Your recent edits edit
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding this edit to Talk:Cladistics: that talk page is for discussion of the article. It is not for you to air your views about your block. Given that you are persisting in the same line of edits that got you blocked as User:Consist, it is grounds to block this IP—or, if you continue to change IPs, to semi-protect the article and/or talk page to prevent edits by unregistered editors. —C.Fred (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- "Given that you (I) are persisting in the same line of edits that got you blocked as User:Consist"...!? Did C.Fred expect that I should change my "line of edits"...!? I, of course, convey my messaage. It hasn't changed. Cladistics is still as inconsistent, self-contradictory and empirically erroneous (that is, wrong) as it always has been. It will never change. I just want to warn innocent people for adopting an erroneous comprehension. It only gives rise to paradoxes (in the case of cladistics, a load of paradoxes). Will Wikipedia block me for the pure having a "line of edit"? Will it try to ban "lines" (that is, consistency)? (By the way, I am not changing ip. I am dynamically assigned different ip's. It's not my fault. I do, however, not equal my address, as cladists obviously appears to believe that things do). Consist (presently at 83.254.20.53 (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC))
- That does not change the fact that you are evading your block. If you continue to post to the article and/or talk page with the dynamic IPs, that will just lead to them being protected. In the mean time:
October 2008 edit
- 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 (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC))
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |