Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,947
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 93:
Line 93: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Disturbed character (view source)
Revision as of 21:31, December 20, 2013
, 21:31, December 20, 2013→Still problems: Replies
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:10, 19 December 2013 (EST)
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:10, 19 December 2013 (EST)
::Ad.''"I give up."''
:::Much appreciated, at least we can conclude that you are able to accept reasonable arguments and the 'Disturbed character' personality type does not apply onto you as you clearly do not passionately pursue your personal goal with indifference to others and you do not exhibit self-focused/self-centered thinking. Thanks for that.
::Ad.''"Your article should be moved to essay space"''
:::Here I cannot agree, I apologize for any inconvenience, I believe if anything should be moved to essay space, then it would be "Common speech and folklore", not sourced information.
::Ad.''"they are good books for laypeople"''
:::I believe Conservapedia is i.a. for laypeople too, at least I have seen many comments where authors of articles have been asked to bring given content from high-level style down to earth. Nevertheless, the author appears to be expert on manipulators and other disturbed characters. He earned his degree in clinical psychology at Texas Tech University and has studied disturbed characters for over thirty years. I believe that is quite long time span to be entitled to write something on given subject.
::Ad.''"Your article should stand on its own merits, without first requiring the reader to read some book."''
:::That's exactly what the article does. The reading of the book is recommended only to people who are trying to distort the definition of the term by introducing the contradictory characteristics wrt. sourced meaning, such as 'serious defect' and 'neurotic' - it should help them to understand why it is not good idea to mix them into the article.
::Ad.''"I notice that the first URL you gave, to ''In Sheep's Clothing'', does not use the phrase "disturbed character" at all"''
:::The URL refers to the book; if the pages mentioned do not contain phrase "disturbed character", please let me know; there must be something wrong with that edition and I can send you the scan of mine where it is clearly stated.
::Ad.''"your second URL was not directly to Dr. Simon's web page, but had a ''tag search'' for the page"''
:::That's surprising news for me and the URL I have chance to evaluate does not support this hypothesis. As far as I can evaluate the facts, the "tag/character-disturbance/" and "tag/disturbed-character/" are directly part of Dr. Simon's web page, at least when you click for example at 'character disturbance' directly at his pages, it navigates you to that page (~tag/character-disturbance/) without any search engine to intervene.
::Ad.''"I presented a list of people that I considered notorious murderers. ..."''
:::I'm fine with that, you can write essay about your views or as I already suggested 'Disturbed character (folkloristic definition)' page and then we can have disamb.page. I have no interest to place any restriction to your creativity effort at Conservapedia, just pls. do not ascribe a meaning to term that is discouraged in the sources. BTW, the article does not claim that Dr.Simon wrote about Clemenceau, please try to read it again more thoroughly to eliminate this misunderstanding.
::Ad.''"I haven't scoured the planet for everyone's definition."''
:::See my previous point.
::Ad.''"Do you think that Clemenceau adequately represents the class to which Timothy McVeigh belonged?"''
:::I'm not able to comment on Timothy McVeigh as I have no data on him. However as for Clemenceau, I can answer that I regard him for adequately representing the class, everything needed is evaluation of described behavior against criteria. If you wait for twenty years for an opportunity to thwart certain scientist who makes discoveries and helps to develop methods against suffering and dying of people from rabies just because this scientist showed that your evolutionary views were in error, then it is impossible to make other conclusion.
::''"There is '''no''' description that follows. "''
:::Well, the observational evidence confirms that your sentence tried to distinguish [IMHO correctly] pre-Darwinian evolutionists by stating "Many of these people were "evolutionists" in the pre-Darwin sense of the word," and then there was the following description: "in that they believed in a "tree of life" or "Great Chain of Being", without claiming to know how that chain came into existence". Originally I was about to leave this note, but then I realized that it is meaningless because these positions were common for both groups as explained in my previous post {Darwinians also believed in tree of life [which was by the way the only drawing in Darwin's 'On origins of species...'] and also did not claim to know how that chain [starting at so called first replicant] came into existence}.
::Ad.''"You say that people opposed Pasteur's theory refuting spontaneous generation, and then, without naming such people or saying anything about them, call them evolutionists. Darwinian or Lamarckian, you give no evidence that the people opposing Pasteur were evolutionists of any kind."''
:::You must have missed it, while it is true that the information is not directly in text, the sources [at the moment 3 and 4] are quite clear, just focus more attention on them, there are even actual quotes:
*"The Comte de Buffon was a French evolutionist";
*" Clemenceau ... in the domain of physiology and general science he was a convinced evolutionist..."
:::I expect that whoever needs to verify this information would be able to do so in the references.
::''"Well, maybe the Debre book cites people other than Clemenceau; I haven't read it. Tell us who some of these other people were, and what the Debre book says about their Lamarckian/Darwinian beliefs, and whether they were "disturbed"."''
:::See my previous point [Buffon]; their Lamarkian/Darwinian beliefs are irrelevant to this article, if it is topic of your interest I really encourage you to read the book, and even contact author should you get clarified their evolutionary beliefs directly by his historical research. I use only Clemenceau in the example and the question whether he was disturbed was addressed in one of my above points. If you suggest to add Buffon as well, that's maybe quite well possible/good idea, I just would need to study more about him as I have not expected there might be such suggestion and I do not have that book with me at the moment to investigate right away whether he might meet the criteria [for character disturbance]. I just recall there is quite few pages where he is mentioned.
I hope this helps as explanation, thanks in advance for your understanding --[[User:AK|AK]] 16:31, 20 December 2013 (EST)
==Moderation==
==Moderation==
Hey everyone - a series of extremely unfortunate events lead my computer and phone to have NO access to CP - Sam I only reverted you on main page talk because that's not really the place to go for such problems. But AK Sam is right, the article as it stands now is skewed - we definitely need more examples if that section is going to stay. One is ridiculous. I'd also like a more definitive definition. I'm worried about how broadly used this classification is - is this a diagnosis? Your writing is fine - you lay it out fine, and I do see the definition, but I'm still confused as to how widespread this classification is used.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:25, 20 December 2013 (EST)
Hey everyone - a series of extremely unfortunate events lead my computer and phone to have NO access to CP - Sam I only reverted you on main page talk because that's not really the place to go for such problems. But AK Sam is right, the article as it stands now is skewed - we definitely need more examples if that section is going to stay. One is ridiculous. I'd also like a more definitive definition. I'm worried about how broadly used this classification is - is this a diagnosis? Your writing is fine - you lay it out fine, and I do see the definition, but I'm still confused as to how widespread this classification is used.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:25, 20 December 2013 (EST)