User talk:Loomis

Waiting for my talk page to be activated!
 * Um, it already is... unless you want one of those big WELCOME! templates. i've never really liked them myself.  Er, and, um, WELCOME!--Rayc 05:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Law
Hi Loomis! Don't you like when you see that yellow box saying "You have new messages"?

Well, I won't spend too much more time here on the Internet today so, besides making the first second entry to your talk page, I will just say I would like to learn the difference between Common Law and Civil Law!

I sort of work with Law. Well, I'm nothing like a lawyer! But I started to work last month as a sort of secretary or assistant or something like that at a... Damn it, I just realize I have no idea how to say that in English, neither my job nor the place where I work. I would normally look up on Google for this sort of thing, but I'm tired right now... What a frustrating paragraph this one.

I saw you know about economics as well. I am a student of Economics at the University of São Paulo. Well, I have only been there for one month now, but I am nevertheless a student there. I hope you can help me here on Wikiversity on learning about Law and Economics. Or at least with the English language!

Bye now and good luck on editing here! I think we will really enjoy this experience and this place. A.Z. 05:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A.Z., do you mean you are a legal secretary ? I also know a fair amount about economics (see the article I wrote on diseconomy of scale), but very little about law.  And now that I know you're in Brazil, please send us (me in the US and Loomis/Lewis in Canada) all the cheap ethanol you can spare so we can stop being dependent on Arabs (and just as bad, Hugo Chavez) for our oil. StuRat 02:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, unfortunately the workers cutting the sugar cane don't make a lot of money. In fact, people say they live in near-slavery conditions, so I don't think I myself am willing to buy ethanol here.


 * I looked at the article and I don't think I am a legal secretary. That's really close, though. I just do not assist lawyers: I work for the state and the people I assist are public employees as well: we call them promotores. They are not judges, but they play an important role in the cases that are of public interest. They decide whether someone will be prosecuted or not, they suggest what the sentences will be. They work for the Ministério Público and so do I, and the exact part of the Ministério Público where I work is a promotoria criminal. It is inside a place called a forum where there are also the varas and the tribunal do júri, and the other promotoria, the promotoria cível. A.Z. 04:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, look what I found: Prosecutor. I really know very little about the prosecutors and the MP since it's been only two weeks that I am working there. A.Z. 04:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I wondered how you got your ethanol so cheaply there, I guess that explains it. StuRat 04:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you work for what we call a district attorney ? If so, they are also considered to be lawyers, so can still have a legal secretary or a paralegal. StuRat 04:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am kind of both. I don't see a clear boundary between paralegals and secretaries in Brazil. There are also the "estagiários" who seem to do the more complex tasks that the paralegals (according to the article) can do and the secretaries can't. Weirdly, the estagiários actually don't really work there, their job is like the one of a volunteer willing to work in exchange for learning. They are always Law students. A.Z. 05:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, there is a photograph here of the place where I work. Just please do not link it.


 * http : // pt .wikipedia.org /wiki/ Imagem: Pmsaalto1. jpg.


 * I live in the city of São Paulo, but I work in the city of Santo André (don't link it from here as well). This is the square where there is the city hall (the big building, the first one on the bottom-right). The shade of this building is on top of the Forum. A.Z. 05:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not link to it ? StuRat 06:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Because people that I know may find out my account on Wikipedia and Wikiversity and I don't want them to read the things I write here.


 * I just wrote something on Clio the Muse's talkpage and she was extremely rude to me. I had to tell it to someone, it makes me feel better... A.Z. 06:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, she is extremely rude to anyone she disagrees with, resorting to personal attacks rather than debating them on the issues. Both Lewis and I have tried to talk with her, and it never works out well.  I wouldn't bother talking with her, if I were you. StuRat 23:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * She now said that she just reacted badly to my post because she thought I was patronising her. And that I should have thought more carefully about what I was going to say, which is true. a.z. 01:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for asking a question
It has been my experience that the logical validity and/or the factual accuracy of any statement made on Wikipedia is determined entirely on sociological factors concerning the relative levels of support, the and airs of authority, and the past history of each of the parties concerned.

