User talk:Thomas Kettenring

From EvoWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

You may notice that "delete" (articles) and "block" (users) buttons have appeared (I assumed since they had been given a few months to do so, the other ops had no objections to raise). I hope this is ok with you! --Steinsky 01:34, 10 Aug 2004 (BST)

Fine, thanks. -- Thomas Kettenring

Contents

Phantom pages

It looks to me like the user just created the page again. I've deleted it again and will ask the user to stop. Joe D (t) 21:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: deleted talk page

I'm getting no errors for it, and a redlink. Is the software still telling you the page exists? Joe D (t) 13:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Erm, ignore me, I was responding to your comment from November again! I responded to the comment at the bottom of my talk page without actually checking who had written what and when. Sorry! Joe D (t) 15:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: chimpanzees

Rather than make another change, I thought I'd discuss it with you here, first. Your were absolutely correct correct to change my wording on chimp-human divergence, as my first statement was ambiguous. After some thought, though, I'm not 100% sure I agree with your edit, either. "98.69% of human and chimpanzee genes are identical" implies (at least to me) that >98% of chimp and human genes are identical, and it's only a few highly divergent genes that make up the total of our differences (not true). I guess I'd prefer "98.69% of the human and chimpanzee genomes are identical." Please let me know what you think. Estelahe (t) 11:30, 10 Feb 2005 (PST)

Talk page shortcut

Can be done in the "preferences" (link top-right of page) in "signature" put something like: "Joe D]] [[User_talk:Steinsky|(t)" (the open and close link will be filled in automatically). Joe D (t) 08:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good to see

It's good to see that there are active EvoWikians here, and at least one physicist at that ;). Thank you for the message. I've still got to get a bit more accustomed to this wiki, but if you happen to notice me do something I oughtn't here, don't hesitate to let me know. I LOVE this idea. --Escuerdo (talk)

Wanted you to look at this

Creationwiki talks about the claim of the moon receding indicating a young earth. They give responces to the statements talk origins makes about this claim. The main reason I wanted you to look at it is because you are a physicist and because they use a little bit of physics to support the earth/moon being young.

Corotate

It is a word and it means "To rotate in conjuction with another body". PhoteK

It is sometimes used in planetary science for the fact that the rotation of the moon and the moons orbit time are synchronized. -- Epo 16:13, 30 Jun 2005 (BST)


What's going on?

I reverted (blanked out actually) a large number of newly created vandal pages (with links to porn) but they're back and there isn't even a recored of my activity on the corresponding history pages? --CSTAR 04:57, 12 Aug 2005 (BST)

Thomas Kettenring - A message to you

In the U.S.A. there is this ongoing issue of whether or not evolution theory as taught in public schools is real science or in fact something more in alignment with faith-based theory (oft refered to as Religion by some). Many, shall we say, "faith-filled" evolutionists like yourself feel the issue is really more about the imposter "Religion" trespassing under the umbrella of science (ref: I.D. Theory) and of course this is bad, very bad indeed.

I am not "faith-filled". I know how science looks like, and I know how pseudoscience looks like. Creationism is pseudoscience, and everybody who can tell both apart knows that. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is science. Whether creationism is a religious pseudoscience or a non-religious one does not concern me. --tk (t) 19:57, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)

But really the root of the problem is that evolution theory demands strong faith to fill in the gaps science can't demonostrate and thus the essense of science is lost. Yet the teaching continues as indesputable scientific fact and those that place their faith elsewhere are cast off as zealots. The remaining quandry leaves the other "faith-filled" people boxed out. For them to take advantage of public schools in many areas, their children are force fed evolution (as science) and suggestions of any alternate idea is strictly prohibited as any and all alternates constitute religion.

