Talk:Artificial consciousness/Blasphemy archive
|
|
| Contents |
Blasphemy
- People don't have to take the test. We know we are conscious, and don't have to prove it to anyone. The test for whether I am conscious, if any were required, is that I ask you 'Am I conscious?' and you say 'Yes'. If you say 'No' then I know you are lying. You might say 'I'm not sure', meaning that you are not sure whether I exist, i.e. that perhaps I am only a machine. People take it for granted, and have to take it for granted, that what they know as their own self-awareness is experienced similarly by other people as their self-awareness. When we talk of tests, we are only talking of how artificial consciousness is to gain a semblance of reality, and of course, self-awareness as you or I know it cannot be tested, which is why it cannot be one of the pre-requisites for artificial consciousness. Tkorrovi, what is your first language? Matt Stan 23:44, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- We know what capable human is able to learn. For example we know very exactly what children of different age are able to learn, not only whether they "are conscious" or "are not conscious". For a man there is much to prove to be considered a capable human. Concerning my first language, I first want to know why that question was asked, we talk about artificial consciousness here. Tkorrovi 00:03, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- My first language is English. I don't think yours is. We are conversing here in English. Others have remarked on your syntax. I am interested in your different perception of certain matters to do with consciousness. If consciousness is itself partly an illusion, as I have suggested, then culture might make us susceptible to different illusions, and our expression of them through different modes of language. Any knowledge I had of your first language, or could acquire if I knew what it was, might help in my interpretation of your idiosyncratic prose. Matt Stan 19:53, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Some quotations written by unnamed on the Ugen64 talk page:
- "...tkorrovi is either a troll or very misguided. From my experiences on UseNet, I would say his behavior is very trollish and would most likely be dismissed as such if the argument were happening on UseNet." "Claims to be acting reasonably, but shamelessly reverts other people's edits (pehaps because he suspects new editors to be aliases of the person who originally pissed him off, but still). Also a common troll tactic; try to claim you are being reasonable despite all appearances to keep people on your side as long as possible." "Another difficulty with his posts is that his English is below the general standard of Wikipedia, yet he often insists on having his wordings preserved exactly, regardless of whether the edit is a semantic difference or merely correction of grammar, spelling, style, etc.."
- Is it all self-evident when my nationality happens not to be English? Tkorrovi 22:44, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I do not think these characteristics are typical of any nationality. Paul Beardsell 04:24, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Yes but when nationality happens to be estonian? Tkorrovi 10:08, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- From my little knowledge of Estonian people - I once had an Estonian landlady for several years - I'd say that an Estonian troll is a highly unusual occurrence. Therefore Tkorrovi cannot be Estonian :-) Matt Stan 11:23, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Please stop the blasphemy! Show me one example that causes you to think that I am a troll. I have not the slightest idea of the cause of all that blasphemy. One reason I can possibly conceive is my nationality. I may be a person you or somebody else doesn't like. Not everyone likes everyone, but I don't write blasphemy in every possible place about people I don't like. Please say what you want from me, I cannot figure out what would please you. Sorry if there was anything what I did wrong. I have the courage to say sorry. A simple statement from you that you stop calling me a troll would end the argument. What would it cost you to say that? Please understand that we cannot seriously discuss anything if we become personal. Then it would not be a discussion about the topic, but rather a discussion about our personal qualities. This is pretty much the reason why it was impossible to discuss things on the talk page and which caused an edit war. Please think about it, what should we discuss now, the question of whether I am a troll or not? Tkorrovi 13:36,
10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I've corrected the English in the paragraph above. There is nothing wrong with Tkorrovi. There is no such thing as an Estonian troll. The Estonian people are very proud of their unique language and the contribution that their nation has made to world culture. I do not decry your nationality - only your use of English. You seem to use the dictionary as the sole source of reference. It is not. There is grammar and correct usage that may not be found in a dictionary alone (at least not the Concise Oxford - go for the Shorter Oxford at least). That is why we make the distinction between artificial and simulated, real and genuine, predict and anticipate, and so on. I am also interested that someone from a different culture may indeed have a valid and different definition of consciousness because of his different cultural identity. I am interested for instance in the fact that Estonian has no future tense. Does this affect one's appreciation of the meaning of the English word 'prediction'? Does having no future tense imply a different consciousness about what the word future actually means? Unless we can be clear on our definitions of simple words and overcome whatever language barriers there are, and be aware that they exist, I fear that the assertion that Tkorrovi is a troll might persist. I aim not to use ad hominem arguments, so there is no question of blasphemy. Who is accused of blaspheming