User talk:ElectricRay/Archive3

Virtual Utopia

I noticed that Carbonite desysoped himself and left again. It appears to me that he keeps getting frustrated over not being able to force others to adopt his version of common sense. I guess the common-sense-of-one-person approach isn't superior to the rule-of-law. Yet, could there be something superior to the rule of law enabled by the number crunching and communication of modern technology? Is it possible to create an environment where a group common-sense would emerge? Utopia has always been beyond our reach in the past, but the past did not have global communication or the ability to associate mathematical value to the weight of opinions. Failed Utopias could not work with human nature because the consensus gatherers were human and open to corruption. Invariably, those with more power would use their influence to bias collective intelligence, but wonder if consensus amalgamation could be done by computer now and kept honest through transparency?

As I'm sure you know, transparency is a double-edged sword. It allows people to "truth" the system, but it also enables people to see loopholes that could result in gaming. Because of this, the only stable environment I can fathom for collective thought would be one where all end users take responsibility for the project. Because I firmly believe the Law of Conservation of Stewardship, I am convinced that users cannot take responsibility for something without also having a similar percentage of control. Therefore, Utopia is an all or nothing proposition. We cannot pick and choose which aspects of the old hierarchy system we want to bring forward. Control from above ultimately relies upon blind trust in a benevolent leader—a structure which is inherently unstable because benevolence is subjective. In instances were the masses become convinced that their highest leader is the creator of the universe, it has been possible for everyone to move in the same direction, but that direction is dictated by one person or a small band of people—it does not receive the benefit of collective thought.

In order to find the best direction, and to move in that direction as a community, Utopia must have both the benefit of collective thought and the stewardship of all its participants. These things seem to be at odds with each other because collective thought requires the Darwinism of people trying different directions. Throughout history, however, some civilizations have come very close to pulling it off for a time. How did they do it?

As you mention, Amazon puts reputation to good use within its limited systemic requirements. I estimate that book reviews, however, are about a thousandth as controversial as the definitions of words. Also, I see required registration and reputation as a form of potential tyranny. Instead, wonder if we turned our thinking around and embraced vandalism, trolling and terrorism as necessary parts of Darwinism? Wonder if we worked with human nature instead of against it? I believe that an environment could be designed using today’s technology that allows free unlimited expression to influence the system without overpowering the expressions of other individuals.

I would like to respond to your other points as well. I’m off to Paris for the weekend and should be back on the fifteenth. --Mr. Stark 17:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Dodo

Can you wipe your nose my child

Without them slotting in your file a photograph?

Will you sleep in fear tonight?

Wake to find the scorching light of neighbour Jim

He's come to turn you in

David Bowie 1974

You are being watched. (here's looking at you, JPG!!!)

The Thread You Sent Me

I saw that and almost cried in response to their ignorance. At this rate, unless Jimbo and the aristocrats change, i'm guessing we'll have a Wikipedian civil war of some sort by the end of the year. I hope it doesn't come to that, but with thickheaded nonsense like what I heard there, i'm afraid we won't be able to change people's minds towards the old axiom, "Power corrupts and Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely." Nobody's above karma, and thinking you're infallible often seems to incur its wrath. Karmafist 18:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not going mad, just angry. Don't quit this place just because of one person's ego. The best way to combat this is to continue making an encyclopedia and show that someone notable being "infallible" is contrary to making one. I've heard many people critical of Jimbo, but i've never seen a "Criticisms" section at Jimbo Wales. I don't know about you, but I say we go help it get a little more NPOV... Karmafist 19:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That's your call. A friend of mine high up just advised me not to do what I just said since if I did it right now, it'd look like a callous tit for tat rather than what I meant it to be -- trying to make this encyclopedia better. Ultimately, that's all I want: to be on here and know that i'm not going to be accosted by some random person for no reason, and I wish I could ignore Wikipedia, but not only am I likely addicted(although I stayed off all yesterday to prove to myself I can), but it's fast becoming the most common information source on the internet: it's hard to avoid it or one of its bastardized clones if you're on a major search engine nowadays. I just want to do whatever I can to save this thing before it becomes another tool of lies against the populace. Maybe I can't do anything, I don't know. Karmafist 20:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Another take on the matter - www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia2

The Manifesto and that Link

That link was great, but I wished they could tone it down a bit -- Joe Q. Random going into there will just probably think that whoever this is has an axe to grind rather than it being an actual critique of Wikipedia.

