ScienceApologist goes mad, Assembles armies of the night Options

[Hipocrite]

[peter damian]I wonder what editor is standing up against Elonka's block of ScienceApologist on their cellphone. [/peter damian]

[Peter Damian]

I'm assembling my armies of the night
First I'm going to get Hans Adler fired for loving homeopathy. Then I'm going to get Jim Butler imprisoned for impersonating a medical doctor. The I'm going to kill Levine2112 by breaking his back with vertebral subluxation unrelated to chiropractic. Then I'm going to expose Elonka for being an amateur cryptographer with delusions of grandeur. Then I'll put fluoride in ImperfectlyInformed and MaxPont's water to poison them.


Seriously, all, get the FUCK OFF MY TALKPAGE.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScienceApologist"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255562610

[edit] But claims it was all a joke.

Seriously, this place needs to lighten up and the lot of us should dig our heads out of our asses. All of us here write for the shittist encyclopedia known to humanity that people use when they are too lazy to move away from their computer screens or are too stupid to know the difference between "quality control" and "lack of quality control". I'm so happy that we've got a community that welcomes with open arms the wayward souls who write stilted poetry about how "chirosceptics" are shills for drug companies, how gaming conventions are the epitome of culture, how spirits are talking to them through static on the radio, and how homeopathy cured them of hay fever. Yeah, that's who I want writing my encyclopedia. A bunch of idiots.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Wed 3rd December 2008, 10:40am

[Cla68]

I'm assembling my armies of the night
First I'm going to get Hans Adler fired for loving homeopathy. Then I'm going to get Jim Butler imprisoned for impersonating a medical doctor. The I'm going to kill Levine2112 by breaking his back with vertebral subluxation unrelated to chiropractic. Then I'm going to expose Elonka for being an amateur cryptographer with delusions of grandeur. Then I'll put fluoride in ImperfectlyInformed and MaxPont's water to poison them.


Seriously, all, get the FUCK OFF MY TALKPAGE.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScienceApologist"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255562610

It's obvious that most of this is a joke (except that last line). It's also obvious that it's in bad taste, unnecessary, and offensive. I wouldn't advocate banning SA over it, but I'd probably suggest he be put in the penalty box for a few days. He's taking a content dispute(s) way too personally and reacting in an inappropriate manner.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Thu 4th December 2008, 12:00am

[Somey]

It's obvious that most of this is a joke (except that last line). It's also obvious that it's in bad taste, unnecessary, and offensive. I wouldn't advocate banning SA over it, but I'd probably suggest he be put in the penalty box for a few days....

I dunno - I tend to agree with Mr. Yeti Jr. on this one, and Hipocrite too for that matter. SA has burned out and may not return to Wikipedia for some time, which is unfortunate for the rest of the world, who may have lost yet another soldier in the never-ending Quixotic battle to make Wikipedia look marginally less ridiculous over time.

That isn't to say that pseudoscience advocates shouldn't be allowed to write about their causes in Wikipedia - but the main thing is to keep pseudoscience advocacy out of mainstream science articles, and to maintain some balance. Alas, pseudoscience advocates have a huge advantage in the Wiki/Wikipedia context, since participation in the WP system counts far more than the weight of opinion and evidence within the scientific community. In that sense, SA is absolutely right about WP being the "world's shittiest encyclopedia." (He's also right in a general sense too, of course. )

Admittedly, I've had an experience recently that has caused me to really, really despise quack practitioners, so I'm probably a bit more biased against them now than I have been in the past...

[Cla68]

It's obvious that most of this is a joke (except that last line). It's also obvious that it's in bad taste, unnecessary, and offensive. I wouldn't advocate banning SA over it, but I'd probably suggest he be put in the penalty box for a few days....

I dunno - I tend to agree with Mr. Yeti Jr. on this one, and Hipocrite too for that matter. SA has burned out and may not return to Wikipedia for some time, which is unfortunate for the rest of the world, who may have lost yet another soldier in the never-ending Quixotic battle to make Wikipedia look marginally less ridiculous over time.

That isn't to say that pseudoscience advocates shouldn't be allowed to write about their causes in Wikipedia - but the main thing is to keep pseudoscience advocacy out of mainstream science articles, and to maintain some balance. Alas, pseudoscience advocates have a huge advantage in the Wiki/Wikipedia context, since participation in the WP system counts far more than the weight of opinion and evidence within the scientific community. In that sense, SA is absolutely right about WP being the "world's shittiest encyclopedia." (He's also right in a general sense too, of course. )

Admittedly, I've had an experience recently that has caused me to really, really despise quack practitioners, so I'm probably a bit more biased against them now than I have been in the past...

I can understand becoming angry and letting loose on irritating jerks who won't shut the heck up. I can remember one time when I tore, or tried to tear, William Connolley a new one on the Global Warming talk page (I'll try to find the diff sometime, it was a couple of years ago). The difference is that I did it without using profanity or jokingly threatening to harm him. I don't think it's necessary to yell at someone that way.