text:
Talk:Intelligent designer

is/are?
There's some subject-verb agreement issues in this and related articles. I appears some of the articles have the British standard (the intelligent design movement are ___), and others the US standard (the intelligent design movement is ___). I'd argue for singular verbs throughout, but I thought we might disccus this. My reson for this is because the movement is largely based in the US and has the most influence here. Thoughts? Jokestress 01:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's go American English unless someone objects. I don't want to read the history and see who used what standard first. Dave (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

AfD
Errors committed by this article:

1. It connects the identity of the designer to the Abrahamic God based solely on the religious affiliation of some ID advocates, not on their written or spoken assertions.

2. It admits ID advocates, when advocating ID, do not identify the designer (except in their "expressed views" of their personal faith) in order to maintain its status as a fork separate from the God article.

3. No citations are given from ID advocates expressing a preference for the Abrahamic God as the designer (as opposed to the generic creator invoked by the Declaration of Independence or in the Pledge of Allegience).

4. This article is a distillation of information already covered in depth in the Intelligent design article. It is as redundant as creating an article called "UFO pilots" to accompany an article called "Piloted UFOs".

Endomion 19:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought you said you're an inclusionist wikipedian? Wouldn't an inclusionist wikipedian fix errors, not just delete the article?

Your arguments are specious at best, canards at worst. All leading ID have stated explicitly that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, see section below. There's no shortage of statements to this effect, so just add them to the article if you think the connection in the article is weak. FeloniousMonk 19:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

 * All four of your arguments are incorrect. The article needs to be kept.  Jim62sch 23:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The word "Intelligent Designer" does not appear in the dictionary, it is a redundancy like "House home".  And if I thought the article for "Interior Design" was too big does that mean I get to start one for "Interior Designer"?  Endomion 02:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Articles are encouraged to stay under 35k - so if any article gets too big you are supposed to spin off material into daughter articles. You spin off coherent bits - this is a coherent bit.  Guettarda 02:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I foresee a time when the Intelligent designer article gets so big we need to go to an Intelligent designerer article. Endomion 03:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

 * If you can forsee how it would make a coherent article, I won't question your judgment. Maybe it'll be the millionth - Guettarda 03:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I'll add the phrase "intelligent designerer" to my vocabulary. That's an excellent term. See turtles all the way down. Thanks, Endomion! Dave (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I used to think that the infinite regression argument was a good one. Now I see.  It's so simple.  The intelligent designerer was designed by the intelligent designererer which was designed by the intelligent designerererer which was designed by the intelligent designerererer which was designed by the intelligent designererererer which was designed by the intelligent designerererererer which was designed by the intelligent designererererererer which was designed by the intelligent designerererererererer... would it be violating WP:POINT to make an article called intelligent designerer and have it redirect to intelligent designer? Dave (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Endomion's points seem to have at least some validity. We should make a distinction between attacking the theory and attacking the theory's adherents (confer the ad hominem fallacy).  Note for instance this section:

 * The intelligent design movement is a neo-creationist campaign that arose out of the previous Christian fundamentalist and evangelistic creation science movement.

 * Now, is intelligent design neo-creationism? It might be, depending on how one defines creationism.  But if one uses the definition of creationism that Wikipedia uses, the answer is no, because intelligent design theory does not make any reference to deities, religious literature, or the supernatural (at least when it comes to life on Earth).  Suppose it is true that all ID adherents believe in God and they all have unsavory religious motives for introducing ID theory into the classrooms.  That would not have any bearing on ID theory itself, which makes no mention of deities (again, confer the ad hominem fallacy) and evidently contains nothing that could be considered inherently religious.

 * The idea that ID arose out of Christian fundamentalist and evangelistic creation science movement is also a bit fishy. Behe for instance (one of the leading proponents of ID) is not a fundamentalist nor did he ever believe in "creation science."  Dembski was not a creation science adherent either to my knowledge.  Perhaps some citations should be given here?  --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Now, is intelligent design neo-creationism? It might be, depending on how one defines creationism.  But if one uses the definition of creationism that Wikipedia uses, the answer is no, because intelligent design theory does not make any reference to deities, religious literature, or the supernatural (at least when it comes to life on Earth).  -- Please be more careful with your criticisms. In particular, there is a distinction between the Intelligent design movement and Intelligent design. We are very explicit here at Wikipedia in distinguishing between them.

 * There are plenty of citations available at the Intelligent design movement article that explains where the motivations of the movement seem to be derived. In particular, Philip Johnson has basically said that the reason to encourage the ID movement is to get a foot in the door, if you will, of mainstream science with the possibility of design so that some teleological acceptance for the possibility of God is accepted by the "atheistic" "secular" "materialists". It's all outlined in the Wedge strategy. --ScienceApologist 18:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The Designer (formerly known as God), and ID proponents views

 * "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," --Dembski. Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4. July/August, 1999
 * "intelligent design should be understood as the evidence that God has placed in nature to show that the physical world is the product of intelligence and not simply the result of mindless material forces. This evidence is available to all apart from the special revelation of God in salvation history as recounted in Scripture. ... To be sure, creationists who support intelligent design think it does not go far enough in elucidating the Christian understanding of creation. And they are right!  ... Even so, there is an immediate payoff to intelligent design: it destroys the atheistic legacy of Darwinian evolution. Intelligent design makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. This gives intelligent design incredible traction as a tool for apologetics, opening up the God-question to individuals who think that science has buried God" --Dembski
 * "If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient." --Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1999.
 * "Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God." -Dembski, Science Test, Church & State Magazine, July/August 2000.
 * "The world is a mirror representing the divine life," ... "The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." --Dembski, Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, Brazos Press, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2001.
 * "Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration." --Dembski, Intelligent Design's Contribution To The Debate Over Evolution: A Reply To Henry Morris, 2005
 * "My thesis is that all disciplines find their completion in Christ and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ." --Dembski, Intelligent Design, p 206.
 * "And another thing I think we need to be aware of is that not every instance of design we see in nature needs to be directly attributed to God. Certainly as Christians we believe there is an angelic hierarchy - it's not just that there's this physical material world and there's God. There can be various hierarchies of intelligent beings operating, God can work through what can be called derived intelligences - processes which carry out the Divine will, but maybe not perfectly because of the fall." --Dembski, Fellowship Baptist Church, Waco, Texas, March 7, 2004
 * "The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'" --Johnson, Church and State Magazine, April 1999
 * "The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created." Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message." --Johnson, Forward to Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science, 2000
 * "We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator." --Johnson. LA Times, March 25, 2001

And so on... I've got about 140 more quotes attributing the designer as God if this isn't sufficient. FeloniousMonk 19:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

 * God is an ambiguous word. If the ID movement says the designer is the Abrahamic God then put that quote in the article.  If the ID movement says the designer is someone else, put that quote in the article.  But regardless of whether article is speculating that the designer is either a God which is already described in the God article, or a God that is not yet described in the God article, the article is named incorrectly and should be titled Intelligent design theology.     Endomion 21:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

 * ID movement says two things. While they hold in faith that the intelligent designer will turn out to be their version of God they simultaneously claim (for the benefit of those who dislike creationism) that the intelligent designer could be an alien or a time traveling biochemist. --ScienceApologist 23:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

 * If ID proponents indeed have beliefs in a theist God, perhaps those people should write articles about their beliefs rather than letting their political enemies define their beliefs for the public. The central point made byID critics is that ID proponents are omitting the identity of the creator in order to make it sound scientific. So this is an article about nothing. Endomion 02:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Endo, did you read the quotes? A believer in some unnamed, could-be-anygod god would not be quoting from the Bible.  And no, the article need not be called ID theology.  Weren't you griping about POV a while back?  What do you think a title like that would be?  Jim62sch 23:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

