User talk:Salva31

Archive 1 -- April 2005 to October 2005

Welcome to the Spot Where Tranquility is Not

Apology accepted

Hi Salva,

I'm sorry you feel that way about me, really. Actually, almost everything you said about me is completely inaccurate. I'm extremely pro-democracy, about as pro-democracy as you can get, in fact; I'm definitely anti-"Islamofascist" (although Islamist is a more accurate and less perjorative term, I think); I'm definitely NOT anti-semitic; I'm also not anti-Christian, and it would probably surprise you to know that I've read a fair bit about Christianity, I'm reasonably familiar with the New Testament, and my very favorite book of all time is The Master and Margarita, in which Jesus plays a central role. I must say that I could be called anti-American, because by one definition this means simply "opposed to the policies of the American government." Yes, I've opposed many of the policies of my government. But that's what happens in a democracy; take that as you will. About all you've gotten right is that I'm "neo-darwinian", by which I take it to mean that I'm an evolutionary biologist. Certainly true.

As to my being despotic, I don't think I've ever done anything other than engage you in reasonable debate. I've never attempted to pressure you or use autocratic means against you or any other creationist. I feel I treat you the same way as I treat any other Wikipedian: when I disagree with you, I state my reasons and ask you to justify your stance. If you feel this is too high a burden to meet, and I am being autocratic by demanding that, I am sorry. But I don't know Aaaaargh, and I'm not part of any cabal of leftist evolutionists on Wikipedia that plots against thee and thine.

All of this suggests that perhaps you're making unwarranted assumptions about other people. I'm not some sort of demon, and my beliefs don't make me some sort of inhuman monster. I thought we had a very reasonable interaction over the past few months; if you got something else from it, I submit that the fault is not in me, but in your perception.

Anyway, I hope you have a good stint in the Navy. Try not to kill anyone - that's what Jesus would want, I think. Graft 17:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response

there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence. -- In your opinion, does this statement carry any amount of truth?

Do you have an adequate definition of intelligence for me to use to apply to this? Do you have a definition for "undirected"? Do you have any examples of this? I cannot answer this question until these answers are given. The statement is full of loaded terms that are not well-defined scientifically. Joshuaschroeder 22:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Do you agree? If not, then I feel we will certainly have a difficult time understanding each other to any extent in the future. You see, my friend, science, and natural science are denoted as two seperate terms. Science is not restrained entirely behind a naturalistic threshold.

You can quote Einstein, but that doesn't provide a definition of science. What it provides is a pithy warm fuzzy for people who like religion and science. It's not representative of an objective research program. Joshuaschroeder 22:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you call Einstein an IDiot or a crackpot creationist because he arrived at this conclusion?

Just because you arrive at the conclusion that the universe is complicated doesn't mean you've arrived at the ID conclusion. Joshuaschroeder 23:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you believe that that complexity is derived from spontaneous and entirely natural means, but you cannot yet prove it, and perhaps never will.

There is no such thing as proof in science. Nothing is proven, we only have observations and summaries of the observations called scientific theories. That's as good as science can do. People have other ways of coming to terms with the way they view the universe, but they are not scientific. Joshuaschroeder 01:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that Einstein was not proffering a scientific opinion when he opined about what he believed about the interdependency of science and religion. Imagination is not synonymous with supernaturalism. Joshuaschroeder 05:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subpage

Hey there. I noticed you created myownhappyplace1 in the main namespace while archiving your talk page. I'm guessing this was just a mistake, so I've moved it to User:Salva31/Myownhappyplace1 so that it's a subpage now, as well as updated the link on this page. If I've mistinterpreted what you were doing, feel free to let me know. Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your comment

Salva, I was referring to this edit of yours which removed one of Guettarda's comments. I am not sure how this could be done without intent; however, I will assume it was inadvertant. You are correct; it is sometimes hard to take seriously people who still believe that different species were created suddenly and individually. Yet at least I have always taken you seriously, have I not? And I've seen others patiently explain to you why certain edits or sentences do or do not belong in Evolution. Frustration is no excuse for making the sort of comments you did. Those type of comments never belong on Wikipedia. Please remain civil and courteous with other users. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa...Salva, this edit is not appropriate, and the edit comment definitely goes over the line. If you don't cool it with the insults and slurs, you're going to be blocked. Please calm down. If you don't like his comments, delete them, but do it without the nastiness. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Salva31, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! But haven't we seen you before somewhere? Dunc|☺ 18:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A different approach

Salva, I noticed that the following phrase has survived in the article Evolution.

