Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:08, 12 July 2005

Archives

Archive - Oct 2004 & earlier

Archive - Jan 2005

Archive - Apr 2005

Archive - May 2005

Why ignoring insulting trolls does not work and is not an option

If wikipedia is anything it is proof that information wants to be useful. Sam Spade and those who benightedly believe that editors sending fellow editors emails like his is acceptable behavior would like nothing more than to gain the sanction of the victim. Such is the goal of every right-thinking bully. Silence on the part of any victim is nothing more than permission or approval granted by the victim to the person that is attacking him. No doubt Sam prefers that concrete evidence of his uncivil, anti-wikipedia behavior were not readily available for other editors to judge. However, every honest man benefits from free exchange of information. Misplaced Pages is only as effective as it's editors are open to criticism. Accordingly, due to Sam resurrecting the conflict I'm again posting and citing relevant facts pertaining to Sam's personal attack. Those facts suffice to conclude in good faith that Sam Spade exploited a policy loophole to attack a fellow editor in a way that would not normally be tolerated within the pages of wikipedia (a fact he admits) and who then cynically attempts to manipulate both policy and evidence to cover up his crimes. This conclusion neither involves nor relies upon rhetorical hyperbole that amounts to defamation.

That we have an editor abusing the wikipedia email function to make insulting personal attacks without fear of being held accountable raises issues far beyond a personal vendetta irrelevant to public concerns. Drawing responsible conclusions from matters of public record and voicing them serves the public interest. I will continue to do so since Sam Spade shows neither regret for his personal attack nor remorse for his abuse of policy. I will not tolerate or reward with my silence anyone that side-steps policy to abuse fellow editors and cynically misuses policy to hide that crime, nor will I support anyone who mistakenly thinks that tolerating it is the right response. Information wants to be valuable. Without Sam changing his behavior, nothing will stop this story and others from eventually reaching every editor of wikipedia. It will shape their dealings with him. Choose your sides accordingly. FeloniousMonk 08:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade's email

Had been archived here since it seemed apparent that either Sam had no intention of apologizing or that apologizing was beyond his ability.

Unfortunately since then Sam chose to resurrect the issue here by making a number of inaccurate and dishonest statements and now touting this email as something he is proud of.

Since Sam has resurrected the subject of his email, previously a constant source of friction and conflict, and apparently now pride and misinformation on his part, I'm returning to where it can be read and judged by all to set the record straight.

Sam, you misused the "E-mail this user" wikipedia email system to send me this:

Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:36:29 GMT

To: "FeloniousMonk" <thurstonhowellsrevenge@XXX.com>

Subject: Misplaced Pages e-mail

From: "Sam Spade" <jacklynch@XXX.net>

Fuck you, you ignorant rat bastard

I am still waiting for an apology, Sam.

Related evidence

1. Sam deleting my response. .
2. Justifying his email and admiting it was an intentional exploitation of a policy loophole intended to side-step the wikipedia civility policy.
3. Sam attempted to hide evidence of his bad behavior by deleting his incriminating statement (the above-cited admission) from his talk page when he archived the discussions of 28 November 2004 from his talk page. Sam making the incriminating statement on his talk page: But the incriminating statement does not appear in any of the archives for November or December:
4. Refusal to apologize.
5. Sam demanding an apology from an admin for performing his job in good faith , which he received then a few hours later refusing to apologize himself. .
6. Sam threatening me with an undefined action (later shown to be a frivolous copyvio claim).
7. Sam attempting to remove the email from my Talk page as a "copyright violation".
8. Sam's justifications for his frivolous and mendacious "copyvio" claim.
9. Sam claiming User:Kim Bruning suggested Sam initiate his frivolous copyvio claim.
10. Sam continuing to rub salt in the wound by insisting on making this matter a subject of "investigation" in his ill conceived "Sam Spade's Detective Agency" despite the fact I've asked him to cease three times:
11. Sam mischaracterizing a question to him I posed to him in the "I don't like your page, will you remove it?" section to a new one he titles "I don't like Sam Spade, what should I do?" This has the net effect of implying the cause of my confronting him is because I simply dislike him, not his insulting email and subsequent bad behavior. Such disingenuousness attempts to deflect legitimate criticism by marginalizing it.
12. Sam deleting my response.
13. Sam reverting my rebuttal to his deletion and reinstating his mischaracterization.
14. Mischaracterizing why I've confronted his behavior.
15. Insults, incivility.
16. Again, admiting his email was an intentional exploitation of a policy loophole intended to side-step the wikipedia civility policy and bragging about it. Misrepresenting his actions and those of others.
17. Sam manipulating/deleting evidence, censoring, and denying me opportunity to respond to his false claims.
18. Personal attack, calling me a bastard.
19. Same deleting a warning about name calling.
20. Deleting a warning from an admin about making personal attacks without response.
21. Rude reply to a caution against personal attacks from an admin.
22. Insulting an admin.
23. Once again deleting a warning from an admin.