 * If there are quotes from ID proponents citing bible verses, then that ID proponent is by definition a creationist (not even a neocreationist). Endomion 02:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The individual may indeed be a creationist. That is not the official position of the ID proponents as a group, or the primary originators of Intelligent design. They postulate that the designer may be God. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * In other words, woo hoo, we have attributation. A leading ID proponent is a creationist and and IDist, and believes that the Christian God, or one of his minions, was directly responsible for the existance of the world.
 * Endomion, your objections to the quotes were that it wasn't clear Dembski was talking about the Abrahamic god, and that the article is named in such away that it will cover only a divine being. Both objections have been rebutted: he quotes from the bible and refers to christianity, thus he is talking about the Abrahamic god, and IDists officially hold that it is possible that we were created by the deliberate actions of aliens. Do you have any more objections? -- Ec5618 10:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I got a million of 'em. For one thing, this article, by appending the suffix -er to an existing article on Intelligent design, basically duplicates the POV of that one, giving it double exposure on WikiPedia (which was the First Cause, so to speak, for my suggestion it be removed).  But it is apparent the AfD process will result in a 'keep' when it plays out. With that precedent established, I could write a similar article about things that ID-opponents really must privately believe in but say in the press that they dont.  But I am not the type of person who uses WikiPedia as a performance art venue.  Endomion 13:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

(decrease indent) Has it occured to you that consensus is against you, indicating you might be mistaken in your belief that this article is inappropriate? KillerChihuahua?!? 13:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm confused. Didn't you want to redirect this article to God?  Aren't you Catholic?  Why are you fighting the assertion that ID identifies god? By the way, I address your argument about double exposure above.  Dave (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't see why this article is required - the information could easily be put in the ID article... However, I think it is absolutely important to underline and stress the fact that ID proponents considers IDer to be the Christian God. This is the core and purpose of the ID movement and it is what invalidates ID as a pseudoscience. It's its greatest strength and weakness at the same time - and it should be included in any article about ID. May the Wiki be With us! WanderingWiki 23:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Bundhus
I have now removed this from the article twice, on the grounds that it is badly written, fails to make a point, fails to introduce this 'Tony Bundhus', fails to introduce this 'theory', etc, etc.

"The Theory of Reproductive Thought gives some insight to what this intelligent designer might be. Tony Bondhus explains in his Theory of Reproductive Thought, that the process of thinking is simply the process of combining two pieces of information and producing a result. The process of sexual reproduction is also a process of combining two or more pieces of information and producing a result. The process of sexual reproduction is therefore a thinking process. Tony Bondhus combines this theory with Gaia Theory and Evolution Theory, to create Highlife Theory, which shows the existence of a super intelligent super organism, which is the "intelligent designer" of probably all life on Earth." -- Ec5618 11:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Another possible designer
This is original research - hence, it's on the talk page and not just a straight edit.

One possible explanation for the designer is that the designer is not irreducibly complex.

If a non-complex designer is capable of designing an irreducibly complex entity, then all the paradoxes are resolved. Indeed, it's a perfect explanation for some things that are irreducibly complex, like an automobile, which is designed by a non-irreducibly-complex human auto engineer.

Of course, it doesn't require a supernatural being, which will put off most of the proponents.20:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

 * This is indeed one of the criticisms already included on irreducible complexity. --ScienceApologist 20:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro

 * Proponents of intelligent design argue to the public that their concept does not posit the identity of the designer as part of this effort. But in statements to their constituency, which consists largely of Christian conservatives, they identify the designer as God.

This is an argument that ID proponents are lying or hiding something. Should be labeled as a POV and attributed to its advocate. --Uncle Ed 16:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

 * No, this is a statement which is fully supported by sources. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Have you bothered reading the Dover trial ruling, Ed? Here it is:

 * And there's plenty of cites here and in the ID article and ID movement articles that support just that, as you well know, Ed. This is just yet one more of your bogus objections in your well-documented campaign of disrupting ID articles. It need to stop. I'll be adding supporting cites presently. FeloniousMonk 18:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually, no, WP:OR forbids drawing this sort of conclusion. Check the rules:
 * Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.

 * I'm not disputing the position of pro-Evolution or anti-ID advocates. I'm just saying we shouldn't do their arguing for them. Cite needed. --Uncle Ed 18:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Um, where specifically is a conclusion being drawn here: "Proponents of intelligent design argue to the public that their concept does not posit the identity of the designer as part of this effort. But in statements to their constituency, which consists largely of Christian conservatives, they identify the designer as God."? Where is the conclusion Ed? There isn't one. Again, another bogus objection. FeloniousMonk 18:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, Ed drew the conclusion...and if it happens in Ed's head, it must be valid. I guess.  •Jim 62 sch•  00:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

 * It's an obvious implication which advances the POV you are pushing. It wouldn't hurt to quote a published source which explicitly makes the charge of "say one thing, mean another". Looking forward to the supporting cites you offered. --Uncle Ed 18:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

 * First you claim the passage you object to was drawing a "conclusion." Called on that, now you're saying it's just making an "implication." Whichever one it is Ed, now it's supported at this article as well as it was in the other three articles that cover this material.

 * This is something like your 5th objection to points you already know are well supported in two days; none have proved to well-founded. Stop wasting your time and ours with these. FeloniousMonk 19:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Don't be tendentious, you know the words are synonymous.

 * And this is not a legal proceeding; nothing has to be 'well-founded'. We all edit articles to make them better, that's all.

 * Thank you for adding ref's which support the conclusion or implication, i.e., the POV that IDM contradicts itself.

 * I actually dislike contradictions quite intensely, if you want to know what I really think. For example, the Russian Communists who would talk 'peace' (in public, to the West) while actually preparing for war (to defeat the West).

 * Now if admins around here would stop accusing other people of wikilawyering and gaming the system and edit warring (while doing all of these themselves), I'd be a happier Wikipedian. Cheers! --Uncle Ed 20:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Conclusion and implication are synonymous?
 * Conclusion: "A judgment or decision reached after deliberation. See Synonyms at decision." (where one notes that implication is notably absent)
 * Implication: "The act of implicating or the condition of being implicated. The act of implying or the condition of being implied. Something that is implied, especially: An indirect indication; a suggestion. An implied meaning; implicit significance. An inference."
 * More spin from Ed. Stop wasting your time and ours with this stuff. FeloniousMonk 21:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm still trying to figure out the part about the Communists. I need to go find my bong.   •Jim 62 sch•  00:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Statements about the identity of the designer
No time to look through them all, but there's a problem with this one:
 * "But ID opponents argue that in statements to their constituency..."

This suggests that the existence of these statements is disputed. If you are making that allegation, please provide a source for the dispute. As it stands it introduces an implication of doubt that really doesn't exist. It's also very poor form to use the "critics argue" style. Guettarda 16:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Also this one
 * "Dembski calls this the problem of "infinite regress"."

Dembski and a hundred other people - why attribute this criticism to a proponent? Guettarda 16:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

 * If my language was unclear, please help me by clarifying it. I did not mean "the statements don't exist". I mean that critics use the existence of these statements to make an argument. They imply or state that, since the intelligent designer can ONLY be God, ID is essentially a religious argument, not a scientific one.

 * They also insinuate the idea that proponents are CONTRADICTING THEMSELVES, which is tantamount of saying they're full of crap. It is a well-known principle of argumentation, rhetoric and "proofs" that any argument which contains contradictory statements is flawed.

 * I am proposing that Wikipedia not conduct OR by saying ID's arguments are flawed, but simply report the research of opponents. Surely there's some source we can quote who says:
 * They say that the Designer can be left out of the ID discussion, but actually (1) they have God (or Christ) in mind, and anyway (2) ID implies a Designer which could only *BE* God. So the whole thing is really dishonest.

 * I wouldn't mind having something like that, weaker or stronger (or even both!) in the article - provided it is treated as a POV rather than as a fact. --Uncle Ed 16:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

FM cut out this well-referenced Dembski quote:

 * Let’s cut to the chase: Is the designer responsible for biological complexity God? Even as a very traditional Christian and an ardent proponent of ID, I would say NOT NECESSARILY. To ask who or what is the designer of a particular object is to ask for the immediate intelligent agent responsible for its design. The point is that God is able to work through derived or surrogate intelligences, which can be anything from angels to organizing principles embedded in nature.