Investigations continue into whether these mechanisms allow for the production of specific beneficial heritable variation in response to environmental signals. If this were shown to be the case, then some instances of evolution would lie outside of the typical Darwinian framework, which avoids any connection between environmental signals and the production of heritable variation. (emphasis added)

Most of the editors of Evolution have an "imune response" to any phrase that suggests that Darwinian evolution is wrong or somehow limited. A comment that points out new scientific results that "lie outside" evolution seem to be acceptable.

Does this give you any thoughts?--Nowa 12:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "My comments:

I don't doubt your sincerity, but I am a bit confused. Which comments on Talk:Evolution are you referring to? The only recent objectionable ones I remember are the ones to Graft, which it appears you acknowledge making, right? — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salva/MedCorpman, I don't understand why you can't refrain from insulting him when in your comments. There are several users on Wikipedia whom I'm not particularly fond of, and I try to avoid them if possible; if I do encounter them, I try to treat them with respect—even to vandals I use politeness. I have no particular desire to block you, but if upon your return you continue this behavior, someone will surely block you. I still don't understand your confusion on Talk:Evolution—the link I provides showing you removing User:Guettarda's comments, not yours. Regardless, it doesn't much matter now. I am sure you can use either Salva31 or MedCorpman, whichever you please. Good luck on your training, and be sure to avoid Ship 51 or 39 or whatever it was called. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dishonesty

You alleged that I called you a white supremacist - I didn't, I simply said your attacks seemed racist, and when you countered that you were black I said that black racism against Indians is nothing new to me. Your posting to KS's page is thus, yet again, an intentional misrepresentation of the facts and continued personal attacks against me. Guettarda 06:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Salva, or whatever you are called now

Hi Salva. I took a short break away from Wikipedia for a while, and so have taken until now to respond to your comments left for me on my talk page.

I make no secret of the fact that I consider creationism and 'intelligent design' (which are both exactly the same thing) to be nothing more than an anti-intellectual attack on reality by christian fundamentalists such as yourself. I won't do you the dishonour of lying to you about that. Any attempts on your part to advocate your creationist agenda on wikipedia will be removed by me instantly. Of course, I don't have any problem with you making genuine edits to any articles on wikipedia at all, but I will not allow you to get what you really want, which is of course respect for your religious, biblically inspired intepretation of the world around you.

Oooh.. I'm a political liberal too. You were right about that! Good day Salva! :-) Aaarrrggh 17:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another hilarious insight of the liberal mind

You have a wonderful quote on your user page about the importance of freedom. Yet how can this not include a woman's right to choose if she wants to go through the pain of pregnancy, a refugee's right to go somewhere where they are not at constant risk of being murdered or tortured, or a Muslim's right to practice their religion without fear of being persecuted for it? Methinks your "freedom" is a fairly limited one. Ambi 14:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not having answered your question until several months after you posted it on my talk page [1]. I'm going to refute your question to my standard - please understand that if you feel like I have thrown you a personal attack to let me know. But forgive me in advance for any possible breach in political correctness.

"You have a wonderful quote on your user page about the importance of freedom."

First of all, our interpretations of freedom are very different. Yes, freedom is important. Human beings deserve to be free to think, to speak, to commute publicly without the fear of being shot at or persecuted, and especially to worship any god(s) of their choosing. However, there are stipulations to what we call 'freedom.' Absolute anarchal freedom constitutes chaos, which in turn infringes on the freedoms of society as a whole.

"Yet how can this not include a woman's right to choose if she wants to go through the pain of pregnancy, a refugee's right to go somewhere where they are not at constant risk of being murdered or tortured, or a Muslim's right to practice their religion without fear of being persecuted for it?"

