User:Moulton/Bumptious Discards of Adam Brookes

From Wikiversity

The following talk page comments and mini-essays have been bumptiously discarded by Adambro.

User:Beetlebaum[edit]

Adam, on the English Wikiversity, you posted this to User:JWSchmidt:

Please end your use of this account. As far as I can tell, most of your contributions using this account revolve around mocking other users and I think this only serves to exacerbate problems further. Adambro 11:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Adam, please resign as a Custodian and end your reign of terror in the English Wikiversity. As near as I can tell, your role there revolves around indicting, persecuting, and censoring the contributions of other scholars, and I suggest this is the root of the problem there.

Gastrin Bombesin 12:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Removed by Adambro on 13:43 25 July 2010 with the edit summary: rv nonsense
  • Restored by Moulton on 04:26 19 August 2010 with the edit summary: Adam, why did you brush this suggestion aside? It would be in the best interests of the project if you resigned as Custodian and began crafting academic content instead.
  • Removed by Adambro on 08:49 19 August 2010 with the edit summary: rv
  • Reprised by Moulton on 02:36 20 August 2010 with additional text (see below) with edit summary: Adam, you consistently fail to answer direct questions. I expect you to forthrightly and candidly answer questions and account for your officious actions. If you cannot do so, then you should resign.

User:Beetlebaum[edit]

Adam, on the English Wikiversity, you posted this to User:JWSchmidt:

Please end your use of this account. As far as I can tell, most of your contributions using this account revolve around mocking other users and I think this only serves to exacerbate problems further. Adambro 11:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Adam, please resign as a Custodian and end your reign of terror in the English Wikiversity. As near as I can tell, your role there revolves around indicting, persecuting, censoring the contributions of other scholars, and impeding the progress of JTNeill's students in their course on Motivation and Emotions. It is my considered opinion that this is the root of the festering problems on the English Wikiversity.

—Moulton 02:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Reverted by Adambro on 07:30 20 August 2010 with edit summary: rv

Scholarly Dialogue Protocols[edit]

  • I would be most grateful if you would not continue to post the same or similar messages relating to the English Wikiversity on my talk page. I have no intention of responding but you can assume I have read your comments if I remove them. Adambro 07:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Adam, it is customary in academic cultures to conscientiously respond to fellow scholars in a responsible manner, especially when the issues on the table are those that undermine respect for the core values of scholarly ethics. —Moulton 10:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Bill of Attainder is an unwise policy[edit]

When the Founders crafted the US Constitution — a covenant between the government and the citizenry — they expressly excluded Bill of Attainder because that tool of government was at odds with the type of government they envisioned for the new Constitutional Republic.

The main problem with Bill of Attainder that worried the Founders was the long-standing historical relationship between Bill of Attainder and such corrosive and troubling political phenomena as discrimination, persecution, alienation, and scapegoating of disfavored parties whilst avoiding of the real issues of the day.

The name "Bill of Attainder" comes from the word "taintedness" which corresponds to giving someone a "black mark" or stigma. Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote a novel about that entitled The Scarlet Letter.

The main problem with Bill of Attainder is that it deprives someone of their unalienable human and civil rights. Similarly, here in Wikiversity, banning or blocking a scholar without just cause interferes with their unalienable human and civil rights to engage with their peers in the discovery learning process, which we all hold as the highest value of an authentic learning community.

Moreover, the WMF Mission Statement states:

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.

Blocking and banning acts to forcibly disempower and disengage scholars from around the world from the mission of constructing, developing, and disseminating the very educational content that WMF is pledged to embrace.

For these reasons, Adam, the troubling practice which you and Jimbo Wales have introjected into Wikiversity is one that Wikiversitans would be wise to eschew, deprecate, and exclude from the tools of governance for the same reasons the Founders wisely ruled it out when they crafted the US Constitution: it is a corrosive and corrupting tool of government that predictably dishonors and sinks any regime foolish enough to employ it so cavalierly as we are now witnessing.

Moulton 18:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You do not have a choice, Adam. You must communicate with those whom you wish to govern.[edit]

  • I do not wish to enter into discussions with you on my talk page. Please respect my wishes by not continuing to post similar messages there for me. Thanks. Adambro 18:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Then you should resign from Wikiversity, Adam. You are obliged to communicate with those whom you wish to govern. If you wish to govern me (or anyone else in Wikiland or in the real world), you must expect to listen to them and to engage in dialogue with them. —Moulton 19:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Mutually Agreeable Terms of Engagement[edit]

Adam, any time you wish to enter into mutually agreeable terms of engagement, I would be more than happy to negotiate with you a mutually agreeable social contract for peaceable, creative, and constructive terms of coooperation and collaboration across all the WMF sites and external sites where our paths have crossed. —Moulton 21:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you prefer an adversarial relationship?[edit]