He may perhaps have forgotten this principle:
 * Unexplained deletions of portions of controversial articles are unacceptable.

But I'll assume good faith. Perhaps it was accidental. FM? Care to comment? --Uncle Ed 17:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

 * No I didn't, I moved it and put it in context.

 * That leading ID proponents tailor their rhetoric to their audience and that they ultimately believe the designer is God to a man is already covered at the ID article. Dembski verifiably contradicts himself many times on this very point, depending on which group he is addressing, as they all have; this is verified at the ID article. That ID proponents are talking out of both sides of their mouths on the issue is well documented in court records and the press and seen in their own statements, and already addressed in the ID article. Saying that they are not is a documented part of their platform and campaign, also documented in the ID and ID movement articles. Your change obfuscates the issue and promotes their viewpoint over an objective presentation of the facts. To the issue that they say that the Designer can be left out of the ID discussion is already dealt with in both the main ID article and here in the criticism section. I've put Dembski's statement you added in context with his other published contrary statements on the issue to put the problem of talking out both sides of their mouths in perspective. FeloniousMonk 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Common Designer Section
I feel there needs to be a section describing the "common designer" argument...the creationist answer to universal common descent. The concept that all life is made of DNA because DNA is the most logical means of producing life and not because all life diverged from a gene pool made of DNA. Hovind likes to use the example the just because a Honda uses nuts and bolts doesn't mean it evolved from a lawn mower. This should NOT give undue weight but rather inform and possible correct misconceptions about the view. Pbarnes 20:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Once upon a time, there was only one internal combustion engine. SheffieldSteel 05:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments mv'd from article
I moved the following insertions by from the article to here, since commentary of this sort doesn't belong in the article. Guettarda 16:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Critique: the above is more of a philosophical argument than an analysis of ID. ID says nothing about who or what the designer is.  It is simply "a method of analysis which can be applied to various lines of information [ranging] from mathematical concepts, to writing, to DNA ..."A Mathematical Proof of Intelligent Design in Nature," by R. Totten (1999); see http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/mathproofcreat.html

 * Critique: While Sober makes a logical point about the nature of the designer any foray into that would exceed the bounds of any scientific method of analysis that is available today.

 * Critique: "lazy way out" is analysis?!? ID says nothing about who or what the designer might be (see above critiques).

Willed and self-consciuos
Time, accident and necesity are also "entities". To fit with the definition this entity must have will an be self-conscious. --Igor21 14:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thomism
Isn't there intimations of this in Thomism, in the arguments that natural reason can lead to the realization there there IS God, but not tell us much about God?

The long tradition of rational theology in Christendom, as well as in Islam and Judaism, should put the kibosh on the notion that Intelligent Design is a modern invention of Christian fundamentalism. The term "fundamentalism" was invented in the early 20th century, as a religion to religious modernism (usually in Protestant garb, not the type of modernism that appeared in Catholicism).

24.61.16.25 03:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC) vegetarian

Design and the designer

 * Intelligent design theory detects design by looking for the very general tell-tale signs that a designer was at work. The tell-tale sign that is usually looked for is a form of information produced only by the action of intelligence called "complex and specified information." When we find complex-specified information (CSI), all we can infer is that the object was designed by an intelligence. The mere presence of CSI does not tell us anything about the identity of the designer. The fact that ID does not identify the designer is only because of epistemological limitations of the scope of this scientific theory. This question is thus left as a religious or philosophical question outside the scope of intelligent design theory. IDEA Center

Let's stipulate that (1) every ID advocate believes that God designed life and that (2) therefore they believe He is the intelligent designer.

Even so, is it possible to consider ID simply (or purely) as a critique of naturalistic evolution? Has anyone ever requested this consideration?

The quote above (from a website associated with Behe, Dembski and Johnson) seems to assert that the identity of the designer is unrelated to ID theory. (I'm assuming that's what they mean by "outside the scope".)

Yet, every critique of ID I've seen begins with the point that ID implies a designer who must be God (or a god). From this point, they conclude that ID argues for the existence of God. This implies that ID advocates a religious idea (duh! that God exists!!), and so on.

What would happen if a scientist simply examined the "signs of design" part of ID? Has any scientist done this? Or only scientists who already believe in God and/or that "God is the designer"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

 * They have done so, long since -- the "signs of design" are "written in jello". ID has not put forward a single 'critique of naturalistic evolution' that hasn't been completely demolished scientifically, completely independently from the ID-advocates' blatant religious motives related to the fact that the designer=God. HrafnTalkStalk 16:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

 * The original reason that this argument from design was introduced was to argue for the identity of God. And it has been attacked and dismissed for about 1500 years or more, long before sophisticated mathematical and scientific tools were brought to bear on the question.
 * The current incarnation has failed to make its case, but still wants to introduce this unproven hypothesis as a sensible alternative in secular public school science classes, basically to promote a religious agenda.
 * I have no problem with people looking for signs of design, if they can convince someone to give them money to do so. However, I think it is not reasonable to declare victory before they have made their case and succeeded.
 * Most of the Discovery Institute arguments fall back on creationist and even young earth creationist arguments that were dismissed decades or even centuries ago. Lies, misrepresentations and dishonesty are their stock in trade. They claim that there are only two alternatives; intelligent design or evolution.
 * Scientists always look for any possibility. However, so far no evidence of design has emerged.
 * Focusing on design, or deciding that design is the only answer ahead of time, destroys science. The Discovery Institute Wedge Document implies that therefore magic must be operating in the natural world. And all science will stop because the answer to any question can and will be, "magic did it". Flush all your science and technology down the toilet (which the Muslim world did in the same way, 1000 years ago with publication of Incoherence of the Philosophers). Also, if you take this to the logical conclusion, all prisoners should be let out of jail, since all the evidence can be put there by magic.--Filll (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Hrafn and Filll, for taking my queries seriously and giving me plenty of food for thought. Happy New Year to you both! --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Jay Gould and intelligent design
I've always been rather curious (and perhaps here is not the place for such discussion) as to why it seems so many detractors of ID seem to dismiss the concept outright as not even worthy of consideration for a moment, while the concept is in many ways the focus of Stephen Jay Gould's famous essay on The Panda's Thumb. In that essay, he states that "[I]deal design is a lousy argument for evolution, for it mimics the postulated action of an omnipotent creator." Gould's essay--a very insightful one, in my opinion, for people on both sides of the issue--is really only notable if the concept of intelligent design is at least worth considering. BBrucker2 (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The concept is given full and serious consideration under its usual name of the teleological argument as a theological argument which is not within the remit of science. ID is a specific presentation of that argument as though it was science, and is rejected as such. . . dave souza, talk 08:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you're saying it boils down to more of a philosophical argument in the end than a scientific one? That makes sense. Thanks. BBrucker2 (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks BBrucker. In the past, I've had Gould swimming around in my muddled head.  You've encouraged me to dig my copy of Panda out of storage.  Cheers,  siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 20:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

 * A major difference between scientific disagreements and philosophical ones is that scientific ones are generally settled by evidence (comparing to existing evidence and doing experiments to gather new evidence), and thus tend to be of far shorter duration (years or decades rather than centuries). A philosophic argument that wanders into the scientific realm has a reasonable chance of getting spanked and sent home crying therefore. HrafnTalkStalk 03:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Move For Deletion
I'm brand new at this so forgive me if I've made any mistakes but I think the article ought to be deleted or at least substantially atered to the point of unrecognizability(in which case what's the point?) Thought I'd discuss it with you guys first though.MitchellAsburySims (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

 * No problem, new posts at the foot please. The first thing to do is to set out and discuss your reasons for thinking the article should be deleted or extensively altered, and note that WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason for deletion. . . dave souza, talk 08:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Sorry. So is this article about "intelligent designer" as an idea poposed by various ID groups or is it an article discussing the concept of an intelligent designer and proposed identities of said designer(s)?149.166.177.113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC).