False. All that "evolution theory demands strong faith" rhetorics is just that. Evolution requires understanding, and that is what every creationist I ever met lacks. --tk (t) 20:02, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT).
Not false. I, like you, know a thing or two about my trade and I know faith when I see it. You have ~very~ strong faith that leads you through the areas absent of science or realistic explaination regarding the accidental creation you worship. Worship, by the way, is something I see here too: it's the worship of science, the worship of numbers, the worship of logic, the worship or one's own mind and reasoning. Math though, having nearly mastered it myself, leaves me wanting an explaination of the confounding circular references like eternity and infinity. There is no beginning and there is no end...neither in the math nor from the scientists. What there is, well, just faith-based guesses that there is in fact some logic to it all. Science, as well, leaves we wondering how on one hand the Universe came from the Big Bang, wherein all matter came from nothing thus violating the Law of Conservation of Matter, yet if it was merely compressed deeply, that would not constitute the "beginning" then would it? Help me and the rest of us understand this...I truly am listening. I want to understand...I really do. After all, I ~used~ to be an athiest and a profound supporter of your viewpoint. But I haven't seen, read, nor heard viable, realistic, fact-based material that can answer these questions from science that are any better than guesses from preschool kids. Science breaks right here unless you can help with something more than a rhetorical slam.
You can't look into other people's brains, and therefore you have no business telling me that I have "faith" or "worship" anything. I don't tell you what you think either. Pretending to be able to look into other people's brains is a mark of pseudoscience.
That you don't understand some mathematical concepts is your own problem, not that of the theory of evolution. The Law of Conservation of Matter (more exactly, Energy) holds only as long as physics is invariant to time translation (look up Emmy Noether), which is not true around the Big Bang. You being an ex-atheist is neither here nor there - your person is not relevant, your arguments are. And your arguments don't hold water. --tk (t) 21:19, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I challenge you, Mr. Kettenring, to host alternate comments and foster a healthy exchange of ideas. It seems you want an end to this issue else this site would not have a purpose (which seems to be to convert those of non-scientific faith to scientific faith). An end is when we all reach concensus; not when you and your company postulate unending. Don't be afraid, healthy communication brings friendships and understanding; something the left side dreams about.

There are more than enough creationist websites where you can spread lies. This is not one of them. We can healthily exchange ideas on the talk pages but you will not put your distortions in the articles. --tk (t) 19:57, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
All other ideas are not lies; they're just other ideas. A distortion is on the mind of the reader...I read several in your articles.
Calling current biology "void of science", as you did, is a lie. It may not be your lie, it may have been planted in your brain by others, but it is simply not true. And if you read distortions, then please point to them. I bet that you will turn out to be wrong. --tk (t) 21:19, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)

By the way, if evolution were not taught in public schools in the USA, there would be no public debate right now. It's not about getting I.D. into the classrooms; it's about getting other faith-based teaching (like evolution) out. I had a one year mandatory evolution class in the eigth grade. It was required for highschool graduation in my school district. I was a die-hard athiest until something almost as magical as the creation of life happened to me and I saw the possibility of alternates. You must admit that Life is magical, right? Concepts like infinity (endlessness), time (timelessness...what time was it when time started?), and the embodiment of life itself...simply magical indeed. One might even open the sliver of possibility that the Universe did not create itself. By the way, what lies at the end of the universe? Is there an end? Or is it just more Universe? Could it loop back on itself? It could? Hmmmm, but that's a total guess...not worthy of a scientific discussion....or, maybe it actually measures up afterall?  ;-)

-S.H.