1. Well, I'm sorry, but if a woman doesn't wish to go through the pain of a pregnancy, then maybe she and/or her partner should have used a condom or contraception of some sort. Maybe she just should have thought about that before she had sex? Because we aaaall know the consequences of intercourse - a responsible adult is fully capable of controlling him or herself enough to not 'do it' without applying some sort of preventative measures beforehand. There is no excuse for casual abortion. I admit there are certain cases where it might be best for the mother that she terminate the pregnancy. And I might add that if she is not prepared to raise a child then she needs to stop being stupid and having common unprotected sex. It's disgusting and it spreads diseases that kill or at the very least make her partner very miserable for the rest of their lives. For example, why shouldn't people who knowingly spread AIDS be thrown in jail for life or even given the death penalty? I'm getting off-topic though.) Abortion is murder - there is no exception. When clinically defined, life begins shortly after an egg is fertilized. A few moments of pain, however severe, is insignificant next to the life of a living human. No excuses.

2. If you are referring to the waves of millions of Mexicans flooding across our southern borders, then you are sadly mistaken. They are not refugees. They smuggle contraband of all types, drain our medical and educational subsidies and social welfare, among other things. Bottom line - they are breaking international law, and should be rounded up and taken back to Mexico or worse. It's unfair to those Mexicans who patiently await their turn to legally emigrate and become an American citizen.

3. Oh, this one is funny. So you think that we should let fanatical Muslims practice their religion of death without hinderances of any sort? Absolutely not. NOT on my soil; in my FREE country. Given, if every American had the attitude you have about Islamofascism, your children would eventually come to live in a culture where they would have the right to choose. I know 'choice' is what you're all about, right? =) Well, that's a good thing, because they would give you two choices: convert to Islam or suffer death by beheading. And you can forget about abortion, and all those other things that you liberals like to pout over. Fundamental Islamic theocracy offers very little freedoms at all. Think about the uproar that we've witnessed over the publishing of some silly cartoons. You can try and talk to and use diplomacy with people like that, but don't expect to live through it.

Methinks your definition of freedom...yada yada,

Look, your philosophy of freedom is warped. I'm sure you think the same about me, so I won't try and rationalize. Tolerance can't solve all the evils of the world, and neither can violence. Human nature is intelligently entropic, so there has to be a balance maintained through the application of justice. Of course, one can still enjoy a wide variety of freedoms as long as those freedoms do not endanger the peace. Salva 00:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey. Saw that you were back just a few minutes ago. Just thought I would say "Hi." I'm a bit confused though. I looked at an old history of your user page and it said you were going to be gone for two and a half years. Also, what happened to your new/old/whatever username, User:MedCorpman? Mred64 21:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you again, Mred! Yes, I was supposed to be in the Navy. I was at Great Lakes, IL for basic training for two months - however the final week before becoming a sailor, I was seperated when a psychologist at the base decided to diagnose me with ADHD! Very disappointing, but on the other hand I'm glad to be back in school again, studying and editing articles every now and then on Wikipedia. (Although most of the time I consider my prescence here to be an arbitrary past time in order to preserve a political balance within Wikipedia =) The name changing was due to an short phase of paranoia that I experienced during a ridiculous argument with some fellow wikipedians, but I'm assuming that that's history now. Anyway, what's new? Salva 16:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not much. I have found a bit more time to edit Wikipedia. I thought one of my friends was joking when they said the military wouldn't let you serve if you had ADHD. Oh well. Good to see you back (even if we do seem to disagree). Mred64 22:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LordRevan

Hello Salva, thank you for your comments that you posted on my talk site. Here is some sites that I found supporting the Black Pope theory. [[2]] [[3]] It is a long read and I have yet to finish reading it all yet. And on the Bush subject, I was aware of Bush's affiliation with the Skull & Bones, but was unaware of his links to the Illuminati. I thank you for bringing this to my attention. LordRevan 17:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering Salva, if you could possibly give me some websites that support Bush's New World Order ties??? I also have a book by Rebecca Brown, "He Came to Set the Captives Free." This book shows two perspectives, one is a person on the barral end of the Satanist Cult the Brotherhood, which is Rebecca Brown. The other perspective is from a lady who actually was in the Brotherhood and broke free of it (she was actually was the top bride of Satan). I hope you get this book because the little I've read of it is very interesting. LordRevan 17:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Good to be back