 * The latter would appear to be a legitimate part of the former, so I'd answer "both". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I think that the article as it stands shows significant prejudice against the article's topic. I feel as though the arguments against evidence of an intelligent designer should be entirely in the criticisms section. As it is now, each reason for evidence of an intelligent designer is directly followed by a reason against. If this article is about an intelligent designer exclusively in relation to the recent intelligent design movements as opposed to an intelligent designer in the larger context of history perhaps this style is appropriate. Still, wasn't this article a spin off from intelligent design? Shouldn't ID movements then be disscussed as only an aspect of the article instead of as the central focus of the article?

Appreciate your thoughts:)  MitchellAsburySims (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Creationism template
Creationism is out of date, and this is now the only article still employing it (I've been making an effort to replace it with Intelligent Design and the more up to date Creationism2). Can anybody give a good reason for retaining it? Is there any reason why this article requires both an ID and a creationism nav-template? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Accusatory tone
This article takes a negative, accusatory tone as though the personal opinions of leading Intelligent Design advocates were somehow being hidden, or that the claim of the Intelligent Design movement that it's position neither includes nor excludes those opinions is somehow disingenuous. This really needs to be cleaned up so it's not tripping over itself to berate the idea even before the actual idea is explained. --BenMcLean (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I think that this article is poorly written, that ID advocates are disingenuous about the identity of the Designer is well-attested. E.g.:

"Hoping to distance themselves from the intellectually marginal creation scientists and to avoid endless niggling over the meaning of the Mosaic story of creation, design theorists carefully avoid any mention of Genesis or God, although, as one of them confessed to some fellow Christians, referring to an intelligent designer was merely a "politically correct way to refer to God""

- The Creationists, Expanded Edition, pp 380-381, Ronald L. Numbers

"The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID’s “official position” does not acknowledge that the designer is God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People (hereinafter “Pandas”) is a “master intellect,” strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world."

- Decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Why two articles?
I don't see why there should be two articles: Intelligent Design and Intelligent designer. Is there any information in this article that is not, or should not, be in the other, main, article? BigJim707 (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

 * The discussion of what engineering is also includes the generalized definition of an engineer, but there is also a page discussing the specifics of what an engineer is. VT 64.56.31.130 (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Intelligent designer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040622175700/http://www.equip.org/free/DL303.htm to http://www.equip.org/free/DL303.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071107005414/http://www.coralridge.org/specialdocs/evolutiondebate.asp to http://www.coralridge.org/specialdocs/evolutiondebate.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Intelligent designer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070710053017/http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/experts/Forrest_expert_report.pdf to http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/experts/Forrest_expert_report.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217212817/http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006139.cfm to http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006139.cfm
 * Added tag to http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.02.Reply_to_Henry_Morris.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Dubious: Michael Behe line.
"Michael Behe, in his book Darwin's Black Box, suggested the designer might be a time traveling cell biologist."

In the cited source - Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Simon and Schuster. p. 249 - the author does not make that suggestion. Instead, the author is discussing a speculative scenario as an explanation for scientist Francis Crick's unorthodox theory that aliens planted biological seeds on Earth. At the end of that same paragraph, the author states: "Most people, like me, will find these scenarios entirely unsatisfactory, but they are available for those who wish to avoid unpleasant theological implications." [Emphasis mine.]

Should be removed or rewritten. NunnyRosary (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed it. Maybe, WP:ONEWAY should also be applied to adding even crazier ideas to articles about crazy ideas. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking for sincere discussion about the topic
I am willing to engage in a sincere and/or formal discussion about the topic at hand. VerifyTruth01 (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Then you should go elsewhere. Read WP:TALK to find out what Wikipedia Talk pages are for. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Intelligent designer


text:
Hitts & Mrs.

Hitts & Mrs. (2004) is the second novel by Emmy-winning author Lori Bryant-Woolridge. It made the Essence Magazine bestseller list. Hitts & Mrs. built on the positive reviews and sales figures for Bryant-Woolridge's first book, Read Between the Lies.

Edition

 * HarperCollins Trade Paperback (January 2004), 367pp., ISBN 0-06-054059-1.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Hitts & Mrs.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocky the Dog

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — J I P | Talk 14:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Rocky the Dog
Delete as this is non-encyclopedic matter about an non-notable underground comic book. [ edit ] 01:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Couldn't find it on Google and no external link provided. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete--Rogerd 08:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 11:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone. By the way, that's some fascinating sig you've got there. --Jacquelyn Marie 14:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-verifiable self-promotion. -- Corvus 18:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Frak

Frak may refer to:

 * Frak, profanity from the science-fiction franchise Battlestar Galactica
 * Vladimír Frák (born 1961), Slovak skier
 * Frak!, a scrolling platform video game programmed by Nick Pelling for the BBC Micro
 * Kapoteh (also frak), a long black frock coat worn by married Chabad instead of a bekishe

title: Frak


text:
Philbert

Philbert may refer to

People

 * Madame Philbert (?-1679), a participant in the Affair of the Poisons, executed for murdering her first husband
 * Phillippe Rebille Philbert (1639 – c. 1717), French flautist and court musician to Louis XIV; second husband of Madame Philbert
 * Philbert Blair (born 1943), Guyanese cricketer
 * Philbert Dy, Filipino film critic
 * Philbert Maurice d'Ocagne (1862–1938), French engineer and mathematician

Other uses

 * Philbert Frog, British animated series
 * Philbert, a show within a show on the fifth season of BoJack Horseman

title: Philbert


text:
Talk:Paul Harrison Taylor

Untitled
Sources: http://www.israelartguide.co.il/taylor/

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 21:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Paul Harrison Taylor


text:
User talk:AaronSw/Books every citizen must read

While Brazil is an excellent film, I feel that The Corporation might make a better companion film for Moral Mazes. Fun Fackt: It was also produced by mark achbar. TitaniumDreads 01:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
John Carroll Society

The John Carroll Society was founded in Washington, D.C., in 1951 as a spiritual and beneficent organization for Catholic professional laypersons in the service of the archbishop of the Archdiocese of Washington. The founders of the society were Secretary of the Navy John L. Sullivan, Judge Matthew Francis McGuire of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and attorney William E. Leahy.

Part of the John Carroll Society's mission is the financial and professional support of the Archdiocese Legal Network and Medical Network, which provides free legal and medical services to the indigent of the Greater Washington, DC area.

The current president is Jeff Paravano. Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola served as a president and is the chair of the Social Action Committee, which is active in assisting homeless and transitional families in the District of Columbia. Other prominent members include the current president of Georgetown University, and many partners of the private bar with most major large Washington, D.C. law firms. The chaplain of the society is Msgr. Peter Vaghi. Colleen Mudlaff is the Executive Director.

The group was meant to mirror the Catholic Alumni Society of Boston. It is named for John Carroll, the first bishop then archbishop in the United States. The society sponsors the annual Red Mass, which is a Mass of the Holy Spirit to invoke a benediction upon the nation's judiciary and lawgivers. This is celebrated on the Sunday before the first Monday in October, prior to the opening of the Supreme Court's judicial year.

title: John Carroll Society


text:
Geir Haarde

Geir Hilmar Haarde (born 8 April 1951 ) is an Icelandic politician, who served as prime minister of Iceland from 15 June 2006 to 1 February 2009 and as president of the Nordic Council in 1995. Geir was chairman of the Icelandic Independence Party from 2005 to 2009. Since 23 February 2015 he has served as the ambassador of Iceland to the United States and several Latin American countries.

Geir initially led a coalition between his party and the Progressive Party. After the 2007 parliamentary election, in which the Independence Party increased its share of the vote, Geir renewed his term as prime minister, leading a coalition between his party and the Social Democratic Alliance. That coalition resigned in January 2009 after widespread protests following an economic collapse in October 2008. In September 2010, Geir became the first Icelandic minister to be indicted for misconduct in office, and stood trial before the Landsdómur, a special court for such cases. He was convicted on one count, but acquitted of the most serious violations.

