Talk:Jonathan Sarfati/Archive 2

message: This is an archive and should not be edited agapetos_angel 01:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

message: Firstly I don't like to see anonymous users (i.e.  58.162.252.67) make fairly controversial edits to a controversial page.  I'm not sure what the official Wiki opinion on this.  Let me know if you find out.  I'll look too.
In the edits by 58.162.252.67
1) "deleted CJB's misquotes about homosexuality (he used "homonazi" to mean those who want to punish those who criticize homosexual behaviour)"
I'm quite happy for the editor to include this information.  However I dispute that the whole paragraph should be removed.  I think it is fairly relevant that Sarfati has made comments which would be grossly offensive to homosexuals.Christianjb 17:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Homonazi lacks intent to offend homosexuals, as feminazi lacks intent to offend feminists (or women, for that matter), as Nazi lacks intent to offend Germans. While is it probably true that the majority of homonazis are homosexuals, that the majority of feminazis are femanists (and women), and that the majority of Nazis were German, it lacks credibility to show offense of behalf of the whole for the overly sensitive and emotive reaction of the one (or the few).  This is akin to saying that one who speaks out against terrorist Muslims insults all Muslims. agapetos_angel 02:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Christianjb decided to reply on my talk page (moved to his, under 'Sarfati') rather than respond here.  I'll leave it to the reader to discern why or if that reply has merit, but I still contend what I said above, and which Christianjb has not refuted.  The affront to the one (or few) is not indictive of the insult to the whole, nor to the intent of insult to the whole. agapetos_angel 02:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry if agapetos_angel felt that I should have responded here instead of on his talk page.  I'm happy for him to post anything on my talk page on this page.  I am not keeping any secrets.  Please go to my talk page to see my detailed reply- or if you want you can post it here.  Thanks  Christianjb 10:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  And SHE would ask that you refrain from cluttering my talk pages with drivel that doesn't belong there.  If you have a reply, post it here. You speak of respect, but show little. I have no idea why you posted a copy of a letter on my talk pages, but it has been removed for pushing your own POV agenda.  Replies belong where they are associated, not spread like spam everywhere else.  You were personally offended, that's your thing.  However, it doesn't make the original statement wrong or POV because of your offense.  (And how many men would be called beloved (agapetos) angel?  Good grief, man) agapetos_angel 01:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Also if agapetos_angel could refrain from interspersing his/her comments with mine.  Please respond beneath my comments.  This shows proper respect for me and for Wikipedia.  Thanks.  Christianjb 11:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you didn't ramble on about several different points in the same section, it would be simplier to respond.  As it is, a verbose reply after your verbosity would be more confusing.  Using indents fixes that issue.  agapetos_angel 01:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No- don't intersperse your comments.  It chops up my text and doesn't show proper respect for the readers, for Wikipedia, or for my views.  It makes this page much more difficult to read. Thanks, Christianjb 02:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Calling my response 'drivel' is insulting.  I will not be responding to your criticism unless you can restate it in a less offensive manner.  Please read No personal attacks.  Thanks.  Christianjb 02:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I apologize for calling you by the male pronoun.  Agapetos is not a common name in Texas, and I'm unfamiliar with it.  Still- no excuse for assuming you were male.  I don't know enough about theology to know whether angels are male or female- and I've never met one or ever seen any evidence they exist- please excuse my mistake.Christianjb 02:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agapetos is Greek for 'beloved' (agape = love), even in Texas agapetos_angel 03:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not happy about the current edits being made. 

