User talk:TheScienceGuy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greetings!
My name is Jtrost, and it's my pleasure to welcome you, TheScienceGuy, to Wikipedia! First of all, I'd like to thank you for joining the project, and contributing to articles and discussion. I hope you can continue to take part in Wikipedia, because we need more valuable editors like yourself.

If you are new and need some assistance, here are some great links to check out:

I hope you enjoy editing here, and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, find out where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Before I go, here's one more tip. When you post on talk pages, be sure to sign your name and the date by typing four tildes: ~~~~. That automatically generates your username and the date. Again, welcome, and happy editing! Jtrost 00:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to be neutral[edit]

Dear TheScienceGuy

I will continue to remove insults, harsh language and ad hominem attacks from wiki on Myron Evans. I am an Evans supporter but I will try to remain neutral. So should you. After all, you claim to be a believer in the five pillars of Wikipedia.

I won't remove rebuttals from other scientists (despite disagreeing with them) but I do not think you should use insert your personal bias into the entry on Evans either. Leave that out and try to remain strictly scientific and neutral. You will see that I am trying to do the same. I appreciate that you left references to Evans' responses to his critics.

Let other scientists judge for themselves. Insulting Evans just makes you look unscientific and unprofessional. If they don't like his theory then they don't have to study it.

If you agree to leave out the insults then I agree not to praise Evans.

Syrran 09:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, do not praise Evans and do not attempt to elevate the stature of self-published work in respect to peer-reviewed literature.

User:TheScienceGuy

Ok, sounds like we have an agreement. As always, the scientific community will decide in the end.

Syrran 14:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. However, I am not merely an "opponent" of Evans' ECE Theory; let me make it clear that I am a member of the academic scientific community, and am therefore not merely someone who wishes to write an entry in Wikipedia. I am one of the peers who have consistently turned down his research for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

TheScienceGuy

Wow ! Not what I expected. I thought that you were just a fellow Wikipedian. This is very interesting. Could I ask why you have turned down his research ? May I also ask which area of physics do you work in, unless you wish to remain completely anonymous ? For the record, I do not hold a post-graduate degree in physics, I merely assist Evans in administrative affairs. Nevertheless, I would like to try to understand your position, if this is possible. I appreciate your rapid responses.

Syrran 20:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have turned down his research work, because it is based on erroneous mathematics. The situation is like Enron's -- "creative economics" was used to prortray the company in good financial health so that Lay, Skilling, et al. could enjoy lavish lifestyles and hobnobbing with presidents. In this case, the prize of a unified theory is so great and the potential of worldwide reknown so high that Evans has deliberately overlooked fundamental errors. Look, you have a BSc degree in physics and you are adulating him. Imagine how pumped he must feel because of that. He needs it. When he does not get it, he goes into depresion. Unfortunately, his fellow scientists, like me, learnt that he is economical with scientific ethics and mathematical rectitude. Steadily, mainstream researchers have left his side, eveen though they may have initially supported his work. Nowadays, no real journal publishes his work and his books have been turned down by well-known publishers. That makes him a hero to people like you, but a charlatan to us.

To give you a good idea: Evans has issued a rebuttal to Wielnadt recently. Well, Evans had defined B3 through a plane wave. When Wielandt showed that B3 (as defined by Evans) is non-superposable, Evans rebutted that he had a photon in mind when he wrote the definition. That is nonsensical. A plane wave is not a photon, and Evans defined B3 through a plane wave. This kind of misrepresentation (and similar non sequiturs and strawmen) abound in Evans' rebuttals.

I cannot tell you much about myself without disclosing my identity. It suffices to state that I have a remunerative academic appointment at the second highest level (more than simply a tenured full professorship) at a top-ten public university in USA. I am a specialist in the physics of electromagnetic fields with significant researcch in gravitation as well as geometry.

TheScienceGuy

Thank you. You certainly have impressive credentials. Actually, I don't have a B.Sc in Physics. I do have it in other mathematical areas though and Evans knows this. Not sure about the depression bit. He has good credentials and his Civil List appointment must have been conferred for a good reason, even if you do not think much of it.