Life and career
Geir was born in the Icelandic capital Reykjavík, to Tomas Haarde, a Norwegian from Rogaland, and an Icelandic mother. He is the brother of Bernhard Haarde, former leader of the Icelandic branch of the World Union of National Socialists. He received his bachelor's degree in the United States at Brandeis University as a Wien Scholar, graduating with a degree in economics, then went on to earn two Master's degrees – in international relations from the School of Advanced International Studies of The Johns Hopkins University and in economics from the University of Minnesota.

Prior to entering the Althing (the Icelandic Parliament), Geir was an economist at the Central Bank of Iceland from 1977 to 1983 and was a political adviser to the Icelandic Minister of Finance from 1983 to 1987. He was a member of the Althing for 22 years, 1987–2009. Geir was Chairman of the Independence Party Parliamentary Group from 1991 to 1998 and a member of the Alþing's Foreign Affairs Committee from 1991 to 1998; he was Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee from 1995 to 1998. He served as Minister of Finance from April 1998 to September 2005 and then as Minister for Foreign Affairs from September 2005 to June 2006. He was elected Chairman of the Independence Party in an uncontested election in October 2005, following the departure of Davíð Oddsson.

Following the announcement of Halldór Ásgrímsson's resignation as Prime Minister on 5 June 2006, Geir succeeded him as Prime Minister on 15 June.

On 23 January 2009, Geir announced that for health reasons (malignant oesophageal tumour), he would step down as chairman of the Independence Party at the next party congress on 26–29 March 2009. On the same day, he announced that an early general election would be held on 9 May 2009, in which he would not be a candidate.

Icelandic financial crisis
The end of Geir's tenure as prime minister was marked by the dramatic financial crisis which engulfed Iceland from October 2008. In less than a week, the country's three major commercial banks (Glitnir, Landsbanki and Kaupthing) all had to be taken over by the government as they were unable to roll over their loans.

On 26 January 2009, Geir announced that he and the Social Democrats would not continue in the coalition government. He was replaced by Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir from the Social Democratic Alliance, formerly minister of Social Affairs and Social Security, on 1 February 2009.

Special tribunal
Geir was strongly criticised in the April 2010 report of the Special Investigative Commission into the financial collapse, being accused of "negligence" along with three other ministers of his government.

On 28 September 2010, Iceland's parliament, Althing, voted 33–30 to indict Geir, but not the other ministers, on charges of negligence in office at a session. He was to stand trial before the Landsdómur, a special tribunal to hear cases alleging misconduct in government office: it was the first time Landsdómur has convened since it was established in the 1905 Constitution.

On 3 October 2011, in response to a motion by the defence team to dismiss the case, Landsdómur voted to drop the two first charges against Geir Haarde, concerning "gross negligence" and "failure to have the financial risks assessed," but to continue with the case based on three remaining and lesser charges.

At its 40th national convention on 17–20 November 2011, the Independence Party concluded that "accusations against Geir H. Haarde, the former leader of the Independence Party and former Prime Minister, constituted an abhorrent political trial. The convention declared its unequivocal support for Mr. Haarde while noting the serious precedent the parliament had set with its decision to prosecute."

The trial began in Reykjavík on 5 March 2012. Geir Haarde was found guilty on one of four charges on 23 April 2012, for not addressing the problems that Icelandic banks were facing or their potential consequences for Iceland's economy at cabinet meetings. Due to his age, no previous criminal record and the acquittal of the most serious charges, Haarde was not sentenced in the case, and the Icelandic State paid his legal expenses. Haarde decided, as a matter of principle, to refer the whole case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg; in November 2017, the court ruled against him.

title: Geir Haarde


text:
Talk:I Am Me

Untitled
Anybody watching this who thinks they can help with the referencing? I'm trying to get everything in the article referenced, but some of it is painfully difficult. There's still a good bit of info in there that I know to be true, but can't find a good cite for. Everyking 07:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Similarity with Coldplay's "Square One"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cRv_yMg5nvw

Assessment comment
Substituted at 18:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on I Am Me. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0%2C1%2C17553%2C00.html?newsrellink
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://entertainment.news.com.au/story/0%2C10221%2C18792228-5001964%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081224093012/http://www.slantmagazine.com/music/music_review.asp?ID=679 to http://www.slantmagazine.com/music/music_review.asp?ID=679
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ashleesimpsonmusic.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on I Am Me. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060516093515/http://www.mtv.com/bands/s/simpson_ashlee/qa_101005/ to http://www.mtv.com/bands/s/simpson_ashlee/qa_101005/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060428083537/http://www.stylusmagazine.com/review.php?ID=3493 to http://www.stylusmagazine.com/review.php?ID=3493
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060320084945/http://www.muchmusic.com/tv/transcripts/index.asp?artist=1043&tranID=574 to http://www.muchmusic.com/tv/transcripts/index.asp?artist=1043&tranID=574
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060501090520/http://www.absolutetrl.net/records/recaparchive/2006_03.html to http://www.absolutetrl.net/records/recaparchive/2006_03.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060630044344/http://www.absolutetrl.net/records/recaparchive/2005_10.html to http://www.absolutetrl.net/records/recaparchive/2005_10.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061117090102/http://www.livedaily.com/news/Ashlee_Simpson_warms_up_for_summer_trek-9732.html?t=1 to http://www.livedaily.com/news/Ashlee_Simpson_warms_up_for_summer_trek-9732.html?t=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on I Am Me. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927042401/http://www.ashleesimpsonmusic.com/news/default.aspx?dt=09-01-2005 to http://www.ashleesimpsonmusic.com/news/default.aspx?dt=09-01-2005
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051227230615/http://www.billboard.com/bb/reviews/album_article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001305945 to http://www.billboard.com/bb/reviews/album_article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001305945

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I Am Me. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724000106/http://www.geffen.com/ashleesimpson/ to http://www.geffen.com/ashleesimpson

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:I Am Me


text:
Dick Motz

Richard Charles Motz (12 January 1940 – 29 April 2007) was a New Zealand cricketer. A right-arm fast bowler and hard-hitting lower order batsman, Motz played 32 Test matches for the New Zealand national cricket team between 1961 and 1969. He was the first bowler for New Zealand to take 100 wickets in Test cricket.

Early life
Motz was born in Christchurch. He was educated at North New Brighton primary school and Linwood High School, excelling as an all-rounder at both. He also played rugby, tennis, badminton and golf. He played as full-back for the New Brighton rugby team for two years after leaving school.

Domestic career
He played domestic cricket for Canterbury, making his debut in the Plunket Shield in 1957, while still a schoolboy, taking 4 for 40 at his first outing. He made his reputation as a hostile fast bowler, and a big-hitting lower order batsman.

His best first-class performances were in New Zealand domestic cricket. He took 8 wickets for 61 runs against Wellington in 1966–67, and scored 103 not out against Otago in 1967–68, making his only first-class century inside an hour. On tour to Australia in 1967–68, he scored 94 against South Australia, including 76 runs from boundaries (6 sixes and 10 fours).

International career
He was one of five New Zealand players and seven South Africans to make their Test debut in the 1st Test at Durban in December 1961. He took 81 wickets on the tour, at a bowling average of 19, including 19 wickets in the five Tests.

He took five wickets in an innings five times in Tests, once in England and twice at home against each of India and West Indies. He was also a handy lower-order batsman, scoring three Test half-centuries, all at home against England.

In 1968, he was the first bowler to be banned from bowling in a Test due to running on the wicket. In his last Test, the third Test against England at The Oval in August 1969, Motz became the first New Zealand bowler to take 100 Test wickets when he trapped Phil Sharpe leg before wicket (his only wicket of the match).

Motz was New Zealand Cricket Almanack Player of the Year in 1961, South African Cricket Annual Cricketer of the Year in 1962, and a Wisden Cricketer of the Year in 1966.

After cricket
Motz's playing career ended at the age of 29, after he was found to have a displaced vertebra – indeed, he had been playing with a bad back for over a year. After his retirement from cricket, he became a taxi driver. He also ran a sports business, and then ran a pub in Timaru. In later years, he put on considerable weight, ending over 30 stone.

He was inducted to the New Zealand Sports Hall of Fame in 1997.