Previous comments of other editors

Can be found here

Current comments by other editors

"To any who may feel a sting please do not bear me any malice, and if you do, not for long, as I bear none toward you." Recognize that quote? Maybe you should drop the whole god damned issue and move on, as you supposedly bear no malice... ugen64 01:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're confused. An actual example of malice would be Sam Spades's email. Apparently you are unable to distinguish between an actual bad act and someone rightfully seeking justice for being wronged. Justice being a quaint notion for a certain sort, it seems.

Sam Spade and his apologists seem to be a tar baby from which it is impossible to disentangle myself. I'd archived Sam's email, but thanks to you, here we are again. So, Sam's had every opportunity to apologize and put the matter behind him; that he's squandered every one of those opportunities is to his shame, no one else's. Certainly not mine. As for your morally faulty suggestion that I abandon my former method of shaming Sam into ethical behavior, sorry, but I'm not in the troll enabling business.

On that note, and since you seem to have enjoyed my quote so much, here's another one for you: "(Any) editor resolved to resist and speak out against the trollish is likely to run afoul of those who speak out against those who speak out against trolls. Whence come troll enablers."

Don't be a troll enabler. FeloniousMonk 05:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do wish Sam could muster the capacity for contrition in this matter. I think you have exhausted civil efforts to faciliate that, and I think you are doing about all you can do at this point. My regrets. Tom Haws 15:59, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yay. I'm a troll, he's a troll, we're all trolls. ugen64 20:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Felonious - can't really bame Sam for resurrecting it, I brought it up. Sorry that I did - I don't think there is any benefit in fanning these flames.  :( Guettarda 17:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

True, you did bring it up. But it was Sam who chose to respond to you with inflammatory and factually inaccurate claims in a manner that defames me. He could have replied to you in any number of other inoffensive ways. Instead he chose to misrepresent his role, actions and me. I still refuse to believe that setting right intentionally false statements/misinformation is wasted effort and the public interest is not served by pointing out those who flout the policies, despite Sam's best efforts to prove me wrong. I appreciate you taking responsibility for your actions, thanks. FeloniousMonk 17:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

What is your take?

What is your take on the big deletions by MPLX and Ian to which there are strong objections by others? Your edits are fairly reasonable and and you at least allow for a response section. They seem like borderline vandals to me, with no sense of a balanced article and seeking consensus. --VorpalBlade 18:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey VB, thanks for considering my opinion. As I said at the talk page, I think all of you, MPLX included, are trying to incorporate valid POVs and related facts into the article. It's just that it should not be done to the exclusion of other POVs. Without taking sides, it seems to me that all parties should seriously consider adopting the method I referred to earlier. I'm also thinking of suggesting that all parties involved commit to limiting their edits to a talk space sandbox we could create containing the article's content. The purpose of this being to collaboratively hash out the article's content without the raised blood pressure and urge to respond tit-for-tat that comes with seeing your content reverted or subverted in the article.