against what, anyway? Matt Stan 16:29, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- So you continue to talk on the topic of whether I am a troll or not: "Unless we can be clear on our definitions of simple words and overcome whatever language barriers there are, and be aware that they exist, I fear that the assertion that Tkorrovi is a troll might persist." -- *stop* it. Estonian has no future tense, but this only means that what is said like "I shall do it sometimes later" is said like "I do it sometimes later" and it means exactly the same -- something shall be done in the future, only a peculiarity of the grammar and no difference in thinking. Estonian is similar to Finnish (I can speak Finnish also) and there is no future tense either, nobody yet said that this somehow influences the thinking of the Finns. Concise Oxford Dictionary has often been chosen as a basic dictionary for international agreements, ie only the words from that dictionary may appear in these agreements. This is why that dictionary is a kind of standard and preferred over the others. English being your first language is your advantage, but many Wikipedia articles in English are written by people whose first language is not English, including some featured articles, so also don't overestimate that advantage. I'm not proud to be Estonian, but this has nothing to do with the discussion here whatsoever, if your only intention is to disregard me, then please leave alone me and my nationality. Tkorrovi 17:36, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- What we need around here is an anthropologist. Anybody? Paul Beardsell 18:12, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- What we need here is a human rights lawyer, if even that helps to keep order here. Tkorrovi 18:37, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I am happy to confine vocabulary to keywords in the Concise Oxford Dictionary in order to avoid obscure words, but when it comes to definition and coloration of words, then one needs to cast a wider net. The advantage of having English as a first language, if such is an advantage, is merely to know what is correct usage, whereas others are not always so confident. This doesn't give me a problem in the Wikipedia context, because one can always go in and correct someone else's grammar/syntax. So it's no big deal. Difficulties can arise, though, when the intended meaning of a non-native speaker is unclear. I think that has happened here. (I'm much clearer now on prediction having read Tkorrovi's explanation about modelling within a closed loop process control system.) Matt Stan 09:28, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I rather think that the topic is complicated and difficulties may arise from that, especially when the discussion is often much too fast, with no time to think enough your response. It's of course sure that the native speaker can express himself faster; in very fast discussion the non-native speaker is certainly at a disadvantage. Otherwise, nobody has yet said that my English is very bad. For example, I translated this http://www.highpark.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dallas/pressxpress1998.htm for High Park Records, a record company in Canada (rubbish as it is, but I mean the language). Tkorrovi 16:00, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I am hesitant to criticise at all in a public arena such as this, as it is not likely to be fruitful. (Adage: Praise in public; criticise in private.) Another criticised Tkorrovi's English, and I followed that up by making some suggestions. I am also bashful about criticising the English of someone who has evidently spent considerable time learning a language that is not their own - so who am I to criticise? However, when it comes to plain understanding, I think we are making progress, albeit rather verbosely, and I wouldn't make any further criticisms anyway. As for speed, well, we can take our time in Wikipedia - no one forces us to respond immediately. Matt Stan 20:32, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It is an established maxim of communication theory that if we do not meet face to face, but through some other medium, such as electrically, then there is no way that I can communicate with you unambiguously to distinguish left from right. A possiblity always exists that you could be living in a mirror world where everything is back-to-front but I am unaware of it and you are unable to discern that I am unaware of it. Matt Stan 11:23, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Tkorrovi's talk page
Artificial Consciousness: I have added in a good para from Psb777. Possibly you should calm down a little. 203.221.246.35 21:11, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I included your change and didn't remove that. If you are Ataturk, then the problem was that to reverse Paul's changes (one of these removing almost all content) I had to make all changes in my copy and then put it up. Believe me, in such conditions it's feasible to include only very clear changes, the gentle changes of changing order of the text are not for such situation. I sincerely tried to do all my best to include your changes as completely as it ws possible, sorry if I failed to satisfy all you wanted. Please understand that this situation was not normal, if you see what this page was before Paul come -- people adding their changes without any dispute, why then coming of Paul changed all of that. tkorrovi
Where we were at the point I got involved was at this: work of art (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Artificial_consciousness&oldid=2676043). I am attacked again and again but look how far we have come. Paul Beardsell 06:34, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
And this was also result of editing by several people. tkorrovi
You are fixated on who. Better to be fixated on what. Paul Beardsell 16:08, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No, I fixate on reasons of dispute. tkorrovi
This is demonstrably not true. Whatever I do you revert. The same edit by someone else you allow.
