User talk:Orangemarlin/Miscellaneous 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I had a heck of a fight tonight with Macguysoft , mainly on Talk:Evidence of evolution when he finally blanked the page or parts of the page about 8 times before I lost count. He also insulted me a few times and blanked my talk page as well a couple of times. A real beauty alright.--Filll 05:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the nonsense some dufus put on my talk page.--Filll 23:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome to Evolution. But what did you mean about SciFi not being science? You mean all my years of Doctor Who has been a waste? :) In all seriousness, I guess such a warning is prudent, because the page has a long history of people who couldn't distinguish between reality and fantasy, let alone science fiction and science fact. Tarinth 21:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

the National Center for Science Education in Berkeley (the people that are fighting to keep evolution in schools) to get some more references for the support article we are writing in draft form. They had 3 good references for me and I asked them if they ever look at Wikipedia articles on evolution, creationism, ID, etc. They said yes and they look at the histories and talk pages and they knew us!! Haha...we are famous! By our user names! Even among the coordinators of national strategy for teaching evolution. Pretty funny huh? They said we are not doing too bad a job on hte articles and they dont look too bad. So there...some feedback...--Filll

Take a look at my article Hindu creationism. It needs a category etc, but it is a start. I think if one holds up OTHER alternative views, then hte ridiculousness of the Christian Creationism view starts to become more obvious. And there might be more Hindu Creationists than Christian Creationists, by the sound of it (just not in the US). They also want to influence the school systems in the US, in the UK, in Australia etc. They have already done a huge number on the school systems in India. --Filll 17:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have the references there. I want a picture or two more. Take a look.--Filll 18:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to see Jesus as myth and Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus. I suggested a few additions to the former, but I have not got around to editing it.--Filll 18:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Support for evolution--Filll 08:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Hindu creationism. That previous editor (who mangled the intro in my opinion) warned me that it would be attacked. Is this the start? I left a message on his talk page. --Filll 19:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What is interesting is that they removed 80% of the content, and then complain there is no content. I do not really even know what belief is what, or who is who, so I am just letting them rant and rave. However, I am establishing a few "factoids":

• Hindutva, a political movement, has some religious and doctrinal overtones that people do not like to talk about. Also some antiMuslim and antiChristian overtones.
• when I try to get them to talk about things that contradict science they are very reluctant to do so (men living on earth for many millions of years in modern form, etc)
• when I talk about evolution, they immediately want to talk about reincarnation and your soul devolving etc based on karma
• when I want to ask if astrology and cow piss and yogas flying around by meditating and other stuff is scientific, they think it is, but they do not want to admit it.
• they want to claim that darwin's theory was well known and so was quantum mechanics and relativity etc all thousands of years ago in the scriptures
• they are probably afraid of ridicule, so the most controversial stuff on the page was deleted, but now people are telling me the exact same stuff that was deleted is true.
• the only problem I have is the schoolbook thing is a bit puzzling. I think it has creationist type overtones or what I would call creationist overtones but they want to deny it.
• they seem to be hypersensitive about this.--Filll 00:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am just learning how hypersensitive they are. They do not quite get it. They are as bad as standard Christian creationists, and in fact maybe worse. There is a seething problem just under the surface, with caste disputes, and anti-christian and anti-science sentiments, and anti-Muslim stuff. I am trying to write it very carefully to avoid stepping on toes. If I left it up to them, they would just nibble away at the article until nothing was left.--Filll 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No that wasnt my version. I have not been looking at that article so much. I would prefer a very short 1 paragraph summary of the searches and then direct to the search article. I see no reason to shove everything into one article, which people seem to want to do. This is not helpful for the average encyclopedia reader. These Arkeologists might think that searches to prove its veracity are the most important thing about the ark, but that is not true. They are a side issue. When people learn about it in church/synagoguge/school, do they learn about the searches as a major part? I think not. It is one of many myths about floods around the world. There might be some grain of truth there, but we see no evidence that it was exactly as account X or Y states. Maybe a local flood. Maybe something else. But certainly no proof for one particular version of a flood, let alone a worldwide flood. I have had quite a field day with the Hinduism and Creationism article. In just two days it has had 3 names, and I have had to archive a page of discussion already. Look at what they are doing now. They are an example of what will happen if we teach people in school that the bible is literally true. Very defensive and angry. I would expect more from the country/culture that has produced some of the greatest scientists and mathematicians that the world has ever seen. Wow I am seeing the great unwashed masses now I guess. It is astounding. If I left an article alone for a week, it would be nibbled to death I am sure. They see a quote they do not like from a religious leader, and they say, he does not speak for us and want to erase it. But of course no one leader speaks for all hindus, so they want to erase everything. I do not know how they managed to write the Hinduism article. And very politically correct. Some want to deny that a caste exists or has ever existed, for example. I call it political correctness on steroids.--15:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I think they have finally slowed down. And are more or less calm. The lead looks like a politically correct nightmare, but I had to do it to get it in. Later I might modify it when they are not so worked up about it. They basically want to proclaim how stupid the west is, and how stupid the US (I do agree a bit there on creationism anyway) and twist the sentences around and around to say no creationism exists in Hinduism, even though that is what the article is about, with references and all. I did throw them a bone by pointing out that their high school textbooks include evolution (not very well written by the way from what I saw) and Pakistan's do not. I figured that would make them a bit less likely to attack the article (although Pakistanis might if they find it).--Filll 22:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If you recall, in 1987 Newsweek reported about 700 creationists among 480,000 biologists and geologists in the US, or about 0.14%. So I went to the data from NSF on graduates in biology since then, and figured the field must be growing with all the new graduates, and longer lifespans etc. So I made a crude estimate of how many scientists there were in 2001 who were biologists and geologists; about 780,000 because so many more degrees are being given in biology now (I know it is sloppy but I didnt want to mess around with fitting a curve and integrating etc; I just did a quick and dirty). So the DI 600 Darwin Dissenters (not all are biologists or geologists for sure) turns out to be about 0.077% of the number of biologists and geologists in 2001. Maybe I have to redo this calculation after all I am thinking. But anyway, the result will be the same. To me, the DI Darwin Dissenters are from several years of collection of signatures, and it looks to me that the number supporting creationism in the sciences is going down, probably from all the publicity. And going up in the public, probably from all the publicity.--Filll 22:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the following section to Noah's ark, but everytime I paste it in, it causes the bottom part of the article to disappear. Can you help me out? here's what I wrote:

