that recently, so maybe there is hope, but I wont hold my breath. Let's cut all the BS and talk straight for now on. You like to dodge, digress, avoid, distract and sidestep often when you are asked direct questions. Why dont we stop wasting each others time and all the other people here by just cutting all the BS and talk straight and direct - Cut to the chase! What I like about you is that you dont always pull out the nazi card (for the most part) or attack the individual rather than the content. These two negative traits are things which the immature and childish slimvirgin does often, so in this respect, I appreciate your maturity. I just wish you would cut the BS and just talk straight, without writing long winded diatribes when you could answer or describe things in short tight sentences. I'm green here in these parts when it comes to the rules, terms, and politics of this place. Even greener I am when it comes to contributing, but not green involving your transparent behavior which is not a personal insult. My only criticisms of you are not personal insults: One, you're long winded and two, you dodge, digress, avoid, distract, obfuscate and sidestep too often, other than that you relatively intelligent and I consider your contributions to be mostly of reasonable quality. You say these are personal insults, get over it dude, they really aren't. A personal insult would be me calling you a geek, feminazi, dyke, nazi, jewboy, farthead or whatever. I really do not believe such insults will solve anything, which is why I rarely respond to slimvirgin - she brings out the worst in me. Slimvirgin is a good janitor on wikipedia when her agenda doesn't leak out so obviously, however she is immature, frustrated and even childish. Just by reading her personal page I was able to figure out everything about her and confirmed a lot of my suspicions about her agenda. Who we are and what we believe in on a personal level influences what we contribute and what we fight for here on wikipedia, this is clear to me now. You're doing a good job for the most part, I have no beef with you on a personal level, I just want you to know this. No pointing the finger here we all have our personal agenda, I think this should just be an exercise in striving to be neutral. There is great strength to be gained in this exercise. Peace Dariodario 12:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Excessive links to WTA

There seems to be an excessive amount of links, attributes, additions and contributions to this article on Transhumanism from the World Transhumanist Association (WTA). It sometimes comes off as an advertisement for the WTA. Please clarify. Dariodario 13:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. However, I have removed one external link to the WTA that was in the Overview of Transhumanism section. Loremaster 16:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The whole article reads like a regurgitation of the WTA. Sorry to be honest here and you might want to count the links as there an excessive amount pointing to the WTA. I counted 4 links to the WTA, is this considered excessive? Peace Dariodario 13:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The article has been severely edited over the past few months in order to be less dependent on information coming from the Extropy Institute and the World Transhumanist Association. However, since the WTA is one of the leading transhumanist organizations, I don't think 4 links are excessive. Loremaster 16:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What makes the WTA the leading transhumanist organization? Is it the number of members? Is it how much stuff they publish? What makes an organization leading and thus an authority to get 4 links in an article? Please help me to understand this concept. Tchardin 03:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I never said the WTA was the leading transhumanist organization. I said it was one of them. You are free to add more links from other leading transhumanist organizations. The only reason the WTA has four is because it has 1) an article, 2) a manifesto, 3) an organization, and 4) a blog. Keep in mind, I wasn't the one who added these links. I simply defending their legitimate presence in the article. Loremaster 04:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Loremaster says, "Old eugenics, racism and racialism are only some of the many views that are incompatible with transhumanism"

This is debateable dude, no offense. Its like me saying, "random arranged marriage, anti-racism and multiculturalism are only some of the many views that are incompatible with transhumanism"

personal opin. only. Reality, this is political BS.

Your arguement goes something like this, eugenics, racism and racialism are incompatible with humanism, thus incompatible with transhumanism. Sorry dude - debateable. We can rewrite "your" arguement to say eugenics, racism and racialism are incompatible with transhumanism. Sorry dude - still debateable.

Sorry Majority doesnt rule emerging philosophies and science.

If a bunch of white transhumanists (which 99% of all transhumanists are white) want to preserve the european phenotype vector and create post human europeans that "resemble" japanese cartoons in the human form than so be it, no dispute there. Politics have no place in Transhumanism, the only thing that matters in transhumanism is using science and technology to overcome human limitations, all else opin and debateable. Nothing is more sickening than the self-righteous non-sense that comes out of the WTA by its executive director who describes himself as a trotskyte saying what is and what is not transhumanism. All this nonsense about nazis, commies, yammer yammer yakity yak, its all political BS. Transhumanism is about overcoming human limitations using science and technology. You have no right or authority to tell me or anyone else who wishes to use technology and science to overcome human limitations that we are not transhumanists or believe in transhumanism. I have spent the last 4 years of my life going to every transhuman conference I could afford to go to and all of my closest allies are self-described transhumanists and you have no right to tell me Its in dispute that I'm a transhumanist, because I think the philosophy coming out of is the most radically cutting edge in the transhuman movement. Nor do you have the right to say these sites are in dispute, your opin only. Which is political BS. It took asking you zillion times to finally admit the dispute is over the racial views. Which is the only reason these sites are in dispute, nothing else. Unless your gonna try to pull the secular card out now. Then it would be 2.