I see you now fail to log in, something you are critical of others about. Paul Beardsell 16:57, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
> Whatever I do you revert.
This was only in the end when I couldn't cope with all your tricks any more in any possible way. All messages so far in talk bage signed with Tkorrovi (tkorrovi) were written by me.Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004
OK, so you agree: Demonstrably not true. Paul Beardsell 18:49, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
We have no agreement in almost anything Paul. I also wait you back tomorrow Paul (with no pleasure and certainly only with bad expectations). Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004
Tkorrovi, you have violated many Wikipedia policies. First, one may not revert a page more than three times in a row. Second, one should listen to others' arguments. Third, one should review another's changes before blindly reverting them. Fourth, one should not flame and troll other users. I will now unprotect artificial consciousness. If you get into an edit war again, you will be banned. ugen64 23:05, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
The comment above is as a proof that I cannot continue to work on "artificial consciousness" article in Wikipedia. I started this article after it was started by one editor and then blanked by another editor for no content. Thus I took myself this heavy burden to work on that controversial topic. Tkorrovi 17 Mar 2004
I created artificial consciousness NPOV article what at present is only a sketch of how to organise the article on controversial topic to incorporate different points of view. Tkorrovi 18 Mar 2004
Artificial consciousness
Hae you gone to the other users' Talk pages and asked them why they deleted your comments? RickK 02:17, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No, because they explained it in their summary: "rv: you can only blaspheme against God, or he who thinks he is a god" (Paul Beardsell) and "there are certain circumstances when that is advisable" (Ugen64). And I don't agree. Tkorrovi 02:50, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
But if you advise me so, I will ask. Tkorrovi 03:06, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- If you don't want to discuss it with the other people involved in a dispute, there's no point in others getting involved. RickK 03:14, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I restored them; my revert only dealt with your removal of one of the archives that I had created. See [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Artificial_consciousness&diff=3235239&oldid=3235224) (which was BEFORE your message on my talk page). ugen64 03:15, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
- And I also thought you had remvoed the section entitled blasphemy for no reason, when you actually were just archiving it. ugen64 03:17, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
- So this was the explanation, not only your archive was reverted, but the whole talk page with my two comments deleted. And the archive you talk about (one archive) was not an archive of original posts, but your summary of them, and a wrong summary, this was the reason why I deleted a link to it. And don't you really read the history before doing reverts? And why you don't edit talk page but revert them? Tkorrovi 03:27, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Don't make more than three reverts to the same page in one day. That is a violation of Wiki policy, and can lead to your being blocked. RickK 03:39, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Reverts are not for talk pages at all. I revert back to a version before a revert was done, with no new comments added after that revert. I don't violate any policies, you cannot block me for that. But if anyone blocks me, then it becomes more serious to talk about. My rights here were violated frequently. Tkorrovi 03:45, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- "If you don't want to discuss it with the other people involved in a dispute, there's no point in others getting involved." Yes, this is what I always tried to do, but the reason why I wrote in Village Pump first was that anybody else don't do that first. I explain. Paul Beardsell complained in public places (one was Peer Review) and Ugen64 talk page that he has an edit war with me, without trying to discuss it with me first. I explained him why I reverted his posts, ie that he tried to remove the whole content of the article, but instead of discussing with me, he started to make his changes even faster. If he did stop, and we did discuss, there was no reason to get others involved. But he did that, and towards him it was legitimate reason to protect the page in order to protect him against me. Where is the equality here, why are different users treated differently? If I then did write first in public place that Paul Beardsell started the edit war and tried to remove content, maybe I