The Ark

According to Genesis 6:15, the ark was approximately 450 feet long which would make it one of the largest wood ships ever built. In 1909, the schooner Wyoming was built by the Percy & Small shipyard in Bath, Maine. Utilizing state-of-the-art shipbuilding technology, which would not have been available to Noah, she was the longest ship with a wood keel and hull ever built. And at 329 feet, the ship was approximately 120 feet shorter than Noah’s Ark. Percy & Small built sixe other schooners of 300 ft or more. ^{[citation needed]} Seagoing ships, by their nature, are subject to significant stress, and wood is not strong enough to prevent separation at each joint, thereby allowing for water to enter the hull. The Wyoming had 90 steel crossbraces to support the frame of the ship in the hope of reducing leakage.. Even while she was yet on the drawing boards the marine engineers who designed and built her knew from experience with shorter ships that the length of the Wyoming would exceed the structural limits of wood. Even utilizing the best marine engineering principles of the day, the steel bracing could not prevent the flexing and twisting that resulted in the separation of the hull planking. The Wyoming required constant pumping, as did her sister ships. The boat had leaked every day that it was in the water until it sank 14 years later during a storm when it foundered. ^{[citation needed]} It was reported that the Wyoming would snake (movement of the bow and stern from side to side in relation to the amidships) and hog (movement of the bow and stern up and down in relation to the amidships) while underway. The action of the waves, in even calm seas, caused the planking to be sprung beyond the capabilities of any caulking that could be devised.

Few other wood sailing ships were built greater than 300 feet in length. One ship, the Great Republic, built in 1853, was reported to be the longest wooden ship ever built with a length of 325 to 334 feet. This ship also had 90 steel or iron cross braces, each four inches wide, one inch thick and 36 feet long. Unfortunately, she sprung her hull in a storm off of Bermuda and was abandoned when the water in the hold reached 15 feet.

Given that relatively advanced shipbuilding techniques were able to build only marginally seaworthy ships, and ironworking sufficient to build cross braces was not available to Noah, there is little scientific evidence available that an Ark of that size is available..

The animals

According to Wilson and Perlman, 2000, 1.6 million species have been described to date. They estimate that there are probably 30-100 million total species of all organisms on the planet. ^[1] Given that the belief in Noah’s Ark presumes a belief in all of Genesis, all of those animals must have been in existence at that time, and for them to exist today, Noah would have need to “saved” them, according to the myth. Even eliminating sea-dwelling organisms, plants, and other non “air-breathing” animals, 50-100 thousand species would have had to been collected. Some biblical scholars insist that the interpretation of the accounts should be that only a representative of the genus of air-breathing animals were taken (using the word, “kind” of animals, as stated in Genesis), that would be anywhere from 5-15 thousand genera.^{[citation needed]} However, the rate of speciation of complex organisms, such as vertebrates, is anywhere from 10 to 100 thousand years, which indicates that it would be nearly impossible for 15,000 genera to evolve into 50-100 thousand species air-breathing species in just a few thousand years.

Moreover, the people living at that time gave names to each “kind” of animal which is roughly at the level of species ^[2] Furthermore, the Creationist assumptions then mean that most of the species were left off the Ark (over 30-100 million). According to Genesis, "He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground". It becomes difficult to imagine how we have so many species so soon after a catastrophic flood. It would have also been nearly impossible for Noah, in seven days, to collect even a small portion of these species. Some species existed in polar regions (penguins and polar bears), some species on isolated islands in oceanic areas, and some species are only endemic to certain locations (such as Australian marsupials). Within the seven days time allocated to Noah according to the Genesis myth, there would not have been sufficient time to travel the earth to find all of the animals.

Additionally, only a small portion could fit on the Ark, no matter how it was constructed. The weight of the animals would have unbalanced the ship, causing it to founder in rough seas. Predators and prey would have to be separated and fed; therefore, additional weight would have to be supported in the ship. Finally, some creationists and biblical literalists accept fossils as being the remnants of organisms that perished in the flood. This belies the fact that dinosaurs and other extinct animals do not exist, so were not brought aboard the mythological ark.

The Flood

Analysis of the possibility of the flood can be broken into three sections:

1. Where did all the water come from and where did it all go? Setting aside the possibility of sufficient water to cover 10,000 meter mountains, where presumably fossilized sea life would have been deposited by a global food, raising the water level of the world by only a few meters would have raised atmospheric pressures sufficiently high to raise oxygen and nitrogen concentrations to toxic levels. In addition, a “canopy” of water vapor, sufficient to induce rain for 40 days, would have superheated the water, raising it to the boiling point and thereby killing everything in the world (sterilizing it in effect). Water that would have come from beneath the ground (another proposal from Creationists) would also have been superheated by the earth’s core, which would have sterilized the earth also. In effect, most commonly cited methods for the water to come and go depend upon miracles that are not proven by geologic record, cannot happen as a result of physics, and have been dismissed by verifiable science. Therefore, a worldwide catastrophic flood requires reliance upon pseudoscience.
2. Why is there no evidence of a flood? Simple problems such as the difference in substantial erosion of the Appalachian mountains versus the relatively minimal (geologically speaking) erosion of the Himalayans. There is a lack of flood evidence in Greenland ice cores. ^[3] Polar ice caps would have floated in a flood; in fact, some of the ice caps, such as over Greenland and Antarctica could not have reformed in the past 10,000 years because climatic conditions would not have allowed it. Other areas of analysis, tree ring, deep sea sediments, terrestrial sediments and soils, and other geological features lack any data that would show evidence of a global flood. ^{[4] [5]}
3. Why did plants survive? Assuming that Genesis ignores plants, there are currently over 300-500 thousand plant species on earth today. Most plants would be destroyed by submersion for even a few days. The several meters of sediment deposited by such a flood would have smothered any seeds or other plants. Salt water intrusion would also destroy most plants. It is conceivable that Noah collected seeds from plants, but as with collecting animals, plant species range all over the world, not ever plant would have seeds available on the seven days allowed to collect them, and most plants require the right environmental conditions to germinate.

