User talk:Egghead2001

About the Transhumanism article and its contributors

Loremaster, you are easy to trace here at Wikipedia. I wasn't sure but you do work for World Transhumanism Association which is heavily linked to IEET (not sure what this is but will find out). This is unscrupulous.

Transhumanism is being manipulated by Loremaster, StN and Metamagician3000! STOP it!

"The US regime has been caught interfering with the major online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia. Inconvenient facts were removed altogether, and other information was added and manipulated to distort the truth. It is fortunate that this attempt to deceive the people of the world was detected, but US propaganda and deception is usually more successful." Read this about manipulating Wikipedia entries - http://capitolannex.com/2006/01/30/congressmen-caught-manipulating-their-wikipedia-entries/

--Egghead2001

For the record, I am not a member of the World Transhumanist Association (a membership organization of the transhumanist movement) or the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (a think tank for transhumanist and non-tranhumanist thinkers) nor do I work for either organization. However, I have developed friendships with a few people who work for both these organizations. That being said, even if I did work for them, there is nothing wrong with a transhumanist contributing to the Transhumanism article or a Green contributing to the Green movement article as long he bases his contributions on facts rather than opinions. --Loremaster 01:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that neither StN nor Metamagician3000 are transhumanists. Although Metamagician is sympathetic towards transhumanism, StN is quite critical if not hostile. Therefore, your accusation of unscrupulous manipulation is fallacious and needlessly inflammatory. --Loremaster 02:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've been prepared to accept the label "transhumanist" on odd days, and been very uncomfortable with it on others, or even the same days. I don't see how this is relevant. The objectivity of my edits speaks for itself. I am simply insisting that all claims for and against transhumanism, or otherwise, be accurate, properly attributed, and well-referenced. I want the article to be the best possible resource for anyone (e.g. university students) who is interested in the subject. I am currently focused on cooperating with StN (whose views are very different from mine), Loremaster (who perhaps has broadly similar sympathies, but doesn't always agree with me), and anyone else who wants to contribute, in an effort to make the article comprehensive, rigorous and stable enough for Featured Article status. That's as far as it goes. The record shows that StN, Loremaster and I have all had a lot of disagreements among ourselves. We've been handling them in an amicable and mature way, I think, but we are far from being a gang of conspirators.

Also, it is proper wikipedia practice to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. Metamagician3000 03:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will note for the record that I am about as far from being a transhumanist as one can imagine. I have happily collaborated with and debated Loremaster and Metamagician3000, who hold very different views from mine (as well as others who have contributed occasionally), to make this article as objective as possible. I can hardly be characterized as "conspiring" with them to promote or discredit transhumanism.--StN 17:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loremaster says that StN "is quite critical if not hostile"...HEY no kidding! StN really pissed me off by his comic book villain remarks to Christopher Sherman. Bty...I don't give a flying weewee what you think of me. If you cowboys say you are for real I believe you. Just keep StN under wraps so he can be a nice boy about shining stars like Vita-More who the rest of us pals of transhumanism love a lot. User:Egghead2001

However much it may piss you or Christopher off, StN has a right to his opinion.
I have no control over him nor will I try to exert any.
Wikipedia is not the place to push the views of thinkers you obviously like.

--Loremaster 15:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher is an innocent...a decent guy. (can't edit)Teach him rather than run him off.
StN was speaking from his arse...no wonder you don't want to control that.
I didn't edit Wikipedia and have no interest in it...yet. I was defending the honorable works of transhumanism and StN trashed a person without even knowing her. Breathy...how does he know...So he doesn't like her poetic flare.Sounds like he is pushing against who he doesn't like which is not being a good Wikipedia editor. --Egghead2001

Dude, I think Christopher can speak for himself. I find it dubious that you would create a Wikipedia user account simply to defend him.
We never tried to run him off. We simply deleted one of his contributions which was inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. We opened a discussion for him to explain his views in order to reach a compromise. Unfortunately, things got personal.
Although I am a supporter of Natasha Vita-More, I think StN's criticism of Natasha Vita-More's poetic writings are legitimate in the context of whether or not large portions of them should be included in a neutral and concise Wikipedia article on transhumanism.

--Loremaster 20:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think anyone was uncivil to Christopher. E.g. no one accused him of bad faith, or vandalism. The big edit he made was obviously in good faith. Likewise with his article on Create/Recreate, though he wrote it at a point when he had no training or experience in writing Wikipedia articles, so it has a lot of problems.

For myself, I'd gladly teach him how things work here, to the extent that I've developed an understanding of it — after well over 3000 edits but still not being part of the group who run the show. He may well be able to help us fill in some gaps, since he seems to know a lot about Natasha Vita-More, and we are missing some good sources to support what we say about her. If we don't get good sources we may have to delete some statements, but it's not because of any prejudice against her. I, for one, would like to give her due acknowledgment. The thing is, anyone putting a big lump of material in one place in such a well-developed article was always going to encounter some problems. I've had the same thing happen to me when I was new, and much less nicely. Metamagician3000 02:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out Christopher's NEW sources for inclusions w/links appear aren't a data dump.

Hey Vita-More is around *50* not 60+ -- get your facts straight - HEHE. The Michael Jackson reference is pure shit. Even Orlan is far from transhumanism. Stelarc is a better example of a transhumanist artist, David Bowie tops the list. There is a faq at the arts and culture site you guys should reference. Send an SOS out for help on the arts section. --Egghead2001

Egghead, unless Metamagician has put your talk page under his watch, I doubt he will read your comments above. So if you want the primary contributors to the Transhumanism page to read them, you should post on the Talk:Transhumanism page. Also, please follow the civility and etiquette guidelines of Wikipedia. Your antagonistic rhetoric is counter-productive. --Loremaster 03:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]