was the one who were protected. So this is why I try to write in public place first, and have no time to discuss it before. How it was against me, there may be no other way how I can protect myself. I really want the things to be different, but I was attacked, an nothing is so easy after that. Tkorrovi 04:52, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- This is false. I mean, I want to be clear: This is a set of lies by Tkorrovi dressed up in a suit of half-truths which deiberately misrepresents the history. A brief perusal of the version history and comments demonstrates that I repeatedly tried to engage with Tkorrovi before getting others involved. In legal jargon Tkorrovi is a most unreliable witness. Paul Beardsell 10:19, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- No, this is true. Even the first subject in page history by me after you started your changes was "please discuss". Do you again deny that? Tkorrovi 11:00, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Misrepresentation is Tkorrovi's strong suit. I try to engage and it's archived as "blasphemy". At best Tkorrovi lacks self-awareness. Which, ironically, is a definition of consciousness. Paul Beardsell 09:28, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Stop racist remarqs. Tkorrovi 09:59, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
As I have said before: I am sure Tkorrovi is not a typical Estonian. s/remarqs/remarks/ Paul Beardsell 10:15, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Of course, as you said that I lack self-awareness then by you I cannot be even human. Tkorrovi 10:33, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
racism at village pump
I moved the following to your talk page, bc it is not worth asking that at the Village pump. You may get more damage than benefit. You may want to discuss this here. Pfortuny 10:36, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia support racism? Or, are all Estonians or South Africans this sad?
Why sysops support Paul Beardsell's racist attacks against me? Tkorrovi 10:02, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Correcting your grammar is considered racist by you. You need a "do" between "Why" and "sysops". Paul Beardsell 10:10, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Yes in general, but sometimes it's allowed to write it more shortly, like "Why make so much fuss?" (A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language by Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik). I don't know South African English though. Tkorrovi 10:21, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- No. In the latter example you have missed out two words, "do you". Which has a different effect to missing out the one word "do" in the former example. If you had left out the word "sysops" also then that would have been correct grammar but would not have conveyed your meaning. The noun-subject requires the "do". Paul Beardsell 10:49, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- This was an example from the grammar what I mentioned. You may say it's wrong if you think that you are smarter than Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik, the best English linguists today. Tkorrovi 11:07, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I think it unlikely that the sysops sentence came from your grammar book. Paul Beardsell 11:11, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- You talked about the latter example, this was just an attempt to leave impression to these who don't read carefully that I was wrong. Tkorrovi 11:23, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- No, please do not misunderstand me: I do not want to leave an impression you are wrong. You are wrong. In your example it was not correct grammar to leave out the "do". Paul Beardsell 11:42, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- About that I already said my opinion, didn't I? Tkorrovi 11:46, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, you have already given your opinion and I have already explained why you are wrong but, as ever, you do not read the reply with enough attention. I will try again: You think your grammar book agrees with you but it does not. If you supply a noun-subject you need the "do" in a question. In the example you give from your grammar book there is no noun-subject so the "do" becomes optional. Although leaving it out can sometimes change the meaning a little but that is not the point. It is invalid to leave the "do" out where you left it out. Paul Beardsell 12:01, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Sometimes it's just allowed to omit the noun subject and "do", or only "do", though it's not the best, just when it would be necessary to write quickly. English is not a language with so strict rules as you try to suggest, there is no official grammar in English. By strict rules the example would be far from correct. I already said that I agree that with "do" it was more correct, this is what my grammar also