The various POVs, facts and the parties representing them at the article are not going to go away; even if a current participant retires from the article, another from that camp inevitably shows up to take his place. <add trite joke about cockroaches here> So the only way get the article into a stable state is to adequately and fairly address each relevant and significant POV and fact in the article. Having seen this go on for several weeks, I think you and I can agree now that reverting and deleting notable POVs from any article is not a method for progress, but only a short-sighted and disruptive tactic. Thoughts? FeloniousMonk 19:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with you. I am happy to have all POV's in the article. That gives the reader access to all relevant info and enables the reader to decide for him/herself. My main concern at the moment is that someone will freeze a version that has important chunks cut out of it (like the current one). --VorpalBlade 20:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does your sandbox idea include freezing the main article? --VorpalBlade 20:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It could but it doesn't have to. If the article were to be locked, there should be: 1)agreement from a majority of the participants to this method of editing 2) an admin not involved in the debate willing to lock the article and be available to unlock it each time we agree on a bit 'o content to add and then re-lock it. Something similar was successfully done at the atheism article earlier this year. It also helps to have someone authorative to constantly wrangle the participants toward the goal and who is able to dedicate the time necessary. See GraceNote's participation at Talk:Human right now or BM's role at Talk:Atheism in 12/2004 - 2/2005 for what I mean. FeloniousMonk 20:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The moderator can't be Mel though. Can you support my proposal to go back to Proposal 4, or something close, which is your version with a few modifications that were agreed to by Mel and Ungtss and me? And then work from that? There seem to be more voices agreeing that the current version is bad. --VorpalBlade 03:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, FM!

For your strong support for my admin nomination! That, and your creditable insistence on civility and intellectual honesty, is a quality I greatly admire; sentiments I, as well, share and attempt to do my best to adhere to. All the best, El_C 02:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

I am painfully aware of the limitations of the current Mediation Cabal. Contrary to your assertions though, it is not an ex-process organisation, but rather a stopgap, due to the fact that mediation has gone AWOL.

The arbitration committee is working with it; the old mediation committee is ok with it; and Jimbo Wales is aware of its existence.

There is no other system for mediation on wikipedia at this point in time. In time hopefully the mediation cabal will grow more diverse and less prone to bias, while the original mediation committee will be resurrected.

I hope this leaves you better informed.

Kim Bruning 19:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

There's a better way of going about assisting in the alleged current mediation crisis. I would think that if the Mediation Cabal were serious about actually addressing the community's real mediation needs, it would work within the established mediation guidelines and also have stepped in immediately to relieve some of the backlog at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation. Instead, since it's founding by you on 9 May it has lobbied aggressively for mediation on behalf of a single client; one that you have a record advocating for at various times no less. Those facts alone suffice to raise a concern over conflict of interest.

The awareness of the management to the Mediation Cabal's existence is no justification for abandoning the processes selected and approved by the community, i.e.; the ability of all parties to select mediators that suit their needs/concerns. If the existing founding cabal members are insufficient to guarantee that, then effort should be made to that end. Was such an effort made? Proof that it was made would go a long way in eliminating the doubts raised here. That the current RFM team may be unresponsive/asleep at the wheel is a non sequitur as to whether the Mediation Cabal should adhere to established mediation policies. FeloniousMonk 20:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The mediation cabal works by several people working together, it's too early to say much about the case with Sam Spade. I'm staying away from it, since I'm obviously biased. We're actively working on getting help for that one.

We did just conclude Snowspinner vs Everyking.

We haven't even started on the backlog at the old mediation yet. Those cases may well prove too heavy for the cabal to deal with at all, and I certainly don't want to take them on before I think folks are ready for it.

In the mean time there is also an ongoing effort to restore the formal mediation system, using updated rules that will hopefully prevent this situation from recurring again. See: Misplaced Pages:Mediation (2005), and pages linked from there.

Kim Bruning 23:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I genuinely hope that my concern is proved unwarranted. Thanks. FeloniousMonk 05:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Invitation to Inquiry

FeloniousMonk, you are cordially invited to join the Inquiry project. Adraeus 10:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade took over the project, and twisted its purpose. Unfortunately, the project can't be deleted; however, I'm moving it offsite so I can exhibit more control over the documentation and membership. Adraeus 14:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I was sorry to see that happen. Any requirement for (and possibility of, likely) scholarly and intellectual rigour has been removed from the project by the recent changes. How did this come to pass? Wasn't it supposed to be a collaborative effort, one person, one vote and all that...? FeloniousMonk 20:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

