Talk:Ungtss

From RationalWikiWiki

[edit] Best of RWW

This article meets a standard we should strive for all our articles to meet. I propose we add this article to category:best of RationalWikiWiki. Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 14:24, 16 April 2008 (CDT)

No one has responded. I will procede unilaterally in this matter from here on out. Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 14:22, 24 April 2008 (CDT)

"Given RationalWiki's notoriously short-term memory, the past incident involving him is probably long forgotten by most users." - these seems to be total supposition, plenty of us remember the IDist mole.

"In his interactions with others, he seems to be as as agreeable and moderate as ever." - moderate and agreeable by what standards? Sure, he doesn't swear or complain when reverted, but "moderate" on RW probably doesn't include being a cdesign proponentsist. Human 20:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Moderate and agreeable" describes personality/temperament. In discussions, he does not troll, he does not engage in hysterics, and he is generally amiable. Hence, he is accurately described as "moderate and agreeable". Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 01:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've rephrased it. "moderate" & "agreeable" are both ambiguous. weaseLICIOuS ^{Bite Me} 11:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I see it's been improved. Ungtss is a troll, so you're only 2/3 right. He's not moderate, he's a religious extremist. He is, however "agreeable" in that he (it?) does not throw tantrums. Human 04:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

But the point is that he/it doesn't agree with people. I know that's not really what "agreeable" means here, but still ambiguous. & The concept of an "agreeable troll" is a bit of a paradox. Actually, I wouldn't go as far as calling Ungtss a troll, but I think other eds find him pretty agravating to deal with. Anyway, I changed the wording to "polite & persistent" as this sums up both traits. weaseLICIOuS ^{Bite Me} 13:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Science explaining everything

He has recently been spotted at A Storehouse of Knowledge, complaining about how science can't explain everything, which may mean that accusations of his pro-creationist stance were partly justified.

That's interesting. Complaining that science can't explain everything means one is pro-creationist? God help Popper then ... Ungtss 15:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)