Dear C.Fred, this is ridiculous. I'm just conveying a fact, and Wikipedia is blocking me as soon as I do. I'm like the boy that states the fact that the emperor is naked, and you're among the public that tells him to be quiet. Can you please tell me what I possibly can write about clades and cladistics that will not block me? Anything that isn't right on the point? Cladistic is is in fact a mental desease. Is it possible to say that a mental desease is a mental desease? At the same time as Object-Oriented modeling is making great progress in geographical information systems (like you can see on CNN almost every night illustrating statistics for US and parts of it) and in a multitude of other applications, the inconsistent, self-contradictory and empirically erroneous cladism holds its fort against it by oppression of its opponents (for example blocking me). I have supported my statements with facts, and none of the influential cladists even dare to challenge them. Gareth Nelson tried every night for at least five months without success. The fact that he even tried is a measure of the importance he assesses them. In this continuing blocking of me, Wikipedia at least has to set a time limit as to when it regards the facts I'm stating (i.e., that time is relative) as being generally accepted (among cladists?). This discussion is totally and utterly ridiculous. Cladism does in fact deny that time can be relative, instead claiming that it is relations that are are relative, that is, that relative is relative. How long do we have to continue discussing a paranoia? Why not just conclude that it is a paranoia? Cladists don't understand that it is they that conceptualize reality, but instead think they find concepts. They think things have conceptual labels all around them, that they are branded. It is ridiculous, ridiculous... 

I thus contest being blocked for telling the truth. I argue that if telling the truth in itself is a reason for being blocked, then Wikipedia can certainly not be allocated to the category 'encyclopedia', since the definition of this concept surely must include telling the truth (to the best of its ability). If Wikipedia contest this argument, then I demand a specification of which part(s) of it. (I, however, have no illusions. I expect this contest to lead to my blocking from this page too. I expect to be blocked everytime I tell the truth. It doesn't stop me. I will continue telling the truth until it penetrates cladists foggy brains, or at least diagnoses their foggy brains as the foggy brains they are. In the meantime, Wikipedia will have major problems trying to hinder their confusion to spread to phylogenetics, evolution, medicine and maybe even science itself. Cladism actually hates science in its traditional form, i.e., as described by Karl Popper, and is presently trying to roll out its confusional mat over it. Just read the "explanation" of phylogenetics and you have to understand what I mean. It is totally impossible to make "heads and tails" of. If it belongs in an encyclopedia, then I'm Santa, Cladism is not science, but rather a reaction against science). Consist (presently at 83.254.20.53  )