Talk:LowKey

From RationalWikiWiki

I have posted quite a lot since December 2010, just not logged in. You may (or may not) want to mention that. LowKey 04:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Not unless you want to out your IP. It's up to you, pal. Punky McPunkersen 14:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter Tyrannis covered it nicely, I think. LowKey 23:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Contents 1 Missing info 2 "Despite being a YEC" 3 Inaccurate statement(s) 4 Name

[edit] Missing info

Needs more about moths. Rrose Selavy 20:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

hahahahahah  :) Only after full disclosure at Kels LowKey 04:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the bit about allying is inaccurate, as is the bit about what articles I worked on at CP. Although, according to the current trend in standards, should this not be limited to my RW activity? LowKey 04:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You could mention this I guess  :) .LowKey 04:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] "Despite being a YEC"

I think this is a bit over-the-top, no? I realize it is mostly shunned on RW, but it feels kinda low-blowish. Speakerface 01:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It shows a depth of prejudice that is disturbing when one cannot credit that another holds a view without considering them mentally deficient. The phrase is a false dichotomy, and yes is a low blow - the acknowledgement of my intelligence is begrudging. Regardless, it matters little. For a short article, there are already a couple gross errors, based on people assuming things without checking them (note the second sentence in the article). LowKey 02:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The second sentence of the article contains quite a bit of information. I'm not sure to which you are referring exactly. I'll temper the statement I found "low-blowish", though. Speakerface 02:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

When arguing creationism, the creationists who are not outright shysters leave their brains at the door. This is understandable, since as CMI mouthpieces have stated several times, the formal principle of the creationists is that the Bible trumps reason, thus leaving no serious need for the latter in discussions of the origin of species.

The ideological nature of creationism also leads people with minimal technical ability but plenty of non-technical enthusiasm to try and take on the scientific establishment, thus catapulting themselves right off the deep end and further advancing the image of creationists as a pack of gibbering morons. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(article related) Wesley (that do be Wesley with the speaker face, do it not?), the second sentence says that I "allied with" PJR at CP, but we actually did not have a whole lot of interaction there. Most of my interaction came between when I threw in the towel and when Philip did. Also, the sentence says that I "worked on YEC-related material", which may well be true, would mischaracterised my CP edited somewhat. Most of what I worked on was not YEC-related (although there was that one edit to "Crocodile"). LowKey 06:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Remainder of debate cut to rw:Debate:The trumping of reason

[edit] Inaccurate statement(s)

The statement about why I edited without logging in is pure speculation, and inaccurate. It really had nothing to do with TWIGOASK beyond the fact that thence occurred most of my edits. It was my way of demonstrating (to myself if no-one else had the insight to see it) that regardless of my account status I was not considered a community member but an unwelcome interloper. While we are on the subject of inaccurate statements, no-one has corrected the earlier inaccurate statements about my CP activity - although not being RW related they should probably be shorn altogether. LowKey 05:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Better? (I knew you refused to use your account due to your perceived standing in the community, but I thought some edits to the WIGO:ASK page were what touched off the controversy.) ListenerX^TalkerX 05:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, yeah, it's better. For the two or maybe three people wondering, what set me to unlogging was the fact that in almost every conversation (which was generally only at T:WIGO:ASK) at least one response was not about what I posted but about why was even posting at RW. I have since seen some signs of RW actually becoming a community so I now log in, occasionally trying to nudge in the direction of a mature community. LowKey 02:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

RationalWiki is not a place for the thin-skinned. When disputing theological matters there (and your mere presence there would be understood as part of a theological dispute, similar to how many RationalWiki editors regard their presence at aSK), one must be prepared to take a lot of slop. One must also be prepared to ignore that slop for the sake of keeping the debate going. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

RW, a mature community! Hah! Apart from all the infighting and bickering we spend most of our time arguing with the pest of the moment, EL, JimJast, Marcus, Marawotsit. Most of the sane editors have left. Jack Hughes 11:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, I disagree with your worldview, so I am a "pest". That's a very rational attitude you have for yourself there. You know, I disagree with the worldview of aSK too, but I've never got that attitude from Philip or LowKey or so on, only from RW. Maratrean 11:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it is your posting of numerous essays, etc., in defense of your unusual views, to which Jack Hughes objected. Jack Hughes, to which "sane editors" are you referring, and how are they different from the modern crop? Back when I was first editing the Wiki, if I posted a theological essay I could count on the Gang of Four coming down on my head, and I had to make a separate page in which to pop off at communism because if I did it generally in talk-space, it resulted in protracted side debates that completely derailed the original discussion. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Are my views that unusual? Certainly my religious views are not very mainstream. But many of the arguments I make in favour of them I could deploy equally well in favour of more mainstream beliefs (e.g. Christianity), if I wished; in fact, in several of my essays I have sought to emphasise what I have in common with more common forms of theism (such as Christianity or Judaism or Islam or so on) rather than what is specific to my own religion. Maratrean 23:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Name

That appears to be what they call you sometimes. Tyrannis^{An iron, yet caring fist} 01:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean that CP user Conservative's middle name is "Doll"?  :) LowKey 02:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it. Tyrannis^{An iron, yet caring fist} 02:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)