Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:21, 26 February 2007

Starting clean with a fresh page... have at it : )

Thankyou for your kind help

thank you for all of your contributivng to the article Talk:Psychic but i am not sure that they will listen to your wise words pepple here are very competition and they dont listen to everything if it doesnt agree with their vewis. Smith Jones 23:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Nealparr, it is good to have you with us. I think it is very important for people to understand that for the purposes of Misplaced Pages, parapsychology is a science. I think I have the right of it, but if there is anything in the rules I have overlooked, or perhaps some precedent, could you tell me? The scientific consensus in any field which deals with the subject of an article seems a very important fact which should be conveyed. I also ran into just this dispute on the parapsychology page itself. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know all that, and thanks (: God, Misplaced Pages is really getting me down sometimes. Will you help if I put it in as a science on the parapsychology page itself? I got trouble for that before, but I have better sources now. More on Psychic talk page. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to go. See you tomorrow (: Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

thesource

thank you nealparr. its great to be getting constructive advice . learning all of the little bits of html is great and very helpful, but may take a little time . indents are very useful , cheers for showing me how , and adding responses to talk pages at the bottom makes good sense , cheers for the hint . iwill begin putting my article into better shape in a sandbox very soon , so i am very thankful for your kind help . cheers Thesource42 14:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Psychic

I made a change to the sentence of the Psychical research paragraph. The sentence made it seem that interest in the psychic started in the 1840s. But the change I made is likely to start another riot till the argument is straightened out, so you might want to take a look at it. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I fixed it so it probably won't start a riot. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr, how cool, you basically kept my paragraph, the one that started the riot. Now all that has to be worked out is whether it is really a science. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Very nice job, BTW. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice job!

Very nice analysis! I read the whole thing and liked it a lot. Unfortunately, the "target" of your comments just won't (or can't) get it - as evidenced by his reply to me while we were discussing whether or not parapsychology is a science; to "prove" it, he wants links to "actual studies done by them that provide positive conclusions". Ridiculous. Even though PEAR is being shut down, it was still a legitimate scientific study into the paranormal - parapsychology. Anyway, it's not even worth arguing with him about. Dreadlocke ☥ 06:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Told ya. He doesn't get it at all. Dreadlocke ☥ 06:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is a really great essay. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

They should make a barnstar for casters of pearls.Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You have a lot more patience than I do, Job... Dreadlocke ☥ 08:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It just gets better and better! I'm looking forward to your reply to the latest two missives..! Dreadlocke ☥ 04:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Man, you are awesome <starts slow-clap, Battlestar Galactica style>. Incredible answers and astounding finale! Dreadlocke ☥ 06:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My advice? Don't feed the trolls. Dreadlocke ☥ 06:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Play

come play Sandbox on parapsychology as a science. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Zen garden award

		The Zen Garden Award
		I award you the Zen Garden Award, for extraordinary patience and virtue. Dreadlocke ☥ 06:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Now there is a well-balanced sandbox! V-Man737 06:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Debating and other hobbies

I personally stopped dealing with him because he became abusive and uncivil, I reported him to an administrator who agreed and talked to him about it. He hasn’t really crossed the line with others yet, but when he does, there’s a track record to back up the attacked editor.

I admire your tenacity, and I’m glad you liked the award! I made it with my own little hatchet!

I look forward to more of your intelligent debating. Perhaps I'll even jump in there one of these days. Dreadlocke ☥ 07:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

ready?

Yeah, you're a great debater. You know so much more about the whole area than I do. Could you tell me if you think this is good enough to put up, or does it need more work? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, great, since you like it I'll put it up. What WDM is doing is arguing about the nature of science, and the demarcation problem. He's just going to say that our sources are not mainstream, except, of course, for the Randi one (: Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe in psychics?

Simple question. Do you believe in psychics?Wikidudeman 08:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really a simple question : ) Honestly, I don't believe in pop psychic bull. I personally don't think parapsychology has provided proof of anything either. Evidence of -something- sure. I buy the statistical anomaly business, but don't agree that it is necessarily psychic. I do completely support inquiry into psychic phenomena, however, and haven't ruled out the possibility of it. I don't think the out of hand dismissal by people like Randi has any more merit than the absurd claims of Sylvia. Super-skeptics like him and others I'm not into because they don't seriously think about it. They simply dismiss it.

I support the notion that parapsychology is a failed science but probably for different reasons than you do. I think that some things are outside current experimental research. There's other approaches to study than the experimental approach and those are what I'm interested in personally. Parapsychology is tied mostly to experimental research. I don't think they're going to get very far with that.

All that said, my opinions don't matter. If it's a duck, and most of the scientists call it a duck, you say duck. The super-skeptics are just as fringe as the drank-the-kool-aid-believers and most scientists are somewhere in the middle.

--Nealparr 09:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Would ArbCom take the case (I mean, after mediation)? Aren't their decisions binding? I want a ruleing on parapsychology as a science for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)