This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.
My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.
Labels: Wikipedia (new #1)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 1/12/2008 01:47:00 AM
10 Comments:
What censorship? Not including your crap is not censorship.
So you are saying that deleting your crap here would not be censorship, dunghill?
ViU driveled,
>>>>>>> So you are saying that deleting your crap here would not be censorship, dunghill? <
A proper comparison would be if I demanded to write one of your main articles and you did not allow it. <<<<<
It's like this, you stupid fathead. I proposed that instead of putting long discussions or debates of disputed items into the Wikipedia articles themseives, just add brief descriptions of the disputed items along with notes that the items are disputed and links to external websites where the items are discussed or debated. These linked websites would be analogous to the comments on blogs. This fair and sensible proposal was turned down by the Wickedpedian control freaks. These control freaks are not interested in compromise -- they just want to have their way. What in the hell is URL linking capability for, anyway, if we are not going to take advantage of it? Why in the hell does an online encyclopedia have to look like a printed encyclopedia, which has no capability of instantly linking to external sources?
Also, there was only one case where I demanded that something in a Wikipedia article be removed -- the claim that Judge Jones had approved Ding Elsberry's text comparison program for the purpose of determining the extent to which two different documents have the same ideas. No evidence was presented to support this claim.
Furthermore, who owns Wikipedia? Do the fascist Wikipedia administrators have the right to dictate how the articles are written?
>>>>> Your banning of ViW is also censorship, idiot. <<<<<
I didn't ban ViW, dunghill. I can't even block individuals -- I can either block everybody (comment moderation turned on) or nobody (comment moderation turned off).
It's like this, you mindless cretin.
> I proposed that ...<
And not accepting your proposal constitutes censorship?
> links to external websites <
Even non-notable and crappy ones? Selectivity is not censorship.
> Also, there was only one case where I demanded that something in a Wikipedia article be removed <
You wanted it censored.
> No evidence was presented to support this claim. <
To you have evidence to disprove it?
> Furthermore, who owns Wikipedia? <
Not you.
>>>>> Your banning of ViW is also censorship, idiot. <<<<<
> I didn't ban ViW, dunghill. I can't even block individuals <
Then how do you explain your earlier admitted cases of censorship?
>>>>>> And not accepting your proposal constitutes censorship? <<<<<<
Dunghill, if you made a proposal that I not censor your crap here, would my rejection of that proposal constitute censorship?
>>>>> links to external websites <
Even non-notable and crappy ones? <<<<<<
Dunghill, the Wickedpedia rules say that citation of personal blogs is not allowed at all (with narrow exceptions that do not apply). So they were already breaking the rules even without posting links to my "crappy" blog.
>>>>> Selectivity is not censorship. <<<<<<
What "selectivity"? There was nothing in my entries that expressed or implied that they were selected by Wikipedia. In fact, quite the contrary -- my entries clearly indicated that they were not selected by Wikipedia.
>>>>>> Also, there was only one case where I demanded that something in a Wikipedia article be removed <
You wanted it censored. <<<<<<<
Yes, because it was a wild claim that was unsupported by a "reliable non-partisan" source.
>>>>>> To you have evidence to disprove it? <<<<<<
There is nothing in the Wikipedia rules that says that anything can be stated as fact if no one can find a "reliable non-partisan" source that denies that it is fact. Anyway, I wasn't even allowed to post an argument that it is extremely unlikely that their claim is true.
>>>>> Furthermore, who owns Wikipedia? <
Not you. <<<<<<<
Unlike the Wickedpedians, I do not act as if I own Wikipedia.
>>>>> Then how do you explain your earlier admitted cases of censorship? <<<<<
There was nothing to "admit" -- it was plain that I had censored some comments for invading my privacy. I even uncensored some of them.
Actually, I should be thanking you for helping me to make my points (no, folks, I am not practicing Charlie McCarthyism here).
"I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me."
-- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
> if you made a proposal that I not censor your crap here, would my rejection of that proposal constitute censorship? <
No. Your censorship of that proposal would constitute censorship. It is really a very simple concept. Even you should be able to understand it.
> Wikipedia rules say that citation of personal blogs is not allowed at all <
But you want them to make an exception for yoyu.
> even without posting links to my "crappy" blog. <
So you finally admit it is crappy.
>>>>> Selectivity is not censorship. <<<<<<
> What "selectivity"? There was nothing in my entries that expressed or implied that they were selected by Wikipedia. In fact, quite the contrary -- my entries clearly indicated that they were not selected by Wikipedia. <
Cretin, you are arguing with yourself on this one.
>>>>>> You wanted it censored. <<<<<<<
> Yes <
So you are for censorship. You should be thrown out as the only member (a non-practicing one albeit) of the Association of Non-Censoring Bloggers.
>>>>>> To you have evidence to disprove it? <<<<<<
> blither <
So you have no such evidence?
>>>>> Furthermore, who owns Wikipedia? <
Not you. <<<<<<<
> Unlike the Wickedpedians, I do not act as if I own Wikipedia.<
Unlike the owners, I do not act like an owner. Duh!
>>>>> Then how do you explain your earlier admitted cases of censorship? <<<<<
> There was nothing to "admit" -- it was plain that I had censored some comments for invading my privacy. <
So you have admitted it again. You believe that debunking false personal statements that you said about yourself constituted an invasion of privacy. Don't lie about yourself and it won't be necessary.
> "I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me."
-- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger <
It looks like everyone else is kicking your butt. In more than a year I have never seen you do anything but make a fool out of yourself.
