User talk:Jinxmchue

From Conservapedia

Contents 1 Welcome to my talk page 2 A question about Jinx's Law 3 Re: Your eponymous law 4 Re: Bill Melendez 5 You couldn't make it up 6 FredSteel block 7 User Trouble 8 Sowell page 9 Help needed with Previous Breaking News 10 Don't leave 11 Say it ain't so 12 Stay another day 13 I'm not making any promises 14 Congratulations!

Welcome to my talk page

Now behave or shut up. Thank you. Jinxmchue 13:28, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

A question about Jinx's Law

How would a person who is genuinely tolerant and /or rational describe themself? Eoinc 17:10, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Certainly not as a "Dane". HenryS 17:53, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

They wouldn't have to boast about it. It would be self-evident. In fact, I would posit that a truly rational person would never, ever boast about their rationality simply because they would see no need to. Jinxmchue 19:19, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Screw rationality, I'm the most modest! FernoKlump^{Look at this petition!} 19:23, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance. Socrates

Re: Your eponymous law

It's true that many people that have weaknesses in a certain character trait or emotion will/should go to the opposite extreme (see for example Maimonides Mishneh Torah: Hilchot Deot). A quote from Shakespeare's King Lear comes to mind:

Thou rascal beadle, hold thy bloody hand!

Why dost thou lash that whore? Strip thine own back;

Thou hotly lust'st to use her in that kind

For which thou whipp'st her.

Those who claim to be the guardians against our vices, often succumb to the very demons they rally against. One does not require a long memory to recall the various scandal amongst the so-called "figures of virtue" just in the last 5 years, (I'll let you come up with them yourself).

Now, considering that you are the author of this law, I have some questions:

• Does the law apply only to reason and tolerance, or is it a universal law akin to Murphys?
• If it is a universal law, does someone who claim to have "Christian" (or the ridiculous term "Judeo-Christian") values, are they more likely to be corrupt?

DLerner 20:12, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

To answer your first question, I really cannot think of anything that would not fit. To answer your second, yes, I think the last 30-40 years worth of televangelists have proven that with few exceptions. It should be noted that there is a huge difference between stating something that is plain fact (e.g "I am human," "I am male," "I am an American", etc.) and stating something that requires demonstrative proof (e.g. "I am rational," "I am tolerant," "I support free speech," etc.). Jinxmchue 23:53, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Re: Bill Melendez

It's definitely saddening. I'm reminded of the old joke about how television is a medium because it's neither rare nor well-done. Quality programming has never been common, and it seems as if it's getting rarer as time goes on.

I think people forget exactly how big a gamble Schultz and Melendez were taking with the Charlie Brown Christmas special. A lot of people told them that a cartoon special with an explicitly Christian message would bomb, but they stuck with it...and as far as I'm concerned, that scene where Linus explains "what it's all about" is one of the iconic moments in television history. --Benp 16:56, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

You couldn't make it up

Jinx, in the UK we have a Conservative journalist and broadcaster called Richard Littlejohn (he's a rarity, our media is so Liberal/leftist-dominated) whose often-employed tagline about idiotic manifestaions of leftist public policy and political correctness is "You couldn't make it up". Well, for your Obama/Pilate/Palin story.... you couldn't make it up. Well done, mate. Bugler 15:31, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

FredSteel block

I looked at his edits and they don't warrant a block of any kind; even his last edit was fundamentally correct. As a result I unblocked him. Karajou 13:21, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

User Trouble

I don't like to throw words like Parodist or Troll around lightly, but User:Devout seems to be completely over the top in his comments, such as this and this I would just ask that someone please keep an eye on him. Thank you NateE ^{Let Us Communicate} 15:31, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

There seems to be a group of three low post count usernames that are following each other around. I'll keep an eye out and might even ask for a checkuser to be done. Jinxmchue 15:39, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Thank you. NateE ^{Let Us Communicate} 15:42, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Huh?!? What is wrong with those two edits? And have you checked my other contributions? Are you sure YOU are not a vandal who comes to disrupt this place? Devout 16:12, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

And Jinxkmchue, I am one of a group of three low post count usernames? Care to tell me which are the other two? I'll tell you this, I am me and I have only this username. Devout 16:15, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Me again. Now there is that SyedO guy. But I won't say anything to him/her - my comments being too over the top... Devout 16:28, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm not at liberty to discuss this. A concern was voiced and it will be looked into. This is nothing new. Jinxmchue 00:20, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Please. "I'm not at liberty... A concern was voiced...". You yourself admitted "There seems to be a group of three low post count usernames" etc etc. Am I included in those three? And since you are so receptive to concerns, please investigate NateE and DRamon. Oh, and please tell the results of your investigations as soon as possible. If every good member in good faith is welcomed like this, well, Conservapedia will lose many potential contributors. A final note: if I were a "Parodist or Troll", would I care of these infaming accusations? I would just say some bad words and create a new user account. --Devout 13:48, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

P.S. Here is DRamon's latest "contribution". --Devout 13:49, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Sowell page

I wrote 99% of that segment on Sowell, but can't prove I did it because it is under a Wikipedia user name. I also wrote a section challenging the notion of so-called Biblical "contradictions" and had to fight to keep that in place. It will no doubt be removed by assorted liberals and atheists in due time. But since that defence is under a Wikipedia user name I cannot bring it over here either where it will get a fairer hearing. There are a lot of contributions made by conservatives on Wikipedia. It is not 100% liberal bias acorss the board.