If evolution were not taught in public schools in the USA, the USA would be a totally backwards country, like Iran. I do not admit that "life is magical" because magic is just a camouflage word for "I don't get it". I don't use such dishonest words that hide their essential content. ("I don't get it" is an admission of one's own inadequacy. "Magic", "ID", and so on mean the same but without revealing the possibility that it may be one's own fault.) --tk (t) 19:57, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
I disagree sharply that removing evolution would make the USA backwards like Iran. For some of us, the USA is ~just like~ Iran in that in school, the supposed place of enlightenment, one and only one idea is allowable. Evolution might seem like science to you, but many a wise man doubts the legitamacy of it on its own lack of scientic merits and wonders why it can not wait until a more appropriate age such as early post-secondary school. It really does appear that there is the furvor of religious zeal your desire to insist this ciriculum stay in front of everyone and at an impressionable age. I agree that Iran is no place I want to live, nor is communism, nor is a world where thought police insist you have faith in almighty Science and demote the possibility that the Universe and life are a subject of design work. Freedom is something that is lacking in Iran; freedom is lacking in the USA. Freedom, in my words, is the right to enjoy life without severe repression; severe repression is what this site and the evolution athiests seem to enjoy. I'm sure you disagree, but in your world, I'm bigger, tougher, more adapted to "have my way" and stronger so I must be right ha ha
"only one idea is allowable" - false. If there were a viable scientific alternative to the theory of evolution, there would be no reason not to teach it. But there isn't. I suggest that, instead of empty rhetorics (like calling us repressive, misrepresenting our position, or boasting your size and strength), you just point out one reason that would qualify creationism as science. --tk (t) 21:19, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
I'm not boasting, but making a joke. See, in my belief system, size doesn't matter, strength doesn't matter. In evolution, the strong survive, correct? It was a pun that you missed....it was humor.
Not correct. You obviously never understood evolutionary theory. --tk (t) 12:47, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
"Magical" was a special word I chose; I see you like it. It's a word that stimulates discussion although your response was more or less an admission that you had no real answer to any of the interesting scientific dilemnas I described. No number of PhD. or M.D. or whatnot will overcome these I am afraid; instead we need real answers backed by real evidence else we rely on faith not science (you can use "guesses" instead of faith if you are more comfortable. But after guessing if you still hold strongly to your scientic belief, you just used faith I am afraid. Did you know that when I encountered your site, I felt as though the Taliban had beaten me to it? I feel as though I have to be like you or else I'm a mindless orb circling the drain hole. I almost think you would throw a punch at me if you saw me in person...very Iranian. It's disappointing...could be an avenue to settle some dispute and offer enlightenment to the less-enlightened.
I do not like the word, and I told you that I don't. When you claim the opposite, you are lying. Your claim that I admitted having no answer is also untrue. Please quit lying, you are doing yourself a disservice. Your hate propaganda ("Taliban") is not helpful either. --tk (t) 21:19, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
I didn't call you Taliban; I'm expressing how I fealt; as though my thoughts were being repressed...similar to how you made the leap of the USA being no better than Iran is evolution were taken out of public schools. That is hate propoganda to me. Again, when I say "I see that you like it" it was sarcasm...I know you do not like it...but missed my sarcasm...was not a lie.
I did not say "no better than", I said "a backwards country, like". Evolution is not taught in Iran. --tk (t) 12:47, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Not everyone is a fanatic. For me, I reserve the right to hold the idea that your science is not prefect. Now don't get me wrong, when I solve a quadratic, I believe it to be solved. I mean, I don't have a hangup about Pavlov's Dog or anything. But the Chicken and the Egg thing still entrigues me...do you have the answer to that one? Which one came first? Seems to fit the subject matter well enough. I have the answer: the Rock was first. A little lightning, water, viola! A chicken AND an egg scientifically appeared.  ;-) humor.

Hey, again, I know you don't like the idea of calling evolution a religion, that's fine. But it really looks just like one to me albeit with no deity. A fancy story, some clever demands from the most faithful that "there is only one truth...everything else is a lie propogated by an ignorant person", the use of hate, the refusal to compromise, the clash of "cultures"...it's all their. If you were to "fight for what you believe" you would be akin to the Crusaders, the great historical evil-doers that probably in part pushed you far from any sort of religion. But I can almost feel the hatred; there's not much seperating your group from those that fought religious wars. Be careful...the differences are becoming fewer and fewer and we don't need more zealots. Just the facts please....and by the way, I'm waiting for mine so I can "understand". Hurry up please.

