Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:44, 14 June 2002

Ed Poor, the sources of the Global warming article were classified in Political and Scientific because Political sources were used for the political part of the article and Scientific sources were used for the scientific part of the article. I have told you this before, but you are ignoring this. I'm going to stop editing that article. user:Joao

Joao, I'm sorry I ignored your plan for the article. I thought it would be better to make it entirely scientific, and put the political aspects in global warming controversy -- which still needs much work. I need your help with that, as well as with global warming. Please give me your suggestions, and I will to try to cooperate on our common goal of improving the wikipedia. -- Ed

I leveraged your joke. --Damian Yerrick

Ed: your unilateral decision to redirect the U.S. Attack on Afghanistan pages is upsetting. There was discussion about the naming of the page: see talk:2001 U.S. Attack on Afghanistan. I would have appreciated it greatly if you had discussed your arguments for changing the title before you redirected everything.

Please weigh in with your arguments for making such a change so that we may come to a consensus on this issue. Did you attempt to discuss this, and did I miss it?

Especially as there is a bug in the system which makes it very difficult to endo redirects, I really wish you hadn't done this unilaterally. We need to be able to trust and respect each other. --The Cunctator

Okay, I read the talk. I still disagree, but not enough to re-revert your reverts. --Ed

moving sex education and sexuality morality debate from "affronting" subpage. I started answering this, and frankly, Ed, I don't wish to waste any more time on you and your hobbyhorse. I'm not your lab rat, and nothing I say will change the fact that your a priori beliefs will not allow you to accept that others find many of the things you say are just bloody wrong.

Sounds like you disagree with some of the things I say. Oh, well. --Ed

Ed -- whatever. If you don't understand that:

• setting up this page is in itself an affront (if only because it singles out one other user among the many who take exception to the way in which you operate);

Note that I moved it back to User talk:Ed Poor. Okay?

• that, through your own actions and no one else's, you invite the debate you innocently claim not to want;

I'm not against debate; what made you think I was?

• that you constantly insult anyone who disagrees with you by questioning the quality of their morals and by using terms like "liberal" as insults (and even people who would claim to be liberals might find the implications with which you load the term insulting);

Please point out a few of my alleged "constant insults", or else I must consider this an ad hominem argument.

Liberals, however, often have trouble following the NPOV policy. or any of your comments implying that we were confused and therefore under some evil influence...

• that your entry immediately below this impugns the motives and good will of people who regularly contribute high-quality articles to the wikipedia and are known to regularly HELP to make articles NPOV;

I am unaware of impugning anyone's motives on wikipedia. Please explain why you think this -- or are you merely impugning MY motives (more ad hominem argument)?

Oh just stop it.

• that your tone is incredibly, appalingly, patronizing, and dripping with an offensive (at least to me) implication that you are somehow an innocent victim of those nasty liberals, and all you want to do is contribute quality work and get along with others,

I am not going to stop bringing up good and true ideas. Complaints about the "tone" of discussion are probably a waste of time.

you have another think coming, Mr. Poor.

I can't speak for anyone else, but your recent apologetic (although still patronizing) tone does not for a minute convince me that this is not all going to happen again the next time you want to through up a deliberately inflammatory article on your views of "traditional" (by which you mean conservative Christians in the US) morality as applied to subject X. Oh -- and by the way, I understand that you believe that liberals try to undermine traditional morality -- but as this argument is pretty damned ad hominem itself (because you assume from the outset that traditional morality is the only legitimate morality) -- I just think that you are operating in a world in which you refuse to accept that you cannot dissociate yourself from your biases. J Hofmann Kemp

Dr. Kemp, feel free to put as much of the liberal (or anti-traditional or anti-convervative) point of view into the wikipedia as you wish. I ask only that you attribute these views. Can you agree to this? Ed Poor

What Dr. Kemp and some others seem not to understand is that liberals constantly try to undermine traditional morality, while claiming not to be doing so.

Ed, this statement is crap. The only way I can make sense of it is that you are mixing up two separate things. I suggest you take them separately, and respond to them thoughtfully.

