User talk:R Lowry: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:05, 7 July 2003

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Hi, thanks for the welcome, and also for the links. I'll keep those handy for if (when) I get lost. I think I probably will stick around. I like what I've seen so far. Cheers, --Rlowry

Great! I'm glad to hear that. --mav

Hi there! You didn't waste any time promoting Wolves, did you? :) I was just logging on when the final whistle blew... Arwel 16:03 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Well, at 3-0 with ten minutes to go I thought it was pretty well wrapped up! I'm just glad that awful Neil Warnock won't be able to employ his spoiling tactics in the Premiership next season... R Lowry 16:13 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Hi Rlowry, thanks for changing my comment on the Trade war over genetically modified food into a NPOV statement. It is sometimes hard to state something neutrally if emotions are involved. Thanks a lot, Fantasy 05:29 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You're welcome. I know it's always a lot easier to see POV statements when they're made by other people. ;-) R Lowry 17:36 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Good work cleaning up small copyedits and things in major articles, that kind of thing has more impact on credibility than most of the scientist types think. Hm. Glad someone with a humanities background is here as well to help balance. A list of ethicists just appeared but it probably needs vetting or more names. The list of ethics topics is also incomplete, a few searches and expansions of that list would do much good. Particularly for some people. EofT

Thanks for recording your appreciation: positive feedback always helps me to stay motivated. I imagine that new list could do with breaking down into sub-categories before it becomes anything like useful - any list that has L. Ron Hubbard rubbing shoulders with David Hume is probably so diverse as to be virtually useless. I'm not sure I know enough about the subject to start making those divisions, but maybe if no one else does I might have a go. R Lowry 18:01 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. Well I think the standard here is to avoid all such divisions since they are inherently contentious. For instance I have read both David Hume and L. Ron Hubbard and they have more in common than not. In particular Hubbard quite literally has formulas for ethical decisions, and has clearly had much influence. His followers abuse his doctrine probably less than those of Jesus. It would be a mess to try to distinguish ethical, historical and political from religious influence of Muhammad. Even with modern figures who made no claim to any divine insight, I think also it is very hard to say if a fellow like B. F. Skinner for instance represents a "person whose name has become synonymous with an ethical debate" (about free will say), or a theorist who made real contributions. One could also ask that about Josef Mengele, whose work is still a standard citation on hypothermia. That list is loaded with such dangers. So I would advise against that attempt, at least for now, and encourage you instead to try to balance it culturally by adding but not remving names. The list of ethics topics on the other hand is obviously very incomplete, and needs work, but likewise would be hard to divide. A recent suggestion to split off business ethics is interesting, and to deal with business philosophy more seriously. I think these might be areas that need a humanist's touch. Just my opinion. Also the esteemed Carol Moore just added a note in Talk: re: her own work, so, perhaps we should focus on good coverage of controversial figures active on the net, to attract them here. Then we could see some real improvements in some of the more difficult articles.EofT

