User talk:WarriorScribe/Archive2

First Archive

Okay, the first talk page for me was getting a bit long and unwieldy, so I decided to move it to an archive of sorts:

1. First Archive (2005): User talk:WarriorScribe/Archive1

Archive Notice

The next talk page archive will occur on or about January 31st.

Our Favorite "Christian's" Response

This is from my user page.

Note for Jason Gastrich I can be reached via email at Icj_tlc@hotmail.com

I read your message. Stop reposting it in my talk page. Based on your childish behavior and treatment of me, at this time, I have no desire to talk to you via email. --Jason Gastrich 22:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess he didn't have a good enough response so he keeps deleting his question and my response from his talk page where he posted his question in the first place. Icj tlc 22:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm done with him, I will continue to keep an eye on him and make sure that he isn't spreading his POV as the "Word of God" here at WikiPedia, but I'm beginning to lose my cool with him, and I said before that I wasn't going to let him bait me, which he is, so I'm done. No more responses to him. He's an idiot and I don't have the time to keep up with his antics, I have 4 children at home, don't need another one on the Internet. Icj tlc 23:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. The way to defeat Gastrich's intent on Wikipedia is to keep on eye on him and edit his attempts at POV pushing. Check out the Bruce Wilkinson article, for example. Someone else posted a summary of a Dec 19 article from the Wall Street Journal that wasn't too flattering. Gastrich removed it and complained that there was a citation needed--but a citation was provided, even if the original article (and one of my responses) forgot a "1." So I found the article (I had read it...I get the WSJ) online and was able to link to it so that a reader wouldn't need a subscription. Gastrich changed the comments, claimed to "improve" it (he minored in English, you see, so he's much better at it than the rest of us...just ask him!), and spun it so that Wilkinson came out looking better than the original article would indicate. But that's not neutral POV. I can think of a couple of ways that the current paragraph can be written to be "more neutral," so I changed it back just to see if Gastrich can actually bring himself to do it right. So far, no good. The Bilbo and Hovind articles are pretty good evidence that Gastrich can't be nPOV, and I have quite a few others accumulated. We'll see, but as it is, I'm building a case for an RfC. WarriorScribe 23:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick question, I try not to tinker with Wikipedia too much, as I've already stated, and I'm not sure how to look up a particular "editor's" (term used very, very loosely here) contrubutions. How do I do this? Icj tlc 23:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You can click on that person's name in a message, and that should take you to their "user page." Once there, to the left, you'll see a column of links, among which should be one that says, "User Contributions." If you click that, you'll be taken to a listing of pages that the person has edited. You can customize your view from there. WarriorScribe 23:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"mediation"

Did bonaparte (talk · contribs) try to talk to you or did he just issue summary judgement? He has a habit of "mediating" like this. 20:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You all should give a try to compromise. Bonaparte talk 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear that he did much of anything other than tell me that we needed to consider Gastrich's position and compromise. So, basically, I made my case as forcefully as I could, including as many facts as I could, and inputing what I think is reasonable perspective. None of the responses that I got dealt with any of the facts or the issues and simply, for all worths and purposes, repeated themselves. We needed to "compromise" with Gastrich, and when he rejected David D's reworded statement, we needed to come up with another.

It seems to me that mediators don't issue judgments, per se, but they are supposed to get both sides to "compromise." As you saw, Gastrich won't compromise. What "mediation" occurred was simply a robotic repetition of the same statements. The mediation style lacked leadership qualities and, consequently, was ineffective, in this situation. WarriorScribe 20:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• You know, on further consideration, maybe you'd better look at this, and the statement:

"I think the 2nd proposal is much better. You can add it. There must be also an opinion on B's controversial statements and Jason just did that. Bonaparte talk 07:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)"

• I guess that's at least a presumption at "ruling," isn't it?

