User talk:Ed Poor

Old talk archives:

Feb 18, 2003

I have observed that you and user:soulpatch successfully worked together on Pol Pot from significantly different points of view. As soulpatch made the addition to The Skeptical Environmentalist describing the DCSD verdict, I think that collaboration might be similarly beneficial here. -- Alan Peakall 18:46 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

I look forward to working together with those holding opposite POVs -- on this as well as on other topics. --Ed

Re vandals, Ed wrote: "if you could restrain yourself from describing them as a moron that would deprive them of evil nutrients". I know that. Sometimes I need to be reminded. Thankyou. Tannin

I don't think the role of the Wikipedia is to get to the bottom of scientific controversies and take a stand, because taking a stand is not neutral. Regardless of the motives which some may impute to others who disagree with them, the "other side" does deserve to be included in this encyclopedia.

If not, maybe I shouldn't be here any more.

(signed)

the ever-dwindling "Uncle Ed"

Ever-dwindling indeed. You know it's not a good idea to make yet another permanent vacation announcement when there's a separate controversy brewing at the same time. Geez, you might get only half as much letters of sympathy this time ;-).

Seriously, Ed, I think you have done a good job on many - not all - of the articles you worked on. You also are a good communicator, at least online. But you have not answered my questions regarding your "open letter" - what was the purpose? It was entirely unprovoked and insulting -- uncharacteristic even, I got the impression I was not reading a mail from "Uncle Ed" but a Rush Limbaugh radio transcript. I think you should apologize to Sheldon. How about answering his challenge to make the UC articles more NPOV? Writing for the other side, as you called it?

I do not have a problem with well-researched additions, and so do few other people. Your recent additions to the global warming article were, however, not well-researched at all. They lacked references and violated NPOV. I also do have a problem with unfounded and unprovoked personal attacks. Is this what Sun Myung Moon teaches?

Maybe I should give you a phonecall. I'd really like to figure out what goes on in your head. --Eloquence 15:05 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)

Hello, Uncle Ed. I'm dying to read more about your great-grandfather, if you happen to know anything more about him. :) Hmm. So if you're my uncle, does that make him my great-great-grandfather? ;) -- Oliver P. 16:17 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

Aha, thanks! I've edited it again slightly, so you'd better make sure I've got it right... Also, is the monograph you refer to "The Deflection of Light As Observed At Total Solar Eclipses" (mentioned here[1]), and described as "particularly disturbing for an ethical scientist"? And is Charles Lane Poor the same as this chap[2], said to have been born on January 18, 1866, at Hackensack, New Jersey, and died in 1951? Son of Edward Erie Poor and Mary Wellington Lane? Married to Anna Louise Easton, and father of Charles Lane Poor, II? Not that I'm obsessed with your family or anything, but since there was an article on the man, I was just wondering if I could get it filled out a bit. :) I mean, you don't really have to look anything up now, but I was just wondering. Sorry, I'll stop pestering you now... -- Oliver P. 17:22 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest in my ancestry, but I'm not sure which Charles Lane Poor is which. The astronomer who commented on Einstein's work in 1920 wrote, "The physical experiments, or observations, on the other hand, have so far yielded little evidence for or against the theories of Einstein" [3] I'm fairly sure that he came around to Einstein's thinking later on, after more evidence came in. --Ed

Okay. Thanks for that link. As for the ancestry, if the chap in that webpage above is your one, and if the website is reliable, then you've got ancestors there going right back to mediaeval times, with various knights and a Lord Mayor of London and so on, but I suppose to prove it all would be a nightmare! Oh well, never mind. -- Oliver P. 20:41 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

I participated in an ancestor liberation ceremony in Korea at the beginning of the year. I wonder if that has anything to do with Oliver's interest in researching my lineage. Could my ancestors be "reaching down" from the spirit world to work among living men? --Uncle Ed 18:44 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Ooh, spooky! :) Are the dead people involved just the ancestors of the people who attend the ceremony, or just dead people in general? I think it'd be quite nice to be invited along to an interesting seminar after a few centuries of hanging around being dead. I expect some of my ancestors might quite like to go along, if only to relieve the tedium. ;) -- Oliver P. 19:08 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

There's actually no UC membership requirement, if you're interested in participating in the ceremony. You just have to go to Chung Pyung, in South Korea, pay a nominal fee (I think it's around $500 USD) and sing and clap along with everyone else. Well, okay, there's also some bowing and praying, too -- and a lot of sitting on the floor -- but the floor is smoother and cleaner than a basketball court.