message: ::The comment immediately above was unsigned which is not only confusing, but shows disrespect to me and to Wikipedia rules.  Please sign in future.  Thanks  Christianjb 11:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't respond to what I perceive as insulting comments.  If you can rephrase your question in a sensible manner I will endeavor to answer your questions.  It would also help if you did this through an account, rather than as an anonymous user so I know who I'm talking to.  Christianjb 11:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: that a reader commended: Your Feb 6 response to the letter Objections to Homosexuality was so excellent I could scarcely believe it. Totally accepting of the person, totally factual and insightful. 
I am open to compromise on this issue.  At the moment I feel that this is unencyclopedic puffery.  It's part of a fan letter to Answers in Genesis and contains no information pertinent to the discussion.  I really doubt that an encyclopedia article should be quoting fan letters.   Christianjb 10:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, CBJ has misrepresented Sarfati severely, and this fan letter posted by another anon seems to balance CJB's bigoted insinuation that Sarfati hates homosexuals.58.162.252.67 14:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can rephrase that statement in a non-insulting manner then I will endeavor to respond fully and honestly.  Please reread No personal attacks.  Thanks Christianjb 11:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Answers In Genesis talk page for Christianjb's true feelings about the matter, complete with insults.  Funny that he complains that everything he can't answer is an insult, while insulting in a worse manner elsewhere. agapetos_angel 03:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: =

message: I would personally like to know if Sarfati is an editor on this page.  There's no hard rule explicitly forbidding someone from editing a page about themselves (though it is discouraged), but I would prefer that they didn't do it through an anonymous identity.  Christianjb 23:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the appellation evolutionsux@yahoo be any more revealing?  Most users, regardless of signing in or not, are anonymous. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the article. agapetos_angel 03:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe you're right- I'm not 100% sure on this issue.  I do know that no other encyclopedia (except maybe Who's Who) allows people to write their own Bio's.  However, I do have some sympathy with the position that people ought to be able to defend themselves against scurrilous attacks on the internet- and they might prefer to do that anonymously.  At the moment it seems like an imperfect system.  I can see both sides of the issue. Christianjb 03:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I thought about this some more, and I think that it's just too difficult for me to make any more edits on this page.  I restate that this page is turning out to be a vanity page about a very controversial figure, but there's little protection in place for the individual in question to adequately defend himself.  I am uneasy either way.  I will instead concentrate on Answers in Genesis, where I can make most of the same points.  I have no problem with Sarfati himself, who is unknown to me as either a scientist or a chess player, though he appears to have had some success with both.  I only know Sarfati through his published opinion essays, which I feel is ok to debate- but still- it makes me uneasy.  I personally wish Sarfati best of luck with his chess playing.Christianjb 04:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Come clean 

message: I suggest we start a trivia section. I've seen these in many other entries. I used to post a lot at the Theology Web forum and many people thought Dr. Sarfati posted as a user name "Socrates." In fact, the jury is still out. Any thoughts? --Jason Gastrich 10:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsigned makes the odd suggestion that unsubstantiated rumour and innuendo belong in an encyclopedic article. A "Trivia" section should include tidbits like "Dr Sarfati likes playing Uno in his spare time".  Gossip, regardless of the standing of this so-called 'jury', belongs in supermarket rags, not on Wikipedia. agapetos_angel 10:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops! Now, I signed. Sorry. It's REALLY late. --Jason Gastrich 10:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Homosexuals are now a politically protected victim group, about which it is verboten to say anything negative. And certain homonazis want Christians punished if they quote from the Bible against homosexual behavior. Indeed, 63-year-old Pastor Åke Green was jailed in Sweden for just that, because they have such a sodomofascist law restricting Christian freedom. Fortunately his conviction was overturned on appeal, to the ire of homosexual activists, by a higher court because it was such an egregious violation of Sweden’s free speech laws. [14]. 
This is POV and possibly vandalism. Therefore, I removed it. If someone wishes to re-word it in a NPOV manner, I would support this. Canadianism 01:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to read up on what POV means.  It is not POV to cite the subject of the article in question, because it is a fact that he made this claim.220.245.180.133 01:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mistaken. We should add quotation markes or itallics in order to avoid confusion. Reverted it back. Canadianism 01:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One or the other, please. 220.245.180.133 07:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV/Near Vandalism