User talk:Petrus

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Suppression of truth, eh? Sounds a bit familiar. Wikipedia doesn't allow any pro-creationist edits on its evolution page, because they view evolution as "truth". You seem to have the same view, so let me ask you this: where's the proof? You claim that we're observing it today. That's microevolution that we're observing, such as the change from one species of fish to another. Okay, so it speciated, but it shares the same inherent characteristics of fish, and the same characteristics of that genus. Macroevolution, or every animal coming from a single ancestor and everything evolving toward the more complex including the addition of new information in genes, is not proven. We're not afraid to debate this subject, as you can see right now, so quit making silly remarks like that on the Theory of Evolution talk page. Scorpionman 07:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Allow contrary views to be expressed in the article by those who hold them, then -- by opening it for editing. --Petrus 07:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Then why doesn't Wikipedia allow contrary views in its article? The admins and sysops are all anti-Christian! And if we open the page for editing, it will be vandalized. Perhaps, though, it could just be semi-protected, as a lot of the vandalism is by users who don't have accounts. Scorpionman 08:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Dude, admins are sysops. Sysops have different levels of permissions. In addition, if I became a Wikipedia admin (which I intend to do when I "have enough experience"), would that mean that I was automatically anti-Christian?
I would also like to state that the supposed "removals of facts" were probably due to them being written with a POV, or simply not being facts, and either being portrayed as such, or being so absurd that they did not merit inclusion. --Geekman314(contact me) 17:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
But Wikipedia does! All you have to do is persist -- and find others with similar views. No need to be so paranoid! As for users without accounts, they can't currently get into Conservapedia anyway, despite what it says at the top RH. --Petrus 08:08, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Of course fish share the inherent charcteristics of fish. That's common descent for you. What were you expecting? Tsumetai 07:53, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Precisely. Scorpionman 08:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
If you're agreeing with me, I don't think you caught the point I was making. 'Fish' is an enormous group; even restricting to ray-finned fish, we're still talking about Class level, which is pretty high. Evolution does not predict that fish should develop into a separate class. On the contrary, that would falsify evolution. Fish remaining fish is precisely what the theory predicts.
Incidentally, Petrus, just let me know if you want me to take this tangent elsewhere. Tsumetai 08:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the offer, Tsumetai. I think I'd prefer it if you did, as it's not about the article as such. And, to be honest, I don't really think there's much point of arguing with Scorpionman anyway.--Petrus 08:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Right, I'll take it over to Tsumetai. Personally, though, I don't see much point in arguing with either you or him, same as you don't see any point in arguing with me. Scorpionman 13:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
OK. Scorpionman, if you want to continue this discussion, just pop over to my talk page. Tsumetai 08:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Hi Petrus. The link to the Pope in the article Rapture‎ did link to content that mentioned the Antichrist. It has since been suppressed. It can be found in this Edit. JC 14:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Ah. OK, I'll check it out. We need to keep it consistent! --Petrus 06:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

New Testament

Stop adding nonsense to the New Testament article. Scorpionman 09:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Specify 'nonsense', and cite proper authorities for your assertions. --Petrus 09:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Goodness gracious, you added facts. Esne puer malus, Petre? NousEpirrhytos 16:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Certe! --Petrus 12:40, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Silencio! No sabes nada. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 12:36, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Tsk, Tsk. You were foolish enough to add truth to a religous article?

Your recent edits

I'd much rather not block you, but if you continue with your current editing style, I'm afraid I'll have no choice. Tsumetai 06:23, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Only trying to provoke! It's called 'satire'! You never know -- it might cause some people around here to think! ;) --Petrus 06:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Doubtful, as I'm one of the few people who will actually see it. Solid arguments will not only have more chance of making people think, they won't be immediately reverted, either. Tsumetai 06:31, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Point taken. Will you now be proposing to block the destructive and often abusive efforts of Scorpionman (see the entry just above yours, which was accompanied by an immediate blind reversion), which do far more damage to Conservapedia's reputation than my satirical efforts ever can? --Petrus 06:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Not sure what your objection is there. He removed material he thought was wrong, you reinserted it, and it's still there. Tsumetai 06:51, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
His objectionable behaviour (mainly abusive, arrogant comments) seems to come and go - and I'm not just referring to his reactions to me. I don't think for a moment that he thought my effort was wrong - he was just being destructive on principle in the light of earlier disagreements, which is presumably why he didn't re-revert. However, he seems fairly quiescent at present, so I'll let you know!... --Petrus 07:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
PS You had plenty of recent experience of him recently, too, of course! --Petrus 13:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Fair enough. I should point out, though, that discussion/debate pages generally get more latitude than articles. Tsumetai 07:19, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Of course, I should think that Conservapedia would have some sort of policy against ad hominem attacks. Perhaps not. Odd though that there appears to be a policy against satire. NousEpirrhytos 08:33, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
To be clear, it was satire in articles, not talk pages, to which I was objecting. Tsumetai 08:38, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

And not to plain rubbish? Why do you and your colleagues allow through so many (a) biased, (b) unsourced and generally crappy articles, especially where they touch on religion or politics? Many of them are, frankly, a disgrace, and scarcely less of a travesty than my satirical versions - which was, of course, my point. (Hence, naturally, my unsatirical ones!) They don't have to exclude Christian views - merely to report them (all of them) reasonably dispassionately as they are, if they must. As things stand, though, most such articles should be either improved drastically or scrapped altogether, leaving only a stub until a suitably comprehensive and reliable article comes along. Yet what happens? Not only are they allowed to stand - apparently imposed by the very 'establishment' istelf - but nobody else is even allowed to touch them! If 'official' paranoia is going to be allowed to continue like this, I'm afraid I despair of Conservapedia - as, no doubt, will most thinking people who would like it to be a genuine source of information. In which case you might as well block me anyway. The more rabid fundamentalists won't despair, of course, since they want it to be a source of propaganda, not information. They think they know all the answers already - a surefire guarantee that they will never ask the question. --Petrus 13:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Nothing is coming here but a senseless rant; you must have rabies. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 15:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, there's only one of me, and my influence is limited, especially when it comes to dealing with the more controversial articles. I do think that even some of the protected articles are slowly improving, however. The one surefire guarantee that a question will never be asked is for all those willing to ask it to leave. Tsumetai 13:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Evolution

Read the NOTICE again slowly. It's parody. Rob PommerTALK 12:44, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Ah! --Petrus 12:46, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
How is it parody? I don't see anything humorous. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 15:06, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

TOE

Do not argue with a fool on his own level; he has far more experience at it than you do!

That is why TerryH isn't there arguing with you anymore! ScorpionStep on me and get stung 12:34, 4 April 2007 (EDT)