The web statistics do show that his website is being visited to a large degree by academic institutions. Some of those B.Sc's visiting his website will eventually grow up to be PhD's and a few will be experts in GR. We will just have to wait and see what happens, I guess. Therefore, I don't think that he needs adulation from a mere B.Sc (not even in physics) to boost his self-esteem. I am slowly learning geometry inbetween my other activities, so I will be able to assess ECE to some degree one day. Thank you again.

Syrran


The web statistics are not that easy to interpret. Most visitors to his sites will be from academia, because non-academics are not interested in the intricacies of physics at an advanced level. Many of those visits are simply due to curiosity; e.g., I go to his website often to find out what more "nonsense" and fantastic claims he has put up there. Over a decade, I have told many colleagues about his activities, and they too must visit his websites occasionally. How do you think that knowledge about his so-called research is so widespread that all reputable journals have shunned his work?

Now, it is true that some B.Sc.'s would be impressed by him; however, for their doctoral degrees their work would have to satisfy at least academics with Ph.D.s.

Note his insulting manner. He wrote four unsolicited e-mails to M.N.J. Singh. When Singh replied, he accused Singh of being a felon, etc.

Just as an experiment, take up a false identity through Yahoo and then send amild note casting doubt on ECE theory to Evans. See how he will insult your assumed persona, including calling it a "cyber-terrorist".

TheScienceGuy

My email records show that Mera Naam Joker Singh wrote some statements that were not very nice and that he initiated contact with Evans. "Mera Naam" is Hindi for "My Name", most likely a reference to the old indian film "Mera Naam Joker" . So, obviously, M.N.J. Singh is a pseudonym, possibly used by an indian person (Lakhtakia springs to mind).

May I ask why you pay so much attention to Evans and his work ? You respond to my changes within the same day, which amazes me. Surely somebody with your academic ranking would be busy with grad students, reviewing submissions for journals, countless meetings and, of course, speaking at conferences. You must really not like Evans.

It is the summer holidays now, so maybe this explains the extra time on your hands. If the journals shun his work, why do they publish rebuttals then ? Why even bother ? This I do not understand. If ECE is a bunch of crap then it will die quietly on its own. What motivates somebody as important as you to even care ?

I am satisfied with Evan's treatment of his critics so I won't perform the experiment that you suggest. The term "cyberterrorist" is interpreted rather loosely these days e.g. that british "hacker" currently being extradited to the US. I think that an individual that uses a pseudonym and makes an attack on another person via the internet, at the very least, counts as harassment. Singh was asked not to contact the AIAS again. My records show that he continued to do so for a short while. Surely you agree that if some one asks you not to contact them then you simply oblige.

I see that you restored the category of psuedoscientist. I thought that we agreed to leave out the insults and let the objections and rebuttals speak for themselves. Would it be okay if we had no categories at all ?

Syrran

On the contrary, M.N.J. Singh was first contacted by Evans. Your records are incomplete. Singh responded to Evans' four e-mails, whio actually initiated the contact. In this matter, I suggest that you have assumed too much.

Journals have many aims. All rebuttals published are not to self-published works, but to the papers of Evans that kept on being published in FPL until about a year ago as well as to older papers.

In older days, ECE would have died on its own. But now the web can be filled with "crap".

I have a certain academic ranking, because I am very efficient.

Just as you do not take "cyber-terrorist" as an insult, I do not take "pseudoscience" to be an insult to ECE theory. "Pseudoscience" is an apt description for it; if it actually became acceptable in manistream physics, that label would come off. Moreover, theories cannot be insulted, but people can be. I did not label Evans as a pseudoscientist.

There have to be apt categories, and "pseudoscience" is an apt category.

Finally, you wrote: "Surely you agree that if some one asks you not to contact them then you simply oblige." Welly, Evans has not obliged scores of people on that account.

TheScienceGuy

Hello, G.G., Haven't heard from you for a while.

TheScienceGuy

Well done. It was only a matter time before you worked out who I am. And vice versa. I trust that you will remain civil as this is starting to resemble the dialogue from a bad James Bond film. I will continue to use my username, Syrran. And I will address you as TheScienceGuy. Agreed ? By the way, should I expect nasty emails from your friends ? Or we can simply keep matters between ourselves. I will pop-in sometime soon.

I have moved your post to your talk page for continuity.

Syrran 14:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had written earlier that you assume too much. You may have worked out my identity, but it is only guesswork that has not been confirmed. Judging by the name that you parenthetically dropped in this conversation earlier, I would say that you do not know my identity. On the other hand, I know that you are geesquared. That is because the AIAS list has several people who rebroadcast all e-mails to others. I do like the Jame Bond allusion. Just last night, I saw a part of Goldfinger.

Pleasantries aside, my friends do not write nasty e-mails. In recent years, the only person I know who does that is Evans. Others then make fun of his DrJekyll-MrHyde personality.

By the way, you can let Evans know that Farahi took some action in relation to papers falsely attributed to him.

I must say that I am amazed by your faith in Evans. You have just a BS (Physics) degree; you are learning geometry (as you wrote some days back); and you cannot understand his papers, much less the major errors therein. Still you claim that his theory is right, whereas every expert who has reviewed has found many errors. Incidentally, please ask Evans to post two referee reports for each of his FPL papers; surely, he still would have a few reports left. Then, we all would see how badly was FPL run by van der Merwe.

TheScienceGuy

No, I did not and cannot claim his theory is right or wrong. That would be unscientific. I stated my credentials clearly. I do this part-time. It will be a long time before I am able to assess his mathematics. I admitted this from the start. Evans knows this too. I repeat, the entire scientific community can decide for themselves, regardless of good or bad referee reports, to which you agreed. If FPL is badly run, then everybody will stop reading it soon. That matter will resolve itself without our involvement.

I also wrote earlier, I handle administrative affairs on his behalf. I do not participate in the research as I am unable to. To repeat, I do not have a physics degree. Please read what I write properly.

Yes, I praise you for working out my identity. It is obvious as to how you did it. As I said, it was only a matter time since you put far more effort into this matter than I do. The novelty should wear off soon.

Okay, since you know my name, will you tell me yours ? If you do not want to reveal your name, may I ask why ? Otherwise I am going to have to draw my own conclusions about your character. I am sure that you do not think of yourself as a bad person. So, are you Akhlesh or Malenfant ?

Why be amazed at my faith ? It's just a theory, not a religion. I like what I understand so far. And so I would like to contribute in a small way. This is just a small part of my other activities. I am amazed by the lengths that you have gone to. In my opinion, it is way too much, even for an opponent of a theory. I think that you are paying too much attention to Evans and his work. In fact, this is part of how I discovered ECE in the first place. Had you and your friends left it alone, I doubt that I would have ever found it.

I just think that the wiki just have his credentials listed with a section dedicated to objections and Evans' replies to those objections. Then the editing should be locked and only the Wikipedia administrators can modify it. Would you be happy with this arrangement ? Wikipedia rules require that I make an effort to resolve our dispute (regarding the Wiki, not ECE itself).

Syrran 17:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In at least one of your e-mails, you had signed yourself as "G.G., B.Sc. (Physics), Capetown University".

I cannot disclose my identity. If I did, you will pass it on to Evans who will start writing calumnies about me once again to all of his AIASers, politicians in Swansea, and people logged somewhere in Western Samoa. You are free to assume that I am Akhlesh or Jerome or Geoffrey or Brunhilde or even Jessica. Or I might simple be Mungojerry or Rumpleteaser.

Your comment "just a theory, not a religion" indicates to me that the word "theory" implies to you nothing more than something a detective thinks up while investigating a crime. A "theory" in exact sciences is far morre than that.

I started paying much attention to Evans after he started talking about extracting energy from spacetime and thus guiding gullible individuals down the road to perdition, much like Bob Jones perhaps.


You wrote: "I just think that the wiki just have his credentials listed with a section dedicated to objections and Evans' replies to those objections. Then the editing should be locked and only the Wikipedia administrators can modify it. Would you be happy with this arrangement ? Wikipedia rules require that I make an effort to resolve our dispute (regarding the Wiki, not ECE itself)."