It's nice to see you back. I thought something might have been wrong, because you had been able to discuss things quite calmly before, and I was horrified to see you acting in a manner that certainly would not help your credibility. In fact, I briefly considered blocking you hoping to keep you away from Wikipedia until things cooled off, but I decided not to. Anyway, now that you know what's wrong, it should be easier to control. Sorry to hear about the Navy. Did you have to go to the REC or whatever it's called? — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REU, that's right. And then to Ship 41 or 52 or something like that? No, I've never been in the Navy—although I am a big fan of Star Trek, and the structure of Starfleet is modelled after the U.S. Navy. Suffice it to say that I am a curious guy; I keep my eyes and ears open and acquire random bits of information here and there—I am a knowledge seeker after all! I'm glad the Adderal is helping! I'm a physician, but a young one—I hesitate to get too close to giving medical advice over the Internet. I will say that I have no specific concerns about your treatment. It looks like it's doing the job well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies and a Welcome

I would like to say welcome back - it's good to see you back. And I would like to apologise for my actions in our last disagreement. I overreacted badly - we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable. At least you have an explanation for your actions - I can only blame it on my personality ;) I'm sorry to hear that things did not work out in the navy. I hope you are well. Guettarda 15:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Please don't patronize me. The abortion article is so dorked up as to be laughable. I don't wish it to read as a pro-life pamphlet, but the editors who guard the artcle are vociferously pro-abortion. Any objective fact (such as incontrovertible data) that makes abortion look bad is either kept off the page or "balanced" with some warning that only fascist christians accept that fact, etc, blah blah. The same is not true of anything the abortion supporters place in the aticle. I am not sure what your game is, but you certainly do not help by trying to seem reasonable by picking on me. It makes you look weak and spineless, not reasonable. THe only way to go about this is to band together to make edits and support eachother's edits. 84.146.250.245

Sorry, do I know you? I certainly don't remember arguing or patronizing you in any way. Yes, I understand the frustrations you are experiencing and have shared them. I will try and look at the talk page more often. In the mean time, if you want the potential for any credibility whatsoever, you need to get a user name. Simply click on the link in the upper right hand corner of any wikipedia page and create at least an alias for yourself, as well as a password. While you do sound like a worthwhile editing partner, I won't have you bashing the opposition anonymously. It's extremely rude to people like me who are on your side but desire to build a respectable image for themselves and their sect on Wikipedia. Thanks, Salva 04:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent, LordRevan

Hello Slava31. I was wondering if you were aware of the cencorship of many right-wing templates by the Adminstration. As a user of Wikipedia, I believe that if we do not act, they will spread this disease to other right-wing templates. Spread the word. LordRevan 23:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It probably has less to do with any leanings of the Administration as a whole, but the opinions of individual admins. Ever since Criteria for Speedy Deletion: Template 1 was issued, it sounds like it has been open season on all ideological templates. Even the inclusionist and deletionist templates have been speedily deleted! If just one admin thinks a template is divisive, they can immediately put it up for speedy deletion and delete it. Mred64 00:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, I'm not really sure what the full story is behind the template deletion, but I assure you that it's nothing to go haywire over. If you really believe that wikipedia is being censored as you say it is, then the only thing that you can do about it is to keep a cool head about you and disclose your grievances to individual admins. Most are fairly easy to work with, and 80% of the time seem to be honest, empathic people. Salva 01:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Thank you Salva for your advice. I was wrong in my ill thought outbursts. My goal was to get the information out, not be an impulsive jerk. A portion of my problem is that I have fetal alcohol effects, and that I do not think before I act, and when I do, I do these outbursts. At least I'm trying to get people to know the truth. LordRevan 03:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies indeed, friend. In no way did I ever consider you to be a jerk. I also have a problem with impulsivity, due to my case of ADHD, that shows itself most frequently when I'm off my medication. We all have our perks and flaws. I won't focus on the flaws, if you won't =). But anyway, there's editing to be done, so let's get to it, and make sure that the Wikiliberal nutcases don't get their way!! Ttyl man. Salva 03:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masculinism - Your Comments

Thanks for your comments... and I mean that. I really wasn't finished thinking through or writing my insertion. You did help me see how someone might misunderstand my brief entry up to that point. I suggest you reread the final version. You will see I'm certainly not a supporter of feminism. You might also find my second entry, much further down the page, on the pay inequality issue, interesting. ==DougBaker 00:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

abortion

Hey, dude - just curious, do you support rape and incest exceptions for abortion? Or if the mother's life is in danger? Graft 05:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]