• And, of course, what was to be added was Gastrich's representation, complete with the profanity. Our position wasn't even being considered, obviously, at that point. WarriorScribe 21:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI All yall genetically altered sinners and unbelievers...just kidding. I am so freaking stressed by this dude. Anywho, a moderator User:Fasten(yippee, another one) is talking to me now about the Hovind page. I think he's gonna seriously look into Gastrich's history. Yeah, I know that can't do anything, but I did recomend that admin and/or moderators keep an eye on the weasel. I figure at this point, any help we can get is good. Keep up the fight. Icj tlc 22:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well have faith that Fasten (talk · contribs) will do a good job. Don't worry, Jason will make a lot of noise and but he won't get anywhere. If you let him wind you up, you've won. + == I'm biting ==

Anyway, Soliciting the opinion of an independent third party who will try to mediate. And by mediation I mean try to talk to both sides, understand their point of view and why they have that view and then try to get them to agree on a reasonable position. Bonaparte (talk · contribs) misses out the first bit that would allow him to understand the issue and just dishes ill-thought out decisions, causing mayhem. Both sides must have faith in the mediator. And I for one do not have faith in notre petit général. He means well, bless him, but he's clueless. — Dunc|☺ 22:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Je parle française aussi. Bonaparte talk 19:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, clueless...that's my impression; but I also have to wonder if there isn't a problem with a language barrier, as well. Regardless, the mediation hasn't worked, mostly because Gastrich was never interested in mediation or compromise, in the first place, and Bonaparte hasn't been effective in providing any sort of leadership. The fact is that the subject doesn't need to be in there, at all, but we were willing to allow more appropriate and polite wording. Gastrich would have none of it, and it's clear that it's all about Christians being, as some of the Marines say, "butt hurt" over the comments. It matters only to Gastrich, so why we're still batting it around is beyond me. WarriorScribe 22:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

And the winner of the new "I'm telling your daddy!" category is:

Well, Gastrich once again has proven his maturity level. As I was pulling in from work I got a phone call from my pastor (aka Dad) and he asked me if I had been harrassing a "minister" from Southern Cali over the Internet. With obvious suprise, I responded, "Jason Gastrich?" He said "Yeah, I think that's it." I told him the story and he laughed and than asked me to leave him alone, lest he try to call again and disrupt a service. Anywho, I'm not sinking to his level. Just wanted to keep you all updated on the continued hilarity. Icj tlc 01:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll print out this package I've been building and send it to David Jeremiah, Miles McPherson, and Neal Weaver. Fair is fair. WarriorScribe 01:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, you might want to pass on to Dad that this "minister" from Southern California is almost certainly self-ordained. For quite some time, he was calling himself "Doctor" due to the "award," under suspicious circumstances, of an "honorary" degree from a diploma mill calling itself, "Shepherd Bible College." Well, to make a long story short, after much criticism (that certainly contributed to Gastrich's retreat from Usenet), Gastrich recently told his devotional readers that SBC had some "integrity issues," and so he was returning the doctorate. The problem is--ready for this?--he also claimed, after being asked many times, that SBC ordained him, too. I wondered aloud, elsewhere, if that has been returned, too, or if whatever "integrity issues" caused him to return the "doctorate" were not also applicable to the "ordination." We'll never get an answer to that, of course, but it's a fair question. Regardless, I'd wonder about the authority of SBC to ordain Gastrich or his authority to ordain himself. Bottom line? My ministerial credentials probably carry more weight than his. WarriorScribe 02:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

And check out http://groups.google.com/group/maleboge/browse_frm/thread/302d9d60e184928a?scoring=d& WarriorScribe 02:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm biting

Ok, what two girls? Icj tlc 22:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to bite...the reference is to my daughters. WarriorScribe 22:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well Jason has been going on about our vices, and I for one do have a certain interest in ladies. According our vice article, lust certainly counts. So got any pictures? :) — Dunc|☺ 22:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Lust? Hmph! Fresh kid! [grin] Well, okay, that was the factor in the first (I was 18...what the hell did I know?)...but not the second! I actually love Anastasia's mother (and the feeling is mutual), but we could never be married to one-another. And of course I have pictures, but what kind of a father would I be if I posted pictures of my kids on the Internet? Please note, however, that the first one is no longer with us. WarriorScribe 23:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ladies were, are, and will continue to be a vice for me, however, I am hopelessly devoted to my wife. Between the 2 of us we have 4 kids, at 18 in-laws, 12 ex-laws, and at least 5 certifiable outlaws (myself included). Was born a minister's son...not a minister. That took a while. Anywho, glad to see you're a fellow Vet. Did my time...uh, I mean duty, in the USMC. Hoorah! Don't have any degrees, but I did graduate with honors from the School of Hard Knocks. Maybe a couple more courses and I can start calling myself doctor. Peace and love! Icj tlc 23:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

mediation

This is one of the method for you to reach a consensus. It was suggested to me by other sysops. You should give a try. One week no edit to the page. Bonaparte talk 19:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what's known as a "cooling off period," as it were, but the fact remains that, under the circumstances, it's not only "too little, too late," but it's rather humorous that we finally get around to that, just as you finally got around to posting a comment to Gastrich, suggesting that he should compromise. Sorry, B, but your mediation style simply didn't work in this case. No biggee...these things happen. It didn't work...we're done. Time to move on. WarriorScribe 19:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit on the talk page removed

