Odd Nature has been personally attacked! Options Rating

[LaraLove]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wik...#User:Dragon695

Of course, Orangemarlin and Filll show up to defend. And Kelly arrives to take Dragon695's side. It's just the same faces everywhere. I would chime in, but it's just not worth it. Filll can misuse any link to attempt to paint the picture he wants, but I'm not sure there's much defense for

Ah! I see Odd Nature has shown up to solicit a round from the ID boo-hoo brigade, well I stand by my statement. You and the rest of those WP:TE members of the ID Cabal will either change your attitude or face the music, so don't think the whole OrangeClownFish affair gets you off the hook. My comments pale in comparison to how rude, loutish, and completely out of control some of the things you guys do to newbies and unrelated editors who show up at pages your "Wikiproject" WP:OWNs. The so-called scientists who claim to defend science are actually hurting those of us who really care about science. Real scientists are gentlemen and scholars, not oafs and louts. If anyone wants diffs, the Intelligent Design RFC is chock full of them. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Although, Filll and Orangemarlin are really the last people who should be chiming in dismayed at incivility. And I don't think they caught the Finding Nemo reference.

[Bob Boy]

Moulton, could you please refresh us on some of the real-world identities of some of the IDCab, particularly Jim62sch? Are they real scientists?

[Lar]

Moulton, could you please refresh us on some of the real-world identities of some of the IDCab, particularly Jim62sch? Are they real scientists?

Exactly why would it help matters to out people here who wish privacy? I'd rather not see that sort of thing. Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, regardless of whether they have been acting inappropriately. Do not sink to the level of those arrayed against you.

[Bob Boy]

Moulton, could you please refresh us on some of the real-world identities of some of the IDCab, particularly Jim62sch? Are they real scientists?

Exactly why would it help matters to out people here who wish privacy? I'd rather not see that sort of thing. Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, regardless of whether they have been acting inappropriately. Do not sink to the level of those arrayed against you.

I would normally agree, but that group is not above outing other people to achieve their goals - from what I recall, that's exactly what dragged Jim and Orangemarlin into arbitration before - weren't they outing people?

[Lar]

Moulton, could you please refresh us on some of the real-world identities of some of the IDCab, particularly Jim62sch? Are they real scientists?

Exactly why would it help matters to out people here who wish privacy? I'd rather not see that sort of thing. Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, regardless of whether they have been acting inappropriately. Do not sink to the level of those arrayed against you.

I would normally agree, but that group is not above outing other people to achieve their goals - from what I recall, that's exactly what dragged Jim and Orangemarlin into arbitration before - weren't they outing people?

You may well be right. But I nevertheless say " Do not sink to the level of those arrayed against you." YMMV of course and I wish you the best in any case.

[Bob Boy]

You may well be right. But I nevertheless say " Do not sink to the level of those arrayed against you." YMMV of course and I wish you the best in any case.

I understand where you're coming from. I generally subscribe to the goose/gander school, myself.

[Moulton]

You may well be right. But I nevertheless say " Do not sink to the level of those arrayed against you." YMMV of course and I wish you the best in any case.

I understand where you're coming from. I generally subscribe to the goose/gander school, myself.

The core issue is how to deal with the PotKettleBlack/Tu Quoque/Hypocrisy of Filll, FeloniousMonk, Odd nature, OrangeMarlin, Blueboy96, and KillerChihuahua applying double standards, whereby the same act is an unforgivably egregious hanging offense if an adversarial editor does it, but a shoulder-shrugging, excusable, no big deal if one of their own tribe does it.

[Bob Boy]

You may well be right. But I nevertheless say " Do not sink to the level of those arrayed against you." YMMV of course and I wish you the best in any case.

I understand where you're coming from. I generally subscribe to the goose/gander school, myself.

The core issue is how to deal with the PotKettleBlack/Tu Quoque/Hypocrisy of Filll, FeloniousMonk, Odd nature, OrangeMarlin, Blueboy96, and KillerChihuahua applying double standards, whereby the same act is an unforgivably egregious hanging offense if an adversarial editor does it, but a shoulder-shrugging, excusable, no big deal if one of their own tribe does it.

I think that Mutual assured destruction is a good applied philosophy here - it worked in the Cold War. Any Wikipedia user who engages in outing should be willing to accept the consequence of being outed themselves.

[Lar]

You may well be right. But I nevertheless say " Do not sink to the level of those arrayed against you." YMMV of course and I wish you the best in any case.

I understand where you're coming from. I generally subscribe to the goose/gander school, myself.

