User talk:Sounddoctorin

Hi.

Regarding your comments on Usenet; there's probably a more prosaic explanation for them being missed.

The Usenet archives acquired by Google came from multiple sources; they cover the full history of the net, but aren't a complete record before 1990. The archives for 1981-1990is come from a single source, Henry Spencer in Toronto, who did it partly as a hobby but partly for professional reasons; as Usenet grew and grew, it became uneconomical for him to record everything, so he started to cut back on certain groups (and later certain hierarchies).

So some groups, mostly technical ones, are reasonably complete (maybe a few % of posts missing - transmission was always iffy in those days) throughout the timeframe, whilst at the other end of the spectrum some groups are virtually unrecorded, with all that got through being a few sparse posts crossposted to a newsgroup that was recorded (or just archived by accident, or because spare capacity was available that week).

It's a real pity, in many ways - we've lost this vast corpus of sociopolitical discussion from the time, which would be invaluable to researchers now but then just seemed to be idle chatter and bickering. I strongly suspect that talk.religion.* was in his "not important" list - indeed, I suspect talk.* in general was the first hierarchy to go. It's certainly not just that newsgroup, though - compare the pattern of recorded posts in talk.abortion, talk.religion.misc, talk.politics.misc to see the effects of the flaky early archives... Shimgray | talk | 16:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I draw your attention to Wikipedia:BLP. Please ensure that any edits to articles that are associated with living people are very well sourced, and not Original research.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is such bologna... people will be held accountable by God if not sooner. multiple people (Kenn Barry etc.) witness Spencer's act It's history of a bigoted hate crime. Sounddoctorin (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MY COMMENT: (Robert Weigel)

Wolfkeeper, I think it's pretty obvious what happened. Henry posted one other post in talk.religion.misc and it was about how Christians supposedly persecuted witches. Nobody who obeys Jesus persecutes anyone. We turn the other cheek even when evil people come at us. Unless 'persecuting' someone involves not inviting them into your home etc. :-) I mean...that's how we keep our children safe. We make judgments about who is and is not safe to be in our homes and fellowship meeting places in case there is such a thing involved, which also should be a place where Christians have actual fellowship so that they are built up to do good things instead of evil for the world.

Anyway Henry was obviously the person (I'd remembered the name started with an H but I just couldn't pull it up til I saw this and I didn't notice how to reply until now :-) ) who posted the horrendous 7 page cuss out letter to my person...and so he had an obvious motive for removing it. It was again titled "I spew thee off the usenet". What other reason would there be for the posting volume to slump from 70 threads to 15 threads RIGHT IN THAT POCKET where I was involved? He grep'd me out. He filtered every mention of my name right out of the group. Every other person is there. I posted HUNDREDS OF POSTS! What are the odds that *that* many posts would remain and *all* of my posts just *happened* to disappear?

The odds are staggering obviously. Henry most certainly employed some selective removal to protect his own reputation and to eliminate all my work. Because he couldn't handle the things I was saying. For example asking the guy what I could hypothetically give him that would serve as good, solid historical evidence for the resurrection. What was he going to say? Obviously the government had agenda to HIDE this history since they wanted to preserve Judaism and the leaders whose life support was tied into that system!

Jesus came to destroy the economy of his culture. I joked the other day saying that "Well, I mean he wasn't a community organizer; that's for sure. But I will say that he and Barack Obama do have this one thing in common! They both came to totally destroy the economy" hehe. Sorry all you guys who put hope in Obama but we already have a culture that is very non-productive/lazy. Handing people money is NOT the way to encourage a change AWAY from that trend. Telling people "WORK OR DIE" is the only way anything is going to change here. -Bob

June 2011

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Polystrate fossil. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, and if they are not just personal observations or opinion, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Please see WP:VERIFY. Our articles are developed from what we call 'reliable sources' and criteria for that are at WP:IRS. Dougweller (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--I note:

So you're saying that blatantly false information is fine then? WHO GAVE THE PERSON THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE A BLATANTLY FALSE CLAIM ON THE FRONT PAGE?

Hot news flash. Very few people read the 'talk' pages compared to reading the main page. Wiki is a stupid waste of time in terms of INTEGRABLE PROCESS in this type of thing apparently because like everything else manipulating atheists run it obviously. Here you are late at night just removing my FACTUAL information that corrects blatantly FALSE information on the main page. Do you care about truth or not?

"Hot news flash" -- the article simply says that "creationists" make these claims -- not that "each and every creationist, every one" makes them. As a number of creationists verifiably do make them, then the information is true. Regardless, if you disagree with the information, you tag it and/or discuss it in talk -- you do not insert your personal opinions into the article! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---I, Robert Weigel say:

That's a really poor way to state it. But I don't see any relevance. What does being a creationist even have to do with that particular attribute? There are SO many variables in the puzzle when we try to use current observations to model what might have happened thousands of years ago. REGARDLESS, HOT..NEWS>>>FLASH! The article says 'creationists'. If it's trying to say what YOU CLAIM it's trying to say (not every creationists..just a select..what two or three?) then it should say "SOME creationists". The author broke down in a couple ways. There is an earlier issue in the opening paragraph and another one later on that doesn't seem to make sense. But regardless this one is just flagrant. The default DUE TO the omission of the word "some" is that every creationist must believe this in order to make their beliefs fit. Fix....it

"What does being a creationist even have to do with that particular attribute?" Everything. (i) This sort of claim dates back to George McCready Price (who made very similar claims, and may well have made this specific one), the father of modern Young Earth Creationism. (ii) Such false claims about science are pervasively part of the creationist handbook (see TalkOrigins Archive's Index to Creationist Claims, which just happens to include claims about polystrate fossils. (iii) The creationists making these claims are prominent (e.g. Henry Morris, the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, etc) -- so attributing them to "creationists" generally is not unreasonable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. – T C Memoire 05:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Weigel notes:

This is accurate, witnessed history. If you want to censor history, fine. I didn't even see a talk page on it. I don't use wiki a lot and the interface is a bit geeky... If I'd assaulted some individual the way I was assaulted, I'm sure I'd be in jail. It's sad that people are never held accountable and that you can't even report history on such things. Pol Pot...if alive in America today..would have a nice wiki page that brought out all his GOOD features and removed all the bad ones. Right? It's either accurate balanced history or it's not. Henry selectively preserved the newsgroups at least.

January 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Gmail interface has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Gmail interface was changed by Sounddoctorin (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.957922 on 2014-01-15T10:44:25+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1N4148 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

As the most common mass produced switching diode, the 1N4148 replaced the '''1N914''' {{cn|date=April 2014}), which had a much higher [[leakage (electronics)|leakage]] current (5 microamps vs. 25
*T<sub>RR</sub> < 4 ns (reverse-recovery time)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]