You and I had arrived at an arrangement. Note that someone else reversed it (I am not averse to the reversal, but I did not do it.) I do not think that Wiki administrators are competent enough in this matter to freeze the contents of a scientific entry that has not quite seen its logical conclusion. Also, in this context, I cannot agree to Evans posting his rebuttals to objections, because his rebuttals are also nonsensical. Moreover, he should do this himself, and not rely on scientifically "ignorant" people as his secretaries. His "The British Civil List Scientist" hateur cuts no ice with me, and indeed appears downright ridiculous.


TheScienceGuy

It is impossible that I signed myself as "G.G., B.Sc. (Physics), Capetown University". My qualification is B.Sc(Hons) (Cape Town). It is not "Capetown University", it is the "University of Cape Town". Please note the spelling of "Cape Town". And I certainly did not graduate in physics but in computer science as you can easily verify.

There is no such qualification as "B.Sc (Physics)" as far as I know and definitely not from my alma mater. The closest is B.Sc(Eng) which is specifically for engineering and is a separate faculty at UCT.

As our conversation is now becoming weird, I don't think that we can continue this debate. Mathsci has asked me not to continue the debate with him and I have honoured his request. I would like to make the same request. And I hope that you honour it.

Syrran 07:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Well, in re your qualifications, you just received an example of Evans' tactics. As you are not a physicist, you could not have been given an example from physics. (If you had been a well-trained physicist, you would have spotted the simple errors in Evans' work!) So I chose to give you an example not from physics. Evans has been pushing a totally confounding error through a totally false idea for a very long time. Every time, some one tells him about it, he changes his equations or changes the terms of reference or brings in extraneous matter, etc. Then he shuts down communication, and tells his acolytes how he has been wronged by some scientists and then goes on calumniate those who have pointed out his errors.

There was no debate between us. That would have implied that you know as much physics relevant to B(3) as I know. You were merely doing your master's bidding, as you yourself acknowledged.

As this reply is on my site, not yours, you do not have to see it. (However, others will see it, and use it to illustrate Evans' scientific tactics in layperson's terms.) If you see it, then it will be by your own choice.

TheScienceGuy

Wikipedia is not USENET[edit]

and not the right place to continue battles started somewhere else (as per general policy and per precedence rulings by the ArbCom on the Bogdanov Affair article).

So the Myron Evans article has to vaguely resemble a biography and not a pile of arguments, chat, cites, etc. Granted, we have avoided to have separate ECE-Theory page (which to change at some point of time may be the lesser evil), so a short description of this "theory" -- and the criticism it got -- is in place.

Pjacobi 08:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is ScienceGuy?[edit]

Hi, ScienceGuy, if you are who I think you are, I can understand why you might feel some level of personal animosity toward Evans, but I have independently come to the same conclusion as Pjacobi, that the talk page is beginning to look uncomfortably like a flame fest, and one moreover which those who don't know the background which no-one seems willing to explain in public will understand. This could actually achieve the seemingly impossible and make Evans seems a bit sympathetic (unless he started spamming his rants into Wikipedia, which I for one wish to avoid). I increasingly think that cutting the article down to a one paragraph stub would be a good idea. Evans really seems to be of interest only to a tiny minority even among the crank population. ---CH 00:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CH. Evans has never personally harmed me. But I know the type quite well. His type of "researchers" attract novice researchers and spoil promising careers. Further, although he appears to appeal only to a very tiny minority among the crank population, that could change quite easily, because he is peddling a source of "free" energy. Follow the career of Randell Mills (Blacklight Power), as an example. He came to see me in 1994, with a mathematical theory showing that Schroedinger's equation predicts quantum states for the electron in an hydrogen atom not only as 1,2,3,4..... (which is correct) but also as (1/2, 1/3, 1/4,.....). I showed him that the latter solution was incorrect. I showed that by substituting his solution back into Schroedinger's equation. He persevered, and now utility companies are investing in Blacklight Power. TheScienceGuy 10:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with Randell Mills and Blacklight Power (although I'd be interested in comparing notes), and I am adamantly opposed to letting "inventors" and scam-artists pursue their agenda here by manipulating information presented in Wikipedia articles. I am also adamantly opposed to allowing someone like Evans start a graduate program in "Welsh physics" as it seems the AIAS site alleges he is trying to do--- although I find it difficult to believe that this is a serious possibility; the only contrary evidence I have seen is alleged correspondence with "W. O. George" apparently obtained from the AIAS blog, which brings us right back to the fevered mind of Evans himself.