How is that?--Filll 22:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a few small edits on it already. I think it could do with some tightening and shortening. I will cogitate on it.--Filll 02:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw this nice essay on Filll's talk page. But in the WP context, I find the discussion a little besides the point. God is stated as directing the builder, so details about human workmanship are perhaps irrelevant. God could similarly have speeded up speciation to repopulate the earth. No young-earth creationist thinks C14 dating valid, so there's no point arguing on that basis, & anyone who believes in a personal God believes in miracles, and anyone who doesn't believe in a personal God doesn't believe in Noah's flood. Anyway, I don't think what you wrote will pass OR. WP:SNO.

There is a wonderful illustration of the Ark in Diderot's Encyclopédie, emphasizing the sanitary arrangements--it's PD, and should be in Commons. That would be usable. It speaks for itself. I do not think we support evolution by taunting the creationists. DGG 04:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you think this is creationst you misread it. I want to oppose them with every strong argument available, but I do not think this is one. But I apologize for arguing it here.DGG 19:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a great article about Diderot and the ark :[1] I think we could find more.--Filll 19:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a great quote of Diderot:

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

So we all know what side Diderot was on.--Filll 19:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

LMFAO. What would he think about the Creationist Cabal that has gotten control of this place.!!!!????!!!!

Diderot has a huge section the "deluge" at [2]. That is the french version, which we can translate. But I think from a historical perspective, it is fascinating. I did not see any pictures of the "arche" de "Noe" yet but they might be there. I guess he had to make it sound as ludicrous as possible without offending the church, which of course was in bed with the government at the time.--Filll 19:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Diderot's article: User talk:Filll/diderot. Hilarious.--Filll 19:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Diderot's article (or about 1/3 of it anyway) computer translaton into English: User talk:Filll/diderot-eng. --Filll 21:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I convinced my ex-wife to translate it for me. It's costing me a new iPod!!!!! And she's a devout French Orthodox Jew (from the 4 families who weren't killed in Christian, Stalinist and Nazi Pogroms in Lithuania), so she's being a bit cranky about it. LOL. Orangemarlin 21:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What I am wondering about, that might be amusing, and maybe NPOV, is an article on the HISTORY of Noachian Flood skepticism? We can use scholastic studies, Newton's studies, Diderot, Rabbinical writings and debate, and so on and so forth. I think that people have been suspicious of this story forever. In fact, I suspect the author, if he is capable of watching from someplace, is either appalled, or laughing his ass off at us. He probably is having a knee-slapping good time, saying "you IDIOTS!! Dont you understand artistic license!! It is allegory...do I have to spell it out to you? A - L - L - E - G - O - R - Y" I am sure that if there is a God, he is amazed at the willingness of people to decline to use the powers of reason that he gave them. It is like spitting right in God's face!!--Filll 21:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

it looks fine to me. What do you see? Remember clear your cache if you are having problems seeing updates properly.--Filll 23:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this guy I just wrote up: Harry Rimmer--Filll 22:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the text to an earlier version (by yourself) as it had been vandalised. In doing so I reverted your most recent edit, which hadn't removed the vandalism. You may wish to re-add your edit. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 21:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please note that adding Bill Clinton to Category:Grand Companions of the Order of Logohu is not "silly vandalism", do a gogle search and you will see that the Governor General of Papua New Guinea invested him in the Order back in December or January. If hes gonna be in Category Grammy Award Winners I dont see how this one is a problem. Please message back on my talk page. Dowew 02:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the text to an earlier version (by yourself) as it had been vandalised. In doing so I reverted your most recent edit, which hadn't removed the vandalism. You may wish to re-add your edit. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 21:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Please be careful with your use of the undo function. You reinserted a sentence that had nothing whatsoever to do with etymology. Jkelly 04:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I could use some help over on the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008. The Mormon issue is the most significant discusssion of Mitt Romney's campaign. I am trying to establish article content that explores this issue and it continues to be deleted by pro-Mormon editors. Soteriology 18:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I will be glad to help, but I'm a big supporter of WP:NPOV. I'm suspicious of LDS members taking any type of political office, but that's a personal opinion rather than my knowing of a piece of literature that says, "the First Presidency requires all elected LDS officials to tow the line!!!!." My biggest concern with Romney is that he was a liberal Republican (more like a RINO than anything else), and he spouted stuff in campaigns that were decidedly non-Mormon. Then all of sudden, he's a right-wing dogmatic conservative. Amusing. Orangemarlin 18:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

HI Orangemarlin, thanks re: my edit on Romney discussion page: I am sorry, and clearly need to invest a little time in reading your links. I think I get the gist of this though, and will refrain from editing comments/headings on talk pages. Great travel on your user page. Just back from 3 weeks in India, and recommend a visit. Thanks again. Jim CApitol3 22:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem!! Orangemarlin 00:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I was a little to hasty in my revert. Having seen multiple consecutive edits by the same anon-user, caused me to assume vandalism. Next time, I'll examine anon edits more closely before reverting. GoodDay 16:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the anon's valid edits. GoodDay 16:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you're not well. I'll send you some mental chicken soup.--Margareta 18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

hi there, I responded to your comment on treasure ships —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Intranetusa (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