He was married twice. His first marriage, to cricketer Loretta Todd, ended in divorce in 1987. They had a son and two daughters. His son, Wayne, was murdered in 1989. He remarried, to Josephine Cole.

He died in Christchurch. He was found dead at his home by his former captain, Graham Dowling. He was survived by his two daughters from his first marriage.

title: Dick Motz


text:
1991 CFL season

The 1991 CFL season is considered to be the 38th season in modern-day Canadian football, although it is officially the 34th Canadian Football League season.

CFL News in 1991
Harry Ornest sold the Toronto Argonauts to Bruce McNall, Wayne Gretzky and John Candy on Monday, February 25. On Wednesday, July 24, the Board of Directors of the Ottawa Rough Riders resigned, causing the CFL to assume the ownership duties of the franchise, two days later. Three months later, the Rough Riders were sold by the CFL to Bernie and Lonie Glieberman on Saturday, October 19. Furthermore, the Calgary Stampeders was purchased by Larry Ryckman from Stampeder Football Club Limited on Friday, October 24.

All eight clubs combined for a record 64.2 points per game and attendance figures broke the 2 million mark for the 10th time in CFL history (2,001,858). The Grey Cup game was hosted by the city of Winnipeg for the first time on Sunday, November 24. In that game, the Toronto Argonauts defeated the Calgary Stampeders 36–21 in front of 51,985 football fans. The Grey Cup game was also the most-watched Canadian television show with an audience of 3,531,000 viewers.

J. Donald Crump resigned as CFL Commissioner on Tuesday, December 31.

After the shutdown of the Canadian Football Network, this left the CFL with two television outlets: CBC Television, which had coverage for some regular season games and exclusive coverage of all CFL playoff games, including the Grey Cup game, and TSN on cable, airing some regular season games.

Final regular season standings
Note: GP = Games Played, W = Wins, L = Losses, T = Ties, PF = Points For, PA = Points Against, Pts = Points

 * Bold text means that they clinched the playoffs.
 * Edmonton and Toronto had first round byes.

Grey Cup playoffs
The Toronto Argonauts are the 1991 Grey Cup champions, defeating the Calgary Stampeders 36–21, at Winnipeg Stadium. This was the first championship for the Argonauts in eight years. The Argonauts’ Raghib "Rocket" Ismail (WR) was named the Grey Cup's Most Valuable Player and Stampeder's Dave Sapunjis (SB) was the Grey Cup's Most Valuable Canadian.

CFL Leaders

 * CFL Passing Leaders
 * CFL Rushing Leaders
 * CFL Receiving Leaders

Offence

 * QB – Doug Flutie, BC Lions
 * FB – Blake Marshall, Edmonton Eskimos
 * RB – Robert Mimbs, Winnipeg Blue Bombers
 * SB – Matt Clark, BC Lions
 * SB – Allen Pitts, Calgary Stampeders
 * WR – Ray Alexander, BC Lions
 * WR – Raghib "Rocket" Ismail, Toronto Argonauts
 * C – Rod Connop, Edmonton Eskimos
 * OG – Leo Groenewegen, BC Lions
 * OG – Dan Ferrone, Toronto Argonauts
 * OT – Jim Mills, BC Lions
 * OT – Chris Walby, Winnipeg Blue Bombers

Defence

 * DT – Harold Hallman, Toronto Argonauts
 * DT – Brett Williams, Edmonton Eskimos
 * DE – Will Johnson, Calgary Stampeders
 * DE – Mike Campbell, Toronto Argonauts
 * LB – Willie Pless, Edmonton Eskimos
 * LB – Darryl Ford, Toronto Argonauts
 * LB – Greg Battle, Winnipeg Blue Bombers
 * CB – Less Browne, Winnipeg Blue Bombers
 * CB – Junior Thurman, Calgary Stampeders
 * DB – Darryl Hall, Calgary Stampeders
 * DB – Don Wilson, Toronto Argonauts
 * DS – Glen Suitor, Saskatchewan Roughriders

Special teams

 * P – Hank Ilesic, Toronto Argonauts
 * K – Lance Chomyc, Toronto Argonauts
 * ST – Henry "Gizmo" Williams, Edmonton Eskimos

Offence

 * QB – Damon Allen, Ottawa Rough Riders
 * FB – David Conrad, Ottawa Rough Riders
 * RB – Robert Mimbs, Winnipeg Blue Bombers
 * SB – Rob Crifo, Winnipeg Blue Bombers
 * SB – Darrell Smith, Toronto Argonauts
 * WR – David Williams, Toronto Argonauts
 * WR – Raghib "Rocket" Ismail, Toronto Argonauts
 * C – Irv Daymond, Ottawa Rough Riders
 * OG – Gerald Roper, Ottawa Rough Riders
 * OG – Dan Ferrone, Toronto Argonauts
 * OT – Chris Schultz, Toronto Argonauts
 * OT – Chris Walby, Winnipeg Blue Bombers

Defence

 * DT – Harold Hallman, Toronto Argonauts
 * DT – Lloyd Lewis, Ottawa Rough Riders
 * DE – Brian Warren, Toronto Argonauts
 * DE – Mike Campbell, Toronto Argonauts
 * LB – Brian Bonner, Ottawa Rough Riders
 * LB – Darryl Ford, Toronto Argonauts
 * LB – Greg Battle, Winnipeg Blue Bombers
 * CB – Less Browne, Winnipeg Blue Bombers
 * CB – Reggie Pleasant, Toronto Argonauts
 * DB – Anthony Drawhorn, Ottawa Rough Riders
 * DB – Don Wilson, Toronto Argonauts
 * DS – Scott Flagel, Ottawa Rough Riders

Special teams

 * P – Hank Ilesic, Toronto Argonauts
 * K – Lance Chomyc, Toronto Argonauts
 * ST – Raghib "Rocket" Ismail, Toronto Argonauts

Offence

 * QB – Doug Flutie, BC Lions
 * FB – Blake Marshall, Edmonton Eskimos
 * RB – Jon Volpe, BC Lions
 * SB – Matt Clark, BC Lions
 * SB – Allen Pitts, Calgary Stampeders
 * WR – Ray Alexander, BC Lions
 * WR – Jim Sandusky, Edmonton Eskimos
 * C – Rod Connop, Edmonton Eskimos
 * OG – Leo Groenewegen, BC Lions
 * OG – Roger Aldag, Saskatchewan Roughriders
 * OT – Jim Mills, BC Lions
 * OT – Vic Stevenson, Saskatchewan Roughriders

Defence

 * DT – Gary Lewis, Saskatchewan Roughriders
 * DT – Brett Williams, Edmonton Eskimos
 * DE – Will Johnson, Calgary Stampeders
 * DE – Stewart Hill, BC Lions
 * LB – Willie Pless, Edmonton Eskimos
 * LB – O.J. Brigance, BC Lions
 * LB – Alondra Johnson, Calgary Stampeders
 * CB – Eddie Thomas, Edmonton Eskimos
 * CB – Junior Thurman, Calgary Stampeders
 * DB – Darryl Hall, Calgary Stampeders
 * DB – Enis Jackson, Edmonton Eskimos
 * DS – Glen Suitor, Saskatchewan Roughriders

Special teams

 * P – Brent Matich, Calgary Stampeders
 * K – Dave Ridgway, Saskatchewan Roughriders
 * ST – Henry "Gizmo" Williams, Edmonton Eskimos

1991 CFL Awards

 * CFL's Most Outstanding Player Award – Doug Flutie (QB), BC Lions
 * CFL's Most Outstanding Canadian Award – Blake Marshall (FB), Edmonton Eskimos
 * CFL's Most Outstanding Defensive Player Award – Greg Battle (LB), Winnipeg Blue Bombers
 * CFL's Most Outstanding Offensive Lineman Award – Jim Mills (OT), BC Lions
 * CFL's Most Outstanding Rookie Award – Jon Volpe (RB), BC Lions
 * CFLPA's Outstanding Community Service Award – Stu Laird (LB), Calgary Stampeders
 * CFL's Coach of the Year – Adam Rita, Toronto Argonauts
 * Commissioner's Award - Jake Matheson, Winnipeg

title: 1991 CFL season


text:
Talk:Siege (band)

Good job
Will this article receive good article status? I think someone did a very nice job of detailing and sourcing such an obscure yet influential band as Siege. Do only big-name bands get reviewed for GA status? Tim010987 (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Discography added by anon user
I reverted the messy and unformatted discography added by an anonymous user.