Then again, I can see why you dislike Ed, P.Z. and Kevin. They are always kicking your butt.
Also, there was only one case where I demanded that something in a Wikipedia article be removed -- the claim that Judge Jones had approved Ding Elsberry's text comparison program for the purpose of determining the extent to which two different documents have the same ideas. No evidence was presented to support this claim.
As a definitive statement, that should be easy enough to verify. Elsberry's text comparison program is only mentioned at Wikipedia's Discovery Institute article.
Hmmm, Larry's contribution record at Wikipedia tells a very different story that what Larry is saying here. There are dozens examples of him demanding that Wikipedia content be removed other than the content related to Wes' text comparison program which he insists is the only instance.
Here he is demanding content be removed at the Cheri Yecke article and removing it himself when he wasn't able to get the results he wanted:
*Larry deleting sources Note his signature eloquence in the edit summary
*Arguing to delete blogs other than his own used as sources
*Arguing to delete another source
*Larry deleting sources again
*Larry deleting content
*And so on for dozens of posts
Also note that before he was banned from Wikipedia Larry never discussed the text comparison issue at the only article where Elsberry's text comparison program is mentioned, the Discovery Institute article . But after he was banned he announced a campaign on the issue at his blog and violated his ban by editing with sock puppets as User:4.68.248.69 User:63.215.27.119 User:63.215.27.117, which he's admitted to.
Like all of Larry's claims, when it comes to his gripes about censorship and being on the right side of an argument, it pays to dig a little deeper to learn the facts.
Anonymous said,
>>>>>>As a definitive statement, that should be easy enough to verify. Elsberry's text comparison program is only mentioned at Wikipedia's Discovery Institute article. <<<<<<
What in the hell are you talking about?
>>>>>> Larry's contribution record at Wikipedia tells a very different story that what Larry is saying here. There are dozens examples of him demanding that Wikipedia content be removed other than the content related to Wes' text comparison program which he insists is the only instance. <<<<<
I had forgotten about this exchange in the discussion webpage on Cheri Yecke's bio --
I said,
(quoting a Wickedpedia administrator) "Watch this video of Yecke endorsing the Santorum Amendment then explain how it is you can claim there's no evidence of her doing so and how you're not misrepresenting sources, Larry. Yecke on TPT’s "Almanac" show, air date September 12, 2003"
I'm not misrepresenting sources -- you are. That program aired Sept. 12. I want the source of the following quote in the bio, supposedly from a radio show that aired on June 9 --
1. ^ Yecke: "every local district should have the freedom to teach creationism if that is what they choose" Minnesota Public Radio, June 9, 2003. (from reference section)
I also want to know the source of the following statement in the bio --
"The versions of the Minnesota Science Standards circulated by Yecke contained language used by the pro-intelligent design Teach The Controversy campaign which casts doubt on evolution while offering intelligent design as a competing theory.[4] The version that was circulated among the public did not include these revisions."
I asked these questions before and I have still not gotten any answers. Larry Fafarman 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
OrangeMarlin's response was,
I think Larry has shot his wad here. I'm tired of reading his POV [Point of View] pushing, because this is boring. And it's a long time since I've seen the word persnickety!!! Orangemarlin 18:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The above two claims in Cheri Yecke's bio are at least credible, though not verified. The claim about Ding Elsberry's text comparison program being accepted by Judge Jones for the purpose of determining the extent to which two documents have the same ideas is not even credible.
So to clarify, I absolutely demanded that those claims ( the claim about Ding Elsberry's program and the above two claims about Cheri Yecke ) be removed -- i.e., I was not willing to compromise -- because those claims were stated as fact and there was no verification from "reliable non-partisan" sources. In other cases where I demanded that material be removed, I was willing to compromise -- I said I will accept your stuff if you accept my stuff. I removed the links to those other personal blogs because the rules say no personal blogs and the Wickedpedians refused to accept links to my blog. The Wickedpedians never agree to any kind of compromise -- it is just "it's our way or the highway."
>>>>>> Larry never discussed the text comparison issue at the only article where Elsberry's text comparison program is mentioned, the Discovery Institute article . <<<<<<
Don't give me that crap -- here is where I discussed the text comparison issue. See all those places where it says, "Comments from sock puppet of indef banned user avoiding ban removed -- FeloniousMonk"? I couldn't even participate in the discussions, let alone edit the articles.
Of course I am going to "violate" these bans, dummox -- why should I accept these stupid bans?
And you are a lousy hypocrite who is taking advantage of my no-censorship policy while criticizing my opposition to Internet censorship.
Radio talk show host Bill Greene said of Wickedpedia, as well as I can remember --
If you come in with an alternative point of view, a cabal of politically correct, brown-shirted fascists immediately descends upon you and reverts your entry. . .they say that your entry is just a point of view, a fringe theory, pseudoscience, blah, blah blah . . . . They have set up these rules . . . and they lawyer you to death with the rules. They hound you out. You either change over to their point of view, or you just leave. Or they ban you . . . Don't think it doesn't happen, because it does.
Wickedpedia is going down -- the only question is how fast its descent will be.
ViU's crap is not even worth answering. ViU keeps coming back here even though -- like what they said in the old White Owl cigar ads -- he just knows I'm going to get him. He is a glutton for punishment.
"I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me."
-- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
> he just knows I'm going to get him. <
So far you have only made an ass of yourself.
BTW, dunghills, the Wickpedian control freaks did not even follow the Wikipedia rules when they banned me:
Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.
I was banned by a single adminstrator, FeloniousMonk (skunk).
Post a Comment
<< Home