My frustration level with one user has reached a point where it's not longer fun to engage in debate on Evolution and Creationism articles. Hopefully, others will stand up to his POV pushing and ranting, and his subtle ownership of every article. I'd make a case, but that's not my style. I like editing some of the history articles on WWII and English History. Those will be more fun. I hope Filll and others carry the torch. Maybe when that one user realizes that he's not absolutely right on every issue, I can return. But this is insane. The Intelligent design discussion has gone on for two weeks, and it's lost its charm. When one repeats themselves over and over with an expectation of a different result, and that result never happens, it's a sure sign of insanity.Orangemarlin 01:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that deleting messages on the talk page constitutes vandalism, and I didn't delete the comment for personal/political reasons. It was a mistake. I didn't read the entire comment when I deleted the comment. I only saw the heading that said "Worst president" (looks misleading) and the bulk of the comment that said Clinton being the root of all problems etc etc. Such comments are typical on pages of controversial figures like Ayaan Hirsi Ali etc, and I have removed comments before. Template {{notaforum}} produces message that says "This is not a forum for general discussion of -. Any such messages will be deleted." I didn't see the part that suggested that the page include hypothesis about Clinton being the bad president from reliable sources. And so I thought that the comment was irrelevant to the talk page, because the talk page is about discussing changes about the article, not about the subject itself. mirageinred 23:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I wasn't too worried, you seemed like a regular editor, so a lecture from me probably was overkill. However, even though I am a huge Bill Clinton supporter, and can't stand any negative comments, I am also not one to censor. It seems like we're on the same page, so no big deal! Orangemarlin 23:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I happened to notice this discussion & just wanted to mention that WP:BLP in fact encourages editors to remove unsourced opinions and claims about people in talk pages. This tends to be ignored with prominent politicians and the like but if it goes overboard, there is definitely no harm in removing such comments. Even if it's not a BLP, off topic comments are sometimes removed, especially when it goes overboard. Nil Einne 18:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I know, but a famous person like Clinton probably gets a lot of BS like that. To me, it wasn't all that bad. Orangemarlin 21:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Orangemarlin. I was glad I had at last found a reference to this J.G. Bennett, who is mentioned in the article but is quite impossible to find. I had found an abstract of the article I reference on this rather obscure Catastrophism website, but hadn't noticed the article itself wasn't free. A pity. Maybe this Bennett will have to be dropped sometime; there surely are others who have claimed the same as he. Classical geographer 07:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would think that this type of historical relationship would have been studied by a number of individuals. I would prefer, although I do not own the article, that we find a reference that isn't trying to "prove" the Moses story through the Thera eruption, rather someone who might show how the myth arose from the eruption. Subtle difference, but keeping a religious POV out of the article will reduce arguments. Orangemarlin 09:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hockey editor? I'm an editor of many talents, master of none (see my contributions). Right or wrong, my fingerprints are over many US Presidential & Vice Presidential related articles. PS- Can anyone 'source' the correct date for Kucinich's introducing Impeachment articles against Dick Cheney? Is it April 25, 2007 (at Dennis Kucinich) or April 24, 2007 (at Dick Cheney). GoodDay 21:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll stick with the 'Al Gore Jr' edit (afterall, it's still wiki-linked to 'Al Gore'). No harm done. GoodDay 22:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it was filed today, 4/24/07. Impeachment ResolutionOrangemarlin 22:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. GoodDay 22:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 04:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Got it and replied.  :) Orangemarlin 04:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry ;) David D. (Talk) 01:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for what? You didn't do anything!!!! Orangemarlin 01:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for misleading you. I came across as trollish instead of funny. David D. (Talk) 16:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually thought you were being nice to said anonymous troll. I thought you were serious, but much nicer than I would be! Anyways, maybe I came across as too tough, but I really suffer those kind fools poorly. Orangemarlin 16:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Its depressing. Have you seen the cell biology animation from Harvard? There is a copy at youtube. It is depressing how many of the comments are about evolution/religion rather than appreciating the science that has allowed us to paint this quite realistic picture of the inner workings of a cell. Science is being hijacked by the lowest common denominator. We need to stop that, so I understand your short fuse. David D. (Talk) 16:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't get a thorough look at all your edits, but am I correct that you replaced a NY Times article with an article from the Tai Chi Productions site? Tai Chi Productions is a commercial enterprise and is hardly a reliable published source (much less on par with the Times factual accuracy). VanTucky 19:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. Dunno why, but the history was giving me a weird visual of the edit differences that made it hard to see what was what. Thanks for your contribs to the page! VanTucky 18:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you (loch ness monster name anagram) that a reference would be useful, and I'm sure there will be lots as I've read it in a couple of books in that past. However, until a reference is found, I think it would still be a good idea to have the anagram explanation on the page; it is clearly not original research, and it is clearly a deliberate anagram - 'monster hoax by sir peter s' is so relevant and non-nonsenical that it isn't coincidence. For these reasons, I'm going to add the anagram to the page, and it can be referenced by somebody in due course. Thank you, Saccerzd 00:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me know if they stop by, again, and I'll be happy to block them for awhile. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I just wonder why they've targeted me, especially since I haven't edited any article that they have. Orangemarlin 23:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure i always enjoy helping another wikipedan. This kinda stuff happens to me too Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk 23:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You know you can report this to WP:AIV or get an someone to block this IP and you didn't place the warning tags in order,take careArnon Chaffin ^{Got a message?} 15:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Already reported it. And I'm not sure what you mean by not placing the warning tags in order? BTW, I leave this stuff on my talk page, because a number of us are humored by it. I eventually archive it, so I can search out who might have done these things in the past. Orangemarlin 16:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to dig through the page history here to find the latest insult...which was indeed unimaginative. Perhaps we should offer a tutorial for under-educated editors? "The Fine Art of Insults". Doc Tropics 16:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If you remember the Steve Martin movie, Roxanne, which was loosely based on Cyrano, he let out a long rant of insults that a big oaf could make about his nose. It was funny, creative, and very intelligent. Calling me an "asshole" is pretty light. Being the only Jewish kid in my high school in Utah required a high level of tolerance, and I would force kids to up their level of insulting if they wanted to take me on. Of course, being 6'2", 200lbs and fairly strong in high school tended to keep the insults to a very light level. Orangemarlin 16:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

