Talk:Technocracy movement/Archive 4

message: Is that picture a joke? It's a horrible picture -- someone giving a speech wearing (what looks like) sunglasses? Do you want this to look like more than a death cult? --154.5.41.198 09:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technocrat giving a speech 

message: I would like to get everyone's opinion(s) on the edits of User:Skipsievert, in order to create a consensus. I'll assume that we all have some familiarity of the edits I am talking about. Now that the protection is down, Skip has continued to put up his edits (on this article and others), I would contend that these qualify as Tendentious editing and Disruptive editing. If there's any confusion as to what edits I'm talking about, well I wont list all his edits but here's my most recent reverts,  ,  So can we get a consensus here as to what is and isn't acceptable in his edits? I think we already have got informal consensus that his edits are unhelpful, inaccurate, POV, etc. but I would like to make it clear. --Hibernian 15:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He just doesn't know what wikipedia is about. I did a major reworking of Technocracy Study Course, faithful to his original text, identifying where sources need to be cited, getting rid of all the NPOV and redundant stuff, including duplicate links, etc., and he just reverts it back. I've explained all my edits on the talk page, and I have archived the old talk page which detailed each area of my concern. Is there really a point to me spending a few hours fixing an article, when it can just be reverted back in two seconds by some naive user who doesn't take criticism? --154.5.41.198 19:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a procedure. See Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Three reverts (in whole or in part) within 24 hours constitutes a possible ban. --77siddhartha 08:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we get consensus here? 

message: Really at odds with Technocracy ideas that someone is putting up the phrase energy credits multiple times in the energy accounting section. There are no 'credits' or 'debits' in the Technocracy system. Making reference to false economic terms will confuse any one who wants accurate info. There is no such thing as an energy credit in Technocracy. (skip sievert 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More discussion on this topic is at Talk:Energy_Accounting. --77siddhartha 00:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy certificates or energy accounting - not 'credit' 

message: I think the article name should be Technocracy movement instead of Technocratic movement. The movement itself was not technocratic -- i.e. 'technocratic' is an adjective. The same improper grammar is used when describing nutrition facts panels on food: should it be Nutritional Information or Nutrition Information. The information itself isn't nutritious, so the latter is  proper grammar. --77siddhartha 00:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100% with you here sidd. The article is misnamed, and I suggest that we take your suggestion of Technocracy movement immediately. Please change it now. There is no question that the current name is improper, and I was going to make the same suggestion.(skip sievert 04:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I do, I would like at least one more response from a current editor of the article. --77siddhartha 05:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, guys, looks like my account is too new to rename the page. I've tried changing my skin to get the quickbar to appear, but it doesn't :( Hibernian, since you have experience, would you be able to? Otherwise I can just post a move request. Thanks. --77siddhartha 00:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name: proper grammar 

message: This 'church building' phrase has come up before. Does it mean something different than "constructing a church"? Am I missing some colloquialism here? Should we really care that *gasp* people can construct churches in a Technate?! Holy crap, we're talking about changing the fabric of society and the last few thousand years of habituation and someone wants to grind it to a halt because of a cross or a statue? --77siddhartha 09:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its interesting to note that the idea of people clubbing together and putting their energy credits towards building churches is mentioned in Harold Loeb’s book ”Life in a Technocracy” published in 1933, so its not a new idea and has been around since Tech Inc started. Isenhand 11:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. *tap* *tap* *tap* Is this record broken? I think I have read your copy-and-pasted brain dumps now far too many times. You won't fool me now. I can see through your phony finger-pointing. You have zero argument here. You aren't even responding to what I wrote about. What the rabbits do energy credits have to do with church building? What does any of what you just wrote have to do with church building? Are you really attempting to present cogent material in your posts? This is total nonsense!  Your only response is: "This information of church building in a Technate is like poison candy. Someone decided that this sounded good, and added it to the material." What is poisonous about it? How does it sound good? If it's added to the material, does that invalidate everything else? If I put a "Jesus loves you" bumper sticker on your car, are you going to torch it, drive it off a cliff, and never speak about your car again? Do you have any comprehension of logic? Are you actually going to write something different in response to this, or are you going to cut and paste something from your blog? --77siddhartha 06:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On 'church building' 

