User talk:EthanL
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Leave your comments here. Sign with four tildes (~~~~). Thank you! EthanL 13:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Hi!
Welcome...
Hello, EthanL, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! dave souza, talk 12:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I neglected to respond to your hello earlier, my bad! Thanks for the welcome, although you might notice that my earliest contribution to Wikipedia is from August of 2003! I just don't get much time to work on articles, so it's an occasional distraction for me. EthanL (talk) 09:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lolicon
There is another stawpoll on the disputed offensive image currently underway at Talk:Lolicon. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Note: I stopped participating in the Lolicon article because I became convinced that it was wrong for me to do so. While I value freedom of speech, I cannot justify the particular speech that is being made through Lolicon, nor can I as a Christian contribute to anything which might further its use. EthanL (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shavian font
Hey EthanL, I'm the guy who contacted you by email about your font. The discussion can be found here. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 11:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! I was wondering where that discussion was. EthanL (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ID
Hi, I noticed your interest in ID and thought I'd give you a hello: feel free to delete it if you don't like the clutter. ID's a fascinating theological subject, but despite all the presentation it's inherently not science. However, that doesn't mean we should ignore the challenges it and creationism raise. Wikipedia's not paper, so there's room for all notable views in my opinion. Subject of course to WP:NPOV!. ..Hope you like the apostrophe, .. dave souza, talk 12:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, Dave, it's nice to talk with you! Though you didn't specify, I expect you read one of my comments somewhere and wanted to "set me straight" regarding the scientific merits (or lack thereof) of ID. It would be nice to know what prompted your comment, and the apostrophe thing has me a bit curious! I am quite curious to know how it is that evolution can be given a free pass while ID gets such scrutiny. I don't believe that rule of the majority opinion is necessarily always a good thing. Personally, I agree with you that ID isn't really science, and go further to state that neither is evolution as a theory of origins. The reason is simple - however life began and got to where it is today, it cannot be verified, because it cannot be repeated, and none of us were there. So it all comes down to what you choose to believe, and I choose to believe the Bible, because I think it demonstrates greater reliability than modern scientific theory, which changes from day to day as old ideas are discarded and new ones brought forward, while the Bible does not change. Now if the Bible said something that was proven unscientific, such as "The earth is flat", then I would have reason to doubt. But it is quite accurate in matters which can be verified, and so I choose to believe it. Feel free to continue this conversation if you like! EthanL (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] LPV
Thanks for defining that in WAAS! Hope its ok that I'm going to switch it around so that the acronym is explained. - Davandron | Talk 03:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, I agree it looks better that way. Thanks! EthanL (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