While Sam Spade's pedantry and idiocy certainly played a major role in driving me to cancel the real project on Misplaced Pages and move it offsite, you also have to consider that such a project cannot operate under the governance of Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages simply isn't structured for real subprojects. Project management. Projects need management, which is why Misplaced Pages has an entire bureaucracy running it, but subprojects are disallowed management due to unsurprisingly bad policy. Adraeus 22:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

SS

I never wanted to get into a debate with anyone about SS. I can see why you were insulted by what he said. I just wasn't viewing it from your perspective. Please don't feel the need to convince me of SS's behaviour. It does not matter to me as I rarely interact with him on WP. And don't think I'm just defending him, I defend a number of people, some I really don't know at all. Anyway, hopefully there's no hard feelings, I didn't realize at the time how serious it had gotten between you. --Silversmith 23:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Love the Name!

Love the inspiration too - Thelonious Monk. We need more about the fruit of his loins, T.S. Monk, who I believe makes time for triathlons in addition to his jazz performances. --Jpbrenna 18:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Tis, indeed, a great name. Well, those of us who are fans are fond of it, at least. :) FM, bellow is the section you wrote on the R&F tlk page. I moved it here so as to not clutter the talk page. Feel free to move it to WP:AN/I, it will recieve a wider input from admins. Incidentally, I see no reason to suspect they are the same person (I could be wrong though), still, I could understand why you thought so. All the best, El_C 23:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Enviroknot / User:129.7.35.1 revert war at Neofascism and religion

I've started an inquiry into whether these two are the same person, and if so, that they violated 3RR here. I also note there that it's quite a coincidence if this editor, if it indeed is proved to a single person, is making the exact same pov edit as User:Sam Spade that resulted in his 3RR block today. FeloniousMonk 22:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that you are attacking anyone who agrees with Sam Spade as a sock puppet, instantly. Enviroknot 23:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I suspect you and User:129.7.35.1 are User:ElKabong sock puppets not because you agree with SS, but because a number of other credible editors have identified you as such publicly and privately. Combine your patterns of editing, which correlate highly to 129.7.35.1, with your unique um, "style" and pov, and it's no great leap. We'll see either way soon enough. FeloniousMonk 23:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe that you, just as they, are using the accusations of sockpuppetry as an excuse to make personal attacks and as a way to attempt to twist Misplaced Pages policy to gain an advantage in content disputes, just like you did to Sam Spade. Don't worry, your actions have already proven me correct.Enviroknot 23:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. But your edit history belies any suggestion that you and User:129.7.35.1 are not one-and-the-same. As I've noted before, just because you're not a SS sock puppet does not mean that you're not a SS crony acting as his proxy during his ban. As for your claim I'm twisting Misplaced Pages policy to silence others, I seldom take advantage of the official channels here; my attempts here at "social work" are generally made publicly by me alone. If you're not User:129.7.35.1, then you have nothing to fear of scrutiny of your actions at Neofascism and religion. FeloniousMonk 23:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

What is the most frustrating is that we were actually close to solving a bunch of problems by redirecting to the Neofascism and religion page, avoiding religious bigotry while not shying away from looking at a variety of claims in a relatively neutral way; and now we are back to hyperbolic rants and screeds. Sad, really. Thanks to FeloniousMonk for trying to help --Cberlet 02:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

As long as the article exists you're still ahead in the game. Conceding now to the bigotry would be premature. FeloniousMonk 03:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

It always will be, but it will not last for always. This darkness got to give. El_C 03:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

No, Cberlet, what is most frustrating is the fact that you, Yuber, BrandonYusufToropov, and a host of others are engaging in precisely the worst sort of bigotry, as well as trying to push POV-based omissions into Misplaced Pages. Enviroknot 03:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments moved from Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents User:Sam_Spade

Yesterday I said that Sam is only able to continue to misbehave at wikipedia because he benefits from those who protect him. There I asked those who continually excuse Sam's bad behavior just what has Sam to done to justify the many opportunities he's been given to behave morally, and does his continued bad behavior justify yet one opportunity. Upon Sam's return from his 24 hour block for 3RR we get Sam's Report rogue admin page and sig. So, again, just what has Sam to done to justify the many opportunities gets, and why does he deserve yet one opportunity?

