TallNapoleon (talk | contribs) |
TallNapoleon (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
== "Mendacity" == |
== "Mendacity" == |
||
Perhaps I shouldn't have used such strong language, but I am so utterly frustrated with the way Steve and Kjaer (and for that matter some of the other Randites) continually distort the opinions of others as to be utterly frustrated. My question: do you think I went out of line? |
Perhaps I shouldn't have used such strong language, but I am so utterly frustrated with the way Steve and Kjaer (and for that matter some of the other Randites) continually distort the opinions of others as to be utterly frustrated. My question: do you think I went out of line? [[User:TallNapoleon|TallNapoleon]] ([[User talk:TallNapoleon|talk]]) 05:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:29, 5 February 2009
Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:
- Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
- If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
- Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
- Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
- Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
- To initiate a new conversation on this page, please .
- You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).
- Archive to 29 May 08
- Archive to 21 July 08
- Archive to 30 Nov 08
- Archive to 31 Jan 09
- notes and working
Ayn Rand Article
I'm pretty much leaving this article alone until the ArbCom decision comes in. I've tried to get some sort of compromise going, but its pretty clear that this is not going to happen until ArbCom resolves the behavior issues, so I'm just going to save my breath. What do you think of doing a philosopher RfC once the behavior issues are resolved? Idag (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Good idea on the RfC, although I am hoping ArbCom will make a ruling on the evidence question and proving a negative. I keep resolving to leave it be but then succumbing to temptation. --Snowded TALK 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have promised to neither edit Ayn Rand nor Talk:Ayn Rand, as one of the "conditions" required from Kjaer was that I should not be involved, and it was small sacrifice to make to walk away from that cesspit of bad faith and insults it has become more like in recent weeks if it meant that more people would agree to mediation (I was dragged into the ArbCom because of the allegations about myself given, and then I was criticised for still commenting at one point by Kjaer when he had made the allegations that seemed to require a response from me! It is a soul-destroying and motivation-sapping experience for me and the whole of wikipedia, I think.) However, on the question of whether she was or wasn't a philosopher, I wonder whether a compromise solution might be the following: to accept that the perception of her within the USA is different from the rest of the world, and use a form of words like "She is considered to be a philosopher and novelist within the USA, but is more mainly considered to be a novellist and writer outside the USA who wrote about philosophical issues." I think from trying to sort out the facts and verifications from the insults and other stuff flying around that such a sentence could be justified by judicious use of footnotes to expand the sentence and provide verification for (a) the claim that within the USA she is thought of as a philosopher; and (b) the claim that outside the USA she is mainly thought of as a writer and novellist. DDStretch (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Ayn Rand arbitration evidence
Please make note of the message posted on the evidence talk page regarding the need for supporting evidence. This is a general courtesy note being left for all editors who have submitted evidence in the case. Be well, --Vassyana (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Naturalism talkpage
Just to clarify my comments; am I explaining it incorrectly? Because it feels like I'm either completely failing to make myself understood or the user in question is just not getting the idea, one of the two. Ironholds (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think you did a good job. The user just doesn't get it. He made similar edits to Liberalism and a theology article. If you look at what he then did to his talk page I think we are dealing with someone with problems. --Snowded TALK 22:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Theology
You might want to check out this. I think he just crossed the line into causing more harm than good; being ignorant of wiki-policy only creates so much good faith. I also find his mentions of 'the truth' in discussions quite worrying for a contributor to a neutral encyclopedia. Ironholds (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Agree and I responded with one mistake! He has been so irritating I thought he had been banned, but I think his talk page says it all. I think he is just ignorant to be honest, rather than pernicious but the effect is the same. --Snowded TALK 01:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
"Mendacity"
Perhaps I shouldn't have used such strong language, but I am so utterly frustrated with the way Steve and Kjaer (and for that matter some of the other Randites) continually distort the opinions of others as to be utterly frustrated. My question: do you think I went out of line? TallNapoleon (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)