OMG, a Jew in Utah? You poor bastard! That's actually worse than growing up as an intellectual in a Wisconsin farm town. It's ironic that you should mention Roxanne and Cyrano...I was going to mention what a striking resembelance I bear to the masterful Cyrano. Really, my nose is a thing of wonder...people wonder if it's real or if I'm wearing a mask : ) Doc Tropics 16:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It was sad. I actually was born and raised in Southern California, where I thought that everyone was either a Survivor, child of a Survivor, Jewish-California native, or, rarely, a Gentile. My father, who decided that he needed open air, mountains, etc., moved us there. There was one Synagogue. Approximately 1500 members of the Tribe. It was really a traumatic experience. There were no bagels. No hamantash. Friends from California had to ship us matzah for Passover. And then there were the citizens of Utah. Blonde blue-eyed aryans everywhere. A Jew's nightmare. LOL. Orangemarlin 16:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for kicking me while I'm down. And you call me evil? Doc Tropics 22:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I hear you're the expert on dinosaurs around here. If you have a second for a pathetic Apple user, I've been unable to find any information on something that's been driving me crazy for many years. I cannot for a moment believe that the K-T event executed 100% of the dinosaur species in existence at that time. It seem unconceivable, because at every extinction event, some percentage of species (and even genera) survived. Mammals survived K-T, which must have been an adequate food source for at least smaller dinosaurs. Is there any evidence that dinosaurs survived the K-T even for a few million years. Please exclude birds, because they evolved prior to the K-T event. Or maybe the Flood is right?  :) Orangemarlin 00:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Orangemarlin!

I'm not an expert, but I write a ton of dinosaur articles around here. There is some very limited evidence for dinosaurs in the Cenozoic, aside from birds. However, you have to consider the Enantiornithes: many birds also did not survive the K-T extinction event, either. So it wasn't an all-or-nothing situation: many early birds also went the way of the dinosaurs, as did many other groups of sauropsids: the mosasaurs, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, pliosaurs, and pterosaurs. There is (I caution: very limited) evidence for non-avian Cenozoic dinosaurs, discussed at Dinosaur#Evidence_for_Cenozoic_dinosaurs: Zielinski and Budahn (2002) found a fossil bone of a hadrosaur leg bone in Cenozoic strata 64.5 million years ago, but this could have been a fluke caused by weathering. Other rumors have been misrepresentations of theories that aren't supported by fossil evidence. I'm not aware of any newer findings which support evidence for Cenozoic dinosaurs beyond the K-T Boundary: right up to the boundary, yes. but not beyond it. Does this help you? Probably not. If it helps, you could also think of it like this: some paleontologists think the number of dinosaur genera was already slightly declining in the Maastrichtian (though others dispute this). Firsfron of Ronchester 01:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and expert is a relative thing. You know more than I, so that makes you one! For some reason, 64.5 million years ago sounds like it could be within rounding error of the K-T event, unless you're going to tell me that dating of fossils from that period of time can be made accurate. Anyways, this sounds fascinating to me. I would think that a few species survived somewhere on the planet. Of course, now this begs the question: if they all died, was the extinction event selective for reptiles and not mammals and birds? Orangemarlin 03:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The K-T event was around 65.5 million years ago, so the hadrosaurid bone is about a million years past expiration date, if it's not a case of weathering. The formation the fossils were in had previously been thought to have been Cretaceous, but pollen samples indicates it is actually Paleocene. You can read the PDF here. As for the extinction event, it didn't just affect reptiles: the Enantiornithes are also not found after the Cretaceous. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I realize some species of birds and mammals also were wiped out at K-T. What I meant was why did it completely wipe out the dinosaurs, and not completely wipe out everything else? In other words, I guess I'm still skeptical that at least one species of dinosaur lasted say another few million years. This bone does sound intriguing though, if what you're saying is that we can actually accurately date to that level of sensitivity. Orangemarlin 06:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean, Orangemarlin; it's hard to believe everything got wiped out so quickly (though only "quickly" on a massive timescale). Personally, (and this is my own theory) I think it had to do with size: all the largest animals were killed off, leaving just the smallest animals. The smallest dinosaurs roughly around the K-T boundary were, like Troodon (6 feet long); only the very smallest animals would have been able to survive a cataclismic event... But the hadrosaurid fossil is intriguing... Hey, nice work on Hanauma Bay! Firsfron of Ronchester 06:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting theory. I guess I pictured dinosaurs that were small, maybe the size of a dog or cat, which could be efficient predators. Of course, an event such as the K-T extinction, might have made predation very difficult. Thanks on the Hanauma Bay article. I just cleaned up the mess, it still needs a few references. I enjoy the various volcano articles, so I've tried to improve a few. You should see what a few of us did over a couple of weeks with Minoan eruption. I don't edit medical articles, because I'd write it like a medical reference article, and that's not good. I actually referred to one because I needed some quick information, hated the article so much that I rewrote a bunch of it. Then I stopped because it wasn't fun. Evolution, volcanos, hockey, a few biographies, and that's my quirky interests. I'll have to tell you that the Extinction event articles need a lot of cleanup--a couple of them lack references. I might tackle one or two, because I usually end up learning a lot by doing it. Orangemarlin 07:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if you spend your hobby doing the same thing you do for a living, it can get to be not much fun. I'm stretched pretty thin with Dinosauria, or I'd probably pitch in to help clean up some other articles, such as extinction. But I figure there are probably around 500 dinosaur articles which need better (or any) references, and are in need of serious expansion. Hanauma Bay looks like a lovely place; I'm eager to return to Hawai'i someday. I've only been able to visit Maui, but it was a great vacation. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been reading a few articles of post K-T dinosaurs, including the solitary hadrosaur bone. Compelling evidence, but one freaking bone doesn't exactly convince me! Well, the article living dinosaurs must be pseudoscience at the best. Orangemarlin 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. That's a terrible article. How embarrassing. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Cough cough. Uhhhh, you could help me edit it to be a lot more NPOV. Remember, you don't have to accept living dinosaurs to be NPOV, you just need to make sure myth and pseudoscience is balanced with actual science. I've been slowly adding in science when I have a chance, but I'm not a paleontologist, nor do I play one on TV. There are a lot of articles that drive me nuts. Try Flood geology if you want to be truly annoyed. Orangemarlin 01:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Orangemarlin,

I was a little surprised by your reversion of my edits to the "inheritance mechanism" paragraph. I'll gladly confess to being a worse writer than Tim, but my edits were pretty innocuous, no? I'm not interesting in reverting them or arguing — there's enough heat over there ;) — but I'd just like to take the opportunity to learn better. I'd be grateful if you could explain what was awry.