You know what? Screw that friend of mine, the Cabal keeps on saying that the encyclopedia comes before anything else, so we should make sure there's an NPOV account of the critisms of Wales at his page.(And you're right, nobody can be completely neutral, everybody's got likes and dislikes, that's what makes us human, but that doesn't mean we can't strive for that, even if we can only theoretically get 99% of the way there.)

Ultimately, Wales is irrelevant, it's the encyclopedia that matters. If the cabal reverts it, then they can no longer use that argument as we can show the hypocrisy in that, if they don't, then people know that not all is well here.

Hopefully understanding that will coax them out of their groupthink, but i'm just a hopeful individual, I got reverted by some random bureaucrat yesterday when I added Jimbo to cult of personality. Have you ever seen his talk and user pages? People make goddamn shrines to him.

I can only hope i'm that popular if I ever become a notable figure. Just one difference, I'd welcome the criticisms section on my bio so I could learn and grow from it. Karmafist 17:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia Review

Yeah, but i've seen flakier groups, believe it or not. They just need a task to focus around instead of constant whining about how Wikipedia sucks. I actually have an idea on how to get that task up and going. If they don't want to take THAT up, well then, screw 'em. I have better things to do than bitch on some website about another website. Karmafist 03:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh

It looks like they've given up on themselves. All I got when I just was there was a message saying "coming soon". Oh well. Life goes on. Karmafist 07:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

WR

Whoops, I forgot to thank you for the new link. Anyway, even if nothing happens with them, I see it as good practice for me. Wikipedia's kinda sorta important, but in the end, it's just a hobby. You want to see the real important thing, check Template:2004Hillsborough19GeneralCourt, look near the bottom and see if you see a familiar name. If my career can stabilize, I'm gonna win in 2006. Hell, i've welcomed at least 1,897 people on here in the past week or two. All I need is to get one of their 8 votes, and last time the average was only 6. Karmafist 23:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you post there Electric Ray? I didn't notice. The site went from an amateur free site to a paid for professional site. It is still in a lot of ways the same site, and the neo nazi accusations are just as invalid as ever. The point is to have a place to discuss Wikipedia. Like all forums, if you think that it should be directed better, become a member, and make better posts yourself. Anyway up to you.

Yes, I did post there for a a while, at the old site, under the name Electric Ray. I gave up as it became clear it is no more than about five immature and hypocritical dipsticks with far too much time on their hands and nothing informed, interesting or costructive to say. I think you'll find the neo-nazi allegations - against the site - are quite valid. ElectricRay 10:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think you will find that you are quite ignorant. There are two users who have posted to WR that may be neo-nazis, and neither of those users are currently active. There are many, many, critical reviews of the actions of certain users - and sometimes this does lead to personal attacks - but in general, the site appears to be improving in regards to these issues. --72.160.73.242 10:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I care what you think, especially if you don't have the common decency to indentify yourself. There are many, many other forums for people who wish to discuss - constructively - the merits and drawbacks of collaborative online communities like Wikipedia, and Wikipedia Review is singular only in its childishness, the extent to which its main contributors are misinformed, prejudiced and frankly just plain stupid. As long as Blissyu2, Selina and Lir are the three major contributors - which they still seem to be - this has little chance of changing, as those individuals have all of those attributes - and, seemingly, few others - in spades. ElectricRay 17:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for not identifying myself. I signed my post, but quite frankly, didn't think to state that I am User:Blu Aardvark. Typically, I'd post under my own account, but as that has been blocked... well... --72.160.71.182 08:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought as much. For some reason I seem to attract blocked users! I am a bit let down that you don't remember my brief membership on your site, but I suppose I don't always make as much of an impact as I like to think I do.