• Fair is fair. 02:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

final decision

Please see talk page for final decision from the Cabal Mediator Bonaparte talk 20:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

An interesting confession

Gastrich, back in November, wrote, "I use multiple accounts solely because my critics (e.g. people like you) would easily find every contribution and revert them immediately if you knew that I was making them."

• Gastrich admits to using "multiple accounts" and alleges that he does so because he feels that his "edits" would be "reverted" simply because he made them.
• Since that is false, we must see this for what it is: An attempt by Gastrich to circumvent the scrutiny under which he quite rightfully finds himself, as well as the scrutiny under which we all contribute and edit at Wikipedia. In Gastrich's case, the scrutiny under which he finds himself did not occur in a vacuum. His own actions have prompted it. POV pushing by Gastrich through one form or another to the detriment and even the misrepresentation of others has long been an issue...long before he ever heard of Wikipedia.
• Gastrich does not want his critics to find is "contributions." And why is that? Because he fears that they will not stand up to fair and objective scrutiny.
• This is why he needs to be watched at Wikipedia. 02:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Mythology

Know anything about mythology? You may find the Talk:Mythology page full of interesting candidates for the above section. David D. (Talk) 18:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Used to...was big into that in high school and early college (and military) days...read on it voraciously. I'll take a look. WarriorScribe 19:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Tisthammerw I first ran into this guy on 2nd law of thermodynamics. Certainly one to consider for the section above. User:Benapgar has had many a run-in with Duncharris. That a good sign of promotion to above. David D. (Talk) 19:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep...looked 'em over and agree. WarriorScribe 20:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the fundamentalist views of User:Theodore7 but his POV is not so great and defintiely a sign of the times. I wonder if we are outnumbered! David D. (Talk) 03:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Theodore7 may not be "fundamentalist" but he's a crank. I mean, a scientific conspiracy to hide the poles of Jupiter and Saturn??? Wheeee! Mark K. Bilbo 17:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I hadn't thought, yesterday, that perhaps "crackpot watch list" would be a better thing to call it...they'd be every bit as prone to the same tactics as fundamentalists. WarriorScribe 17:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of mythology, gastrich.org is back up. WarriorScribe 02:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Entertainment

If you want more belly laughs from User:Theblacklarl check out the following link User_talk:Thivierr#Horace_Mann_School. I have never laughed so much as after reading his rant. Some people are out of this world, but, unfortunately, they run this country too. David D. (Talk) 17:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, what do you know? You're obviously a working-class peasant, and you need to be led by those who know so much better for yo...uuhhh...wait...didn't Lenin say things like that? WarriorScribe 18:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually working class peasant and anti intellectual. Or someting like that. I don't bathe either. Re "difficult and edge of the envelope topics like" wait for it, the catholic church? archeology? O...K....... Glad you saw that too. David D. (Talk) 08:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh...yeah...I think my rewording is less POV, even though I was torn between the two options shown in the history.

Since, in fact the STM conferences don't just talk about some of those issues, but take a particular, conservative point of view, I could probably make a case for adding information about the positions taken, that is, anti-science, anti-catholic, and so on. I do so enjoy the (perhaps unintentional) POV pushing in cases like this. "See? We talk about these things!" No, they don't just talk about those things. I've been in on conferences like that. WarriorScribe 08:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That's just a badly-written article. The more I look at it, the less it looks like anything that might appear in any kind of professional publication. It needs work. By the way, check out the location of Compass's headquarters. Isn't that special? WarriorScribe 08:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing Jason's apt building. No surprise there. Did you never wonder how jason got onto the same bill with his heros? David D. (Talk) 09:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Forget that I'm thinking of those MASD or MADS conferences that Jason organised with Fishes and Loaves. Do you mean Coeur d'Alene? Is that where the white supremacist guy hangs out (Richard Girnt Butler and apparently he died recently so he cannot be running the show)? But could his followers be involved in it? David D. (Talk) 09:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep...Coeur d'Alene, Idaho...a major center of the white supremacist movement in this country. I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover members of the "compass" group are also bigots, but I don't think they're affiliated. WarriorScribe 15:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

From the first sentence in the Chuck Missler page "He is an author, Bible teacher, and founder of the Koinonia House ministry based out of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho." Mmmm.... a trend. David D. (Talk) 07:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Imagine! Say, take a look at this talk page. Apparently, our friend, the AOL user, is getting under Gastrich's skin. There's nothing funnier than reading Gastrich making such a huge hypocrite of himself with the commentary about how Wiki isn't a playground (hmmm...seems I've heard that somewhere before...and recently...maybe you can refresh my memory) and how others will "frown" on whatever it is 207.200.116.9 is doing. What's even funnier, still, is that Gastrich's well-known inattention to detail has shown him to be a fool, yet again. There's a warning at the top of the page, and it quite accurately identifies the IP address as an AOL proxy. Given that the person in question has clearly posted under other AOL addresses, it should be quite evident even to someone as dense as Gastrich...ah, never mind...it's just too damned funny. We should just let him get wound up again and see where it leads... WarriorScribe 07:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Biblical inerrancy

See WP:SPAM as to the reasoning behind the link removal. Thanks...KHM03 19:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Large article, and quite vague in a lot of ways. Care to be more specific? WarriorScribe 19:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Here and here. Also, the site seems to me to attack one person (Jason Gastrich...not even sure who that is), rather than the issue at large. is there a specific article on the site which deals specifically with the issue of inerrancy? KHM03 20:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither of these applications of "spam" qualify. It's not my site and I'm not affiliated with it, so it's not a "vanity" site, nor do I believe that it violates any of the other provisions. You're going to have to do better than "read this." You're going to have to explain why it, specifically, violates those provisions.

As to your second question, did you bother to read what's on the site before rendering a judgment? I find it rather odd that anyone can read the site and still wonder what it might have to do with inerrancy. WarriorScribe 20:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I see it's been removed again and, curiously, there's a note that there needs to be a case for inclusion in the article. Interesting. So a case has to be made for inclusion but not for removal (and, in fact, a removal that violated the site's "3 Revert Rule").

There's no violation of WP:3RR; the rule states, "...an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within 24 hours of their first reversion." I removed the link 3 times; one more within 24 hours of the 1st would be a violation.

Ah, quite right...no more than three reversions. Okay, my fault for being a tad hasty.

Obviously, we disagree as to the inclusion of the link. No biggie. I think we can work together and work this out. As I suggested, why not explain on the talk page why the link would benefit the article...what issues it deals with, etc. Let's dialogue about it and hopefully come to an understanding & concensus. KHM03 01:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem discussing it on the talk page, but I did find it a tad interesting that it was removed three times without that kind of discussion being initiated. So, as I said, we (the other person who cited it isn't me) are required to provide some rationalé for inclusion, but if someone unilaterally decides that it's spam or, for some other reason, inappropropriate, it may be removed, and that person needn't explain. Was there some reason why you didn't see the link wonder about it's applicability, and then drop a note before removing it? It doesn't really bother me...I'm just tossing in a bit of perspective. Let's remember that, for some, "spam" is a bit of a dirty word in Internet circles.

The site deals with a specific kind of inerrancy advocate and shows why the arguments for inerrancy are bad. The arguments are reasonable and intelligent and they deal with the issue, at hand. That's not "spam" in anyone's book.

I think it's patently obvious if one reads the articles. It takes on inerrancy, using one particular example, and the author(s) rightfully challenge not only inerrancy advocates, but, to a lesser extent, I'll admit, those whom want to be unreasonable about what is or is not an error in the Bible. Skeptics can be every bit as overzealous as inerrancy advocates, as I'm sure you know.

I guess my real problem, to be honest with you, is that the site seems more of a personal attack and a refutation of a person. Yes, it does that by going after his beliefs, but I'm not sure how appropriate it is. KHM03 01:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's an example of the sorts of poor logic, argumentation, and harmonization that inerrancy advocates will attempt to invoke. I don't think it attacks any specific person, at all. In fact, it makes a point of not doing that. It explains the arguments forwarded by a particular inerrancy advocate whom has become quite prominent in Usenet, World Wide Web, and, more recently, Wikipedia circles by his rather vociferous "defense" of inerrancy. It seems to me that it doesn't really make any difference, since there are already a couple of links that take issue with arguments forwarded or represented by specific individuals. It's just a matter of degree. WarriorScribe 02:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