I was speaking of liberals in general, not singling out anyone here. The liberal attack on morality consists chiefly of denying that there should be any morality at all, or of saying that no moral jugments should be made (except that judgments themselves are paradoxically judged as bad). --Ed

You are wrong. Please "attribute these views," as you have demanded numerous times. (By the way, although this is a digression from the matter at hand, I would like to suggest to you that it is the fact that you make sweeping remarks about "liberals," without attributing these remarks, and that you make claims about "conservatives" or "traditional" without providing any attribution, AND THEN you insist that your interlocutors provide attributions, that just might be one reason Dr. Kemp finds your tone and remarks often insulting and patronizing and disingenuous. I am of course speculating, and not trying to speak for her.) In any event, most liberals are highly moral, ant often moralistic and moralizing, people (even if you do not agree with their morality).

The first thing is what I will call procedural liberalism, although political scientists and political theorists might have another term for it. This is the notion that in a liberal (in the oldfashioned, non-partisan sense of modern democratic) state, individuals should be free to believe whatever they want and to act on their beliefs insofar as their actions do not impinge on the freedoms of others. I believe that there are many people on the political left who claim not to be undermining traditional morality per se when they argue that the US political and legal system must operate according to this principle.

Did you say the left? I thought that was a conservative viewpoint as well. --Ed

Maybe, but this isn't relevant to my observation. My observation was only meant to describe more accurately the position of many liberals, which you misrepresented. I have no doubt that there are non-liberals who would agree with this position.

IF you see their calls for pluralism and tolerance, and a political and legal process that acts on this principle (rather than the specific beliefs of a specific group) as "undermining traditional morality," THEN you need to confront the implication that "traditional morality" and "liberal democracy" (meaning, democracy that also ensures individual rights, i.e. the rule of the majority moderated by rule of law) are at odds.

That's not how I see it. I am a political conservative, and I believe that the government should not interfere with my religion as long as I don't harm anyone.

Not enough -- you must also be committed to the belief that government should not interfere with the beliefs of others (both religious and non-religious beliefs)

I believe in pluralism, not particularism (perhaps we should define these terms). I believe tolerance to a limited extent: I don't believe schoolchildren should be told that gay adoption and gay marriage is good in the name of tolerance.

Then you are intolerant, and also disingenuous to call yourself a political pluralist (n the sense I describe above) IF (and only if, and I admit that although this is the impression I have of your argument I might have misunderstood you) your opposition to gay adoption and gay marriage is derived from your religion. You have the right to your own beliefs, but they should not dictate public policy because "the public" includes people with very different beliefs. In any event, I think you misunderstand sex education AND oversimplify "good." There is a difference between saying that "gay marriage is good" and "since there are gays who have committed relationships, it is a good thing that they be allowed to marry." The reason I say this is because I am not so sure I think gay marriage is a good thing only because I am not so sure any marriage is a good thing; marriage may be a corrupt and immoral institution for all people. Nevertheless, if our society gives certain benefits to married couples and spouses, and allows heterosexual people to get married, then I am sure that it is a good thing that gay couples have a right to get married. There is also a difference between saying that something is good for some people, and saying that it is good for all people. For example, heterosexuality may be good for some people and I cannot object to heterosexual relationships. But it is clearly not good for all people and shouldn't be imposed or be given preference in public institutions.

I think tolerance, in a biology class, should extend to allowing students to dispute the scientific reasoning of Darwinists without repercussion or censorship.

I agree, as long as the questions and criticisms reflect a scientific perspective (namely, explaining natural phenomena through natural forces)

In other words, it may not be "liberals" who are undermining "traditional morality" but the whole notion of liberal democracy.

I think liberal democracy (if I have my terms right) is not undermining traditional morality, but liberals are using political power in the US to undermine it. I'm not sure what relevance this has to the sex education article, though.

But you must take seriously their claim that they are not seeking to "undermine traditional morality," rather they are trying to promote a society where you are free to live as you please, but so am I.

There is a difference between encouraging children to go against tradition, and allowing adults to make their own choices. Surely you see that. It is by telling children that they shouldn't let traditional sexual mores bind them that liberals make their attack on traditonal sexual mores. Should we teach children to make up their own mind on issues such as cheating on tests, or stealing?