The admins play a crucial role in this process, and from my experience with the ones I've dealt with, in my opinion are failing miserably in excercizing this jurisdiction.

The rules of logical discourse dictate that such discourse must be analyzed entirely without prejudice, and absolutely no regard must be paid to that editor's reputation.

The rules of logical discourse dictate that cold, dispassionate, logical arguments, even if postulated by the Devil himself, must be dealt with in accordance with their logical merit and their logical merit alone.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not operate in this manner.

I am presently indefinitely blocked from editing on Wikipedia.

Why? Because I'm a rather unpopular editor who dared challenge an extremely popular one by asking a pair of cold, dispassionate questions. The first one earned me a warning, and the second an indefinite block.

Moral of the Story: Beware when challenging the logic of popular editors.

Hopefully your logic will be faulty and you'll just look stupid.

However should you have the misfortune of your question uncovering a major logical fallacy being held by your counterpart, rather than allow logic to take its natural course, you might just get blocked for it.

Loomis 16:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:Logical_fallacies_and/or_factual_inaccuracies_on_Wikipedia"


 * Lewis, can you please provide links to these "pair of cold, dispassionate questions" ? Diffs will do nicely. StuRat 11:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'll get right on it. There's just this one tiny thing I'm curious about. I know I should know this by now, I keep hearing the word over and over, but what exactly is a "diff"? Loomis 19:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL, this is a diff: . StuRat 20:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation!


 * I see that the first of the two questions has been conveniently deleted from Clio's talkpage, no doubt because I'd pretty much logically checkmated her. Of course seeing as Clio can't bear the thought of being proven wrong in public, she simply deleted it.


 * The result is that I had to go hunting and pecking through the history to piece it all together, but I seem to have found it all. I'll reproduce the entire discssion here, as context is always a vital element, and bold both the heading it was under, as well as the actual question I'm referring to:

All the Best, Clio the Muse

It just wouldn't sit right with me not to end our obviously troubled relationship on a positive note. With that in mind, I bid you a kind farewell and wish you all the very best in your future endeavours. May they be met with peace, happiness, and good health. :) Lewis 21:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I thank you for your kind wishes, but please read 'Clio Arises' above. I am not going anywhere. Clio the Muse 23:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All the better! Can we perhaps use this as an excuse for a fresh start? I'd love to once again treat you with the respect every other contributor deserves, all I request is that you do likewise. Doesn't that seem fair?


 * When I challenge your assertions, is it not possible to react to them as simply being the challenges of "the devil's advocate"? How fitting, actually, as very often I feel like you see me as the devil, and in addition, I happen to be an advocate!


 * Why can't we turn this negative relationship into a positive one? Wouldn't you agree that it would only further fine-tune your positions if you had a "devil's advocate" or "fact-checker"?


 * In any case, welcome back. Hopefully this event will signal a turnaround. Lewis 11:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I try my best to treat everyone in the fashion that they deserve, and once my respect for a person is earned it is very rarely lost; but it is not earned lightly. I believe myself to be a fair-minded and reasonable individual, and I do my best to avoid personal animosity, which serves no purpose at all. I am open to challenge, I always have been, and I respond to reasoned disagreement in measured and precise terms. I could not survive, or got as far as I have in my own academic environment if I had not been not able to do so. The point is we have to approach these things in a rational and, above all, a detached manner. I have absolutely no wish to cover old ground, but you have a capacity to personalise issues which should be simple matters of adult debate, in a way that, I confess, I have found quite unsettling. Inevitably, this has coloured my attitude towards you, and my determination to have no direct contact with you on any matter. I must also make it perfectly clear that I fully aware of all that has been written about me in that 'other place.' However, what is past is past. I will say, though, that I do not need a 'devil's advocate' nor a 'fact checker', but will respond in future to all reasonable requests for clarification. Keep cool, think calmly and act reasonably; that's all I ask: that is all anyone can ask. Clio the Muse 23:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I find myself walking something of a tightroap here, trying to balance as best as possible the two often clashing virtues of civility and honesty. We're both rather extremely well educated, yet in different fields. In fact, I hold the precise equivalent of a Juris Doctor, and I suppose that would qualify me to be referred to as "Dr. Lewis", yet I loathe such titles, and would insist that I simply be referred to as "Mister". I've actually been published on many occasions as well, yet I hardly find that sort of thing worth mentioning at the RefDesk. All I'm saying this for is to make it clear that I've had more than my fair share of obstacles to overcome in my pursuit and accomplishment of four university degrees. I won't go into details now, however if asked, I'd be more than willing. You seem to be implying that you too have had your share of obstacles. I'm not sure what they are, but I suppose that on that count we can relate.