Look, you personally seem, fundamentally, to be a decent chap, but I do think you need to choose who you hang out with a bit more judiciously. Any site boasting Lir, Selina and Blissyu2 as its major contributors is going to have trouble attracting serious commentators, especially when it deliberately drives other, more sensible, users (e.g. Malber, Grace Note) away - banned them, even, which is the height of irony, if nothing else - and has treated others who are endeavouring to leaven the grand paranoia with a pinch of common sense and thoughtful analysis (Sean Black) very poorly.

and another thing: for heaven's sake, get over the Cabal paranoia!

I know it makes me sound like a pompous old git (and that's because I am) but in a nutshell, the Wikipedia Review needs to grow up. Which means, as long as they're the main contributors, that Lir, Selina and Blissyu2 need to grow up. Sadly for you, that is something which I suspect they have very little prospect of, or interest in, doing. ElectricRay 11:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We are building a religion

22:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Electric Ray,

     Religion is fast becoming a joke, and that's too bad because there's nothing as effective in social unification to replace it. For a long time, I've been thinking about starting a new religious offshoot that would be more in line with popular modern beliefs in Darwinism and Relativism but now believe that no offshoot of a current religion can do that job. I have come to realize that religion is so out of touch with science because we haven't had a new great religion for centuries—science has progressed, but religion hasn't—all of these offshoots are still based on the science that founded Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Taoism millennia ago.

     Today, people believe in Darwinism and Relativism, but there are no religions founded upon these scientific and philosophic beliefs. The best we have are awkward grafts of ancient churches and our modern beliefs. Put quite plainly, these grafts don't cut it. We cannot build from evolution and equality to the same moral and hierarchical conclusions of any of these past faiths. Just like with a mainframe from the 70s, at some point the upgrade path must end and be completely replaced with a new system.

     From your writings, it appears that the scalability issue is a deal breaker: you seem to want to get rid of the old systems, replace them with nothing, and go back to the days before religion. As a society, the West has tried to make a no-system work for the past forty years and it simply hasn't. The recent resurgence in religion is due to the fact that Darwinism and Relativism by themselves do not even come close to providing the moral center needed in an efficient society. Science is a great foundation for collective intelligence and implementation when extrapolated to also provide cohesive direction. I'm sure you will agree that nothing provides cohesive direction as efficiently as religion. Therefore, it behooves me to ask your assistance in creating a completely new religion based on the current scientific and philosophic beliefs of today.

Yours truly, A bird in the hand

This is like Flowers for Algernon - I know I have a brief few moments of lucidity before they come to take you away. I hope you had a nice time in Paris, mon ami. For the record:

• Religion has long since become a joke. There's a reason there hasn't been a great new religion in a long while: religions rely on the unknown; the credulous; the paranoid. The random walk of evolution has tended to weed out the credulous and the paranoid, and will continue to do so (but slowly). Natural selection will, eventually, favour those who take nothing on faith. (this is why I have faith in Wikipedia, by the way: those who assume it will be riddled with bias, prejudice and non-neutral point of view (of course it will), and who adjust their reading of it commensurately - that is, people who are SKEPTICAL - will find it an invaluable resource).
• For all that, people seem to retain a natural tendency to irrationality. This is evidenced by people who continue to smoke, buy comsmetics, buy German sports cars off the lot, who think Wikipedia (or any other source of information) ought to be taken at face value (or should even aspire to be so taken), or think that the systematic repression Danish cartoonists is what God wants, or that the systematic repression of Hitler apologists will stop neo-Nazism. I suspect, but do not know, that the same people who bemoan the repression of Danish Cartoonists would rejoice in the imprisonment of Nazi apologists, and vice versa. People are strange.
• People like to be told what to do. That's why Jimbo has acquired the aura he has: people like a leader.
• I don't want to go back to the days before religion; I want to go to the days after religion. Actually, I don't even want to do that: if every one else is stupid enough to believe in religion, then I'll do better than they will in the long run. I'm mostly happy for everyone else to be stupid. Within limits.
• Society hasn't earnestly tried to make a no-system work: Political movements in all parts of the world are aligned along an axis from Socially Liberal but Economically Collectivist to Socially Conservative but Economically Liberal: No credible political movement is genuinely economically and socially liberal - to be so would be to wish itself out of existence. As long as we have politicians, and as long as people aspire to be led, we'll have political systems.
• All we can do is aspire to minimise the systems as much as possible.