Cheating on tests and stealing are dishonest and harm others; premarital sex and homosexuality are not necessarily dishonest or harmful, and certainly no more prone to dishonesty and harm than heterosexual sex within a marriage. So this is one reason why your analogy is false. But there is another, far more important reason why your analogy is false given the context of this discussion. Liberal democracy makes room for a host of different views. Most adults in our society agree that cheating and stealing are wrong. Even people who cheat and steal usually admit that what they did was wrong. There is more or less a societal consensus and it makes sense to promote this consensus in public schools. But there is no such consensus when it comes to sexual mores. Well, most people think bestiality and pedophilia are wrong, and most people (including people who have pre-marital sex or are gay) would not promote a value-free discussion of bestiality and pedophilia in publis schools. So maybe this is one are of consensus. But there is no similar consensus when it comes to pre-marital sex or homosexuality, so it is CRUCIAL that there be a value-free discussion of it in school. By value free I do not mean discussion various risks and difficulties (after all, there should be discussion of the risks and difficulties in heterosexual marriage too!) -- I just mean there should be no claim that something is "right" or "wrong." I do not see how any alternative is consistent with liberal democracy (in the limited and older sense we seem to agree on)

The second thing is "liberals" and others further on the political left who do indeed undermine "traditional morality" But here, the reason I take issue with what you wrote is that these people IN NO WAY claim NOT to do so.

I think you are in error here. You just told me that you must take seriously their claim that they are not seeking to "undermine traditional morality," Am I missing something, or did you just contradict yourself?

You are missing something, and it is the point I made in the beginning of this exchange -- to which you responded that "I was speaking of liberals in general." You completely miss my point, which is that you should NOT speak of "liberals in general" because you will end up obscuring the difference between two very different points of view. By calling both points of view "liberal" and by trying to find some LCD position, you will necessarily misrepresent them. And then when I say there are two different points of view you will think I am contradicting myself because you still think htere is only one point of view. But there isn't, there are two (at least two) and they indeed might contradict, but that is okay because they are held by different kinds of liberals! Here I am now discussing the second liberal position (indicated by my use of the word "second"). Above, when I wrote "you must take seriously their claim that they are not seeking to "undermine traditional morality," I was discussing the first position (indicated by my use of the word "first"). These are two positions, and to repeat myself, your problem is that you do not separate them. Don'e keep making the mistake by trying to keep combining them!

On the contrary, they are explicit in criticizing "traditional morality" as racist and/or classist and/or sexist and/or something else (depends on who the critic is and what they are criticizing) but in any event as something profoundly IMMORAL, and they are proposing a different morality.

Branding something as "immoral" is a form of opposition. I can only conclude that they oppose traditional morality. This should be in the article.

Okay -- but what you actually wrote was NOT that they were opposed to "traditional morality," but that tey were opposed to "morality." Don't you see my point? It seems pretty simple -- these are just two different things, and it is wrong, both factually and morally, to conflate the two in this discussion.

These are two different things, although perhaps they have in common the fact that you do not like them. I don't like olives and I don't like ham, but I don't mix the two things up. I admit that mixing up ham and olives is pretty trivial and innocuous (unless you work at a deli). But mixing up people who consider "traditional values" to be immoral, with people who promote a liberal democracy, is dangerous because it clouds very serious social and political issues while, as is clearly the case here, gravely (and I think ultimately unnecessarily -- if your intention Ed is indeed not to offend but something else) offending someone. SR

If I have mixed up "liberals" (as in liberals vs. conservatives) with "liberal" (as in liberal democracy), it was unintentional. I support liberal democracy (if I understand you correctly) while opposing liberalism. Conservatives are for democracy and traditional morality, broadly speaking -- while liberals are for increased state control and oppose traditional morality. If I am wrong, please correct me.

Some conservatives are for increased state control over some domains, some liberals are for increased state control over other domains. The way you wrote it is too vague to be accurate let alone informative. Many (but not all, I think) liberals would see any sort of sex-eduation that has a bias towards heterosexuality or marriage to reflect an unfair form of state interference into people's private lives (meaning, it should be up to the private individual to decide whether to come out of the closet or not, to have sex before or during marriage, etc. State institutions such a schools should be value-neutral in this regard or they are just increasing their control over peoples lives, as you put it). As Danile andothers have pointed out, it is not clear that what you call "traditional morality" is really traditional. But yes, liberals and conservates often disagree over what is moral. But what YOU wrote was that liberals were opposed to morality itself. That was wrong and I cannot believe you didn't know it was wrong, it seems so obviously wrong to me.

