| >Toby: (Of course, RK also gave a false vandalism alert for | > an edit war, | > so he automatically loses it by my standards. ^_^) | > -- Toby
Hehe.
|Anthere: I fear I could be expecting to be a "troll" again very | soon :-( | I was apparently not offered the truce some suggested. | I think the the phrase "Gaia theory" does not refer | exclusively to a scientific thoery. | Thank you to those of you morally supporting me :-)
Well, it was nothing. Thank you for keeping your composure, as it made it easier for us to discern the smoke from the real thing. The issue of whether these articles are properly organized, as I see it, are far less important than the issue of people treating others with distaste and accusation.
So, regardless of that particular situation, ( I think Robert had a point) you should never feel intimidated or forced into positions that require you to compromise your dignity. Those who make attempts to cause you feel that way are to be looked upon with some distaste, if not moderated by sanction.
Best. -Steve
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
--- steve vertigo utilitymuffinresearch@yahoo.com wrote:
So, regardless of that particular situation, ( I think Robert had a point) you should never feel intimidated or forced into positions that require you to compromise your dignity. Those who make attempts to cause you feel that way are to be looked upon with some distaste, if not moderated by sanction.
Best. -Steve
I'll be frank Steve.
RK has the intend to merge all Gaia article into only one, then to keep only what is scientific in the article (ie Margulis and Lovelock), and to avoid the accusation of text destruction, he intends either * to create again some new articles where he would put what he considers old and irrelevant stuff (such as Gaia theories (precedents) - making the claim unification in one article in the only way, a joke * to disperse every old and irrelevant stuff to other articles where frankly they will get lost (such as the non scientific view of these theories)
I think it is wrong for all the reasons I have previously mentionned. Gaia theories is not only about science, and it is not because a theory was set more than 50 years ago that it is irrelevant.
I notice you mention RK has a point. But which point do you mean ? Do you think he has a point when suggesting to delete and redirect the Gaia Hypothesis article ? Do you think he has a point in removing everything that it out of scientific acceptance ? That is a very different point.
I am very strongly against the second. I don't think either that RK and I will ever solve that disagreement because RK decided that any real discussion with me was useless.
I would have appreciated that someone help us decide what to do and given good arguments that would make weight. Because all what I offered is just not listened too. And all what I get in terms of discussion is bullshit. Sample : the last email RK sent and http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Gaia_theory&diff=0&...
Now, since no discussion is humanly possible between the two of us, and if no one is helping us here, we will just enter in an ugly cycle of edition/reversion till one dies or go on holiday (after which point we can resume).
This is a very sad way to spent time. But so be it.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Just for the record
Since Royal We and I are not able to directly discuss using words, I proposed that we discuss uniquely through edition/reversion.
Everything I agree with, I keep. Everything I don't agree with, I revert. Words are useless, and acts will speak by themselves. If anyone is interested in the topic, that might be different. But as long as it is only he and I, it is not worth and not good to spent useless time in fruitless discussions. This is an adaptation for our personality types. :-)
Anthere
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
At 11:03 PM 6/30/03 -0700, Anthere wrote:
Just for the record
Since Royal We and I are not able to directly discuss using words, I proposed that we discuss uniquely through edition/reversion.
You might do better discussing things if you addressed people by their actual names. The "royal we" is, in English, also considered appropriate for use by editors.
Everything I agree with, I keep. Everything I don't agree with, I revert. Words are useless, and acts will speak by themselves.
If you believe words are useless, why are you working on an encyclopedia? This isn't just you and RK: the point, I hope, is to create something that will be useful for people who want to read it.
If anyone is interested in the topic, that might be different.
I am interested, as, I assume, are others. What I'm not interested in is listening to the two of you talk past each other on this list.
Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org wrote: At 11:03 PM 6/30/03 -0700, Anthere wrote:
Just for the record
Since Royal We and I are not able to directly discuss using words, I proposed that we discuss uniquely through edition/reversion.
You might do better discussing things if you addressed people by their actual names. The "royal we" is, in English, also considered appropriate for use by editors.
Ah ? Then sorry. We probably do not have the same definition of Royal We then. I used it because most of the time Robert is saying "we have been" when only referring to him or "we think" when only expressing his opinion. I shall stop then but will personnaly go on talking to me at the first person. As it should be in english. :-)
Everything I agree with, I keep. Everything I don't agree with, I revert. Words are useless, and acts will speak by themselves.
If you believe words are useless, why are you working on an encyclopedia? This isn't just you and RK: the point, I hope, is to create something that will be useful for people who want to read it.
If anyone is interested in the topic, that might be different.
I am interested, as, I assume, are others. What I'm not interested in is listening to the two of you talk past each other on this list.
Anthere wrote:
But if you all tolerate that RK does whatever he plans to do, without any consideration to the only one working on these pages, and decide to call me a vandal because I just try to express my disappointement and despair of what should be and not be "discussion", and try to do whatever I can invent to make you all aware that RK behavior is perhaps wrong, then I will just blank my user page, and go away.
Forgive me for coming in to this discussion rather late. I've not been following the list much recently.
Who is RK? I'm terrible with names. The only thing it reminds of is the debate a few months ago on [[circumcision]] -- there was some intransigent who kept insisting that any planned legislation against circumcision would be an affront to some "holy" "god-given" tradition. I ended up concluding this was the sort of person with whom rational debate is impossible. it's not that guy is it?
Anthere -- plese don't leave the en: pedia!!!!