Was it perhaps using "hypothesis" for the Watson-Crick model of B-DNA? To me, it seems a stretch to say that they "demonstrated" the mechanism of inheritance, since they didn't take any experimental data. In that era, many scientists proposed various structures for proteins and DNA; some were wrong and but others were later confirmed by experiment data. That's why "hypothesis" seemed better to me. Just a suggestion, Willow 03:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I make so many different edits in a day, that I cannot remember each one. Can you tell me which article? It sounds like the Evolution article, so I'll give a look and post an answer here. Orangemarlin 03:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What a great article! Thanks for bringing this to my attention; I'm happy to have the chance to work on a quality piece which seems unlikely to erupt in controversy. So far I've just read through it briefly and tweaked a couple of words in the first 2 paragraphs. I have to attend to some chores in RL, but I'll be back ASAP. One question: While I have a strong personal preference for using metric units, it might be wise to include English (ie, dumbass American) units in parenthesis. Any objections to adding those into the article (I don't mind doing the math and adding the parens)? Doc Tropics 15:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Since it's an article about a European event, I decided to stick with metric. But if we have to pander to those Americans who don't understand metric (which I really believe isn't all that large any more), then I guess we must :) Tweak away as you see fit. I don't own it, but I had fun researching a lot of it!!!! Orangemarlin 16:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for pointing this one out. It was a lot of fun working with you, and a nice change of pace from Vandal Patrols and talkpage shouting matches. I'm definitely willing to put in some effort and try to raise the rating. What do you think we should focus on next? Doc Tropics 23:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm working to get this one to GA status. I'm not sure if it's notable enough to be FA, but then again, if it resets the Chronology, this may well be very notable. My next project (which I'm just starting) is cleaning up of the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event. I was editing it during lunch (hard to eat a salad and edit), and I noticed that it didn't reference Alvarez anywhere. NO. NOWHERE!!!!!!!!!!! WTF????? That was the first thing I did. Considering how important it is to Dinosaurs (well, they might not agree), it should be an FA without a doubt. Your help in getting it there will be appreciated. I reworked the lead and the Alvarez section, so take anything else. Maybe we can get our friendly Paleontologist to help out, because it's a critical article. Orangemarlin 23:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that GA status will be no problem with just a bit more work. If we use the intro to place more emphasis on the cataclysmic nature of the event and its significance in the ancient world, it might well be considered for FA...especially with a few bribes in the right place. I'll take a look at Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event the next time I'm on for an extended period; RL activites will have me off-line for awhile. Doc Tropics 00:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

When you get a chance, please review the latest discussion here and check the link that SkiDragon provided. Copyvio issues are something we need to be seriously careful about, and I want to be sure this gets handled correctly. Thanks. Doc Tropics 01:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

{{reflist|2}} only works with Mozilla Firefox at the moment; it puts the references in two columns. Verisimilus T 09:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't use Firefox, but it's here on my desktop. I'll give it a try. Thanks for the tip! Orangemarlin 14:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been considering what to get you for your next birthday. At first I thought that a lifetime subscription to The Watchtower would be perfect for you, but now I'm leaning towards the classically elegant "scorpion in your boot" as a more heartfelt expression of my feelings. So many possibilities...Doc Tropics 19:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You have a few months. I have a wall that is requires a nice plasma screen TV. I think it could fit a 52" version. Of course, there's a Ferrari that would look nice in my garage. Just a couple of hints. Orangemarlin 20:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity and let me know what you think of this first effort.--Filll 20:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I did not want to trod on too many physician's toes unnecessarily, but I did want to make the point that this is a fringe movement with little authority.--Filll 21:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Thomas E. Woodward. Thanks.--Filll 23:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My post was more targetted at the entire group of posters above you, rather then at you specifically. Don't take it too personally :D Things get tough at RfA sometimes. mostly because a lot of people are feeling that a large group of admins is totally loosing touch with the community as a whole. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Admins I know seem to be doing a great job. But then again, I'm never sure who is and who isn't. Orangemarlin 23:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you read this you will be forfilled. Besides, I'm pretty sure he's talking about you. Doc Tropics 01:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to find forfilled in my OED. Damn. Can't find it. Orangemarlin 01:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

While I don't have a ref to support the hypothesis, I suspect there must be a religious injunction against spellcheck software. Doc Tropics 01:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

My father's Byzantine Catholic parish had a junior cantor who sang "forfilled" every time he came across the word. I'm pretty sure it was spelled correctly in the books.... TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was a major misspelling. I didn't really go to the OED. Now I will. Orangemarlin 02:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry no. I just checked OED which has every word ever used in the English language, and it's not there. Maybe we're misspelling the misspelling? Orangemarlin 02:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It is one of the more obscure laws in the Old Testament: "Verily, ye shall speak and spell like an f-ing moron". I am surprised you didnt run across it before.--Filll 02:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fill, you're getting really cranky in your old age! Orangemarlin 02:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Besides, he misquoted. The KJV very clearly says "knowing moron". (You know, the version called Authorized because it's the only one authorized by God himself?) TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. If we're going to quote the KJV, let's do it right. Orangemarlin 02:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I never said Popups doesn't work on a Mac, I said WP:VP2 doesn't. WP:VP2 clearly states that it "is a Windows-based application developed for the English language Wikipedia that will allow users to participate in the coordinated reviewing of edits". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi – thanks for the message, and you're quite welcome! Popups should work in any browser with JavaScript enabled so don't turn JavaScript off in Safari's Preferences, or at least don't turn it off while you're working here.