But it's still a refutation of a person. And, hey, we're not talking about a major inerrancy theologian here (with all due respect to Mr. Gastrich)...we're talking about an evengelist in southern California who is apparently largely unknown outside that area. Hardly representative of inerrancy or people who affirm that belief. I think if other editors review the link, they, too, will be bothered by the "personal attack" thing. It just makes me squeamish. Again, the site seems to attack Mr. Gastrich...by attacking inerrancy. Can you see how/why it makes me uncomfortable? KHM03 11:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

SAB

Did you notice how similar the IP# (207.200.116.74) for the anon on SAB, who thought I was Gastrich, is to Gastrich's sock puppet IP in LBU (207.200.116.10). Does that imply they are in the same location? David D. (Talk) 01:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• In general, yes, it does. I believe that Gastrich has obtained an AOL account so that he can use it for that purpose. WarriorScribe 01:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• You think that represents two people or is Gastrich now aruging with himself? Note also that Gastrich protagonist on LBU has an IP# of 207.200.116.6. and his protagonist on SAB has an IP# of 207.200.116.11. All very strange. David D. (Talk) 01:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll explain. At SAB I tried to get his stuff off the page because it didn't fit. Then later on Jason came to revert with an AOL IP. It's not a conspiracy. I commented that DayCD might be Jason because he seems to meet him halfway on these issues and Jason has the sock puppet history. I made a mistake and apologize. -- NotJason —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.136 (talk • contribs)

I understand, no offense taken. I might point out that I messed up above, I should have said antagonist IP's on LBU and SAB (207.200.116.6. and 207.200.116.11), NOT protagonist. David D. (Talk) 05:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have a friend who works at one of the AOL west coast NOCs. I'll see if we can't shed a little more light on this. WarriorScribe 01:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh...now watch... WarriorScribe 03:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Everything Gastrich is doing and has done in the last few minutes is POV-driven. I explained, rationally, why the claims about Cornuke's "discoveries" is a POV-driven claim ("'Discoveries' leaves the impression that these are agreed-upon and that the encyclopedia accepts them as legitimate 'discoveries,' rather than as claims.), and Gastrich's response is some for of "he must have discovered something. Uh, no, there's no requirement for that. He claims to have made discoveries. He's written books about them. Anyone can write and publish a book, and we all know how easily a Christian author can do that, given the rather loose standards employed by Christian publishing houses, but there's no guarantee that anything was actually discovered. As far as a non POV-driven article must be concerned, without independent verification, there is no "discovery." WarriorScribe 03:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course he may well have discovered a rotten piece of wood. But, then again, I could do that in my back garden. David D. (Talk) 05:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh...exactly. The bottom line about this "discovery" thing is that, as much as more simplistic-thinking people would prefer it otherwise, we can't make assertions when we don't know, and we can't support the assertion of others without independent verification. I don't think Cornuke has made any discoveries--certainly none of note--and I'm familiar with him. What he's done is asserted things that don't quite jibe with conventional archaeological thinking. If we accept an entry that talks about his "discoveries" without qualifying it in some way (I suppose a Wiki article could refer to "alleged discoveries" or "claimed discoveries," but I'm pretty sure Gastrich won't like that, either, since he really doensn't understand the difference between advancing a point of view, even under the surface, and not doing that). WarriorScribe 05:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm also having some fun watching the gyrations over the issue of "no original research" and the SAB article. The reference to "Inerrancy Exposed" is, as I said, not a piece of original research by any of us entering it into the article as a reference, but certainly there are lots of references used on Wikipedia that qualify as "original research" by that person, that is, the person (or persons) whom put the web page together. It's ridiculous to try to claim that "no original research" at all is allowed, because that's nonsense. If that's the case, we must remove the "rebuttal" link by Holding from the SAB page. That's "original research." Gastrich certainly considers his "rebuttal" to be researched, doesn't he? Now, we can think what we want about the quality, but it still falls under that category, if we decide that cited pages and outside resources are forbidden as "original research." WarriorScribe 03:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

With every reversion...with every POV-driven edit, Gastrich gives me more and more ammunition. WarriorScribe 03:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

LBU Page

Now that one's turning into a mess! WarriorScribe 04:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I would like to see the dissertation section on there eventually though. Anyone who has gone through such a horrible process shouldn't have their work pushed aside with schools like LBU. It's sad that there is such deceitful people out there. Keep up the good work at checking his stuff and hopefully those filler pages he added will be deleted. Anyway, I'm done with Wikipedia after this. So if you see anyone post as NotJason after this it isn't me. --NotJason

