Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
The two orphaned images you just restored do not fit ], and the movie poster also does not meet ]. The images were removed for valid reasons. --] (]) 02:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Revision as of 02:49, 30 July 2008
Welcome to Leonard^Bloom's talk page
Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why.
No clue. Ask hmwith, who designed it. It was me who templatified my page later on. (This is the lastest version of my page, pre-transclusion). 2165500:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Big stick question
Hey there! I am a bit confused on the concept of "Big Stick Diplomacy." In my research, I see very little real diplomacy in TR's Latin American/Caribbean endeavours. Does this fall under the category of "Gunboat Diplomacy"? Or does it make sense to call the article "Big Stick Policy"? I may think "policy" is the right word if you consider that TR used that modus operandi on the domestic front, too. Please let me know. Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. I didn't forget you -- sort of got distracted with other endeavours. I hope to get back on the TR bandwagon later in the week or early next week. Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
you've confused me, what title did i give the film.
i edited it quite a lot...i added heading to distinguis between all the different forms he wrote in...can this be put back in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.184.172 (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
hmm
you reverted it back to normal halfway through me editing, the reason i changed the title to "works About robert Anton wilson" was because i was just about to add eric wagners biography of him. i think you shouldv'e been patient and waited until i had actually finished, instead of interrupting halfway through my edit. can you tell me why the rest of it went back to normal here is the finished layout i had for it.
Magick Changing the World, the World Changing Magick (ACE) Panel Discussion - Cassette
The Self in Transformation (ACE) Panel Discussion - Cassette
The Once & Future Legend (with Ivan Stang, Robert Shea and others) (ACE) Panel Discussion - Cassette
What IS the Conspiracy, Anyway? (ACE) Panel Discussion - Cassette
The Chocolate-Biscuit Conspiracy Music cassette with The Golden Horde (1984)
Twelve Eggs in a Basket CD
Robert Anton Wilson On Finnegans Wake and Joseph Campbell (interview by Faustin Bray and Brian Wallace) (1988) 2 CD Set Sound Photosynthesis ASIN: B000BJSF66
Acceleration of Knowledge (1991) Cassette
Secrets of Power Comedy Cassette
Robert Anton Wilson Explains Everything: or Old Bob Exposes His Ignorance (July 30, 2005) Sounds True ISBN 1591793750, ISBN 978-1591793755
Filmography
Actor
Túneis da Realidade, Os (aka Who Is the Master Who Makes the Grass Green?) (1996) Edgar Pêra (Portugal)
Wilhelm Reich in Hell (2005) (Video) Deepleaf Productions
Appearing as himself
Children of the Revolution: Tune Back In (2005) Revolutionary Child Productions
Maybe Logic: The Lives and Ideas of Robert Anton Wilson (2003) (Video and DVD) Deepleaf Productions
The Gospel According to Philip K. Dick (2001) TKO Productions
23 (1998) (23 - Nichts ist so wie es scheint) Claussen & Wöbke Filmproduktion GmbH (Germany)
Arise! The SubGenius Video (1992) (V) (aka Arise! SubGenius Recruitment Film #16) The SubGenius Foundation (USA)
Borders (1989) Co-Directions Inc. (TV Documentary)
Fear In The Night: Demons, Incest and UFOs (1993) Video - Trajectories
Twelve Eggs in a Box: Myth, Ritual and the Jury System (1994) Video - Trajectories
Everything Is Under Control: Robert Anton Wilson in Interview (1998) Video - Trajectories
hey
thanks for the help, i've already got an accouent but i don't how to associate the posts from this ip addresse to my account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.184.172 (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
cool
thanks and here are the tildes, i did know about that but i forget...sorry.