Note to SR: we have had some sharp disagreements, but I seem to recall that we've generally come to some sort of working consensus each time.

Well, I hope my comments here help further that possibility! SR

To be NPOV, the wikipedia needs to attribute views to their proponents, not state them as facts. Larry has said this repeatedly, and I agree with him.

Liberals, however, often have trouble following the NPOV policy. Although I hesitate to speculate about the motives of people I haven't spoken with in person, it may be either a conscious or unconscious attempt to win debating points on their part. Be that as it may, I have no wish to engage in ad hominem arguments. I will leave that to others, if they enjoy it.

My proposal, for those who are interested, is that we all focus on improving articles which we know something about and care about. No one is forced to contribute, and no one's words are immune to merciless revision. Generally, if other contributors repeatedly delete my contributions, I choose not to retaliate (an eye for an eye makes us both blind). But the difficulty of adhering to NPOV knows no ideological bounds, and sometimes I fall short of the mark. I really do appreciate the help I get from others.

I do make a practice of being open about my motivations. I think it saves time to tell the truth, as Mr. Kiku said in Heinlein's "The Star Beast". I hope others will be equally open, but I do not think it's nearly as important as remembering to attribute views to their proponents. --Ed

I moved this debate with Dr. Kemp, who is mischaracterizing me so consistently I can only question her sincerity. -- Ed

No need to question, Ed. I'm entirely sincere in everything I've said. It is not a mischaracterization, because I've only stated the impressions I have based on what you've said. Oh -- and I didn't actually call you the representative of good -- merely pointed out that you seemed to have given yourself this role. You must have been confused. J Hofmann Kemp

It seems confusion is our mutual enemy. If we agree on this at least, perhaps it can give us something to build on. --Ed

Hi, Ed! -- Welcome back. I notice you are again starting articles on which you cannot be neutral, and I have to ask, WHY???? By the way, I went to school in California when the schools were ranked highest in the country. They were well funded, and fairly liberal. My sex education classes ranged from basic anatomy (you're going to get your period, girls) to encouraging a healthy attitude towards accepting our bodies and sexuality. Birth control was discussed, but the teachers always claimed that abstinence was the best method of birth control and that sex was not a substitute for liking yourself. Byt the time I was a senior in high school, we also discussed STDs and, the day before Senior Prom, my biology teacher brought in some ex-students who worked at planned parenthood, who demonstrated how to put on a condom without breaking it. Some people surreptitiously palmed a couple of condoms for later, but most of us just laughed and filed the info away for future reference. At no time were we pushed to "accept immoral practices". We were, however, taught that some people, for whatever reason, were gay, and that, even if we found it an immoral practice, we lived in a country where it was legal to be gay, and it was wrong to attack people (verbally or physically) because of it. I'm sure sex ed has changed -- i'll have to ask my daughter. But really...could you please not write articles if you know in advance you can't be neutral? J Hofmann Kemp

In the battle between good and evil, the mere failure to condemn evil is the precise equivalent of accepting it. Education which promotes a "non-judgmental attitude" toward something thus pushes students to accept it. I refuse to be neutral: I oppose evil. However, I have agreed to write from an NPOV when contributing to the wikipedia. I will still call a spade a spade, but in cases where many others want to call it a diamond I will try to indicate a source for its identification as a spade. Fair enough? --Ed Poor

You oppose what you consider to be evil and many other people consider to be good. And that's just fine, but advocacy like that does not belong into an encyclopedia. AxelBoldt

If you think that way, perhaps you are evil. Beware. --your friend, Ed Poor

If you think that way, perhaps you also believe that encyclopedias are evil. Conundrum. Olof

No, Olof, I don't think encyclopedias are evil. Assembling human knowledge is a worthy goal. However, forcing children to accept immorality is evil. Calling this force "non-judgmental" does not make it good. --Ed Poor

QED Olof

Ed, I hardly think that believing in free will and that man was granted the ability to reason and make choices can be construed as evil. As usual, you are oversimplifying the argument and condemning others who disagree. Whether or not you like it, not even all Christians believe the same thing (or at least not all to the same degree) when it comes to sexual mores. Your "traditional" does not make it the only viewpoint, and is certainly not the only moral one, nor does it represent the views of all religions and cultures. It's insulting and arrogant for you to claim that you are somehow the representative of good vs. evil, and those of us who wish for a balanced article that includes information with which you don't agree represent some corrupting force. J Hofmann Kemp

You sound a bit confused. That's natural, because evil's best weapon is confusion. Let me give you a bit of guidance.

