Difference between revisions of "User talk:JoeWallack"

From Errancy Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 148: Line 148:
 
:--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 00:02, 13 Dec 2005 (CST)
 
:--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 00:02, 13 Dec 2005 (CST)
 
::How does Wikipedia solve the spam problem? Regards, [http://www.bigissueground.com Thomas Ash]
 
::How does Wikipedia solve the spam problem? Regards, [http://www.bigissueground.com Thomas Ash]
 +
 +
:::Well, they do several things, but they also have a lot more resources than we do--more editors, more readers, just generally more people to stomp on the problem.
 +
 +
::However, there are some technical means that can be brought into play, but those means are up to Peter (the Top Dog here) to implement: [http://chongqed.org/prevent_spam.html Chongqed.org] has some ideas, but many of them require super-admin access to implement.
 +
 +
:::--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 14:05, 13 Dec 2005 (CST)

Revision as of 20:05, 13 December 2005

Warning: Insulting Content

Joe,

Some of the text of your argument in Matthew 1:8--specifically, the sections regarding JP Holding--insult Holding as a person, rather than critiquing the ideas he presents in an academic context. While I understand that you and Holding have had problems in the past, we're trying to avoid personalities here and discuss the actual issues.

Please rephrase your argument so as to comply with Rule 1: "Critique is okay, but there must be no insults, either to persons or to ideas. The tone should be academic, even witty, but not acerbic."

Thanks,

--JustinEiler 15:03, 5 Sep 2005 (CDT)

"Hi Justin. I see absolutely nothing in my 1:8 article that insults Holding. Please identify to me exactly what you see as insulting. Thanks."

Followup:

While we're on the subject of Holding here I asked the Admins here to invite Holding to argue against Genealogy error. He declined. Regarding my attempts to engage Holding in Argument:
1) His site doesn't allow any type of open posting.
2) My site has never had any Censorship what so ever. He has never posted there.
3) At Tweb where he selectively debates under Fundamentalist Moderation and primary Membership the Owner has currently banned me for titling a post:
"Gonna Roll Away The Stones And Win Father A New Pair Of Jews"
Which then became the title for my Review of "The Empty Tomb" at Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/159102286X/ref=cm_rv_thx_view/102-1435806-2580904?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
which they immediately posted.
Holding's current description of me is:
http://www.tektonics.org/parody/trophyroom.html
"1.21 Joe "Wally" Wallack
1.21.1 Wally Begs for Mercy
--Follow the link to see Wally's debates with me why he asked for help. It didn't help. More on Wally here. He's scared of me he hasn't updated his page in over a year. Wally is also a crass maker of anti-Semitic remarks, which tells you what sort of people Brooks thinks are role models.
[hosted by the Anti-Defamation League]"


JW: I conclude from this that Holding does not want to debate Genealogy error here because he knows his argument is weak. Thus, more evidence for Error. The top Internet Apologist is afraid to argue against in a fairly moderated and polite Forum.

Do you actually use insults or call Holding names? No, you do not: but your argument is against the person, not against their arguments. Holding's behavior is utterly irrelevant to the GMatthew text arguments.

--JustinEiler 17:25, 5 Sep 2005 (CDT)

(As a side note: if you will please, respond here. I evidently don't have my Talk link set up correctly. Hey, just like everyone else here, I'm still learning the software and the interface.)


Hi Justin. The way to hurt JP Holding is not to insult him but to publicize Errors In The Christian Bible. So I've done far more than insult Holding. I've hurt him and I wish to go on hurting him. Just kidding. Souly because you ask and not because I think you have demonstrated any insult on my part, I will prune the article until it meets with your satisfaction (as opposed to your approval). The Price I'll take considering that everything above is true is that I'll do it within 24 hours.


Joseph

"I've hurt him and I wish to go on hurting him."

That's funny ... you don't look a thing like Ricardo Montalbon. :D

Souly because you ask and not because I think you have demonstrated any insult on my part, I will prune the article until it meets with your satisfaction (as opposed to your approval).

Thank you, Joe. And please realize that I'm not fussing at you. You've got a great argument--from where I sit, the comments on Holding actually detract from the strength of the argument itself. I don't want to see your work derided or ignored because of other issues--let it stand on its own merits.

Again, thanks.

--JustinEiler 19:03, 5 Sep 2005 (CDT)

Regarding Matthew 1:13 (Humor)

Joe said: "How Did This Tradition Get Started You Ask?"

Somehow, Joe, I don't think you look a thing like Tevye.

--JustinEiler 18:50, 28 Sep 2005 (CDT)

What ErrancyWiki is all about

(Moved from Matthew 1:6.)