says. Was it supposed to be a proof that my english is "very bad and far below Wikipedia level", or how it was said by these who claimed that they "pissed me off" or, sorry, I don't tend to remember offenses very exactly. Tkorrovi 12:17, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The purpose of me correcting your English was not to correct your English: We all understood that you had made a simple error or that you were a non-native English language speaker but your meaning was clear - that's good enough (for me) on a Talk page. My purpose was to demonstrate that you are unable to admit that you are wrong. This you continue to do. And to demonstrate that me indicating an error in your writing (the missing "do") or an error in your reasoning (the argument about the missing "do") is invariably taken by you as personal criticism. It is not personal criticism. Your response (and here I do get personal) is a typically dishonest and unjust ad hominem attack - the racism one is just the latest of several. Ad hominem attacks are always unfair but sometimes they are at least truthful. So your unfairness is demonstrated. But your dishonesty is also in this case as you have no reason other than a possible persecution complex for calling me "racist". But I am not writing this to you: I am writing it for others to read so that when they see my name they do not have a lingering suspicion in their minds that I may be a racist. Consider the lingering impression you make. Paul Beardsell 12:36, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Yes I did admit that I made simple errors, read the talk page, this was simply hypocritical from you. But you cannot take from me a right to say my opinion, what I did, and it's not always just black and white so that you either admit your mistake or say that you were entirely correct. And that you don't write to me but to others on my talk page is wrong also. This shows that you don't want to discuss with me, but seek support against me from others. At least on my talk page it's not honest. Tkorrovi 13:13, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- And now please explain to everybody what for example your reply to me "What we need around here is an anthropologist" meant. Tkorrovi 10:29, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- It wasn't a reply to you. But acknowledge first "to everybody" that the primary purpose of an anthropologist is not to distinguish humans from animals, which seems to be your understanding from your Village Pump posting. Then perhaps you saying that I consider you an animal might be acknowledged by you "to everybody" as being a non sequitur and yet another of your false accusations. I do however know more reasonable animals than you. Paul Beardsell 10:49, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Or then to determine what is my race, whatever. Tkorrovi 10:57, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- So you acknowledge your accusation was false? Paul Beardsell 11:11, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- No, the only logical reason I find for being persecuted by you now already a month, is racism. I would be thankful if anybody can suggest another reason. Tkorrovi 11:19, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- You always feel persecuted. Not just here but in all aspects of your daily life. Paul Beardsell 11:24, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- No, even here there were no problems since July 2003, until you came in last month. Is it that you life is not successful, like these who are taken to French foreign legion, so that they would then enjoy hurting others? Tkorrovi 11:30, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- But the pity of it is, is that there is no evidence that you can quote to support your view. The best you have got is that, in the midst of an anthropological argument (in which I was not a participant) I called for an anthropologist. How you get from there to calling me a racist must be a puzzle for all your avid readers. Paul Beardsell 11:39, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
the "racism thing"
I just wanted to ask you to stop arguing about that. It is not worth the effort, I think. But obviously it's your problem. Pfortuny 11:26, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
simulated consciousness
Where did you leave a message? Matt Stan 20:27, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What message do you mean? I wrote on your talk page in "AC edit war" section, and I wrote in AC NPOV version talk page, but recently nowhere else. Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004
Thank you for leave message tag. Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004
AC
NEVER use bullets in an article (unless it is a list). Use correct grammar. I just spend 30 minutes fixing all of the problems you caused with your ineffectual merger. Also, you reverted many of my edits through the merger, including my rewording of various sentences.