See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis where I wrote:

"Some established Christian writers or authorities hold that the notion of contradictions is flawed and based primarily on taking passages out of context, confusing figurative and literal language, exaggeration of minor text variants and other such causes. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia uses the term "apparent contradictions" in its examination of the issue, maintaining that "it follows from what has been said that there can be no contradictions in the Bible, and that there can be no real opposition between Biblical statements..." ^[1] The Encyclopedia offers the following on what it terms "apparent contradictions."

"In other cases the apparent contradictions in the Bible are due to an erroneous exegesis of one or both the passages in question. Such wrong interpretations are easily caused by the change in the meaning of a word; by the assumption of a wrong nexus of ideas (chronological, real, or psychological); by a restriction or an extension of the meaning of a passage beyond its natural limits; by an interchange of figurative with proper, of hypothetical with absolute language; a concession of Divine authority to mere quotations from profane sources, or by a neglect of the difference between the Old and the New Testament."^[2]

Other modern Christian writers repeat this general criticism, arguing that some claims of contradictions in Genesis and elsewhere are so stretched that:

"It might even be said that if a scholar is expending his efforts to highlight contradictions in the biblical text and is not going beyond that to indicate how they may be resolved, he is not demonstrating his wisdom or honesty so much as he is demonstrating his failure as an interpreter of the Word of God."^{[3] [4]}

I could have used a lot of other references but these had to be formated per Wikipedia guidelines. The no Wikipedia rule essentially cuts off a ton of well sourced, referenced and documented writing, much of it compiled with a lot of man-hours, from ever being used here. Wikipedia copyrights allow that material to be used elsewhere, as numerous sites do all across the Internet. I understand you have this rule to quell Wikipedia's liberal bias, but it also means a huge amount of good conservative writing challenging or neutralizing that bias is off the table forever. What alternatives do you suggest to this dilemma? TooTallJones 23:36, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Help needed with Previous Breaking News

Jinx, you have mentioned on Hsmom's talk page that you were looking for a project to work on. Even though you seem to have started sourcing the medical articles, I have another idea that you could work on when you're done with that one.

Since you're already a member of the news project, this is part of the project no one is helping with. Wikiproject:News/Previous Breaking News

Let me know if you're interested. I will provide 1:1 mentoring with this subproject. --DeanS^talk 01:17, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Don't leave

Jinx, please reconsider. Conservapedia needs people of your calibre, all the more so in the new situation that has developed. Bugler 10:12, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Say it ain't so

From this valley they say you are leaving
We will miss your bright eyes and sweet smile
For they say you are taking the sunshine
That has brightened our path for a while.
Sideways 10:15, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Stay another day

Baby if you've got to go away
Don't think I could take the pain
Won't you stay another day?
--CPalmer 10:18, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I'm not making any promises

I was presented with something last night (based upon that Bible passage) that I need time to digest. I've seen failings in my life that I need to take care of. I need to find the place where God wants me to be, not where I want me to be. I'm not the change I've been waiting for. I don't know if I'll be back. I've got a family to lead and take care of (with a new addition coming in 2 weeks) and, above all, a God to worship and serve. The less distractions from those things I have right now, the better. I need to concentrate on not just maintaining, but improving those things which matter most - those things which will last beyond my time and everyone else's time here on Earth. The few things that I cling to, the things that anchor me to the world instead of to God, are still far too numerous. That needs to change and I'm thankful that my Lord is leading me in ways I never could've imagined. Jinxmchue 11:36, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Well, good luck, Jinx, and God be with you and your family. I hope you will wish to return when you feel that the time is right. Bugler

So long Jinx. The Irrational Ones will miss your antics. We'll keep the bananas dancing for you, should you ever wish to return. No need to stand at the door and knock. Godspeed you in your spiritual journey. Juan 17:04, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Congratulations!

Omedetou gozaimasu, Jinxmchue! May the new arrival bring you much happiness and not too many sleepless nights! --KotomiT^{一遍死んで見る} 10:40, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Congratulations on your son's birth, and thanks for sharing the news with us. We don't expect you to waste any time with us for the next few weeks, but we hope to see you back soon. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:48, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Congratulations Jinx and thanks for the update. --DeanS^talk 10:50, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Great news, Jinx! -Foxtrot 10:50, 19 November 2008 (EST)