Please do remember that Huggle, as noted on its wiki page, is for reverting vandalism. I have undone this edit, as it was completely unreasoned (and the info added, that the photo shows a male, is entirely correct). Rabo3 (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, it is a shame that this article was nominated for deletion seemingly based on the personal opinions of that editor. This is so annoying, the stress of the Michael Jackson FA review was enough, now I have to watch over this deletion as well. I'm not going to be making any more articles on Jackson, I have a great knowledge of him, with some wonderful books, but some people can't look beyond their biases. Anyway, I hope you enjoy my work, the Jackson article or the Thriller album are by best bits. — Realist (Speak) 02:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the Virginia edits in Creationism vs. Evolution
Hi Leonard,
I'm the guy who posted the edits to the Virginia section of CvEiPE a little while ago, which was immediately reverted back by you. First off, let me explain that I entirely understand where you are coming from - I personally love Misplaced Pages, not only for absolutely objective material, but for the pages that present the differing perspectives in crucial debates. Misplaced Pages is one of my most commonly viewed websites, and is definitely #1 when you exclude recreational sites. I would never want to compromise this site's integrity in any way, and especially not to further personal propaganda (of which I have very little, besides).
However, I argue that the edit I made, while undoubtedly a "sting" to a minority of people, was entirely appropriate, and well within the purview of Misplaced Pages. My edit, as you may recall, concerned the fact that creationism is not science, no matter how much it is erroneously labelled as such. While I very briefly summarized the reason for this fact as "... is not the outcome of typical logical analysis centered on objective evidence", I can elaborate.
Science is advanced by competition and rivalry between opposing theories for a given phenomenon. In a typical scientific forum, not every theory is automatically accepted as worthy of participation, however. In particular, a theory must offer resolution to apparent paradoxes entertained by its counterparts (i.e. bring something new to the table), and it especially must make predictions that could be verified by further, repeated, independent experimentation (otherwise, the "theory" is just a reformulated observation of what is, instead of a conjecture about what could possibly be). While I do not endorse it by any means, I fully believe that creationism is not incompatible with evolution in any way; when it comes to creationism vs. evolution, however, creationism tends to simply absorb what is better described as anti-evolutionism. Thus, in an article on such a debate, it is prudent to regard creationism as anti-evolutionism, at least initially, and to counter it as such.
Creationism, in this sense, fails to be scientific, in that it fails to meet not one but both of the aforementioned requirements. Creationists repeatedly espouse the same "problems" with evolution - as you recall, this is exactly what is expected of competing theories, and is not in and of itself a problem. What is an issue, however, is the fact that these objections do not stem from scholarly expertise of the theory they seek to debunk. Moreover, most of these objections have been refuted countless times by people who are extremely knowledgeable of evolution, and said arguments are rather quickly exposed as nothing more than misunderstandings of the principles of the theory (hence the scholarly comment earlier). More crucially, not only does creationism introduce a plethora of other self-contradictions to the arena, but it frequently fails to respond to the very problems it uses to target evolutionary theory - even though, as I've already said, evolutionary theory generally explains them quite well itself!
An example would be appropriate. One of creationists' favorite perceived "aces in the hole" is the spotty fossil record. To be specific, evolution purports gradual change, or "transition", from one species to another - this is the entire basis of its claim to explaining the diversity of life. Therefore, it is to be expected that there will be fossilized evidence of "transition species" - organisms intermediate in physiology between the species of the past and modern species. However, creationists steadfastly maintain that, while there are clearly fossils of extinct organisms that could be classified as "part-x, part-y", the fossil record is far too "gappy" to support evolution. This, however, is a heavily flawed criticism, for two reasons. One, while people can easily picture a gradual, seamless transition from one animal to another, a la Animorphs, evolution itself never works that way. This transition is never perfectly continual - there has to be discrete "jumps", just because there are discrete differences between generations (parents do not gradually become their offspring, at least not in higher life). In particular, embryonic development involves developmental genes that, when "triggered", singlehandedly produce drastic effects in the organism - generally because these genes are responsible for the expression of multiple other genes. There are plenty of examples, such as a well-known fly mutation where mutating the right gene (in both copies) leads to the development of extra legs where the antenna would develop. While this particular mutation is, needless to say, rather unlikely to enhance survival in the organisms that have it, it does serve to express just how very abrupt change can frequently be.