It appears to me that every major religion was founded upon the known science of the day. The problem occurs later when science changes. God doesn't make mistakes, so either science is incorrect or God doesn't exist. At least that's the premise both sides use to show the other untrue. Still, most of society demands communal morality and empirical evidence in their beliefs. Neither science nor religion disappears completely because both are needed. Empirical evidence tirelessly competes with moral entrenchment for the title of being most useful to civilization, but when an amalgamation is present, it clearly takes the prize. Darwinism is currently at odds with much religious belief for some very practical reasons: it cannot replace the moral components of the religions it supplants, and it suggests no communal course of action. Many see relativism as a threat to western religions for the same reason. A moral course of action based on Darwinistic and relativistic beliefs is called for.

If I told you that I prayed to God and He explained the details of just such a moral course of action, you might not believe me, but what if fifty million people compared their feelings of personal revelation and came to a conclusion? With today's technology, a new religion wouldn't have to be a hierarchy. It would not have to limit its members to a single definition of God. It could be entirely compatible with scientific beliefs and would even have the ability to stay in line with empirical evidence as it is discovered. Sure, we could make a better communal encyclopedia than Wikipedia using a foundation of relativism and equality, but there is little demand for yet another definitional resource. What people are starving for is a way to reconcile their feelings of spiritual connectedness and moral purpose with modern scientific beliefs. No single person or small group could provide such answers. At this point in our development, only a collective intelligence will be able to fathom the mind of God. --A bird in the hand 05:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC) removed image deleted after uncontested nomination from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 March 2 Jkelly 00:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The Church of Collective Intelligence

I think that our faith must differ from historical religions in two fundamental ways: it must enable its members to have any definition or non-definition of God, and it must enable egotism in order to replace hierarchy with Darwinism. --A bird in the hand 17:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

But in what way is this still a "faith"? It resembles good old fashioned, befuddled liberal Anglicanism - oh it is whatever you want it to be - which doesn't really meet any of the criteria generally applied to religions (source of moral code; explanation for universe etc). I think what I want to say is there is only any merit in a world view which is descriptive; religions, moralists, etc., are all about being prescriptive. We can extrapolate generalisms from statistical data - we can observe that in a sample, most people do hold x and y values - but this is a very different thing from teh conclusion that therefore everyone, or any given individual in that sample, should (the illegitemacy of extrapolating ought from is was recognised as long ago as 1700s by David Hume). I don't think a new religion is the answer. ElectricRay 18:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there are any absolute rules for what can be called a "faith." If it is useful to call a new world government of the people "a religion," then why shouldn't it be so? --A bird in the hand 00:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"New World Government"? Don't like the sound of that at all ... Like Friedman says, Government IS the problem. ElectricRay 09:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Friedman was talking about government by an outside source. If Uncle Milt were a little younger, I'd ask him if he thought Internet technology could finally enable self-government in a social setting. I believe it can when set up with the following three cornerstones:

• Personal Revelation— Every person, regardless of their definition or non-definition of God, receives revelation valuable to mankind.
• Darwinism— Just as personal intelligence relies on a process of Neural Darwinism, collective intelligence requires an evolution of ideas. Incompatibilities of personal revelations create conflict. An optimal environment recognizes the necessity of these conflicts for Darwinism to occur, and does nothing to prevent them, but attempts to make resolution easier to achieve through consensus omnium. Consensus omnium is the consent of all members to proceed in a communal direction, even when that direction is not considered most favorable by all parties.
• Relativism— Implementation in terms of usefulness for a particular purpose. For instance, leaving the definition of God undefined is most useful for creating the largest and most powerful collective intelligence. Purely for communication purposes, we could call the source of our personal revelation "God" without qualification.