message: :Ok, Wow, I've just seen this... Skip has gone and created this blog http://network-of-european-technocrats.blogspot.com/
:I should first obviously state that everything on there was written by Skip (including the "comments" which appear in my name).
:At the moment I'm still kind of in Shock that he would actually go this far, and now that I've recovered from laughing, I thought I'd show it to everyone here. (I was informed about it from the forums here )
:This has got to be the most demented, childish, and bizarre attack on people I've ever seen. And this I hope will now prove, beyond any doubt, to everyone here what I've been saying all along, Skip is here because his is on a manic personal crusade against a few people (of which I'm apparently one now), he cannot be taken seriously by anyone, on Wikipedia or elsewhere.
:As for the actual content, I don't know if making this sort of crazy attack is considered a personal attack on Wikipedia (since it's being made off-site), but if is obviously directly related to what's going on here and is blatantly a personal attack of the worst kind (not to mention the fact that it probably breaks several laws). I would say this has got to be the straw that breaks the camel's back, Skip has got to go, and go now. --Hibernian 02:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That page is far to well designed and thought out to be created by skip. --77siddhartha 06:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hibernian, don’t bother. The world as it is today faces a number of challenges from  Peak oil to Global Warming to population pressure and  ecofoot print resulting from our unsustainable socioeconomic system. The technocracy movement both in the US and Europe offers an alternative socioeconomic system. One that balances societies needs with those of the ecosystem and builds a  sustainable system thought the application of science and  rational thought. Given the seriousness of the problem we face and the potential of a better society that technocracy offers, do we really want to waste time with irrelevances? We have far more important things to do to be bothered. Isenhand 08:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For anyone who still doesn’t understand Skip's motives 

message: You know Sidd for someone that does not know much about the design ideas,  you certainly have some strong opinions. Opinions do not go far though in a discussion of issues that were fact based, as Technocracy is. 
:My opinions are about your irrationality. Besides, you define a fact and give an example of an irrefutable fact (in a sociological context) and I'll be impressed. --77siddhartha 00:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Technocracy is based on thermodynamics (physics), and sociology is a branch of science, not that that really applies here anyway. Please stop setting up strawmen. And how is providing facts jumping through "performance hoops"? It's how logic and Wikipedia work (not to mention Technocracy, as even you have pointed out). --Kolzene 05:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Almighty power who knows all of Technocracy, but who cannot read our comments: you have constructed yet another strawman. I never said that Technocracy was based on sociology, neither did Kolzene. I simply wanted a fact that was something over and above "everyone dies" or something to that effect. Anyway, moot point. Kolzene pointed out that sociology was based on science, which is consistent with Technocracy 1) being based on science and 2) not being based on sociology. Maybe you don't understand what science is though... making hypothesis and then performing experiments to increase the likely hood of that hypothesis being true? That's what social sciences do too. If you study any sort of philosophy of science or epistemology, you will learn that science doesn't ever come close to uncovering facts and that it is all approximations. If you also study philosophy, you will also understand the concepts of logic and reasoning. I suggest you get studying. --77siddhartha 19:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not working for them, although maybe I'm just under the witch's spell. Oh no! Perhaps I too should be creating a website to shame them. Philosophy is nonsense! Rationality is a bunch of crap! The TTCD should be burned! --77siddhartha 07:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why should a page be taken over by a cabal? 