The issue isn't so much that Sam Spade's actions are once again uncivil, manipulative, and sociopathically aggressive... as that they're so knowingly, cynically, avoidably so. When you come up against a editor such as Sam who views insults and other forms of personal attack as the proper means of relating to other editors , you know that this is a person who holds the values and policies of the community in contempt; someone who views the values and conventions here as subordinate to their own whims and personal needs, suspensible at will. This is a person for whom operating within the bounds of community is only a pretense, and hence is outside the realm of the community's morality. And once outside, moral conventions and principles have no place; appealing to these will have no effect with this editor, as we have seen over and over. Sam's continuing abusive, manipulative behavior undercuts and betrays his own supporters while bolstering that of his gainsayers. Time and again we've seen Sam cynically manipulate the system to side-step policy and deliver personal attacks, introduce POV content into articles with no more support than his personal idea of morality and revert-warring when his POV fails to make consensus, and attempts at covering up the evidence by gaming the system. The only responsible conclusion is that such an editor is morally bereft, beyond redemption, and his continued presence is counter to the best interests of the community. It is a sad indictment of wikipedia that he hasn't been banned yet. FeloniousMonk 04:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I for one think it's totally shameful that one Wikipedian would say that about another. A positive and productive community is one that does not ban people just because of petty disagreements and personality feuds. Everyking 06:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that the dispute here is about "petty disagreements and personality feuds". Jayjg 07:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know much about the dispute, but what I do know strongly indicates that. At least I can say the personality feuds bit is definitely accurate, and the disagreement part is definitely accurate—I could be wrong about the "petty" part, but nevertheless, the point still stands. Everyking 08:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding my past issues with Sam, the facts suffice to conclude in good faith that Sam's bad acts are sufficient grounds for banning: he intentionally abused and attacked a fellow editor in a manner prohibited by wikipedia policy and intentionally attempted to side-step policy to do it. Both facts he admits . This conclusion and the evidence from which it is drawn neither relies upon nor is comprised of "petty disagreements and personality feuds." My drawing that conclusion and stating it is less shameful than the acts of those who have repeatedly excused Sam's past bad behavior, which have allowed things to get to this point. FeloniousMonk 08:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent design commentary from A ghost

Heya. I noticed you're doing heavy work on both articles. I'm sorry that the split forced you to work hard, but I'm really liking the results on both articles. What's your thoughts?--ghost 00:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey AG. No worries about the extra work; you're the one doing most of the heavy lifting. Seeing the two articles after the split, I admit that you were right to recommend it. You've put in lots of good effort at ID and the article has benefited from it. I also wanted to say that I recognize the balance apparent in your edits, and your staying above the fray when things get heated. FeloniousMonk 16:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow. I'm well and truely flattered. LOL, do you mind if I point some of my detractors here? (I find sef-depreciating humor to be the panacea of pride.)--ghost 19:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some "SS" history for you

Hi Felonius: I wanted to congratulate you on your objective and brave opposition to User:Sam Spade's antics. You maye be interested in taking a look at some stuff from the Misplaced Pages files at: (1) The vote Sam Spade lost to become an admin at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade and (2) Sam's record of running afoul earlier at User:Spleeman/Sam Spade, and (3) some correspondence I had with him about his "efforts" at disputing the Jew article at one time, see User talk:IZAK/archive 3#Hi IZAK (see especially Talk:Jew/Archive 7#Call a spade a spade and Talk:Jew/Archive 7#Sam Spade ups the ante declares war on this article). Keep up your good work and don't give up! IZAK 07:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for supporting my RFA. Guettarda 00:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RFA. (Guettarda said it so well that I can't improve upon his words. It's very kind of you to tak the time to vote.) Cheers, -Willmcw 06:22, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Comments deleted by Sam Spade from his talk page

Once again, SS mistakenly thinks that censoring the legitimate comments of others by deleting them from his talk page is acceptable behavior. Correcting his misbegotten notion, I'm re-posting the entire thread here:

Secretlondon

Oh, come off it Sam. That comment on Secretlondon's talk page was utterly uncalled for. It's not as if you haven't said far worse in your time on the 'pedia. Ambi 30 June 2005 14:19 (UTC)