There is valid content there, including mention of a january 1985 Siege show in CT I was unaware of. Link to that content is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_%28band%29&oldid=24300210

I plan to pull out valid info and update the article

Econrad 01:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I discovered the reverted content was copied from:
 * http://www.austrinken.com/discographien/Siege/siege.htm
 * Econrad 01:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The shirt
Regarding the recent anonymous edits on 'the shirt'

 * Kurt was wearing 2 shirts, and pulled the outer one off during their set, revealing the famous shirt. Power was pulled from Kurt's amp, and they were allowed to continue playing after Kurt took that shirt off.  Notice in the picture that Kurt isn't wearing any shirt.  Later on Siege was disqualified after Hank smashed the bass.

I'm not sure if that level of detail is required in the main article, I just wanted the facts here. Econrad 15:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

i think the demo 91 should be on the releases section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.39.188 (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Siege (band)


text:
User:Zycmf

隋唐时期的明光市 〔隋朝〕 北周大定元年(581年)二月，隋代北周，仍之. 开皇三年(583年)废郡，撤销阳城县，改昭义县为招义县(仍治女山湖镇)，改属濠州(治今凤阳县故钟离城，今临淮镇北). 大业元年(605年)，改招义县为化明县（《太平寰宇记》说，开皇二年，以光德太子名昭，改招义县为化明县). 大业三年四月，改濠州为钟离郡(仍治西古城)，化明县改属扬州刺史部钟离郡. 隋末，县民马薄据县，改置化州，分置济阴县，共设2个县，属之. 　　〔唐朝〕 　　大业十四年四月，唐代隋，仍之. 武德二年(619年)，析置睢陵县(仍治淮陵故城)，济阴、睢陵、化明3个县属化州(仍治女山湖镇). 三年，撤销济阴、睢陵县、化州，改化明县为招义县(仍治女山湖镇)，改属濠州(治钟离，改治西古城). 贞观元年(627年)，濠州属淮南道(地理区域). 开元二十一年(733年)，淮南道为一级政区(治扬州，今为市). 天宝元年(742年)，濠州改为钟离郡(仍治西古城). 乾元元年(758年)，钟离郡改为濠州. 安史之乱后，濠州改属武宁军节度，又叫徐泗节度、感化军(治徐州).

title: User:Zycmf


text:
USS Borie (DD-704)

USS Borie (DD-704), an Allen M. Sumner-class destroyer, was the second ship of the United States Navy to be named for Adolph E. Borie, Secretary of the Navy under President Ulysses S. Grant.

Construction
Borie (DD-704) was launched on 4 July 1944 by Federal Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co., Kearny, New Jersey sponsored by Mrs Albert Nalle (née Patty Neill Borie, great-grandniece of Adolph E. Borie); and commissioned on 21 September 1944.

World War II
Borie joined the Pacific Fleet, arriving at Pearl Harbor 4 January 1945. She took part in the Battle of Iwo Jima, both the bombardment (24 January) and invasion (19–23 February). After joining Task Force 58, she participated in the Tokyo raids (16–17 and 25 February), Okinawa raid (1 March), and the raids in support of the occupation of Okinawa (17 March–14 May). From 9 July to 9 August, she served with Task Force 38 in its raids on the Japanese home islands. On 9 August, four kamikazes attempted to crash into Borie, one achiving a hit on superstructure between the mast and the 5-inch gun director, causing extensive damage, killing 48 men, and wounding 66. The 3 other were shot down or missed. Due to the hit the Borie's rudder was locked.

Korean War
The damaged destroyer returned to Saipan and Pearl Harbor for temporary repairs and on 10 September entered dry dock at Hunter's Point, California, for permanent repairs. Repairs completed on 20 November, she departed San Diego 4 February 1946 to join the Atlantic Fleet. Borie remained in the Atlantic Fleet, except for one cruise to Korea (6 September 1950 – 9 June 1951), during which she served with TF 77 and took part in the Hungnam Evacuation. Borie made at least five European and Mediterranean cruises. During a deployment (28 July-4 December 1956), she assisted in the evacuation of American nationals and United Nations truce teams from Haifa, Israel and Gaza, Egypt. She returned to more routine operations, with a few notable exceptions, her 1959 recovery of the Project Mercury nose cone and Sam, the space monkey and her 1960 surveillance duties with the Polaris missile submarines USS George Washington Carver (SSBN-656) and USS Robert E. Lee (SSBN-601).

In 1961 she completed her Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization (FRAM) overhaul. In the Caribbean in 1962, she rescued nine Cubans seeking asylum in the U.S. and, later, three Jamaican fishermen, and then joined the U.S. blockade during the Cuban Missile Crisis where Borie participated in forcing a diesel-powered Russian submarine to the surface, then offered the submarine aid and supplies. Borie, with two other destroyers, escorted the submarine out of the area. During the night, Borie received orders to head for the Panama Canal and wait for 20 amphibious ships from the west coast to establish an attack task force. Over the ensuing years, she acquired a Drone Antisubmarine Helicopter (DASH) system and during a Mediterranean deployment, rescued an F-8 Crusader pilot whose plane crashed in a landing attempt on the aircraft carrier USS Shangri-La (CVA-38).

Vietnam War and decommissioning
In February 1968, Borie began her Vietnam deployment, serving in the Gulf of Tonkin as plane guard and completing radar picket duty. On the gun line, her gunners fired over 7,000 rounds at enemy positions at Phan Thiet and in the Mekong Delta. Returning to peacetime operations in 1969, Borie became a naval reserve training ship until June 1972, when she was decommissioned. She was struck from the Naval Vessel Register on 1 July 1972.

Service in the Argentine Navy
She was sold to the Argentine Navy and renamed Hipólito Bouchard (D-26) after the Argentine privateer, Hippolyte Bouchard and had four Exocet anti-ship missiles fitted in 1977–78. ARA Bouchard saw action in the Falklands War, forming a part of the escort for the aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo during the initial Argentine invasion on 2 April 1982. On 26 April Bouchard and sister ship ARA Piedra Buena formed the escort for the cruiser ARA General Belgrano when Belgrano set out from Ushuaia in response to the approaching British Task Force, and was present when on 2 May 1982, Belgrano was torpedoed and sunk. In author Michael Rossiters' 'Sink the Belgrano', (Random House, London, 2009), it says Belgrano was unable to send any Mayday signal because of electrical failure; this and poor visibility meant the two escorting destroyers, (both also ex-United States Navy vessels), were unaware of the sinking until some hours later. A total of 323 men were killed. During the torpedo attack, the crew felt an impact which was believed to have been one of the three torpedoes fired from HMS Conqueror (S48). They later found four cracks in the hull which were thought to have been a torpedoe striking at the end of its run.

On the night of 17/18 May a helicopter was tracked by the radar of Bouchard, who sent a message to her sister ship ARA Piedrabuena, patrolling on the north, and then to the naval base of Río Grande. In fact, a SH-3 Sea King reconnaissance mission on Río Grande had been launched by the British from HMS Invincible (R05) as a prelude to Operation Mikado, but after detecting the Argentine radar signal, the crew of the Sea King and members of the SAS flew to Chile, where they destroyed their aircraft. Argentine Navy reports claim that Bouchard shelled a submarine and a number of inflatable boats while on patrol two miles off Rio Grande on the evening of 16 May 1982, during an alleged British attempt to land special forces on Tierra del Fuego.

She was broken up for scrap in 1984.