I believe that each person's power to create a disparate version of reality, combined with our Darwinist tendencies to find one communal direction that is most fit, make a perfect match with the relativism we can achieve using recent advances in communicative and number-crunching technologies. I agree with Kurzweil that we are rapidly approaching the transcendence of our species. The Church of Collective Intelligence is useful for making this transition. --A bird in the hand 05:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• are you a postmodernist?

I scored as Cultural Creative. Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. I am a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels that it is useful to believe in something greater than ourselves, like collective intelligence. I am very spiritual, even if I'm not religious. Intelligible implementation demands that we consider life to have a meaning outside of the observable.

Cultural Creative		100%
Postmodernist		75%
Idealist		75%
Romanticist		50%
Existentialist		50%
Modernist		50%
Materialist		38%
Fundamentalist		0%

I'm not spiritual or religious. I'm a bit of a crumb-bum. 100% postmodernist though! I scored as Postmodernist. Postmodernism is the belief in complete open interpretation. You see the universe as a collection of information with varying ways of putting it together. There is no absolute truth for you; even the most hardened facts are open to interpretation. Meaning relies on context and even the language you use to describe things should be subject to analysis.

Postmodernist		100%
Existentialist		75%
Cultural Creative		38%
Materialist		38%
Modernist		25%
Fundamentalist		0%
Romanticist		0%
Idealist		0%

This is a pretty fair summary, even though I found some of the questions pretty misconceived (as a postmodernist would, I guess.

Kurzweil

I need to understand a bit more about your world religion idea. I don't know of Kurzweil or the Singlularity (other than what I've just read on Wikipedia). Instrinctively, it sounds to me like there's a kernal of sense in it, but it's been pushed too far to the extreme. I think why I'm baulking at the very notion of a world religion, is that I believe (as a good postmodernist ought) that people just doing their own thing, whatever it may be, will achieve satisfactory results. If people want to be religious, let them. If they don't, don't. The mistake (which religions, governments, moralities) tend to make is to assume the same laws should apply, and the same treatment should be given across the board, on the basis of some divine notion or equity and fairness as a bedrock moral good. That just seems plainly wrong to me - everything I see in the world, even down to the petty battles for primacy on Wikipedia - says everyone looks at things differently, everyone has his own agenda, and can work out his own way in the world. No religion, no state, needed. But I think you understand this, so I have a feeling I might be missing your point about this new religion. Perhaps I need to have a look at Kurzweil. ElectricRay 23:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit that I was more of a postmodernist before reading Ray's book The Age of Spiritual Machines. I saw the "correct" direction of the world as going away from matters of religion. Kurzweil's introduction claimed that by the end of the book, the reader would believe that in the near future machines will claim to have spiritual experiences and people will accept this as true. For me, this was quite a claim. My entire viewpoint of the world would have to change for me to believe this, and indeed it did. I had to take a more literal approach to relativism in order to accept that humans weren't the center of the universe and that any thinking being would need a belief system beyond empirical evidence in order to function. --Frank Lloyd Wrong 21:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

OK - that one goes on my reading list, although I'm not so opposed to the idea of AI myself - I think I buy Dennett's line in Consciousness Explained about how it all can happen (and basically our own intelligence and consciousness is no different), and I'm reading a very interesting counterpoint to that at the moment called Critical Mass by Philip Ball, which just analyses how individuals' behaviour, which isn't predictable per se, is predictable when aggregated - ie you can account for how a population will behave even if you can't account for any individual in it. Once you see behaviour on a statistical basis (and give up on the significance of qualia which, it seems to me, are to consciousness what an individual's action is to the behaviour of a crowd), then the difference between consciousness and what a computer already does is much less significant. Where I don't agree with Dennett (or Dawkins) is the need for some form of moral objectivism to get us there. What perplexes me is that darwinism and functionalism are both such brutally relatavist ideas (that's what's so "Dangerous" about Darwin's idea), yet Dennett, Dawkins et al still hold out some hope for a prescriptive, objectivist account of how society ought to be arranged. ElectricRay 22:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The Curse of the Claw

You just couldn't stop yourself going back to that terrorism page, could you... and you were doing so well... I look forward to seeing you in the next life, Il Gattopardo... ElectricRay 09:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Anybody Out There?