The second problem with "the gap problem" is that nowhere near every organism, or even every species of organism, that ever lived will be represented in the fossil record. I do not know the details of fossilization, but I am aware that it is a complicated process that occurs only very rarely, and then only under the right conditions. Therefore, it is quite likely that fossils will fail to reflect anywhere near the entire evolutionary pathway between organisms A and B - too many of the intermediates will be lost forever to mere complete decomposition. On a related note, what organisms are fossilized do not reveal nearly as much about their species as we would like to know. While paleontologists have done an impressive job generalizing the overall body structure from incomplete skeletons, that is generally the extent of our knowledge of extinct species - the overall body structure, and, if the teeth are preserved, the diet (sometimes we can infer more by random luck with fossils, such as the one where the dinosaur was found incubating its eggs like birds, but these are the exceptions, not the rule). We almost never know about the organ composition, except for things that can be inferred from the skeleton (for example, in vertebrates, the brain's size cannot exceed the size of the cranial cravity). The point is that much of the raw material evolution would work with is lost, leaving us with sorely incomplete islands of data in an overall sorely incomplete record of the history of life.
The above is only one lonely example of the failure, at least thus far, of creationists' efforts to refute evolution - others can be easily found by visiting a pro-creationism (or, even better, an anti-evolution) website. On the other hand, evolution endures not just because nothing has been able to challenge it, but because there is tremendous evidence that vindicates it. In fact, if it WERE planted by God, it could only suggest that he WANTS us to understand evolution. The conclusive evidence that suggests our mitochondria (and plants' chloroplasts) are derived from the most primitive microorganisms. What transition species HAVE been preserved in the fossil record (including not only "recent" evolution, such as from the dinosaurs to birds, but at least one link between plants and animals). Substantial genetic similarity - much, much more than would be expected by chance - between humans and the most primitive animals...that increases rapidly as you move further up the evolutionary ladder. In the end, anti-evolutionism does not hold up, not in the eyes of any well-informed student of evolution (whose experise is the only one that matters, when focusing exclusively on the merits of evolution alone).
Thus, creationists have only one recourse - to superimpose God on already satisfactory scientific conclusions, and say that he just "wanted" evolution. This is entirely a personal choice, and believe me, I do not hold it against anyone in the slightest who pursues this course. However, it must be understood that it is not in the least scientific. By attributing everything to a higher, immensely powerful entity - much less one that we do not at all understand - creationists (and theists in general) immediately eliminate any window for challenge, any opportunity to challenge the assertion. This, in and of itself, puts it beyond the reach of science, which is, again, the collective outcomes of logical analysis that is centered on objective evidence. There is another problem as well. While science does not shy away from complexity, it is accepted that if two assertions explain the same amount of data, but one is less "complicated" (it is more general, and/or it has fewer ad hoc modifications), the "simpler" one prevails, since accepting the second one implies the acceptance of additional conclusions that are not founded on evidence (if there were no such "superfluous" conclusions, then the simpler theory would be flawed, contradicting the assumption they have equal explanatory power).
Therefore, creationism is a perfectly legitimate belief system. It is not legitimate science. My original edit did not support or refute creationism on the basis of faith, because that was not the subject of the page. It only pointed out what I have now much more fully explained - creationism is not science, any more than someone failing to understand gravity arguing against its existence is science, so to cast evolution vs. creationism as a scientific debate is inaccurate. Later on, I will attempt to re-include my edit - while it will remain largely the same, I will review it and remove any shred of bias. To call creationism unscientific is not biased, though - it is objective fact.
Thanks for reading this thesis. =P If you want to reply (and I hope you do), please do so to Drlight11, my Wiki account.
Hang on one second. i am just starting to create this article and you want to delete it after the first edit. I am still putting things. Once, I am done you can still nominate it. However, the person was president of Germany's largest university and later promoted to the president of all the Hochschulrektorenkonferenz which is kind of a the national club of all professors. Be a little bit patient please. Tomeasy T C18:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
So, now I am done. If you still want to delete it, I can't help it, but I wouldn't understand why. This person is for sure among the 1000 most influential people in Germany. Doesn't that (I mean the facts that make it so) qualify for being on Misplaced Pages. Tomeasy T C18:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to paste you a link to his large article on the German Misplaced Pages, but saw your message then. So it's probably not necessary anymore. Thanks for telling me about the underconstruction template. I didn't know this and will use it in the future. Cheers. Tomeasy T C18:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfA, wich was successful with 73 support, 6 oppose, and 5 neutral. I'll try to be as clear as I can in my communication and to clear some of the admin backlog on images. If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page!
Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.