Your vision is bad. I guess you read the wrong type of books - you know, the ones that distort evolution. If you take creationist writings at face value, you are bound to fall for such optical illusions. Read about evolution in the original. Then come back here. --tk (t) 21:19, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
I don't take creationist writings at face value; I don't take scientific writings at face value...although some do. But faith is faith and I see it all over your site. Science is about facts...it's about a process...yet facts and process are desperately lacking from the evolution theory...that's all I am saying. If you can not persuade me by sharing your knowledge of the questions I asked above, neither will you be able to overcome the millions of others who expect more from science than know-it-alls performing name calling and thus change no minds.
Lastly, I have read the original already...I was forced to as a young man and I enjoyed it very much. I believed what I read because it was presented as fact without the possibility of alternates. Now I see there is far more to it...and that like the other evolutionists I have spoken with, nobody in the scientific world can answer my simple questions that defy logic and break the scientific process (at least in perception). Now, if you could answer those questions, and show me something, perhaps some repeatable evidence that is more than a personal insult used to marginalize me, I am with you. Until then, good bye and good luck. I leave quite disappointed though; the debate was very one-sided on my part with only juvenile responses from yourself.
None of Mr Kettenring's responses are juvenile. At best, both Creationism and Intelligent Design are a bunch of semantic shell games that masquerade as science, at worst, they threaten to destroy Science as true scientists know it. I defy any scientist to be able to perform any scientific experiment from either piles of gobbledegook, even. Definently not the Discovery Institute. You fail to appreciate that Science and true scientists are not threatened by new and different ideas, if that were so, then we would still be thinking that the planets, stars and the sun traveled around along crystal spheres that revolved around the Earth, and all living things would be classified as Animal, Vegetable, or Mineral. What does threaten Science and scientists are people who try to control and alter scientific progress as per political agendas, whether it is to forcibly alter the outcomes of experiments to match up with political dogma, or to demand positive results irregardless of consequences or academic honesty. User:Apokryltaros 23:09 Dec 28, 2005 (PST)
Facts and process are not desperately lacking from the evolution theory. And I do not want to persuade you, knowing that it is pretty hopeless. I just wanted you to stop polluting the articles of this site with misguided opinions to prevent you from infecting others here - you can still do it elsewhere, for example CreationWiki.
Of your questions, I answered the only one that made sense to me, the "conservation of mass" one. You conveniently chose to ignore the answer and pretend it is not there, a typical creationist behaviour I know very well. You used about a dozen fallacies, and I am not impressed. --tk (t) 12:47, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Zombie Virus page

I just wanted to point out that the Zombie virus page was posted under to Wikipedia by "Thomas Kettenring". If someone is using your name, I thought you should know. I noticed that it was posted here by "Kettenfan", so I suspect you've got some kind of stalker.

--Suttkus 13:13, 10 July 2006 (BST)

Hmmm... thanks for the info. I knew that guy was sick... --tk (t) 09:40, 12 July 2006 (BST)

Duplication

I haven't checked in detail, but it looks like most of the material on this page is presented twice.

--Suttkus 13:15, 10 July 2006 (BST)

Thanks for that too. --tk (t) 09:40, 12 July 2006 (BST)


Query Concering Pictures

Is it possible to upload pictures here at Evowiki? I feel it's somewhat awkward just linking to the illustrations I've made, and otherwise doesn't bring enough attention to the articles, otherwise. --Mr A. 22:05, 16 August 2006 (BST)

When I choose "Upload file" from the menu (the one that normally displays "Special Pages") and click the "Go" button (what a stupid user surface! I always wait for something to happen, then realize I have to use "Go"), I get "Sorry, uploading is disabled". So, it looks as if it is not possible at the moment. But I did upload pictures in the past. They were restricted to a certain size, so they look really crappy (see Creationism). I don't know what happened since then. Maybe it was disabled because of vandalism. Steinsky would be the man to ask. --tk (t) 08:43, 17 August 2006 (BST)
You don't suppose we could try to circumvent the "Sorry, uploading is disabled" feature by using a remote host, like photobucket?--Mr A. 17:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm also the wrong person to ask this. I know next to nothing about such stuff. --tk (t) 17:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'll just go ahead to ask Meister Steinsky, then, and hope that he gets it before the next Ice Age.--Mr A. 17:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Query Concerning New Pages

Just recently, I've noticed that it's now not possible to make new pages, as well as the search engine not working. Are these glitches in the site's programming, or is this a (hopefully) temporary solution to the recent spam bombings?--Mr A. 05:32, 31 August 2006 (BST)

I have no idea. It looks like a bug though. I can see the new pages in the Recent Changes list, but they don't exist anyway. That's not regular behaviour. --tk (t) 12:56, 31 August 2006 (BST)
When I add a new page, I get:
"A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: 
   (SQL query hidden)

from within function "SearchMySQL4::update". MySQL returned error "1016: Can't open file: 'searchindex.MYI' (errno: 145) (localhost)"."