Hi NotJason, Up until now I have been logging you in as unsigned, just so we can keep track of who is who. Glad to see you signing now, it helps a lot. Welcome to theNPOV Gastric project. We have our hands full si its a shame this is one of your last efforts to keep him honest Thanks for the help. I have seen JG make some edits in good faith, so there might still be hope that things will settle down. David D. (Talk) 05:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, the NPOV Gastrich Project? We should do that. We obviously have a few people interested in keeping things as nPOV as possible, especially when it comes to Gastrich. WarriorScribe 06:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

WTF

You mentioned this else where WarriorScribe but this is the most bizarre thing I have ever seen in wikipedia. This has to be edits from the SAME computer. There is no way a dynamic IP would keep shifting between two users this way. Judging from the time differences they are the same person or in the room together. This looks a lot like trolling hell from my perspective.

The following edits were made by IP 207.200.116.10 23:23, 14 January 2006 (hist) (diff) Louisiana Baptist University (rv POV pushing (it's obviously not a diploma mill). lbu has a campus, library, sizable faculty, 1100+ students, legitimate coarse and writing requirements, lengthy thesis and dissertation requirements) 23:17, 14 January 2006 (hist) (diff) Louisiana Baptist University (A source of accusation cited. US Department of Education Cited. LBU's dissertation cited. LOC dissertation practice cited. Deal with it Jason.) 23:12, 14 January 2006 (hist) (diff) Louisiana Baptist University (rv POV pushing) 23:11, 14 January 2006 (hist) (diff) Louisiana Baptist University (A source of accusation cited. US Department of Education Cited. LBU's dissertation cited. LOC dissertation practice cited. Deal with it Jason.) 22:56, 14 January 2006 (hist) (diff) Louisiana Baptist University (rv - no professional source for Diploma mill accusation, only ludicrous POV)

I'm assuming the bold above is a different user to the normal text. Those edits are minutes apart. David D. (Talk) 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a DHCP based addressing system would not allow for such a thing in an IP network, so it can't be that. Either something is ker-flewy with the Wiki reporting mechanism, or Gastrich has gone completely around the bend. He's gotten close, before...it wouldn't surprise me. WarriorScribe 05:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, the weirdness continues, IP 207.200.116.6 made the following two edits 50 minutes apart [1] [2]. It does not get stranger than that. David D. (Talk) 08:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Gastrich went on quite a tear tonight--even went to RoyBoy's talk page and, using an IP address rather than his name, called me a "jackass." You don't suppose he's mad about this, do you?

Ah, well...maybe if he hadn't felt the need to post the tantrum about Mark, I might not have needed to post the article noted above. WarriorScribe 08:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahh business as usual. Wouldn't it have been a lot easier for Gastrich to encourage his flock to donate to their local shelter rather burdoning JCSM with the administrative hassel that such a charity drive would entail? David D. (Talk) 08:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah...that was part of the point, after all...to hear him tell it, he already has all this success and all of these followers and, by association, all that money that's already rolling in...right? So why not encourage the folks reading the devotions to just give it to a shelter or, at least, buy some homeless guy a case of twinkies... WarriorScribe 08:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think its obvious that the above plan might be a problem since you can never know if the money actually goes to the homeless if you give money directly to the shelter. On the other hand giving money to a reputable, registered charity such as JCSM will ensure the money gets to the right people. A cut of the donation for adminitrative services rendered is a small price to pay knowing that JCSM will make sure this money gets to the needy by giving money directly to the shelter. Hang on.......? .......if Gastrich is giving directly to the shelter how can i know if the money actually goes to the homeless? WarriorScribe, don't you just hate these logic problems? ;-) David D. (Talk) 08:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

No! I'll have yours, then. I love it! I'll have spam spam spam spam spam spam spam beaked beans spam spam spam and spam...! WarriorScribe 08:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha...mine was to comment so that the Vikings would bring in the spam song and the born-agains can reply, "I can't hear you...I can't hear you!" In other words, I was looking for silly humor...and it doesn't play well in print as much as it does in person. WarriorScribe 08:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh that works too. David D. (Talk) 08:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that...the parallel, of course, was the commentary about scandal and how Christians didn't want to hear it (remember how quickly they flocked back to Swaggart the first time?), and how Gastrich doesn't want to hear about the problems with LBU accreditation, graduate publication standards, or that some consider it a diploma mill. WarriorScribe 09:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