But I can't convince you otherwise, even though you are wrong, so I accept the disputed offshoot listing, even though its total BS politics. Humanism is another BS topic, Ask any two humanists what humanism is and they give you very different definitions. sorry dude, humanism is way to nebulous to be something to try to ground transhumanism in or extend transhumanism from. I see where your going with the humanism thing though regarding transhumanism, i understand where you are coming from. However, dispute is pure political BS. I read those sites, they are 1 billion percent transhumanism, there is no dispute there. Sorry dude, your opin only. If you want to take it out on me, delete the links if it will make you feel better, but it wont change the reality in all this. so ill accept yuor notion that they are disputed, and not fight it any more even though I am right and you are wrong. I dont have the power to change their dispute, you got higher ups here on wikipedia to back you up and they have an agenda - an agenda which is not in question. I hate to burst your bubble but racial, xenophobic and ethnocentric views are not held in the minority, but in the majority of people. Doesnt make it right or wrong, but your politics are def. wrong and it shows - and I love how you say your being generous keeping those links, let me kneel down and grovel, thanks for throwing me a bone - bow wow. Dariodario 13:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dariodario, since you clearly have an agenda, I find it offensive that you keep accusing anyone of having one and therefore will no longer engage you in debate since I have better things to do. You are free to misinterpret this act any way you want. I have said pretty much everything I need to say on this subject but I will say this. The beliefs and acts of a minority of transhumanists does not alter the commonly accepted definition of transhumanism any more than the beliefs and acts of a few radical Catholics alters the definition of Catholicism. So it will be up to others to read everything I wrote as well as transhumanist literature objectively and make up their mind as to what is correct. Loremaster 17:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My good fellow, aer you suggesting mob rules? I would object and appeal to your reason we avoid such irrationalism. To see the WTA, just as much as the prometheans, transtopians and cosmotheists who out number the WTA determine what transhumanism means would be a terrible trajedy - one you seem to be working against. Majority should never rule, otherwise in this micro fringe movement we call Transhumanism, the stormfront-collective would be calling the shots if mob or numbers ruled. Something neither of us want. Speaking of agendas, the only people who claim they don't have agendas are intellectually dishonest people. I specifically point my finger to include: daro, slhmvirgin and loremaster. Indeed the vast majority of individuals has an agenda, there is no escaping this human essence. What hypocrisy to say otherwise. What I would like to see is an agenda free Transhumanism article, but what we have is an article which is ball and chained to distinct (left of center humanist) view point which is mildly tolerant of other views. However, despite other peoples criticism of you, your allowing of broad views points on transhumanism (ala disputed section) shows something your enemies would never allow, which is alternative views. Tchardin 04:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Disputed comments

Could we get some comments in the article as to why those sites are in dispute? Dariodario 13:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since SlimVirgin rightly pointed out that these sites should not even be included in article, I don't think more comments are necessary beyond what is mentioned in the Criticism section. Loremaster 16:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Source for Transhumanism as an extension of humanism

Who decided that transhumanism was an extension of humanism? source this, not the statement, but the facts behind this, from what I have read huxley was not a humanist. So who decided to make this statement? What gives one the credibility to make such a claim and on what grounds? Dariodario 13:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dariodario, I am getting extremly tired of repeating myself. There is no need to create new sections to ask the same questions over and over again. One more time: Transhumanism, like millions of other words and concepts are defined and redefined again and again throughout history. Huxley's definition, which is included in the article, was not widely accepted nor used in academic circles or by the public at large. Whether or not Julian Huxley was a humanist is completely irrelevant, post-humanist and transhumanist discourses emerged to expose the limitations of the traditional humanist project. Contrary to what some people here believe, theses discourses are not outright repudiations of humanism itself but efforts emerging out of humanism, a moving on from humanism, which still remains as a point of departure. The word "transhumanism" itself implies "beyond humanism". Max More is one of many philosophers who contributed to these discourses. Loremaster 16:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You are not repeating yourself, I wish to know these same things as your response seems constipated. Reading between the lines I think what dario is getting at is you are putting a dogma box around transhumanism and stating only certain kinds of people who hold certain views can be transhumanists. Correct me if I am wrong, I thought a transhumanist was one who supported overcoming human barriers with science. It is like you are saying only those who embrace humanism (or certain political affiliations) or atleast come from it can be transhumanists if they support human augmentation to supposid higher levels of existence. So what are people like me and the vast majority of people who consider themselves transhumanists, who reject humanism, but yet still embrace the utilizing technology to overcome human limitations? Do you consider me a disputed transhuman as well? What are we people to be called if we are disputed transhumanists (not real transhumanists, but disputed ones, questionable ones)?
non-humanists-who-support-over-coming-human-limitationists? That's a bit verbose my good fellow. Tchardin 04:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree but I never proposed the use of such a term that does not accurately reflect what I am describing. Loremaster 04:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Did you like the dodge Tchardin? Your questions where answered, only avoided. No Tchardin, you and the majority of transhumanists who are not humanists or not multiculturalists get to be called disputed offshoots. What intellectual dishonesty and what an insult to the average transhumanists intelligence. You get to be a fringe within a fringe, even though you might represent similarity to the majority of transhumanists. This is why this article is biased. It calls the majority of transhumanists disputed offshoots. What an insult! Dariodario 06:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The root of dispute on this article