-- tarquin
tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com wrote:
Anthere wrote:
But if you all tolerate that RK does whatever he plans to do, without any consideration to the only one working on these pages, and decide to call me a vandal because I just try to express my disappointement and despair of what should be and not be "discussion", and try to do whatever I can invent to make you all aware that RK behavior is perhaps wrong, then I will just blank my user page, and go away.
Forgive me for coming in to this discussion rather late. I've not been following the list much recently.
Who is RK? I'm terrible with names.
tseee
Look at the article on [[Knowledge]], especially the talk page.
The only thing it reminds of is the debate a few months ago on [[circumcision]] -- there was some intransigent who kept insisting that any planned legislation against circumcision would be an affront to some "holy" "god-given" tradition. I ended up concluding this was the sort of person with whom rational debate is impossible. it's not that guy is it?
Anthere -- plese don't leave the en: pedia!!!!
-- tarquin
Thanks Tarquin, but right now, I am terribly upset. I think I need holidays. But I'll try to avoid letting you eating your scalp :-))))
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
Anthere wrote in part:
Is it acceptable that most other contributors just look at that, perhaps not caring in the least, perhaps deeply annoyed, perhaps greatly laughing and privately supporting RK, perhaps feeling sorry but not knowing what to do ?
I don't think that you need to worry very much about what RK says on the mailing list. It seems to me that he doesn't get much support here. Whatever other troubles you may have, don't worry very much about that.
But if you all tolerate that RK does whatever he plans to do, without any consideration to the only one working on these pages, and decide to call me a vandal because I just try to express my disappointement and despair of what should be and not be "discussion", and try to do whatever I can invent to make you all aware that RK behavior is perhaps wrong, then I will just blank my user page, and go away.
I of course do not want you to leave the English Wikipedia.
-- Toby
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote in small part:
You might do better discussing things if you addressed people by their actual names. The "royal we" is, in English, also considered appropriate for use by editors.
Is it? I've seen it used by authors when writing /impersonally/ ("We will now examine the second of Kant's major premises."), but not when one editor is talking about another editor to the rest.
Nevertheless, I agree that Anth�re would do well to avoid antagonising RK any more than necessary. However tempting it may be. ^_^
-- Toby
Anth�re wrote:
Just for the record
Since Royal We and I are not able to directly discuss using words, I proposed that we discuss uniquely through edition/reversion.
Everything I agree with, I keep. Everything I don't agree with, I revert. Words are useless, and acts will speak by themselves. If anyone is interested in the topic, that might be different. But as long as it is only he and I, it is not worth and not good to spent useless time in fruitless discussions. This is an adaptation for our personality types. :-)
I don't think that this is a very helpful strategy. You and RK aren't the only persons working on these pages; it might be best if both of you stayed away for a while. Certainly edit wars, alone, are not useful, and there's a big difference between saying that you're unable to discuss things with your opponent and saying that you're no longer going to even try.
You know, Ed Poor could be a big help here.
-- Toby
Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote: Anth�re wrote:
Just for the record
Since Royal We and I are not able to directly discuss using words, I proposed that we discuss uniquely through edition/reversion.
Everything I agree with, I keep. Everything I don't agree with, I revert. Words are useless, and acts will speak by themselves. If anyone is interested in the topic, that might be different. But as long as it is only he and I, it is not worth and not good to spent useless time in fruitless discussions. This is an adaptation for our personality types. :-)
I don't think that this is a very helpful strategy. You and RK aren't the only persons working on these pages; it might be best if both of you stayed away for a while. Certainly edit wars, alone, are not useful, and there's a big difference between saying that you're unable to discuss things with your opponent and saying that you're no longer going to even try.
You know, Ed Poor could be a big help here.
I have been staying away from these articles on purpose for a full month. The gaia theory (biology) really need input. I can do that. I did nothing for a full month to avoid pb with RK. What did it changed ? Nothing. RK is going his way. And that is about it.
Why should I wait and he not ? Why should I discuss alone and get empty replies ?
Yes, please, you may call Ed to help on this. I will trust him for helping to reach a good decision
ant
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 08:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Anthere anthere6@yahoo.com gave utterance to the following:
I don't think that this is a very helpful strategy. You and RK aren't the only persons working on these pages; it might be best if both of you stayed away for a while. Certainly edit wars, alone, are not useful, and there's a big difference between saying that you're unable to discuss things with your opponent and saying that you're no longer going to even try.
You know, Ed Poor could be a big help here.
I have been staying away from these articles on purpose for a full month. The gaia theory (biology) really need input. I can do that. I did nothing for a full month to avoid pb with RK. What did it changed ? Nothing. RK is going his way. And that is about it.
Why should I wait and he not ? Why should I discuss alone and get empty replies ?
Yes, please, you may call Ed to help on this. I will trust him for helping to reach a good decision
Anthere, I don't know what mail client you are using, but it seems to be mis-configured. Your reply to Toby shows his text as though you wrote it rather than as quoted. This happens in both the text and html components of your multipart message. Since all your other replies in this thread have been in text/plain, the behaviour might have been triggered by the unkown encoding in Toby's message. Many mail clients have a setting to choose between replying in the original content type or always in text/plain. THe latter is usually preferable and less problematic on lists. In any case, in a contentious discussion such as this where there is a lot of "I didn't say that" going on, correct quote attribution and display is essential. Please take care everyone.
Anthere wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
You and RK aren't the only persons working on these pages; it might be best if both of you stayed away for a while.
You know, Ed Poor could be a big help here.
I have been staying away from these articles on purpose for a full month. The gaia theory (biology) really need input. I can do that. I did nothing for a full month to avoid pb with RK. What did it changed ? Nothing. RK is going his way. And that is about it.
Other people are already clamping down on the articles and not allowing RK to get his way in everything.
-- Toby