But when I change a page, I get that message (or a similar one) too. I guess the bug allows for changes but not new pages. --tk (t) 12:59, 31 August 2006 (BST)

I suppose it's good for us, for now, in that it's keeping the spambots from making new spam pages, especially for poor CrazyHarp. Though, we should have it corrected ASAP.--Mr A. 13:58, 31 August 2006 (BST)

Fallacy

(moved here from that page - making new pages does not work at the moment. --tk (t) 09:34, 21 September 2006 (BST)) It seems that I am unable to edit the discussion page, and therefore must post my response to your edits here. If you know of another area in which to discuss this article, please move my comments there and include a link to it from this page.

"Dishonesty or Ignorance?"

  • Just remove the whole section. This is the definition of a loaded question, being inseperably coupled with the notion that creationists cannot possibly be right, that they must be either idiots or liars. To have this on the same page as the definition of Fallacy Fallacy is full-blown Alanis-irony, and the whole thing smacks of ad hom in any event. [1] for examples.

"All creationists are "Charlatans," and "you can't trust what they say.""

  • First off, when we quote a passage that already contains double quotes, we replace them with single quotes, regardless of how they were formatted on the page being quoted from. Second, you say we didn't say this. Does that mean that the CreationWiki folks are lying? If so, don't you think it might be a nifty idea to bury the hatchet by saying that even if we had said that stuff, we didn't mean it? In any event, do you really think it's necessary to include the emotionally charged word 'charlatan' in any descriptions, comparisons, or characterizations of creationists; do you think that avoiding such words throughout the site might be a good idea?

"Trusting scientists to quote correctly is a little risky because mistakes happen, but trusting creationists to quote correctly is just foolish. This has nothing to do with ad hominem, it's a necessary precaution."

  • So trusting scientists is a little risky, but trusting creationists is downright idiotic? You're right, that's not ad hominem, that's downright bias (which, to strike preemptively, is not justified by the number, audacity, or sheer foolishness of arguments for creation).

"This page never said anything about smartness, but about knowledge which is something very different."

  • I have no doubt the difference between the two is very profound. Please enlighten those of us who lack the mental capacity to comprehend such profundity as to the nature of this difference.

12.217.191.111 09:11, 21 September 2006 (BST)

"Dishonesty or Ignorance?": This is not a Loaded Question. Loaded means there is an unspoken assumption hidden in the question. But the assumption is not hidden: We say clearly that there is no known working creationist argument. The natural question that follows is why that is so. "Idiots or liars", as you put it, is indeed a loaded question - but one of your own doing, since you jump from ignorance to idiocy and from dishonesty to lying.
"All creationists are "Charlatans" - do what you want with the double quotes.
"Does that mean that the CreationWiki folks are lying?" - No, it means that they thought they read something I did not and would not write because I think it is false. "All creationists" is their unjustified interpretation.
"do you really think it's necessary to include the emotionally charged word 'charlatan'" - no I don't. That's why I explicitly agreed with your deletion of it.
"You're right, that's not ad hominem, that's downright bias" - It's downright experience. When I read Dembski, find a Dennett quote, and look up the original, I find that the quote is fake. When I read Jehovah's Witnesses, find a Darwin quote, and look up the original, I find that the quote is fake. And so on and so on and so on. See [2], [3], [4], [5]. It's as clear as day that misquoting is one of creationism's main weapons. You just have to look the quotes up, and you'll see for yourself. That's not nearly as big a problem in science.
"which, to strike preemptively" - Is it wrong to adapt to the environment? Is it wrong to behave differently depending on the probability of danger? Don't you think there is a difference between crossing a street at a red light at night when everything is silent and you have a good view and nobody except you is around, and crossing it at a red light in dense traffic when you know you will probably be hit by a car? What's wrong with warning people about dangers?
"I have no doubt the difference between the two is very profound" Huh? Smart means intelligent. You can know a lot about one subject but be extremely stupid, and you can be extremely smart but know next to nothing about, say, biology. Smart creationists usually belong in the second category. --tk (t) 10:06, 21 September 2006 (BST)

bureaucracy

I have added you to the 'bureaucrat' group. You'll therefore find additional pages in the "Special pages" section allowing you e.g. to create more admins. Joe D [[User_talk:Steinsky|(t)]] 01:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing More than 500 recent changes

To see more than 500 recent changes manually change the parameters in the link http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&days=30&limit=500 However arbitrarily large numbers (e.g. 10000 instead of 500 do not seem to work). The bigger the number the more time it takes for the page to load, obviously. The following links should help.