I like popups so well that it bums me out when I go to other websites and I can't see a preview when I mouse over hyperlinks. Popups for everyone!! :-D

If you ever need Mac help or have questions, just ask – if I don't know the answer, I know someone who does. See ya - KrakatoaKatie 09:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

To Ten Pound Hammer--I'm very defensive of Macs, and you made it sound like our Mac's don't work so well with Wikipedia. That's all. Orangemarlin 16:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

To Katie--I'm having fun with popups now, although if I don't clear the cache frequently, the popups seem to "stick" to the page. I'm using Safari. Just can't get away from the .mac syncing of Bookmarks!!! Thanks for the offer too, I'll be sure to ask. Orangemarlin 16:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I haven't had that cache-clearing problem.

I forgot to crosspost my reply to Gaff here so you could see it – he asked about other tools I use and I listed TextExpander, NetNewsWire, and Butler. I'd copy/paste my reply to Gaff here, but it's probably easier for you to go there.

As for Butler: Butler is the IChing. Butler is the Tao of Macdom. Butler is the Answer for Every Inconvenience. Butler washes your car and polishes the chrome. I don't think I use 1/3 of its capability and I'm still in love. I would tell you how I have it configured but Rob Griffiths does a much better job, and here is more on how to configure its Custom Pasteboards (and macosxhints.com has a bunch of hints about Butler and everything else).

I have Butler set to pop up a Google search window when I type Control-Option-G, a VersionTracker search with Control-Option-T, and an IMDB search with Control-Option-M – no matter what software app I'm using at the time. I have my last 100 clipboards saved, so I can paste the text or URL I copied 45 minutes and 11 clipboards ago into my current page or document.

Butler may not be for you – people who use launcher utilities are loyal to their particular favorite. My brother the PowerUser swears by DragThing, but I don't get it and he likewise doesn't like Butler. Quicksilver is gaining a lot of converts, and some like LaunchBar. As for me, Butler has my enduring love. It's donationware, and I gladly paid the $20. Check it out. Have a great weekend!! KrakatoaKatie 07:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you mentioned it twice, what was the etymology of your question? Dan Watts 17:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Orangemarlin 17:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not giving up on our project but I'm a bit scattered and brain-fried today; I don't want to attempt any serious editing until I'm back in focus. I think it's very encouraging that those reviewing the article have been relatively positive. I don't think it will take too long to whip this into shape : ) Doc Tropics 20:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, it's hard fighting each time someone blocks you. If only you were a better person, you wouldn't be so tired. Anyways, I've soldiered on with a couple of changes to the article. I think it reads better. I think. Orangemarlin 20:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it does, but despite your alleged improvements, I'm going to the Village Pump and offering 50 bucks to the first Admin that gives you a lifetime ban. God I love capitalism! Doc Tropics 20:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You probably don't need to bribe them in my case. They may pay you. Orangemarlin 20:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, there's probably a reward for turning you in. BTW - you've got mail! Doc Tropics 21:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is someone offering a bribe for blocking the funny colored fish? He tried to steal my steak, you know. We could probably get Bishzilla to eat him for free. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting that steak if it's the last thing I do. Orangemarlin 21:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

</ Doc smacks own head> Bishzilla! Why didn't I think of that? This potty-mouthed piscine would be the merest morsel for the mighty 'Zilla. Plus it'll save me 50 bucks. Doc Tropics 22:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The results for AP tests don't come back until like June or something, their standardized :/. Didn't see anything about evolution in the test though. Homestarmy 03:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL. You should have looked harder!Orangemarlin 03:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It was hard enough just taking the test normally, never mind looking around for invisible bonus questions dealing with evolutionary theory. And what would of happened if I didn't see the invisible bubble and bubbled the wrong area, the test screening machine might of docked me a point. Homestarmy 03:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL. I remember taking 5 AP tests during my senior year in High School. I believe that became the point where I decided the whole world was an evil place made up of some evil people inventing evil tests. LOL. By the way, one of those tests was in Chemistry. But don't even ask me to read the Chemistry article on Wikipedia.  :) Orangemarlin 05:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

... this. Good luck! Fourth time's the charm! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 01:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

...If at first you don't succeed, try try try and try again. LOL. I've put in some more pictures, and tried to use some stuff I found at the German article that you linked. Thanks. Orangemarlin 01:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to break the news, but I guess there are non-avian dinosaurs alive today. You need to fly to Loch Ness and change everything you've ever edited on Wikipedia. Bad news for evolution, the K-T extinction event, and your credibility. Orangemarlin 01:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't get the linked video to work, but if it's anything like the previous 50 videos, it's a blobsquatch. The article says some nonsense about living dinosaurs, but my understanding is that the last video showed a paddle-like fin, like what a plesiosaur, mosasaur, or ichthyosaur would have, and quite unlike a dinosaur's legs. The article also compares the creature to an eel, which has no legs at all. I can only guess you sent me this link to darken my doorstep with nonsense. So I have no recourse, my friend, but to respond in kind: Clear evidence Bigfoot is an extraterrestrial "... Almost a dozen advanced physicsts (sic) (PhDs) now suggest that stange (sic) beings and things may pass between parallel universes in a "muliverse" (sic)" Happy reading! ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 05:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that I was being sarcastic. The video was a line in the water with waves moving out from the line. It was something, but the video was very shaky, the line indistinctive, and it could be explained by any number of usual suspect phenomena. Please don't give me a 24 hour block for spamming your talk page!!!! Orangemarlin 06:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, now I'm going to have to start an ANI because you are spamming my page. Could you have found a worse website? I mean if you're going to start a conspiracy theory, at least buy a decent web designing program, or think differently and get Mac. That was just horrible. I'm sending you a bill for my keyboard, because I just tossed my dinner on it. You're just a terrible admin for doing that to an innocent person like me. AAAAAAAAAAwwwwwwwwwwww. Orangemarlin 07:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understood you were being sarcastic, and was responding in kind. You ask "Could you have found a worse website?"; indeed, I can: the same website, in 2004: "WANT TO ATTRACT BIGFOOT ??? BRING KIDS ALONG!! We have said this, since 1977. Bring women also." (Warning: Contains images of three-breasted Sasquatch and Bigfoot wearing tampons). You did ask, OM. Enjoy! ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 07:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you know that kind of thing just isn't acceptable around here. You're going to have to supply another source if you want to comply with WP:PORN. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Shira, please tell me that you're being funny and not serious. Orangemarlin 20:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