 * You say that you avoid personal animosity, are open to challenge, you respond to reasoned disagreement in measured and precise terms, that you act in a detached manner, and that unlike myself, you do not share the capacity to personalize issues.


 * I beg to differ on all of those counts. I really don't want to make an issue of this, yet at the very least, I feel compelled to tell you that many of your remarks to myself and to some others were well beyond incivil, and were indeed verging upon downright cruelty. I'm not even speaking of those targeted at myself. Though I confess to being an incredibly irritable person, otherwise my skin is quite thick. Please reflect upon your remarks concerning the issue of "magic". Of course I'd laugh those off, but to the target, whether you're aware of it or not, they were remarkably painful.


 * I'll leave it here for now, since indeed we're embarking on an extremely delicate enterprise, one which can only be accomplished slowly, in a piecemeal fashion.


 * Just as you made some delicately disagreable comments to me in your last post, I hope you don't interpret any of the above comments which you may find disagreeable as anything but "delicately disagreeable" as well.


 * I feel we're making progress, which is very good. I only hope that the pace at which I'm proceeding is no cause for hostility. Please accept my comments and criticisms kindly, as that is how I mean them.


 * All the best,


 * Mr. Lewis 23:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just one thing that I forgot to mention. No disrespect, but your peculiar feelings regarding the lack of necessity of "devil's advocates" or "fact-checkers" are rather irrelevant. These roles are inherent to any subjective analysis of history.


 * As an analogy, imagine, for example, a physician who tells you: "you have no need for a second opinion of my diagnosis". How would you react?


 * As such, I will be there to play these roles. Hopefully this relationship will be as civil and indeed as amicable as possible. Lewis 00:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I note you are trying very hard to keep matters under control and, without a trace of irony, I commend you for it. I would ask you, though, to read again what I have written above. I respond, and I respond vigorously, to all attempts to undermine my credibility: I do not begin, nor have I ever begun, by attacking a responder rather than a response. It is imperative, for the sake of rational debate, to draw a clear line of separation between the two. You may occupy whatever role, or take on any guise, you wish. I was merely declining your 'offer' to be a 'devil's advocate' and a 'fact-checker'. Anyone is welcome to make reasonable criticisms of anything I write, and I will respond, where and when I judge fit, in like terms. On your point about 'magic', insofar as I understand this, I treat a fool in accordance with the measure of his folly, and I could not care less how much this hurts. I have really no more to say, other than it gives me much simple pleasure to let everyone know that I am now Doctor Clio the Muse 15:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I likewise commend you for your civility in this discussion. Your remark about folly is interesting. Should I take that to mean that you consider it to be in no sense inappropriate for one editor to expose and remark upon what one considers to be another editor's folly, no matter how cruel the remark may be? Lewis 16:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC) [Check!]


 * I really have nothing more to add here, other than to say that I have a tendency to use words in a way that maximises their ironic effect. In this particular case I merely played a 'variation on a theme', so to speak, feeding directly back to the source; and if the person in question choked on his own expressions, that is really not my problem. Clio the Muse 23:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hypothetically, then, if one were to find folly in your words, and your behaviour, surely the same would apply, would it not? Lewis 07:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC) [Checkmate!]