--Amit 01:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Stupidity on my part. I could have guessed this, knowing the link address for the 500 changes. Thanks! --tk [[User_talk:Thomas_Kettenring|(t)]] 09:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: patrol

I imagine the new version of the software automatically marks admins as patroled, since they're not likely to be vandals or spammers. I'm not sure why this should be a problem? Joe (t) 14:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

vampire

some user called stoker created a nonsence science-fiction called vampire that has nothing to do with evolution apokryltaros blanked it could you delelte it?--Fang 23 13:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill Maher

The porn spammer and vandal Bill Maher wich you blocked on this site apperes to be active on uncyclopedia and other wikis [6]

syops

how many edits do most pepole that become sysops or administrators have when thay become a sysops or administrator?--Fang 23 22:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The universe was created with apparent age

Hey Thomas!

Isn't "The universe was created with apparent age" a logical "Just So Story". Since I'm not sure I thought it was best to ask. Johan Karlsson 20:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd think it's one of the ultimate "Just So Stories" in fact.--Mr A. 21:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Main page

The </td> should be removed from it. Would have brought it up on the talk page... but I noticed you have protected that too. So I thought the best place to bring it up at first would be on your talk page. Mathmo 01:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The main page was protected to keep this one revolting troll from defacing it. Want me to unprotect it so you can fix that </td> problem?--Mr A. 02:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I've fixed it up now with a bit of fiddling around. Looks nicer now. You can change the semi-protection back to full-protection if you feel like it. Mathmo 03:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Okie dokie.--Mr A. 03:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Galaxy clusters

Hej! I recently encountered a claim that galaxy clusters can't exist in an old universe. I think that they are held together by dark matter, but I'm not sure. I've searched EvoWiki and Talk Origins but couldn't find anything. Johan Karlsson 13:48, 29 April 2007 (BST)

Just add a page for that claim (with source). --tk 16:07, 29 May 2007 (BST)

EvoWiki userbox

Can i upload the EvoWiki logo at wikipedia so i can make an EvoWiki userbox there?--Fang 23 15:28, 3 July 2007 (BST)

Is that a technical question or a legal one? In either case, I have no idea. --tk 16:02, 3 July 2007 (BST)
Its a legal one and not a technical one because i think it can be uploaded without technical difficulty.--Fang 23 16:04, 3 July 2007 (BST)

blogs

I wanted to add two blogs in the list of good evolutionist blogs but that page was locked. I posted a message on talk page but nobody seemed to have notice it. Will u please add these 2

I guess it was subject to vandalism before. But editing is only blocked for unregistered users, you should be able to use it.
I added the two blogs. --tk 13:10, 6 April 2008 (BST)

No I cant edit that article--Fierydex 05:22, 7 April 2008 (BST)

sysop nomination

I would be sincerely honored to be a sysop. Please let me know of anything I can do to assist you. Thanks. Zieber 17:29, 16 May 2008 (BST)

Syops

Thanks.--Fang 23 13:58, 9 July 2008 (BST)

Block user 84 Proxima Centauri 20:07, 12 July 2008 (BST)

Explanation For Ban

I banned Someone as I assumed that he was going to become another concern troll, like Juvenis or D.H.Seraphic, who follows up his or her concerns only with malicious accusations and acrimonious arguing. I unbanned him, as you are right in that his offense is too trivial to merit permanent banning. However, I do feel justified in deleting his "Insanity" commentary, as all it was was him expressing disbelief over creationists quotemining, and attempting to salve this by lying about how creationists are superior scientists than evolutionists.--Mr A. 16:03, 22 August 2008 (BST)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/User_talk:Thomas_Kettenring"
Personal tools