Yes, I see what you mean about the difficulty of making subdivisions. I'm glad I didn't just dive in without waiting for advice (my favoured method). Next time I get the chance I'll have a scout around for articles that can be added to the other list you mention. Cheers, R Lowry 18:05 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hello! I couldn't find the sentence you changed/removed in the Peter Wessel Zapffe article. I'm the n00b behind it, so I just wanted to know what was wrong/unnecessary. Sigg3.net 00:20 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 Good work cleaning up small copyedits and things in major articles, that kind of thing has more impact on credibility than most of the scientist types think.  Hm.  Glad someone with a humanities background is here as well to help balance.  A [[list of ethicists]] just appeared but it probably needs vetting or more names.  The [[list of ethics topics]] is also incomplete, a few searches and expansions of that list would do much good.  Particularly for some people.  [[User:EntmootsOfTrolls|EofT]]
-Thanks for recording your appreciation: positive feedback always helps me to stay motivated. I imagine that new list could do with breaking down into sub-categories before it becomes anything like useful - any list that has L. Ron Hubbard rubbing shoulders with David Hume is probably so diverse as to be virtually useless. I'm not sure I know enough about the subject to start making those divisions, but maybe if no one else does I might have a go. [[User:Rlowry|R Lowry]] 18:01 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
+: Thanks for recording your appreciation: positive feedback always helps me to stay motivated. I imagine that new list could do with breaking down into sub-categories before it becomes anything like useful - any list that has L. Ron Hubbard rubbing shoulders with David Hume is probably so diverse as to be virtually useless. I'm not sure I know enough about the subject to start making those divisions, but maybe if no one else does I might have a go. [[User:Rlowry|R Lowry]] 18:01 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
+Hmm.  Well I think the standard here is to avoid all such divisions since they are inherently contentious.  For instance I have read both [[David Hume]] and [[L. Ron Hubbard]] and they have more in common than not.  In particular Hubbard quite literally has formulas for ethical decisions, and has clearly had much influence.  His followers abuse his doctrine probably less than those of Jesus.   It would be a mess to try to distinguish ethical, historical and political from religious influence of [[Muhammad]].  Even with modern figures who made no claim to any divine insight, I think also it is very hard to say if a fellow like [[B. F. Skinner]] for instance represents a "person whose name has become synonymous with an ethical debate" (about [[free will]] say), or a theorist who made real contributions.  One could also ask that about [[Josef Mengele]], whose work is still a standard citation on [[hypothermia]].  That list is loaded with such dangers.  So I would advise against that attempt, at least for now, and encourage you instead to try to balance it culturally by adding but not remving names.  The [[list of ethics topics]] on the other hand is obviously very incomplete, and needs work, but likewise would be hard to divide.  A recent suggestion to split off [[business ethics]] is interesting, and to deal with [[business philosophy]] more seriously.  I think these might be areas that need a humanist's touch.  Just my opinion.  Also the esteemed [[Carol Moore]] just added a note in Talk: re: her own work, so, perhaps we should focus on good coverage of controversial figures active on the net, to attract them here.  Then we could see some real improvements in some of the more difficult articles.[[User:EntmootsOfTrolls|EofT]]
+: Yes, I see what you mean about the difficulty of making subdivisions. I'm glad I didn't just dive in without waiting for advice (my favoured method). Next time I get the chance I'll have a scout around for articles that can be added to the other list you mention. Cheers, [[User:Rlowry|R Lowry]] 18:05 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
-:Hmm.  Well I think the standard here is to avoid all such divisions since they are inherently contentious.  For instance I have read both [[David Hume]] and [[L. Ron Hubbard]] and they have more in common than not.  In particular Hubbard quite literally has formulas for ethical decisions, and has clearly had much influence.  His followers abuse his doctrine probably less than those of Jesus.   It would be a mess to try to distinguish ethical, historical and political from religious influence of [[Muhammad]].  Even with modern figures who made no claim to any divine insight, I think also it is very hard to say if a fellow like [[B. F. Skinner]] for instance represents a "person whose name has become synonymous with an ethical debate" (about [[free will]] say), or a theorist who made real contributions.  One could also ask that about [[Josef Mengele]], whose work is still a standard citation on [[hypothermia]].  That list is loaded with such dangers.  So I would advise against that attempt, at least for now, and encourage you instead to try to balance it culturally by adding but not remving names.  The [[list of ethics topics]] on the other hand is obviously very incomplete, and needs work, but likewise would be hard to divide.  A recent suggestion to split off [[business ethics]] is interesting, and to deal with [[business philosophy]] more seriously.  I think these might be areas that need a humanist's touch.  Just my opinion.  Also the esteemed [[Carol Moore]] just added a note in Talk: re: her own work, so, perhaps we should focus on good coverage of controversial figures active on the net, to attract them here.  Then we could see some real improvements in some of the more difficult articles.[[User:EntmootsOfTrolls|EofT]]
 ----
 Hello! I couldn't find the sentence you changed/removed in the [[Peter Wessel Zapffe]] article. I'm the [[n00b]] behind it, so I just wanted to know what was wrong/unnecessary. [[User:Sigg3.net|Sigg3.net]] 00:20 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)