Hmm, I think I might pass on that one at the moment, thanks. Maybe after I've been dead for a few centuries I might get bored of clinging to the spiritual bodies of living people and bringing them bad luck and all that, so I might change my mind and pop along to one, but we'll see what happens, eh? ;) -- Oliver P. 19:29 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, no rush: you have all eternity in which to make up your mind. ^_^ --Uncle Ed 19:37 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Where's the .mp3, Ed? ... No, make it an .ogg. Koyaanis Qatsi

Hello Ed, I like very much, what you said about the Oder/Odra dispute on the mailing list. I hope you don't mind, that I quoted you on the Oder/Odra talk page. If you do, feel free to delete the quote. -- Cordyph 18:26 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Interestingly, three separate people have e-mailed me privately to thank me, as they didn't like the name but didn't want to be the only one to speak up and be a fuddy-duddy, so I guess it's a good thing I did. Tuf-Kat

LDC bought a house awhile back, shortly after one of my hair-brained moves, and is rumored to be returning shortly. Koyaanis Qatsi

Fac?ieux for a man Ed, fac?ieux ;-)

(Re Lomberg employed by and tried by same govt.) Just so, Ed. I had a chuckle about it myself. Although, to be fair, I think the present Danish Govt was in opposition when the DCSD was set up (don't quote me on that, I haven't checked) and the DCSD members are appointed at arms-length by a public service-style process, where BL's appointment was by the govt itself. Whatever - they are both on the public payroll. ;) Tannin

yeah, this issue of the name of football/soccer is a nightmare. If you went into the pub in Dublin and asked did you see the football - 2/3 of the crowd would answer 'I didn't know Dublin were playing?' meaning gaelic football, 1/3 would answer 'yeah. Brian Kerr looks a damn good manager' or 'I see United had a couple of good goals' meaning soccer, while the rest would say 'great way to start the Six Nations championship', meaning rugby. In the US they would invariably talk about about American football, in Australia Australian Rules football. And if in any of these places, you insisted that 'football' by definition is Association football, you'd be lucky not to lose a few teeth. If there is one thing guaranteed to get the Americans, the Irish, the Aussies and others inflamed it is when Brits claimed ownership of a term like football. (Especially in Ireland, since its football predates Association football by centuries, even if it was not formally regulated until the creation of the Gaelic Athletic Association in the 1880s.) Using [Football (soccer)] clarifies for everyone the sport in question, allowing them to go to the page or in some cases, keep as far away as possible from it. JTD 01:05 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Ahhh Ed if only that were true. I'm the son of a man who played Gaelic football in his youth, but spent most of his time off the pitch after a punch-up. JTD claims Gaelic football predates Association football, but there's no written rule book for Gaelic football before 1887, 39 years after the Cambridge rules (1848) for which evolved into Association football. Football in Ireland and England was probably brought to both countries by the Normans, and the first written record of a game in England is dated 1175. Mintguy

Was that the last time the English team won something? (only joking: a bit of black humour!) Tonight I asked a group of friends of my flatmate who called over (a bit pissed. Darn students!) and most preferred either 'soccer' or 'football (soccer) to football (which got the response of which type?) and Association football with got zero support. JTD 01:29 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Ed, about your last comment on the Wagner talk page: I know that you are trying to be avuncular and welcoming a perhaps new participant. But do you really believe that no one else on that page has been sensible? That is an insult -- I would like to think you did not intend it that way so all I really want to say is, when complimenting one person, try not to put others down unnecessarily. Slrubenstein

As I said before, only a moron would think I was insulting their intelligence. (Take that any way you want, heh, heh!!!) --Ed

well, I really didn't think you were capable of insulting my intelligence ;)

<chuckle> well put! --Ed

Hi, Ed, I just replied to you on that river's talk page and wanted to make sure, that you see my reply. So I repeat it here: I understand, Ed, and I appreciate your involvement. My words were meant as a joke. I did not intend to sound rudely. Sorry for that. -- Cordyph 17:04 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry Ed, I just pulled this off of the Trinity Talk page:

[...offensive joke omitted by Uncle Ed]

I can't begin to tell you how thoroughly offensive I find this. From my and most of Christianity's understanding of the Trinity, such a thing is of course completely impossible. If it were to happen, God would cease to be God, and everything else falls apart completely. The "joke" seems to either badly misunderstand the doctrine, or deliberately misrepresent the doctrine in order to mock it. I'm sure you meant it in a light-hearted way, but for once I think you do need to find a clue about the import of what you're saying or posting. Wesley 22:32 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Wesley, this was a joke; it was not meant to be serious theology. It isn't even offensive to most Christians. The entire idea of humor is take something that we know, and then look at it in a way that is unexpected. Jokes are not meant to be taken apart and theologically and philosophically analyzed! Further, do you really think that this was an anti-Christian attack, because it isn't. It is a joke told by Christians themselves. (Jews and Muslims are usually less familiar with the trinity, and many might not even get the joke.) Lighten up, man. I've read plenty of religious Jewish jokes about God and Moses, and few of them are anti-Semitic. I think we should differentiate between biogted jokes which hurt people, and silly ideas that are meant as a laugh. Didn't you see Mel Brook's "History of the World Part I"? No anti-Semitic attacks there, but there was a joke about Moses receiving the 15 commandments that was a show-stopper. RK