He is: WP:PORN is only a guideline, anyway! ;) So did you check out the above site? It's incredible! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 20:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I love dry sense of humor, but that was so dry, I believe I saw a duststorm float by. Orangemarlin 23:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You supported my candidacy in my recently completed request for adminship. The debated ended 40/4/1 and I'm now an administrator. I'd just like to say thanks for taking the time to consider me, and thanks for the confidence in me. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Regards, WilyD

The article Minoan eruption you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Minoan eruption for things needed to be addressed. Good luck, --Victor12 22:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I currently have lots of free time since I've just finished writing my thesis, but that'll end soon. Anyway, having checked the MOS again, you're right, it's not clear. They say "spell out units" and then "use standard abbreviation". Regarding this, I guess it is alright to keep the article the way it is. Greetings, --Victor12 02:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my absence, I can see you've been hard at work. RL was more hectic than usual this week and didn't leave me with time or energy for WP. Fortunately I'm about to clear the last hurdle; my brother-in-law is staying with us (along with his 4 kids) while his wife is out of town, but they'll be headed home tomorrow. You have no idea how much I look forward to that! They're a nice family, but I'm used to peace and quiet (and a lot more time for WP). I'll get back to editing/vandalizing and otherwise annoying you ASAP. BTW - I sent you an email over a week ago, did you not get it? Nothing important, just the usual (jokes and insults). Doc Tropics 16:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The article Minoan eruption you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Minoan eruption for eventual comments about the article. Congratulations! It's pretty well researched and has definite FA potential. Hope you find time to keep working on it. Greetings, --Victor12 20:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Aww! Thank you, they're delicious. Just like old times! Bishonen | talk 13:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC).

Very low calorie too. Secret ingredients. Orangemarlin 15:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering this... I'd actually 'support' a 'view' to that effect, if you were to add it.
(Incidentally, I'm not surprised you don't like poutine. Looking at your user page... well, speaks for itself, really. Mac users really have no taste.) Seriously though, when was the last time you had a really good poutine? With real cheese curds, and good strong gravy and... ... ah dangit. Now I want poutine. :( Bladestorm 15:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at that link, but let me comment on that thing you Canadians call food. I've had it twice. Once, when I went to visit the Montreal offices of a Canadian subsidiary. Didn't like it then. And, not too far away, is a Canadian cafe'. Didn't like that one either. I did love this desert called ninimo bars. Delish. Orangemarlin 15:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

... americans don't have nanaimo bars? ... ouch. (Also, what about butter tarts with pecans? "All dressed" chips?) Bladestorm 16:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
(addition) YOU EVIL EVIL EVIL PERSON! NOW I WANT NANAIMO BARS! And I don't know where to get some offhand. :( Bladestorm 16:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, we Americans do not eat nanaimo bars. And that is sad!!!! Orangemarlin 17:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I just heard. :) Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Merci. My first one!!!! Orangemarlin 17:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate that. It's funny, I was honestly a gnats whisker away from coming here and asking for your help with that. I know, that you don't have much sympathy for those sucked in by quacksalvers and witch doctors, but a lot of them really just don't understand the difference between science and bunk. No wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance, I can't remember who said that, but he was bang on the money. The bit that really sets my blood boiling, is these faddish indian traditional "remedies"... I went there a couple of years back ( see the old country and all that ), and every time I passed some poor sod scooting along on wheeled board, because his legs had been mangled by polio, I thought of the two drops of SABIN OPV I'd had before leaving. Ignorance, plain and simple. India's a wealthy country that produces world class doctor, scientists and professionals, and yet it's still full of people who think lepers are being punished by god, that girl-children are a curse and should be killed at birth by their parents. Fat-arse westerners who go there looking for "spiritual enlightenment" or "ancient healing secrets" are feeding that ignorance, not to mention bringing it back here (I say "here" in the broadest possible sense of the word) were we should know better. grrrrr. ornis 22:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that after some of these dilutions, maybe one molecule is in solution? What does it do in the body? Replicate itself right after the flood buried the dinosaurs 10,000 years ago? There are a lot of editors willing to stand up to the POV warriors. For me, there was a time that I thought Wikipedia was just a Christian and right-wing propaganda machine. Now, I'm pretty clear it isn't. Orangemarlin 04:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well in a pinch, it could save you from dying of dehydration I guess. But I believe in order to cure aids, cancer and world hunger, the water first needs to be energised with omega-beams from reverse engineered alien technology out at area 51. One molecule? I think you're being generous. To be honest homeopathy mystifies me nearly as much as crystal healing... it's tap water... why don't people see that? Anyway I know what you mean about right-wing christians, I got involved basically because reading some of their crap pissed me off so much. ornis 06:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't talk about aliens, because obviously they are the designer of the everything living on earth.  :) Orangemarlin 06:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Creation science, or rather, bible literalism, is far more frightening though... it's not so much the first book that bothers me, as the last one. ornis 06:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow thanks. I'm smiling  :) Hey, note the anonymous vandal below! Orangemarlin 07:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Groningen. I must admit that I've never managed to get as far north as that! I agree on osseworst, but then Dutch meat products are in a class of their own anyway. JFW | T@lk 20:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)