After a very long, drawn out and painful process of asking the same questions over and over and over again, we finally come to the deepest core of the “dispute” on this transhuman article. It wasn't easy, loremaster dodged, avoided, digressed and went tangent for quite some time, with slimvirgin only added to the distractions. We finally got him to come out of the closet, clean and talk straight with us and we finally got to the bottom of it all and to the naked singularity of dispute. It is here where we have hit a brick wall and we need to flesh this one out. This is going to be the greatest challenge as we hit a sensitive truth with loremaster and he wishes to no longer respond. I see this as a sign that we have finally come to the moment of truth in his excusatory agenda of a totalitarian transhumanism which rejects a truly NPOV.

The dispute is that the transhumanist sites cosmotheism, prometheism, euvolutionism and transtopianism all tolerate eugenics, elitist and group separatists vectors – these sites believe that conscious evolution will occur on many different vectors and specifically support politically incorrect ones. Loremaster thinks that no group of people should be allowed to be exclusive. Groups which practice eugenics, separatism and exclusion are not transhumanists, they are disputed offshoots.

He is wrong and I will explain why.

If a group of Jewish transhumanists want to create a transhuman group that only allows Jews as members, and these Jews only want to reproduce with other transhuman Jews, and only use genes commonly found in the Jewish gene pool to genetically modify themselves, and then - Insert your higher technology used exclusively for the benefit of Jews etc… Believing this separatist and eugenic Jewish organization is NOT transhuman because they practice racism, racialism and eugenics.

This is wrong and is a violation of the highest principle in the universe that people should have the total freedom of association; people should have the freedom to choose their allies, friends, associated, political views, and social views, etc... The dispute is that loremaster does not understand that transhumanism will travel along many vectors including ones he DEEPLY disagrees with and these vectors will include politically incorrect ones. Consider that 99% of transhumans are white, it is not a surprise you will find all kind of European based exclusive variations. I would absolutely hate to live under loremasters transhuman totalitarian regime, where as a Transhuman, I am disputed and questioned, to have the right to voluntarily reproduce with and genetically modify myself within an elitist or excusatory group. Wrong.

Transhumanism is about freedom. Freedom of association for everyone. Equality for all transhumanist vectors. Freedom of thought and freedom of speech. This is what the dispute is about. I want equality for all transhumanists, but loremaster says only multiculturalists can be transhumanists. That is wrong and biased.

We need a transhuman regime change. No more totalitarianism. We need a transhuman regime that supports freedom of choice, freedom of association and freedom of speech.

Freedom for all transhumanists to exist without this nonsense of dispute. Can I get a witness! Dariodario 06:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Same talk pages, same views, same arguments, same spelling mistakes

User:Dariodario and User:Tchardin make the same spelling mistake with supposed/supposedly (my emphasis):

    • How is it that a supposidly fringe organization . . . Dariodario 08:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • the supposid "widely held version". . . Tchardin 03:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Similarities between User:Dnagod and User:Dariodario

  • "Viewpoints" as two words:
    • Allow all view points. Dnagod 01:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • censorship of alternative view points Dariodario 13:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Opin instead of opinion:
    • a world with people of different opins. . . Dnagod 22:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It's false. Its your opin. Dariodario 13:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Missing apostrophes:
    • stuff they are interested, not stuff they arent . . . Dariodario 13:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe this isnt the place for that though. Dariodario 13:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I dont buy it. Dariodario 13:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • i dont like the name. Dnagod 22:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • im disappointed with the bias . . . its fair to say, if you dont like that fact . . . Dnagod 01:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And quite a bit of there/their, you're/your confusion. SlimVirgin 09:41, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Touché! Loremaster 15:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)