• Well, that's one of the most patronizing and offensive statements yet. I'm not at all confused, Ed. Nor do I accept your implication that I am somehow confused because I am under the influence of evil. How dare you reduce a debate on the presentation of information in a neutral, inclusive, and objective style to Ed = good, people who think Ed can't be objective = confused or under some evil influence?

1. I agree with you that believing in free will and that man was granted the ability to reason and make choices can not be construed as evil. You seem to think I believe otherwise, although you don't say way.

• I think you believe otherwise because you have consistently negated arguments of people who discuss using reason to make moral decisions, absent a membership in a social group that follows what you so blithely (and incorrectly) call traditional morality. If this is not what you mean, perhaps you should write more clearly.

1. If there is indeed, as you seem to suggest, an argument which should not be simplified, please delineate its complexity in the article. I will be happy to read your contribution.

• Ed, one of my objections is that almost all of your contributions start out as this one has. To wit: Ed places a very non-NPOV stub on the site; immediately, many people jump in to try to add to and neutralize the content; Ed takes offense and sparks major debate over morality; Ed answers objections on NPOV, etc., with something like, "please delineate its complexity in the article. I will be happy to read your contribution" -- implying that you have some type of editorial rights that the rest of us don't.
• Have you not realized that: 1)you are not the arbiter of what goes into an article, and 2)you are abusing the time and efforts of others by working in this fashion? Understand that I call abuse because you depend upon people who care about the quality of the content on the site to jump in and contribute to subjects they may not have wanted to write on, but feel obligated because they care about the project. It's really inconsiderate and (based on my own experience and the inferences I've drawn from that experience) manipulative of you. Your methods force others to do the bulk of the work while you take advantage of the evangelical opportunities that always arise from the debate on "traditional" morality -- traditional in quotes because I know right-wing, Rush limbaugh Republicans who would disagree with you -- not to mention tons of other people who are very moral.

1. I condemn no one, except those who deliberately choose evil. Axel implied that I shouldn't oppose evil. If he's really saying that, I repeat that he should beware: refusing to oppose evil lets it triumph (as Edmund Burke or someone said).

• As above -- you imply that those of us who argue with you about the characteristics of morality are somehow of lesser mental capacity, moral worth, and/or influenced by evil -- it's offensive and likely untrue.

Don't put words in my mouth. I said that you are welcome to oppose what you consider evil and advocate for what you consider good, just like I do, but not on Misplaced Pages. This is not a space to advocate viewpoints. Do it on your website, on Usenet, write letters to the editor, whatever. Your goal in contributing to Misplaced Pages, quite obviously, is not to create a good encyclopedia, but to sneak in your point of view. By doing that, you suck time out of the rest of us. AxelBoldt

1. I agree that the traditional viewpoint is not the only one. If there's another one you'd like to see in the articl, please add it. Perhaps you could even describe variations within the traditional viewpoint.

• As above, buddy. You started the article -- it's your responsibility to do your best to present other viewpoints as well. Otherwise, you're not really a contributer -- just a gadfly who doesn't respect the time of other Wikipedians.

1. If there are other opinions about what is "moral", please describe these, too, and say who advances these opinions.

• As above -- and don't be disingenuous -- it's insulting.

1. I am not the world's leading advocate of goodness, but that should be no bar to contributing ideas about goodness vs. evil to the wikipedia. You do it, yourself.

• Perhaps on talk pages, but my article writing is based in a career of scholarship, which demands objectivity.

1. Your biggest mistake, would be to think that I don't want a balanced article. Is this what you really think? Come on, now, what would make you think I opposed balance and NPOV? I have no objection whatsoever to "including information with which I don't agree" -- it must merely be labeled correctly as to who believes it, in accordance with NPOV policy.