But fuggedabouddit! Wanna twinkie? WarriorScribe 09:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Healing power of prayer

I just saw Jasons page on David Jeremiah This sentence is unbelieveable. "He was diagnosed with cancer. However, after much prayer and some treatment, he overcame it." I love the way the some treatment is added as an after thought. Why did he get treatment anyway, was there some doubt that God would pull through with the miracle? David D. (Talk) 09:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Knowing David Jeremiah, I'd say that he's quite content to let God work through men. I don't doubt for a minute that he'd eschew the idea of relying entirely on prayer for "treatment." FYI, that was in '94...not the "late 90s." WarriorScribe 09:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oops...my mistake...just remembered about the recurrence in '98 when I looked it up. He had a nodule removed from his neck and a stem cell transplant. I'd call that "much treatment," considering... WarriorScribe 09:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• That's what I thought. More Gastrich POV. It's amazing that he cannot take the correct cues from his spiritual mentors. David D. (Talk) 09:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yep...gonna take a lot of fixing... WarriorScribe 09:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

No personal headings

Per Wikipedia:No personal attacks, please do not personally address headings to people on talk pages. Article talk pages should be used for discussing the articles, not their contributors. Headings on article talk pages should be used to facilitate discussion by indicating and limiting topics related to the article. For instance, you could make a header whose title describes in a few words one problem you have with the article. This will make it easy for people to address that issue, work towards consensus, and eventually resolve the issue or dispute and improve the article. If you need to reach another user please go to their user talk page. Thanks. -Will Beback 06:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Okay. Thanks! - WarriorScribe 06:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Origin of Consciousness

Which edition did you read initially? I started with the first edition I got from a professor, but after having my mind blown at the end of volume 2 I left it on a train; and got the updated edition with his update and response to critics. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• The edition that I read was the first edition...that's how long it's been, and it's the only copy I've ever had. I'm on a bit of a sabbatical (not working since just after Thanksgiving) and so I saw your comments and thought, "wow, I need to read that again!" I have boxes of books here going back to the early 80s, so I rummaged through them first...no luck.

• You might be amused at how I happened upon the book in the first place. It was a bit of an in-joke at Marvel Comics, actually. The artist for the then-new X-Men had drawn a panel showing one of the X-Men reading the book. When I asked him what that was, he told me, and I thought it would be a good read. The X-Man reading the book was the Beast. -WarriorScribe 19:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That is an amazing story, did the panel make it to print? If so it should that should be inserted into the books article in a new sub section "Pop-culture references". - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it did. We're talking a long time ago, but I can certainly try to find it (of course, I no longer have that issue). - WarriorScribe 19:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Your "sabbatical"

[Snip apparently inability to read, understand, or have a clue.]

Whoosh! - WarriorScribe 20:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[Snip again - fair is fair] - WarriorScribe 21:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Just so folks know...the snipped commentary is Gastrich's. He seems to feel that it's okay to snip away commentary that he doesn't like from his talk page, so I guess I can do that, too. And, just like he says, if someone wants to see it, they can check the history. - WarriorScribe 21:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please note that personal attacks on other Wikipedians are not acceptable, under any circumstances. Charles Matthews 17:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you, Charles. - WarriorScribe 18:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[Gastrich commentary removed -- fair is fair.] - WarriorScribe 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

PA and Jason the Just

I was going to let your comments stay on my talk page for awhile until you began attacking me. If you do it again, you'll be reported and I've dealt with people like you before and they will ban you for 24 hours. --Jason Gastrich 21:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment left on Jason's talk page (it'll no doubt be deleted)

• Translation from Gastrese: I had no intelligent rebuttal, so I deleted your comments from my page, as I do all others that are challenging or critical, and if you criticize me again on my page, I'm tellin'! - WarriorScribe 22:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent translation. I left him a message on his page. I mentioned a lesson from Jesus' teachings. I wonder if that'll be a personal attack? Jim62sch 22:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Bet on it. He's done just that with lots of other Christians. - WarriorScribe 22:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

JCSM Charity Status

Today you provided a link to a usenet post [3] stating that JCSM, the charity run by Gastrich, is constantly soliciting and receiving donations.