Also, if you're going to copy the talk page, put it in an archive or something. The talk page is currently 80 kb, which means that I will have to archive it now. ugen64 21:29, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Village pump
Paul Beardsell reverted Talk:Artificial_consciousness so deleting two of my last comments. I think talk pages should not be reverted, as this is taking the right from users to say their opinion or write their comment on talk page. Tkorrovi 23:49, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Another user's edits to a Talk page should never be deleted or changed unless it is to remove a personal attack. RickK 01:30, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Having said that, however, I see nothing in the history which indicates that your comments were deleted. RickK 01:32, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I mean this revision by Paul Beardsell: [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Artificial_consciousness&diff=3232707&oldid=3232599) what was reverting to this earlier revision: [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Artificial_consciousness&oldid=3189773). With this reverting my this comment: [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Artificial_consciousness&diff=3226391&oldid=3189773) and this comment: [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Artificial_consciousness&diff=3226660&oldid=3226391) were deleted. The text what was added by reverting was previously moved into this archive: [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Artificial_consciousness/Blasphemy_archive) by me, but my these two comments were my last comments and were not archived anywhere. Tkorrovi 01:49, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Just now the same reverting mentioned above was repeated by sysop Ugen64, with my these two comments deleted again. Tkorrovi 02:15, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- When the threats against me end? I was threaten to be blocked already second time without no reason. Why I'm treated like that, can you show a single vandalism by me? I always tried to discuss and solve problems so, the talk page is 6 volumes long, but attacks against me didn't end. I didn't delete other people's additions to article, even if I found them wrong, I did not have any bad intentions against anybody. But nobody never said me welcome. Please believe me, I'm not a bad person, why you attack me? Tkorrovi 04:06, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I'm user here since July 2003 and attacks against me started since March 2004. Tkorrovi 09:17, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Tkorrovi made only a handful of edits before March 2004. Correcting Tkorrovi's spelling is considered a personal attack by him. A gentle enquiry by another user as to his home language was taken very personally by him. What he accuses others of he always seems to be guilty of himself in spades. I am not the most reasonable, level headed Wikipedia user but I am a saint in comparison and I contribute to many Wikipedia articles with the perhaps the occasional edit conflict which is always constructively resolved - Tkorrovi should try his antics in any article other than artificial consciousness (where practically his only Wikipedia contributions occur) and he would see how well he would be tolerated there. I reverted the Talk page because he was deleting my comments on a Talk page. Paul Beardsell 09:40, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- As you see, the attacks don't end. I deleted only Paul's comment "Yes, but someone has to keep the Estonians happy." what was not informative and I considered it offensive. Previously South-African Paul Beardsell said that it needs an anthropologist to find out my nationality, or maybe he meant to find out whether I'm human or animal. Tkorrovi 09:50, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It wasn't only the deletions of my comments I was concerned about. The comment to which Tkorrovi now chooses to take offense above was meant humourously and Tkorrovi's response to it shows this was understood at the time. The anthropologist comment I made was directed not at Tkorrovi but at Matt Stan who is one!. Tkorrovi seems to be embarrassed to be Estonian! But here we have a typical example of Tkorrovi's twisted thought process: He falsely accuses me of criticising him on the basis of his nationality (or if he is even human - where he gets this from is difficult to see) and then he uses this to justify mentioning my (supposed) nationality trying thereby to do what? Tkorrovi stabs himself and blames it on me. Incidentally, Tkorrovi, if we continue here we are likely to annoy others. If you insist on a public forum I am happy with staying here. Otherwise I suggest we go to your Talk page where you currently revert my comments and where those amused by the conflict can join us too. Paul Beardsell 10:08, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I don't take this and other insults humorously. I think it's serious. It was a reply to me. I think it's racism. Tkorrovi 10:37, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Knowing two, I find I like 50% of all Estonians. Paul Beardsell 11:03, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I would say that I like most of the South Africans except the rulers of the former regime there, for obvious reasons. Tkorrovi 12:02, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- What should I do to stop this man from persecuting me? Tkorrovi 10:44, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Stop deleting his comments? Paul Beardsell 11:03, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- By Wikipedia rules I can delete offensive (and not informative) comments for defence against attack. My two comments you deleted can not be considered to be an attack by anybody Tkorrovi 11:15, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Anybody who thinks that it's humorous, please say it here. Tkorrovi 10:48, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Be careful now, he will take offense! Paul Beardsell 11:03, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Please stop your offensive and tasteless jokes. Tkorrovi 11:15, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This last reversion of yours is vandalism. Wikipedia obviously works differently than you think. The myriad of improvements to wording, grammar and structure you have senselessly reverted is not constructive. Paul Beardsell 02:41, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have been thinking about this and I suggest you just quietly reinstate Ugen64's latest version. Paul Beardsell 03:04, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)