• Ed, what I believe about you is that you are deliberately creating situations like this to make yourself feel important and perhaps even more comfortable with your own moral choices. Moreover, I believe that you are trying to use these pages to evangelize others on the truth as seen by the Unification church, but in a fairly subtle way. I believe that you don't have the ability to write a fair and balanced article, but would like to think of yourself as some kind of arbiter of what information belongs in that article -- thereby boosting your own importance in your own little world. I believe that you are so wrapped up in your little control games that you do not feel obliged to treat the rest of us as colleagues -- in short, the traditional virtue of charity and the Christian tradition of the Golden Rule seem to be absent from your wikipedia life. Those are some of the nicer things I believe about you, Ed.
• The straight (but not narrow), happily married, Christian, environmentalist, Feminist, Mrs. Dr. J Hofmann Kemp

I hoped I had cleared up any false impression Dr. Kemp may have formed of me, but plainly I have failed. Nevertheless, i still would like us cooperate to make the Misplaced Pages comprehensive, accurate, and neutral (in the NPOV sense). -- Ed

After giving this a lot of thought, I am going to take a radical point of view here and say that any piece that assumes "morality" cannot, by nature, be NPOV. Morality in general is a cultural construct, deeply rooted in Western society, but not necessarily existent among other cultures. That is not to say that other cultures do not have concepts of right and wrong or good and evil--rather, it claims that morality is a third construct. For instance, the Jewish religion forbids its adherents from eating pork. Eating pork can therefore be classified as a "wrong" act or even as a sin. However, no Jew would say that the act is inherently immoral. It simply falls within the confines of certain strictures. In a similar sense, other religions and cultures will use terms such as 'pure and impure,' 'allowed and forbidden,' etc. This does not imply morality. Following these same lines, I would argue that certain religions might forbid certain sexual activities. That does not imply that the activities are necessarily immoral, just that they are forbidden. By using terms such as "traditional morality," we are imposing a set of values on others. By talking about the 'morality' of premarital sex or homosexuality, we are doing the same. If we do choose to use the term morality, I vote that we qualify it to show specifically whose morality it is. Oh, and I don't buy the liberal and conservative distinctions that have been used either. There are NOT two sides to this issue: there is a spectrum of opinions. Are Log Cabin Republicans really liberals? Danny

Some religions consider certain actions immoral, and therefore they forbid them. When we write about this in the wikipedia, we should say: Adherents of religion X consider action Y to be immoral. Agreed? --Ed

Not agreed unless you specify exactly which religions. And in that case, do not make sweeping generalizations. You might say that a certain Christian group considers a specific act immoral, but you cannot speak for all of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Shinto, Hinduism, or any other religion. Danny

Ditto. --maveric149

Ditto ditto. NEVER speak in absolutes! ;-) user:David Merrill

All rules should be applied in moderation. --Ed Poor

Danny, you make a good suggestion. I will do my best to follow it. Please help me separate the bristles of the broom when I make a sweeping generalization, lest someone vacuum up the whole mess!! --Ed

I forgot how easy it was to log in today (3/11/02), when using my notebook computer (instead of my usual desktop). Thanks to JHK for pointing out my (inadvertent) anonymity. --Ed

Ed, perhaps I can explain to you one reason why you sometimes get very negative reactions from others - using, as an example, the discussion on talk:Ultraviolet. I went to Yahoo! and typed in, "Ultraviolet radiation causes skin cancer". One of the first two hits is a Scientific American article,

http://www.sciam.com/0996issue/0796leffell.html

which gives a summation of the situation in terms that a layman can easily understand. Further, it gives references to back up the science it reports.

Now, you, Ed, did not do the two minutes work it would have taken you to find that article. Without doing that two minutes of work, you deleted someone else's perfectly valid statement to that effect. Then you demanded that other people do the work to back up the contention you deleted, and were... less than helpful... when they obliged by checking on it for you. If this had been the only such incident, it might have been simply passed over; however, I'm noticing several such incidents from you per day.

Furthermore, as JHK rightly points out, you only demand "scientific sources" from others when those others contradict your view. You are not, I notice, in the habit of copiously documenting your own work, and freely litter Misplaced Pages with your opinions. You are, in other words, maintaining a double standard, even if you don't realize it. It's not at all surprising that this draws you very negative responses. May I suggest that in the future, if you question the science behind an assertion, you yourself check up on the scientific articles available on the topic before making any changes whatsoever to another's work? -- April

--- Ed -- FYI, subpages no longer exist. Slashes don't mean anything special. You're actually just creating new user pages within the User: namespace, i.e., there are now users named Ed Poor/unkempt and Ed Poor/Dr Kemp -- with their own associated pages in the User talk: namespace.

Ed, the Ozone depletion article is looking pretty good. I think separating advocacy (of all sorts) was a smart move, and is a good way to proceed with similar topics. -D

Hi Ed, Just to say (for the avoidance of doubt) that I have no desire to disparage anyone's church - I just thought that 'Moonie' conveys 'Unification Church' to most people, not Lewis Moonie -- redirects from disparaging terms could become a vexed issue -- perhaps there needs to be a Misplaced Pages policy on this? -- The Anome

• I forgot: the original Moonies article is plural, as in, "The Moonies bought the New Yorker Hotel in the 1970s." Sometimes I'm not good at searching: I thought content had been removed from Moonie, but that was just the singular form. Maybe this is why editors get paid the big bucks! --Ed

Fixed up: Moonie now points to your Moonies page. I've linked perjorative term it it. The Anome

Ed, your "solution" to the cognitive science of mathematics problem is simply unacceptable. It ought to be clear from the long introduction of that article that Lakoff & Nunez are part of a quite long tradition in cognitive sciences back to Tversky & Kahneman claiming to put foundations (from human cognitive structures) under math. T&K started it with their "statistical biases in human thinking" in the 1960s.

Also, the L&N thesis has been accepted as a grounding by most noted mathematicians - in the long list of reviews there was literally no objection to their assertions regarding Euler's Identity... none. Zero. This is not a flaky guess by Lakoff, it's a whole field now.

Lakoff himself needs a completely separate article due to his involvement in the political sciences, "terrorism debate", etc., etc...

And Nunez ought not to be simply lumped in as a clone of Lakoff, a "follower" - his work is interesting in itself.

I believe your objections to this work are political and we should settle it politically by deciding how to chunk this, rather than with mindless redirects.

You simply don't want to see what I will do to "falsifiability" and references to "Karl Popper" if the debate goes off in this direction.

Ed, if by 'truce' you mean that you will cease and desist in your singling out any one user (e.g. me) from personal attacks, direct, indirect or implied, I accept your offer. Since I have never called you names, impugned your morality, or in fact made any accusation against you except that you seem to have a penchant for creating articles in a way that encourages discussion in which you can push your own agenda (my own opinion, but one occasionally supported by others), and since it has been weeks since I have even taken the time to edit any of your contributions, however, I hardly think truce (which implies mutual hostility between parties) is the proper word. Perhaps you just mean "I'm sorry, I was out of line and it won't happen again"? J Hofmann Kemp, Monday, April 15, 2002

There is an orphan article Ed Poor/origins with nothing more than a reference back to you. Since orphaned origins seem to question your paternity, you should clearly have the first opportunity to deal with the article. Eclecticology, Thursday, April 25, 2002

To Danny, RK, SR, etc. re: homosexuality...

In response to all of you, I have redoubled my efforts to distinguish between:

1. my own strong opinions about morality, and
2. high-quality, NPOV contributions to the Misplaced Pages

I'm still not sure why this should be so difficult for me. The formula, A said B about C, which I so frequently recommend to others, comes to mind in this context. Hmm.

Anyway, even if we disagree sharply amongst each other, we all seem to be dedicated to NPOV writing, when it comes to 'pedia articles. I've adopted a new rhythm of pondering a thorny subject for a week or more, and then writing several paragraphs in one short session. Then, I await comments from my co-contributors. Upon reading them, I either immediately adopt their suggestions or gaze in rapt silence at their edits to my (brilliant?) prose and go away to ponder for another lengthy period.

I think this works better, after all the goal is not to win a debate but to contribute articles of lasting value. Ed Poor

Ed: This is an encyclopedia, not an anthology of religious poetry. I don't know whether we're legally in the clear on the Sun Myung Moon poem, or the poem cited as found on a wall at Mother Teresa's, but even if we are, they don't belong here, any more than a sermon written by a noted poety when she was a teen would. (I'm putting this note in your talk and mine, and will wait a little while before deleting these items.) Vicki Rosenzweig

Ed,

I just got the impression you might know who I am :) and am wondering how anonymous my pseudonym is. Any thoughts?

-- Ark