I daresay Wesley knew both (a) that is was a joke and (b) not meant as serious theology. Yet it apparently was offensive to him. Wesley is not "most Christians", but an esteemed contributor to Wikipedia whose feelings I want to avoiding hurting. I'm also fairly sure he didn't consider my posting of the joke to be an anti-Christian attack -- but I just figure it hurt his feelings, and I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. I'm still sorry I posted the joke. Maybe I should post a couple of Moonie jokes as penance ;-) --Uncle Ed 15:57 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Clouds of Witnesses made me laugh already. <eg> --Eloquence

&#21460 &#36007 (Uncle +poor) -&#35918&#30505

Sorry Ed, I'm someone from a religious background (who has defended religious believers on Wiki and complained at usernames mocking religious believers) and I like'd the joke and didn't find it in the least offensive. (Texted it to a priest friend of mine who liked it too) JTD 05:24 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, so these three religious men are travelling to an ecumenical conference, a priest, a rabbi, and a Moonie. Their car breaks down, so they have to spend the night at a farmhouse. The farmer invites them in to the kitchen where they explain their trouble. Then farmer says there's not enough room in the house so one of them will have to sleep out in the barn. Father Flanagan says he'll go, but a minute later he's knocking at the door; he says it's too stinky, and he'll have to sleep inside. Rabbi Schwarz says he grew up on a farm and goes out, but a minute later he's back: "There are pigs in there, and it wouldn't be kosher for me to sleep out there." So the Moonie goes out, and a minute later there's a knock at the door. The farmer opens it, and all the animals are standing outside the door. --Uncle Ed

Excellent!!!! That is one joke I'm going to repeat! JTD 19:47 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

I just learned today from your note on User talk:DW that DW was banned. And I see too, there is no explanation. I think it might be appropriate for you to post the reason so others will know and can learn from it. His being banned is really sad because he did one heck of a pile of work (unsigned) and I can bet he was driven away by the same group who attacked me when I defended him. They accused me of being DW so I left because of the conduct of this small group who were wrong but could not handle the fact that DW was right. This time, I shall leave permnanently after I honor him properly....Elliot

Sorry, I don't even remember why DW was banned. I myself don't like being a member of a community that exiles people for light or transient reasons. I think a "time out" is better, e.g., no posting for a week.

DW was banned for changing pages to fit his not Wiki's structures, including deleting references to a person's nationality, then leaving vicious personal attacks on anyone who disagreed with him. Everyone who tried politely to question his behaviour was treated to pages of abuse over talk pages that drove some people away. After being explicitly warned by Jimbo to stop verbally abusing people, he left particularly offensive comments on my talk page, on Zoe's and on other people's, before beginning to doctor pages all over, chopping paragraphs, deleting nationality references, changing dates from the agreed Wiki style to his own form, breaking links and then informing everyone that they were 'phoney', 'ignorant'. 'incompetent' and unfit to contribute to wiki. His abusive comments were put by those who received them on the wiki-list. When he comments were seen, he was immediately and justifiably banned. (He has since returned under other names, claiming not to be DW but hacking the same articles into bits again in exactly the same manner and leaving snide, rude and offensive comments on talk pages. After complaints on that behaviour, he disappears and returns again under another name to the same sites, does the same hacking things to pieces and utters the same expletives. One of the more polite descriptions people have used about him is to call him an 'egotistical, obnoxious nutter' who wiki needs like a hole in the head. JtdIrL 22:02 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

Anyone who is "banned" can simply apologize and promise not to do whatever it was that got them banned in the first place, and they'll be welcomed back.

By the way, for what it's worth, I believe you are Elliot and not DW. --Uncle Ed 13:37 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Dude, I just saw your last idol post just now. I agree totally. But we were dealing with all the higher-up stuff at that point... you know... smoketalk... tokespeak... reeferreflection.. 'nuf said... :)-&#35918&#30505

Ed, don't you think the "list of songs which...." stuff is a bit silly? Why encourage it by creating even sillier pages? I must say, your personal brand of satire baffles me. O_o -- Tarquin 21:13 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

It keeps the silliness off the real pages.
It gives the cranks something constructive to do (well, almost :-).
It attracts new contributors, who might eventually buckle down to real work after cutting their teeth on the fun stuff.
All satire is baffling: isn't that ironic?

--Ed

Um. Point taken. I have the sneaky suspicion you're more or less quoting what I wrote on my page about "lists of famous...". I disagree with point 4 though :) -- Tarquin 21:33 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry for the plagiarism: you get full credit, of course. I often forget where I've eaten after digesting great wisdom. And, yes, my sense of humor is just plain weird.

I'd completely forgotten about it... it was only when I say your list above I thought hang on... this sounds familiar. -- Tarquin 19:53 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC) (feeling a tad sheepish for complaining about something he'd suggested in the first place)