Unfortunately, none of the editors at Myron Evans seem willing or able to provide me with any verifiable evidence and for all I know, the Civil List, the Glamorgan correspondence, W. O. George, etc., are all just another fantasy on the part of Myron Evans. Let's not lose sight of this key fact: the purpose of the Wikipedia is to build a reliable universal free on-line encyclopedia, not to serve warning to potential graduate students of a so-far hypothetical graduate program in "Welsh physics". Furthermore, no-one seems able to fully explain to me precisely why Evans poses such a threat. I know only his own words in the postings to the AIAS blog (assuming they are genuine) and on that basis I can't see why even the most naive prospective student would take him seriously for one moment. Likewise, no-one seems able or willing to explain to me why, if a retired Dean called "W. O. George" even exists, he would take Evans seriously for one moment.

As you can see from my user page, I am Chris Hillman, I earned a Ph.D. (Math, University of Washington, 1998), and I have picked up considerable knowledge about some parts of mathematical physics, but I am not acquainted with Evans and I can't seem to find anyone who is willing to give me the straight dope.

Myron Evans is getting out of control, so I really need to do need to know: is this account a sockpuppet for any of these users?

Please email me ASAP, if you do not wish to divulge your IRL identity in public at this time. If you know John Baez, I am sure he would vouch for my trustworthiness. TIA ---CH 01:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have documentary evidence. However, a colleague at the University of Wales at Bangor has confirmed that RJ Wiltshire is guiding a thesis by Franklin Amador. The verifiable confirmation will come, if it does, when Amador will be granted a PhD. The university does not have a physics program, but it does have a mathematics program.
Bill George exists and has supported Evans. This is again evidence from a colleague at UWB. Georgey have an axe to grind against certain members of the Welsh science establishment.
Well, look up Foundations of Physics Letters. There are 40 articles by Evans therein. Look up Advances in Chemical Physics, Vol. 119. You will find some 500 pages devoted to ECE. ACP is a highly respected "journal". Evans managed to get ECE stuff in it. So he is not without influence. Moreover, his perseverence is remarkable and fools many people. After all, UNCC gave him a tenured professorship with the hope of measuring B(3). Only when they could not measure it and Evans' conduct became insufferable did they force him to resign. This is a familiar pattern that is repeated often.
I do not know anyone named in that list personally.
I regret that disclosure of identity is not possible. Your stance, although against pseeudoscientists like Evans, appears naive to me. Evans has degenerated into an "evil" creature. He actively corrupts the youth. A good recent example is Karel Jellinek of Charles University. This person exists, as I contacted him through a colleague at the Czech Academy of Sciences. I have heard from Akhlesh Lakhtakia about all the problems Evans has heaped on him. So anonymity is necessary. Sorry. TheScienceGuy 09:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering my question about the other users.

I am also harrassed by zillions of cranks, so I am sympathetic with your concern and am willing to explore compromises which would meet my concern while protecting you from harrassment. Akhlesh has emailed me with stuff he asked me not to reveal,and I have not done so, although I have told him that I find it frustrating that like you he is unable or unwilling to provide documentation at WP. I presume that if you were to ask him if I am trustworthy as an email correspondent, he would say that I am.

Foundations of Physics has published papers by many cranks, including Tom Van Flandern. I don't think that journal is well regarded by many physicists, but it is probably inevitable that "dissidents" will found cranky organs like Journal of Scientific Exploration. I don't know much about ACP, but yechchch, 500 pages? Didn't they think to ask a physicist to referee that paper? I was once horrified by the existence of crank journals, but have grown to live with it. The answer as always lies with trying to educate the public (or at least science journalists) that such things exist.

"RJ Wiltshire is guiding a thesis by Franklin Amador". I vaguely recall the name, but can you remind me who precisely is R. J. Wiltshire and where does he teach? Is the subject of the thesis cranky, or is RJW simply supervising someone's thesis?

"UNCC gave him a tenured professorship with the hope of measuring B(3). Only when they could not measure it and Evans' conduct became insufferable did they force him to resign." Great gossip, but without documentary evidence we cannot include it in the article.