If, on the other hand, your preference is to sustain an adversarial relationship with me, I think we can find a way to do that productively, so as to produce a reasonably high quality opera. What I have in mind is something along the lines of The Ring of the Neener Bomb: The Final Absolution. Does that work for you? I'm hoping we can recruit Rock Drum to record the music for us. I'm especially looking forward to crafting the grand finale, "The Riot of the Mockeries." —Moulton 22:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you modeling the practice of brushing others aside?[edit]

Adam, if you are modeling the practice of brushing others aside, then you should not be surprised if others follow your lead and give you the brush off, too. —Moulton 00:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Law and Order[edit]

The Hebrew word for "Order" is Seder (as in Passover Seder, better known to Christians as The Last Supper).

It's ironic, Adam, that you are passing over my remarks here, without commentary. But I appreciate that you are affirmatively acknowledging them by the artifice of expressly deleting them. Perhaps you are even quietly reflecting on them, in the private sanctuary of your own counsel.

But I digress.

The Last Supper, like all full-course meals, ends in Just Desserts.

The name of the dessert in the Passover Seder is the Afikoman. A modern translation of Afikoman would be "the aftermath."

In this reprise of the Passover Seder, our Afikoman will be a light lemon sorbet, served in a classical wooden goblet that shall be symbolized as the Holy Grail of the Story of Parsifal and the Fisher King.

The recipe for a Kosher Light Lemon Sorbet calls for the whites of just one egg (because un oeuf is enough).

The function of the Light Lemon Sorbet is to leaven the dour bitterness and neutralize the mean-spirited cruelty of those who would deny the miscreantic guerrillas in our midst the joy of discovering the elusive path to redemption and rebirth as a compassionate scholar and holistic humanitarian in the light-hearted spirit of Tikkun Olam.

Moulton 12:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The Bumptious Brush-Off[edit]

No doubt, Adam, you are rolling your eyes at me at this juncture of our non-mixed-initiative non-dialogue.

Elsewhere in the discussions about Motivation, Emotions, and Learning, I posed a question...

What is the name (or description) of the affective emotional state signaled by rolling one's eyes?

In Yiddish culture, the act of rolling one's eyes is usually accompanied by the the utterance, "Oy."

My respondents compiled this set of terms for naming the associated affective emotional state:

Dismissive with lack of interest, annoyance, impatience, exasperation, mild contempt, or disregard.

Less common responses were "Bumptious" and "Apostrophic."

Other verbal expressions included:

"Bloody Hell."

"Oy, not this again."

"Uggh."

"Gey avec." ("Go away.")

"Bugger off."

"Let's don't. (And say we did.)."

"Go fly a kite."

"Go jump in the lake."

"Giddoudahere."

"It's just a shame that on Web 2.0, when people disagree about things, there is a chance some hoary gobshite like you might be poking around to wax ad tedium on the matter."

Compare "rolling one's eyes" to "scathing glances" and giving someone "the hairy eyeball."

But the term that most intrigued me was "Apostrophic" which means "turning aside" or "turning away" (as in "disregarding" or "failing to pay attention").

The oldest reference I know of to "glancing away" as a signal of contempt is in Genesis 4:3-5.

What's fascinating about that ancient Biblical reference is that it's also the oldest reference to "Bloody Hell."

Moulton 14:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Tampering with the data in another scholar's study[edit]

Adam, you have tampered with the data in fellow scholar's study.

It is a serious breach of Scholarly Ethics to tamper with the data in a fellow scholar's work. Moreover, you have tampered with the text of a signed affidavit in a scholarly review of an historic conflict, dating back some three years — a notable conflict which is still being studied by one of your fellow scholars on the English Wikiversity.

Note that just last week, William Connolley was indef blocked on the English Wkipedia for simply inserting a signed sub-comment inside the text of another editor's comment on an ordinary talk page. Here you have altered the text of another editor, and done so in a context that corrupts the integrity of the study being undertaken by User:JWSchmidt.

Moulton 12:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Human Legacy Course/Foundations of Civilization[edit]

Thank you for creating this wonderful course. It's first class.

  • When is a town wall not enough?

It's an interesting question, since there are now so many ways to breach the perimeter of a classical walled city.

Obviously, the ancients did not have aircraft that would let them fly over the airspace of a walled city, but sieges in which ramps were painstakingly built were known in biblical times. The Roman Siege of Masada is probably one of the best known accounts.

The clever device of the Trojan Horse is also notable, as it remains a significant metaphor to this very day.

The Siege of Jericho is especially fascinating because it did not rely on traditional military techniques, but rather on an advanced idea based on acoustic resonance.

Then again, if one is a tiny little mouse, one can simply dig a small tunnel through the wall.

—Montana Mouse 15:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton/Bumptious_Discards_of_Adam_Brookes&oldid=65412"