Man: Well, only about an hour of daylight left. Better get started.

Woman: Is it unsafe to travel at night?

Man: It'll be a lot less safe to stay here. Your father's gonna pick up our trail before long.

Yummy Yummy Carrot For You! :D

Carrot Giver 20:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Report

Hi Electric. Apologies for spamming you like this, but I wondered whether you might be willing to take a look at my proposed forum posting rules/readme type thing at:

User:Grace_Note/proposed_FAQ_for_Wikipedia_report

I'd welcome any comments, either at my talkpage or by email. Grace Note 08:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Try http://www.wikipediareport.com/ then. But I must say that you need to put a lot more thought in to it before going ahead. By the way, why mention ProBoards? Do you plan to make it a free forum with ads and all of the rest? We don't. We wanted to make it an independent forum. Just took us a while to get going. User:Zordrac 10:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

... a lot more thought before going ahead ... a bit like you did, then? With respect, I don't think the Wikipedia Review ought to be regarded as a particularly successful model. ElectricRay 13:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

User talk:ElectricRay/Conversations

Do you really think it's appropriate to create a page specifically to carry on discussions with a banned user? This page needs to be deleted. I'm going to rvt all the contributions of all the Zephram Stark sockpuppets on this page.--JW1805 (Talk) 15:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter if his contributions are "trollish, offensive or otherwise objectionable" or not. He is banned from Wikipedia. He is not allowed to contribute in any way. If I see an edit he has made, I will revert it. That is Wikipedia policy. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, ER, if you don't care that Zephram Stark is banned, and continue to allow him to post ANYWHERE on Wikipedia, perhaps WP might not be the right place for you. IMO, allowing banned users such as ZS to continue posting on WP is like allowing Al-Qaeda to function in the western world. If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, you must obey certain rules, such as not allowing banned users to contribute ANYWHERE on WP during their ban period. If you wish to carry on with ZS, I suggest an off-wiki setting, such as Usenet, BBS forums, Instant Messaging, e-Mail, Personal Websites/blogs, etc. --TML1988 03:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• I went ahead and removed the post above that had personal attacks directed at me. I'm not going to worry about the other posts on this page (although it looks like most of the stuff here is from Zep sockpuppets).--JW1805 (Talk) 22:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Admins

Yes, I agree, though not with reference to Stark, who was a serious nuisance and very offensive. In their/our defense, I'd say it's hard to stay good-humored when we're being deluged with utter nonsense every minute of every day. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...

for the pointer. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Summery

Glad you liked my summery.  :) --JW1805 (Talk) 03:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism and the Power of Nightmares

That site leaves out the google video link. DyslexicEditor 00:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Raise a larf, so are legs

OK, no trouble, I'll change the name/redirection when I get home from work. Never understood how a leg could be blind anyway, I thought they just came that way. From another Kiwi, in Surrey. GrahamBould 07:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Paranoia

Hey, just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't really out to get me.... --JW1805 (Talk) 18:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Does Buxton =Stark=ElectricRay?

Are you Zephram Stark? There is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence suggesting that you are. It would at least explain your otherwise inexplicable mutual satisfaction with yourselves and one another, something no one else here seems to share.

Very good, Zephram. You had me there at first. ElectricRay 10:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: unsigned template

Nope. All that template does is put out a message; one cuts and pastes the timestamp and the editor's IP (or userid) from the article history to generate the message. It doesn't actually do anything like try to trace the IP or compare it to anything. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Flamebait

In your edit summary, you said you were only adding the section/subsection titles and moving stuff around ("inserting heading breaks for ease of editing, and re-ordering one paragraph to assist in flow"). A quick glance at the diff link seemed to show that that was the case. I apologize if I accidentally removed anything that you had actually added in your edit (aside from the section/subsection titles, which were indeed flamebait, if you ask me). --AaronS 23:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. No worries. No offense taken. --AaronS 23:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

.