The core issue is how to deal with the PotKettleBlack/Tu Quoque/Hypocrisy of Filll, FeloniousMonk, Odd nature, OrangeMarlin, Blueboy96, and KillerChihuahua applying double standards, whereby the same act is an unforgivably egregious hanging offense if an adversarial editor does it, but a shoulder-shrugging, excusable, no big deal if one of their own tribe does it.

I think that Mutual assured destruction is a good applied philosophy here - it worked in the Cold War. Any Wikipedia user who engages in outing should be willing to accept the consequence of being outed themselves.

OK, out of the bunch here that you all are merrily chasing after, who has outed others? Where are the diffs for that? And even if so, I just reject this outing nonsense, I don't care who did what to who. The ends do not justify the means.

I absolutely cannot condone any of this and I want my strong objection and reservations about this technique and its use on record.

[wikiwhistle]

OK, out of the bunch here that you all are merrily chasing after, who has outed others? Where are the diffs for that? And even if so, I just reject this outing nonsense, I don't care who did what to who. The ends do not justify the means.

I absolutely cannot condone any of this and I want my strong objection and reservations about this technique and its use on record.

Me too, I enjoy googling and am curious and so on as much as the next person, and it's easy to get drawn into the game, but I don't want to condone outing or picking at people's private off-wiki stuff. (Tempting as it is.)

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Sat 5th July 2008, 3:22am

[Kelly Martin]

Me too, I enjoy googling and am curious and so on as much as the next person, and it's easy to get drawn into the game, but I don't want to condone outing or picking at people's private off-wiki stuff. (Tempting as it is.)

If it can be found with Google, it's not "private".

Don't buy into the silly line that "off-wiki" equals "private".

[wikiwhistle]

Me too, I enjoy googling and am curious and so on as much as the next person, and it's easy to get drawn into the game, but I don't want to condone outing or picking at people's private off-wiki stuff. (Tempting as it is.)

If it can be found with Google, it's not "private".

Don't buy into the silly line that "off-wiki" equals "private".

No but you know what I mean- would you or did you like it, when people were trying to dig up the dirt about you and publicise it? Especially a dating profile, that would feel embarrassing IMHO.

[Kelly Martin]

No but you know what I mean- would you or did you like it, when people were trying to dig up the dirt about you and publicise it? Especially a dating profile, that would feel embarrassing IMHO.

If you do something in your past that embarrasses you in the future, the only honest thing to do is to admit the indiscretions of your youth, move on, taking what wisdom you can from your mistakes. One does not grow if one either dwells on the past, or tries to avoid it.

I've been subjected to the muckraking efforts of the "investigators" here and elsewhere; I'm sure they've had quite the chuckle at my checkered past and I am well-aware that much of it has been splattered around. While I'd have been happier if they hadn't done it, none of it has done me any real harm. If someone who really does matter (as opposed to random strangers on the Interner) brings it up, I can always say "Pah, the Internet, you never know what sort of crazy people you're dealing with there" and talk about Archimedes Plutonium or Timecube. It's well-known that the Internet is full of cranks and that you really can't trust anything you read there.

[wikiwhistle]

No but you know what I mean- would you or did you like it, when people were trying to dig up the dirt about you and publicise it? Especially a dating profile, that would feel embarrassing IMHO.

If you do something in your past that embarrasses you in the future, the only honest thing to do is to admit the indiscretions of your youth, move on, taking what wisdom you can from your mistakes. One does not grow if one either dwells on the past, or tries to avoid it.

No but Filll (if this is the same bloke) hasn't done anything mistaken by putting up a dating profile, a lot of people do it.(It's not even a particularly steamy one or anything.) The embarrassment doesn't come from his having done something wrong, but from it not being intended for the audience who's now viewing it (if you see what I mean.) The only 'mistake' he made was using the same nickname on it.

It's a shame people have to choose different usernames for on and off wiki, not so long ago people would have one or two usernames they used on a few sites, and that wouldn't be a mistake. Probably he created the profile before he came under fire on wiki so he wasn't to know not to use the same name.

[Kelly Martin]

No but Filll (if this is the same bloke) hasn't done anything mistaken by putting up a dating profile, a lot of people do it.(It's not even a particularly steamy one or anything.) The embarrassment doesn't come from his having done something wrong, but from it not being intended for the audience who's now viewing it (if you see what I mean.) The only 'mistake' he made was using the same nickname on it.

Why would you put anything in your dating profile that you wouldn't be willing to own up to? If he's done that, then it's his own foolishness at play and he should bear the consequences for such folly.

Anybody who's been on the Internet at least a week or so knows that anything you put on the Internet may be seen by anyone whomsoever. It is foolish not to moderate one's behavior in recognition of this simple fact.