"Joseph, not only are you bringing up a ridiculous objection as an "error," with such comments as "possible reasons for differences in the Genealogies are not explanations of defenses against error, they are explanations of the cause of the error," you're poisoning the well. The Genealogies in Luke and Matthew are two separate genealogies, traced through two different lines. Now, like you, I don't happen to feel that either one is terribly accurate, but if we were to assume that they were accurate (less the omissions in the Matthian genealogy, which I still feel results from a stylistic choice rather than an actual error), tracing two lines of ancestry to a common ancestor is not at all uncommon. Indeed, I have (rather distant) ancestors who I am related to from both my father's line and my mother's. Most of your genealogy objections have been tempests in teapots: this particular one could be called "making a mountain out of a molehill," save for the fact that you didn't even have a molehill to start with. --JustinEiler 11:40, 25 Nov 2005 (CST)"


JW: Listen up Justin, ErrancyWiki is intended to be a Serious discussion Forum consisting primarily of Complete Arguments and not Incomplete Assertions. If you are mainly interested in low level discussions consisting largely of Incomplete Assertions stick with Tweeb. You need to move the above to the Neutral Section as a post primarily consisting of the following does not meet the ErrancyWiki Standards justifying placement in the Con Section:

"ridiculous objection"

"you're poisoning the well"

"Most of your genealogy objections have been tempests in teapots"

"this particular one could be called "making a mountain out of a molehill,"

"save for the fact that you didn't even have a molehill to start with."


Joseph

Joseph, I made that post as just a member, but I am also one of the administrators of ErrancyWiki. Among other things, that means I have some measure of responsibility for enforcement of the rules, namely "Critique is okay, but there must be no insults, either to persons or to ideas. The tone should be academic, even witty, but not acerbic." Poisoning the well is not academic--and it's not witty. It's rhetoric, and I called you on it.
Now, if you have a problem with my post as a member, then I advise you to to rebut the points I make. And if you want to criticize my decisions in administration, I advise you to discuss the situation with Peter Kirby. But if you're going to complain about my phrasing, then may I suggest that your posts, not mine, belong at Tweb.
Oh, my bad--I forgot that this is exactly the kind of behavior that got you banned from TWeb.
In short, not one of the statements I made is false or inaccurate: most of your genealogical arguments are, indeed, tempests in teapots; in Matthew 1:6, you did make a mountain out of a non-existant molehill; you did use rhetoric to "poison the well"; and this argument against errancy is, indeed, a "ridiculous objection." You seem to forget--I am not a Biblical inerrantist. I am not arguing that the Bible is historically accurate, and I am most definitely not arguing for doctrinal authority. At the same time, I see absolutely no point in tilting against the windmills of the genealogies while ignoring the larger issues of context, style, and genre. And I most certainly see no point in objecting to one faith-based assertion with personal insult.
This wiki is not a forum for you to vent personal issues you have with other people--whether or not those other people are members. This is also not a forum for you to jape and jeer at the concept of Biblical inerrancy, but to discuss the topic in a rational and academic manner. If you are not capable of doing so, then I invite you to start your own web-site and post your arguments there.
This is not an "official" administrative warning--this is just telling you where things stand.
--JustinEiler 12:12, 26 Nov 2005 (CST)

Admin Resignation

Hi, Peter and Joe,

Due to reasons of health, I'm going to have to step down as an ErrancyWiki admin, effective immediately. I apologize for the short notice, but this kind of caught me without warning.

Thanks,

--JustinEiler 21:30, 7 Dec 2005 (CST)

High Crimes and Drug Misdemeanors

Hi, Joe,

Looking at the IP addresses, it looks like this is coming from a variety of known "spam" sites in Asia, including: bbtec.net in Japan; tm.net.my in Myanmar; bora.net, Seoul; and kornet.net, also in Seoul. However, they all redirect to a website hosted by cogentco.com, a known "spam-haus". You can try to contact abuse@cogentco.com, but it's probably going to be better to simply block the offending domains permanently.

And unfortunately, you're going to have to edit the spam from the pages as well as block the domains that its coming from. I'll help with that what I can.

--JustinEiler 22:58, 12 Dec 2005 (CST)

Hi, Joe, the sequel. <grin>
I think I got all the spam that's there currently--you'll want to doublecheck, of course, but hopefully it's all gone.
Joe, you and Peter might want to discuss the posibility of restricting editing to registered users only--that's a change he has to make in the software. It won't take care of all the spam and vandalism (as you've noticed), but it will be a big help towards getting rid of the lion's share of it.
--JustinEiler 00:02, 13 Dec 2005 (CST)
How does Wikipedia solve the spam problem? Regards, Thomas Ash
Well, they do several things, but they also have a lot more resources than we do--more editors, more readers, just generally more people to stomp on the problem.
However, there are some technical means that can be brought into play, but those means are up to Peter (the Top Dog here) to implement: Chongqed.org has some ideas, but many of them require super-admin access to implement.
--JustinEiler 14:05, 13 Dec 2005 (CST)