message: Unbelievable! Skip comes back from being blocked and what is the first thing he does? Commits vandalism, but deleting entire sections of the article, as well as continuing to put up the same idiotic edits which have been roundly condemned here. Needless to say I've reverted it, though I doubt that will be the last of it, unfortunately. --Hibernian 06:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this really must stop. I think we have exhausted all means at this point. --77siddhartha 06:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skip vandalism 

message: Just because the group of you have formed a team, and keep putting up the same stuff that has been written better by myself does not mean that you are 'right'. It just means that you have overwhelming numbers. I can understand that. Sometimes that is what is known as consensus at wikipedia. It does not matter really what I have pointed out due to that concept. My rewrite of the Energy accounting energy certificate section is accurate and reflects the actual concept. Hibernian has repeated the phrase energy credits in that section he wrote probably a half dozen times. Why ? I don`t know. It has nothing to do with the basic Technocracy ideas which are trying to be related here. It is a misnomer that clouds the concept of what energy certificates are. Also I took down the link to the TTCD. That is a redundant link. It is featured now prominently on the TechInc website with its own box to click on. I have explained in my edits why I took it off. NO one seems to care because a team of people is managing this article. http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=63&func=view&catid=7&id=853#1399
Network of European Technocrats - Re:"War" on Wikipedia over Technocracy I - N.E.T. Forum
I would have to say that this cabal has enlisted the service of Sidd, who also relates somehow to them. It is noted that a difference of opinion of appropriate material brings a rather strong accusatory response. Double standard ?
I now posit again that the Net material is self published and self serving and does not really belong on the article page. I also wonder why the reference I have put up to Howard Scott, etc. have been taken down in deference to Techno Utopia type stuff. 
I could see someone tweaking my editing as Sidd did on the Technocracy Study Course page. What is happening on this page is wholesale control and censorship by a group of determined people who have special interests to promote. (skip sievert 16:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no relation to any of these editors. I'm not a member of Technocracy nor its forums. I haven't been 'enlisted'. If you look at my edits in the article, you can see that they are trivial and don't touch anything controversial. I don't see why calling them certificates instead of credits is such a big deal, personally -- the terms are interchangeable as I have argued previously. I do think that the TTCD should have a direct link. I think that the NET stuff is valuable to mention in passing, and should be referenced with their own site (as Wafulz agrees). I also don't see how any of what I just wrote is controversial. --77siddhartha 18:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Skip, you realize that every serious reply in that thread is basically saying "don't bother editing the article we have better things to do"?--Wafulz 19:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Skip, as I have already posted here, I did not write the TTCD; it was first written before I could even read! My contributions since then have been relatively small and largely cosmetic. Please stop taking out your grudge against me on that document just because you dislike a very small portion of it. --Kolzene 07:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Kolzene, I do have a problem with the information presented in the TTCD. Word twisting is not of value here. I am not taking out a grudge on you. I have pointed out that the material that you edited is not appropriately a part of Technocracy material. That material is 'high concept'. The reason that the organization splintered is the TTCD. It promotes contracts divorce/marriage, it promotes referendum voting other than voting in a Technate, it promotes Church building in a Technate. That information spawned NET. It is sociological in nature and not anthropological.(skip sievert 04:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is: even if the TTCD goes against the original Technocracy material with respect to small points (which I think those you mentioned are), should it be excluded entirely? Even if the TTCD went against a major point in the original Technocracy material (e.g. Continental Hydrology, which, by the way never considered salmon stock runs), should the TTCD be excluded entirely? I certainly hope not! As we have said time and time again, this article is lacking sources. The TTCD might not be the best source in the world, but it is certainly adequate in an article that is in dire need of validity. --77siddhartha 09:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And what exactly Skip, of what I have added to the TTCD, is inappropriate? The section on Urbanates? I believe that we already tackled that one. Or was it the "How to use this book?" Does that somehow go against "high concept technocracy", whatever that means? All you have been complaining about is the Q&A section which I made no additions to. Since I already pointed this out, it would seem that your claim to not be taking a grudge against me is spurious at best (to say nothing of the personal attacks you have made earlier). If you could provide any evidence at all for your claims that these "discredited" notions contradict Technocratic analysis or design, then please do. Use specific references please. --Kolzene 07:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skip