Curious, I did a GuideStar search for Jesus Christ Saves Ministries [4] (free, but reg. req.). It lists JCSM as a 501(c)(3) Public Charity and that "Contributions are deductible, as provided by law," but also states "This organization is not required to file an annual return with the IRS because its income is less than $25,000." Does that sound right? With all these websites run by Gastrich/JCSM, they take in less than $25K a year? Strikes me as low. FeloniousMonk 23:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification, JCSM is not a charity, per se. It's a "ministry" run by Gastrich, mostly on the computer and the Internet. Gastrich has made various and sundry claims about this ministry -- how far-reaching it is, and how successful it is (he recently boasted that it brought in twice as much money, compared to the previous year), but, in checking around, I've discovered that no one else seems to know much about this. Given the number of times that Gastrich appears to have had to move in the last couple of years along with other indications, perhaps the kindest thing that can be said is that the ministry is just a tad less successful than he'd like folks to believe. - WarriorScribe 23:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think we can infer from the fact that JCSM doesn't file that it's not as succesful as he claims. Either that, or... Any 503(c)(3) that takes in more than $25K has to report it, and those filings are available to the public through sites like GuideStar. FeloniousMonk 23:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Itake

Do you think you could stop baiting Itake? I think you've proved your point, whatever it is, and poking him any more will just hamper our efforts to cover up the atheist cabal give ammunition to Gastrich and his ilk. --Malthusian (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry...didn't think it was any big deal since it was on a talk page. I thought I'd give him one or two more and then lower the boom. Of course, if someone else protests in the meantime, I certainly have to give that some consideration. I'll end it. - WarriorScribe 20:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich

I am going to stick my neck out here and ask those of you who evidently have a long-running dispute with Gastrich to tone down the rhetoric. I freely admit to being an offender myself on occasion, too, so it applies to me as well. If examples of attacks are brought to my notice I will hit that new shiny "block user" button I have because, if we are absolutely honest, some of the time people are poking him with a stick to see of he bites. Great sport on Usenet, but not what Wikipedia is for. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem...and I don't think you're sticking your neck out, at all...I think it's a very reasonable thing to ask. I've administered systems and moderated electronic discussions areas and I know how it can look, so there's no problem. For whatever it might be worth, however, some of us don't poke him "to see if he bites." Some of us do exactly what we say we're doing; and when we're the subjects of attack, no matter how pathetic it might be, well, there's not a lot of point in pussy-footing around. Most of my edits of his POV-pushing, for example, are done with little comment. When he comes after me in talk pages and particularly when he brings up his fantasies, irrelevancies, whimpering, whining, and off-site "histories," I launch some artillery (I haven't launched the nukes, yet)...he nearly always backs off. There's something to be said for "peace through superior firepower." [grin] Thanks. - WarriorScribe 17:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think your Fundamentalist Watch List should be a bit more neutral. I'm not quite bold enough (yet) to edit it right on your user page and let you revert what you don't like about my changes, so I've created a temporary fork. Here's the diff. Feel free to use or ignore.AvB ÷ talk 14:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Heads up! Check out the Louisiana Baptist University talk page. A new user--Turkmen-- has been making suggestions only at the LBU page and attacked the admin. who blocked Gastrich. Also it seems the user registered when Gastrich was blocked. Coincidence? Arbustoo 06:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"...you're going to look even sillier than you've been looking, lately." Yep, sure reads like Gastrich, to me. - WarriorScribe 15:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Other Religious fundamentalists/campaigners

Hello WarriorScribe. I have noticed you since I noticed the Gastrich affair. You may have noticed me as well. I have found an Islamic person, User:Tarins01, who seems to be from Australia like me. He joined on 19/1/06 and seems to have started a few Islamic bios about an arab-affairs lecturer and a youth worker who happens to be muslim, (which I have tagged for afd), and has made a few POV edits on "jewish terrorism" and has made some contribs to some rather promotional sites like Islam in Australia. You may find him worth noting. Regards, Blnguyen 05:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Also found an article/essay Christianity in Korea by User:DavidCannon who is self-declared born-again who claims that eco development in Korea is due to Christianity, etc,etc,.Blnguyen 06:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, will check these out this weekend. Got very busy this week on other matters. Thanks. - WarriorScribe 06:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Far as User:Davidcannon, he's apparently an admin and I don't know that he isn't open to NPOVing the Christianity_in_Korea article. I wouldn't want to categorize him too hastily! Mark K. Bilbo 16:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Some people's nPOV skills can used at NewsMax and Christopher Ruddy as well. Arbustoo 21:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)