Actually I toned it down alot, and made it as polite as possible, leaving out, for example, references to her theatrical departure aprox 1yr ago. I have no patience for people who make this an unpleasent place to be. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 30 June 2005 16:56 (UTC)

If that is indeed the case, then certainly you won't mind apologizing to me on my talk page for your insulting email, now found there. FeloniousMonk 30 June 2005 17:33 (UTC)

WTF? Would such an insincere, technical apology, granted only due to your endless whinging mean anything to you? Is that what you call a victory? If so, thats very sad, and I'll gladly apologise for being a part of that. According to your user page you do indeed have a life, so I suggest you go live it... move on, I have. Stop being one of those "theatrical" people who make this an unpleasant place to be. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 30 June 2005 17:40 (UTC)

Probably not, but it would be a start. I'm glad to see that you realize any apology coming from you now would not and cannot count as a proper apology. It would be vacuous and futile. It would be vacuous because it was coerced under duress. It would be futile because it would be insincere. For you to make an actual apology, you must both acknowledge an external standard and defer to it. For most of us this much is easily attained, for you it appears impossible, since you seldom accept responsibility for your wrongs and do your best to cynically sidestep the policies. It seems unlikely then that your deference would be both sincere and spontaneous. I seek an apology not so much for my sake then, but your's. Consider it part of your rehabilitation.

I'm sure you'd agree that being "theatrical" isn't such a crime compared to those who make wikipedia an unpleasant place by sending insulting, vulgar emails to fellow editors, right? Your email to me and your all too common insults and jabs directed at other editors combined with your failure to make good on the moral debts these actions create taken with your statement above about having no patience for people who make this an unpleasant place, make your hypocrisy hard to ignore, Sam. FeloniousMonk 30 June 2005 18:15 (UTC)

Talk:Creation science

That CS is pseudoscience is a matter deductive reasoning, not opinion. Before anyone rushes to type a hasty refutation, I suggest they adjust the scope of their counter-argument to encompass the definition of pseudoscience and how definitions relate to the law of identity. If they do not understand the previous sentence, I suggest they reconsider typing. FeloniousMonk 1 July 2005 21:49 (UTC)

Wow. you just blew my mind. seriously! i do not possess such writing?/negotiation?/diplomacy(?) - dunno the word i'm looking for - skills and it's always a pleasure to see someone who is able to work his/her expression(?) skills on a higher level. Personally, I'm too partial to shooting first, asking questions later. guess i'm more empathic than logical, currently. maybe i'm just a hothead :). In any case, it's good to see such critical writing. I'd say "keep up the good work" but i feel it'd just be reduntant. Project2501a 2 July 2005 00:13 (UTC)

I don't think it or I warrant such a flattering review, but thanks for taking to time to write it. I've enjoyed reading your comments as well at CS. I look forward to seeing you there next time. Thanks again for the kind words. FeloniousMonk 2 July 2005 05:21 (UTC)

Dembski

Hi FM, I've unlocked William A. Dembski. By the way, I love Felonious Monk Facts. ;-) SlimVirgin July 3, 2005 05:23 (UTC)

Inteligent Design

Although we don't always agree on approach, thanks for all your hard work and hearing me out without assuming I'm a POV warrior or an idiot XD

Seriously, I enjoy having you on the frequent editors of ID.--Tznkai 4 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time keeping track of all the edits you made to the ID page. You removed Bergan's section then added it back in?

I was just too quick on the trigger; I thought he'd deleted the Aquinas content. It was only afterward that I saw he'd moved it to a subsection. I've just added a new subsection "Religion and leading ID proponents" addressing the religious basis and motivations for Johnson, Dembski, et als careful avoidance of positing a designer in the public arena contrasted to their statements that the designer is the Christian God to their constituency. FeloniousMonk 6 July 2005 23:26 (UTC)

Saw that. Might want to move that to the main argument, but it I can still be noted. It'll take me some time to think about it. Thanks for coming back into the discussion, we missed you. At the very least I didn't like running interference between Dbergan and FW alone ^_^--Tznkai 19:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Lol. No problem. FeloniousMonk 19:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Just reminding you, we are on the same side here : P--Tznkai 20:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: your message

Thanks. Exploding Boy 23:14, July 11, 2005 (UTC)