I appreciate the backup. Thanks. RJII 04:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Passive aggressive

God, I don't know where you've got it into your head that I'm the aggressive one, but please stop harassing me about it. -- infinity0 21:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Really, what do you have against me? I haven't done anything to you. -- infinity0 21:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There you go again! It sounds like you don't really know what passive aggressive behaviour is. The whole point is that it doesn't seem to be aggressive, and so is difficult to counter without being seen to be a bad guy. If I may pay you a back-handed compliment, you're a master at it. What do I have against you? Nothing at all. You're reading that into the fact that I don't think you're as smart as you do, and I object to the way you've been conducting yourself on Wikipedia. I've explained in some detail why I think this, so if you don't understand by now, you never will.

Anyway, get back to your revision, young man, and stop tooling around on the computer. ElectricRay 21:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, you have gotten into your head that I am "passive-aggressive", and you're reading this attitude in almost everything I do. I am not *trying* to be aggressive towards anyone, OK? I am dealing with RJII in what I think is the most appropriate manner. Also, your repeated assertions of my aggression - can't you see that you're being passive aggressive with that? -- infinity0 21:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not being passive aggressive. If you want to have an all-out dabate, I'm up for it. Let's go, but if yuou say something stupid, be prepared to be told that. I love a good debate. If those are the rules - no passive aggressive behaviour allowed - let's go, and I'll explain to you just what is so intellectually bankrupt about your argument. But if you want to do your "I'm not interested in this any more" or "please don't be incivil" or "I'm filing a RfC against you for the horrid things you said" - which has been your track record to date, then forget it.

I welcome the opportunity to test my beliefs about the world with someone with a different perspective - like you. And so, if you take your political beliefs seriously, should you. Someone like me should represent a useful opportunity to you: rather than being some hormonal kid who thinks that all adults and everything they stand for suck, I'll give you and your philosophy (such as it is) a really rigorous examination. I've been around a bit, I've read politics and philosophy at university, and I've had 15 years after that in various parts of the capitalist system in vbarious parts of the world (on both sides of the fence: both as a labourer and as a professional). Not many people like me can be bothered arguing with idealistic 16 year olds. If you engage you will get something out of it. But cut out all this petulant offence-taking. If you want to be treated like an adulty, behave like one. It's a tough old world out there. ElectricRay 21:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If you really want to talk with me, you should assume good faith and stop thinking and accusing me of passive aggression. -- infinity0 13:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything! you're just flat out doing it! And there you go again! Pal, let's leave it at this. I really don't have time to waste on you. You have amply persuaded me you aren't worth the effort. ElectricRay 14:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

As requested I added your name to the case. You can add something in the section that's been created for you on the arbitration request page [1]. RJII 01:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Stark

Yes, he's funny. So what? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That's the point. If he came back and didn't edit like himself then no-one would be the wiser. The problem is, he keeps editing like Zephram Stark. We're not looking for him, he comes looking for us. He knows this, and likes it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• ElectricRay, do you contribute to Wikipedia in any way, besides posting things on talk pages?--JW1805 (Talk) 04:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure I do! ElectricRay 08:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The man on the Clapham Omnibus (revisited)

Well, Ray, I have reconsidered and researched, and some of the places I looked proved to be dead ends, while the rest led me in circles. Accordingly (and, I must admit, reluctantly) I am no longer persuaded that the reasonable man and the MOTCO differ in any material way. Ringbark 12:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Pseudohistory

Well, I think this stuff is worthy of mention. You put the article up for deletion, and it was kept. So, I figured your purges of related pages should be reverted. Looks like others agree. Also, don't be so paranoid. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I read somewhere that Merovingians like summery weather. --Uranian 22:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to The Prisoner in popular culture

I initiated the AfD discussion above, and I'd like people with more experience in this particular problem to chime in. I read your comments on the talk page of Wikipedia:Trivia, and while we may differ somewhat in our personal ideas about what we'd like to see done with this stuff, I'd still like a full discussion, and I'd appreciate it if you could stop by. Thanks! Erik the Rude 23:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

FeedTheCommie.com

Funny, but how were you able to compete with our group during the protests? I mean, we give our stuff away for free? Who would have actually paid for your sandwiches and diet cokes? I bet it was the progressives and RCP members, right? The Ungovernable Force 19:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0

This case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 11:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)