"Bill George exists and has supported Evans... [George has] an axe to grind against certain members of the Welsh science". Great gossip, but since "this is again evidence from a colleague at UWB" we can't include it without verification. By UWB I guess you mean University of Wales at Bangor?

"This is a familiar pattern that is repeated often." Are you saying that Evans has often obtained and then lost an academic position? Or that cranks in general have often done so? I must say I find either alternative questionable, but if you have documentary evidence I'd like to see it! Even if only by email for my own background information.

"His perseverence is remarkable and fools many people". So it seems, but how does he fool them? If you can't answer this question it seems to me that there is little point in issuing long diatribes rather than a short statement that "ECE" is not taken seriously by mainstream physicis. Even worse, your long "warnings" often seem personally embittered, which can cause casual readers to question your own involvement in all of this. Perhaps you have clashed with W. O. George over some issue?

"Evans has degenerated into an "evil" creature." Strong stuff. See what I mean about appearing to be personally embittered? This tone definitely does not further your cause.---CH 20:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All that I will say in response to your replies is that your attitude is like that of an ostrich. This in not meant to insult you.It means that you need your own experiences.TheScienceGuy 23:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er... ScienceGuy, it sounds like you might somehow be under the impression that I have not had any bad experiences dealing with cranks. You might want to see (look but don't touch, please!) User:Hillman/Dig/Sarfatti for a list of public information testifying to one (just one of many alas) counterexamples. Still, I'm glad you compare me to an ostrich, because most hereabouts call me a doomsayer (see User:Hillman) so maybe I'm somewhere in between, which would be about right :-/

I propose that you and the others take a good long break from editing Myron Evans. I'd encourage you to branch out and edit entirely unrelated articles here; there is always plenty of work to do here. Don't worry; Pjacobi and I will monitor it for any possible pro-Evans POV-pushing and should be able to promptly revert anything like that, should it happen.---CH 05:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second, surely not that Wiltshire?[edit]

Could you possibly mean R. J. Wiltshire, Prof. of Applied Math. at the University of Wales at Glamorgan? If so, as you may know, I follow the gtr literature, so I have seen several of his papers, although I had not previously made the connection between the place where I am told Evans is up to no good and the affiliation of Wiltshire. The arXiv eprints of Wiltshire on e.g. attempts to match the Kerr vacuum exterior to a perfect fluid interior seem perfectly reasonable in the context of classical gtr, and I have even cited them in posts to sci.math.research. In fact, I might have correspondend with him about this issue. What disturbs you about the possibility that he might be supervising a Ph.D. thesis?

Or do I have the wrong Wiltshire? ---CH 20:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have the right Wiltshire. That he is supervising a PhD thesis is not at all worrisome. That he is supervising a thesis on ECE theory is worrisome. I have seen an e-mail from Franklin Amador (or someone posing to be Amador, who may or may not exist, just as Hillman may or may not exist, and could be just a sockpuppet for Evans), in which Amador made that claim. If you wish to see a documententation of that e-mail, ask a determine Evans-chaser like Gerhard Bruhn and he may have a copy.TheScienceGuy 23:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, but this leaves me with more questions. If you haven't emailed Wiltshire, how do you know that he even has a (Ph.D.? Masters?) student by this name? Even if he does, how do you know that the subject of the thesis is ECE? You imply that your source is an email, possibly a fake, so we certainly couldn't include this even as reasonable speculation. With all due respect to Gerhard, it can be difficult to adequately document that an email was even sent, unless perhaps for an expert in computer forensics.

Just to clarify: the bit from you which I reverted was the reference to Evan's claim to be King of Welsh Physics or words to that effect. I don't dispute that he said something like this (although I lack time and energy to check, especially since I don't consider the matter of any importance), but I took this out because it seemed mean-spirited. The man is nuts, and the Wikipedia community doesn't want it to appear that its editors are poking fun at an unfortunate by quoting some his nutty speech when this is not truly germane. See WP:BLP. Fair enough? ---CH 02:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one other thing: I'll assume re WP:AGF that this was your idea of a joke, but for the record, I am not a sockpuppet for any Wikipedia user and I am certainly not Myron Evans. See my user page.---CH 02:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheScienceGuy&oldid=78797733"