Awards
Borie received three battle stars for her World War II services and four battle stars for her participation in the Korean War.

title: USS Borie (DD-704)


text:
Talk:Sprucefield

Articles for Deletion debate
This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash talk 01:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sprucefield


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Shuster

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --JAranda | yeah 04:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Mike Shuster
An ordinary broadcast journalist. Does not appear to be remarkable in any way.
 * Keep and expand, the organization which he works for (NPR) is notable. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep NPR rules! --Rogerd 08:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, legimate journalist, like Cyrus Farivar. Kappa 14:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep easily. He's not just a local journalist, his reports are broadcast nationally, and he's travelled internationally to do stories.  --rob 17:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep legitimate and well-known journalist, completely and wholly UNLIKE Cyrus Farivar whose entry should be renominated for deletion until it's eliminated with extreme and well-deserved prejudice. Dottore So 18:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Did you miss Jimbo's take on Cyrus? He's undeletable. . I think the best thing is to split WP into different levels, so Cyrus can be demoted along with Pokemons and elementary schools. Kappa 00:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. >:  Roby Wayne  Talk •  Hist 05:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as this is an aborted/invalid nomination. Hall Monitor 19:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Having backgrounds for existing media personalities to understand who is reporting what is a great aspect of Wikipedia. Thumbs down to those users who would socially stratify Wikipedia or turn it into a Best-of-the-Best site rather than a site that's as comprehensive as possible. Jsnell 22:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text: Talk:Henry S. West Laboratory School

title: Talk:Henry S. West Laboratory School


text:
File talk:Advanced Sudoku.png

Well, given that the article is a featured article, I'm happy to take any suggestions for changes to this diagram (it is computer-generated). I'm rather anal about images/photos, so I'm happy to hear any whims at all. My thoughts so far: --Interiot 01:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * it's the only image that contains fine-print, eg. it really needs to be viewed in the expanded version, which is somewhat unfortunate
 * it's also the only image that shows a more or less realistic process for solving a puzzle (though note that the bulk of my experience is with a half-cheating spreadsheet, so I have minimal experience with real newspapers)

title: File talk:Advanced Sudoku.png


text:
User talk:Cairnsco

Hi, , and welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes)
 * Try the editing tutorial and image tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area
 * Stay away from common mistakes and follow these simple rules
 * It's a good idea to use Show preview button and Edit summary box
 * If you need help, don't be afraid to post a question at the Help Desk or on my user talk page
 * Explore, be bold, and, most importantly, have fun!
 * Thanks for your edit on Accounting equation
 * Oh, and don't forget to tell something about yourself on your user page!

Good luck! Renata3 01:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cairnsco


text:
George Clifford Wilson

George Clifford Wilson (27 July 1902 – 18 May 1957) was an English first-class cricketer who followed his father, the more accomplished George Alfred Wilson, into a career as a right-arm fast bowler (and right-handed batsman at the bottom of the order) with Worcestershire.

Born in Kidderminster, Wilson made his first-class debut in the local derby with Warwickshire at Edgbaston in May of the 1924 season, but did little, bowling only three overs and making nought in his only innings. The match was notable both for a hat-trick by Worcestershire's Charles Preece and for the county's desperate but ultimately successful struggle for a draw, having been reduced to 48/8 in their second innings when stumps were drawn.

He also went wicketless in his second match, but took 2-7 in the second innings of his third. Wilson played a full part in the 1924 County Championship campaign, playing in 20 of Worcestershire's 24 games as well as one against the touring South Africans and finishing with 38 wickets at an average of a little under 24 runs apiece. The following summer brought him his first five-wicket haul: 5-67 against Hampshire in August; and 44 wickets in all.

By some way Wilson's most successful season was his last, 1926. He took 68 first-class wickets in total, and five or more in an innings on seven occasions, this latter figure being second only to Fred Root in the Worcestershire side that year. In the space of one August week he took five wickets in each innings - his only ten-wicket match haul - against Derbyshire on his home ground at Kidderminster, then claimed his best innings figures of 8-81 in a drawn game against Somerset at Weston-super-Mare.

Wilson played his final match in early September 1926 against Middlesex, but bad weather meant that little play was possible and he did not take a wicket. He died in Elswick, Newcastle upon Tyne, at the age of 54, nearly five years before his father.

title: George Clifford Wilson


text: User talk:68.84.177.167

title: User talk:68.84.177.167


text:
User:Petrus4

I once read Wikipedia being described on Slashdot as a place where "bloggers who are too lazy to have a blog go to mouth off," and I suspect that, to be honest, I would fall into that category myself. I do actually have a blog, but the thing about having a blog is that you then have to do a lot of work to promote it in order to ensure that anybody will read it, and even then it's not certain that they will. Wikipedia is very convenient from the point of view that it already has a large established readership, hence, my opinions are infinitely more likely to get read here than they would anywhere else. ;-)

It's still no guarantee, however. I've written fairly large edits of the article about the TV character Angel before, and most of what I put there is gone now. I didn't think I'd been too biased, but apparently someone else thought I was "rambling." I also almost entirely rewrote the article on Steven Hassan, (who I've always been a big fan of, by the way - Go Steve ;)) but that got reverted too. I tend to find that my reverts last longest when they are made to fringe articles which the "powers that be" here generally do not care about, or that do not rail against Wikipedia's pseudo-empiricist bias in any meaningful way.

Not that I'm exclusively complaining, mind you...I wrote the original version of the Profile section in the Abduction Phenomenon article, (UFOlogy is something I know quite a lot about, all false modesty aside) and not only has that been largely kept, it's been expanded on as well. I made a minor edit to Tony Robbins' article (someone else who I think is pretty cool) as well, and it's still there.

One of the things which makes writing here a bit tricky is that you're only meant to list facts, and not interpretations. (That's the rule, but a lot of people still do it anyway unfortunately) Although I guess what that means is that I can put my interpretations of certain things here.

I think Wikipedia is a great idea in theory, but in practice it's less even. I don't actually really like the fact that it seems to have become more controlled over the past little while, as well; part of me wonders if I'd have an account with as much access as I've got now if I'd made it more recently. I also think it would have been more realistic and honest if instead of trying (and failing, much of the time) for the NPOV policy, they'd simply listed a disclaimer that a lot of the material here was likely to be subjective opinion, since in trying to claim authority, it means someone is likely to mistake opinion as fact in circumstances where material has been allowed in that *is* biased and non-factual. (It does happen...frequently actually) The other problem with trying to be authoritative is that one of the criteria for accepted info here is that it only be stuff which is accepted by the mainstream scientific establishment, and as I've been learning recently, there's a heck of a lot that some people know that mainstream science either isn't aware of, or won't accept. Hence, it means the skeptics rule the roost.

Anywayz, here's a list of stuff/people I'm interested in. (and hence topic pages where you're likely to see my edits)

 * Psytrance/Organic/semi-indigenous Ambient music. (Such as Shpongle, This Morn' Omina, Etnica, Infected Mushroom, PPK, Alien Ambient Galaxy)

 * Alternative/"Free" energy - This article is fairly horribly dismissive/perjoritive IMHO, so I am planning on editing it at some point. Although in all honesty, most of the stuff I'm interested in isn't actually free energy at all, or I don't define it as such anywayz. I think when people try and wrongly call it that, it can discredit things which aren't actually unscientific.

 * David Wilcock and the associated philosophy.

 * Astrology - Considering Wikipedia's emphasis on info from the "right" sources, this article actually isn't too bad.

 * Terraforming/Habitat generation/Environmental reclamation. I find pages like this and this to be of a rather exceptional level of interest, and would like to see these types of technologies deployed on a large-scale basis, since I think they could go part of the way towards reducing our environmental problems.

 * Linux.

 * Mind control and (in Steven Hassan's terminology) "destructive cults." (primarily Amway/Quixtar and Scientology)

 * George W. Bush and his ongoing attempts to convert the American Republic into a Facist dictatorship. (Before you call me a moron on my talk page, go and read these two articles, and then come back and tell me with a straight face that that isn't what he's trying to do)

 * UFOs, Extraterrestrials (such as the Reticulans) and UFO propulsion systems.

 * My resident web site!

title: User:Petrus4