 * You say that you are "open to challenge, [you] always have been, and [that you] respond to reasoned disagreement in measured and precise terms." Do my dispassionate, civil and logical questions above not consist of a reasoned challenge to your conduct? Are you not up for this reasoned disagreement? Why then are you not responding to such reasoned, dispassionate disagreement in those "measured and precise terms" that you speak of? Lewis 06:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, you have now exhausted the credit that you banked by your opening statement. I urge you to back off. I now return to my previous position, and will not respond to you, either here or on the Humanities Desk. Clio the Muse 10:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC) [Huh? You just gave me the green light to engage in civil intellectual debate...I'm confused!]


 * I'm at a loss, what have I done wrong? You told me that you're open to civil, dispassionate, reasoned disagreement. Was there anything incivil, passionate or unreasonable about my question? If there was, please explain to me just what it was that I said wrong. Lewis 00:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Lewis, I'm surprised that a smart fellow such as yourself would be surprised that your overtures here are unwelcome. Given your history of remarkable rudeness – here and on other sites – and conflict with Clio, she has shown great restraint. It is little wonder that she doesn't welcome your attempts to discuss with you what you perceive to be her faults. Go do something useful and productive that doesn't involve editors you've most fervidly attacked. Let it go. If you wish to engage in scholarly debate and discussion on the Ref Desks, feel free to do so. Do not come back here to try to discuss what you see as Clio's failings.


 * Clio, I ask your pardon for responding on your talk page. [User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]) 02:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Remarkable rudeness"? Is this actually being said in defense of a person who openly admits that she "treat[s] a fool in accordance with the measure of his folly, and ... could not care less how much this hurts." Ouch! Should I take it then that stupidity and foolishness warrant cruelty? Oops! Sorry! Here I go again getting carried away with that silly logic of mine!

With regard to my overtures being unwelcome, well, actually, my overtures seemed to be quite welcome in the first half-dozen or so paragraphs. She then mentioned that she was completely open to reasoned disagreement, and so I took that as a green light to try to iron out our differences through reasoned disagreement. I still don't understand why my questions were in any way offensive.

For example, if I were to engage you or A.Z. in precisely the same form of debate, and if I were to expose any sort of logical flaw in either of your reasoning, I'm sure you'd have the maturity and intellectual security to admit that I have a point. I know I would. In fact I'd both congratulate as well as thank you for spotting the flaw, because only now that it's been spotted can I work on improving myself.

Unfortunately not all are as secure in their intellect. Some, when proven wrong, see no other choice but to destroy all evidence of it. Loomis 19:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Eureka!
(Section removed per request from Wikipedia.)

Welcome to Wikiversity
Loomis, I would like to request that you use Wikiversity for positive learning activities in accordance with our articulated mission and in accordance with our civility policy. I also have experienced frustration similar to what you describe at Wikipedia with obnoxious or partisan behavior (some of which was mine) but I think it is highly counterproductive for Wikiversity to be importing personal feuds from elsewhere around the web. I hope you choose to stick around and participate here at Wikiversity in ways the community finds productive and that you find useful and entertaining but please delete the personal feuding with specific Wikipedia participants off of your Wikiversity pages. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Mirwin 23:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your point is well taken and I'll do my best to refrain from any such behaviour on MY userpage. However if attacks are targetted at me on OTHER pages I see no other way to defend myself than to respond in kind.


 * I'm open to any suggestions you may have, and I'd like nothing more than to be nothing but an asset to Wikiversity. I welcome your comments and criticisms, and I pledge to do my best. Loomis 23:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Lewis, and welcome back. I think most of the criticism has been due to your ratio of attacks to useful edits.  While reducing the number of attacks would help, increasing the number of useful edits would also help.  I try to answer Q's at the Help desk (and the other Wikiversity help desks linked in the header), as well as contributing to some books on engineering and math.  Perhaps you could do something related to law ? StuRat 00:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)