Talk:Jamie O'Neill
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. | ||
 |
An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class. |
I find it highly ridiculous that this 'empirical' information about Mr. O'neill can be posted, but I cannot post about my direct experiences meeting the man and understanding his personality and intelligence. Unfortunately for the majority of you, you will never get to know the man personally. The fact that I met him and shared drinks and cigarettes with him was highly enlightening, more enlightening that anything any of you could compose or edit or revert on his page. Unfortunately, in your narrow, scientific, societally-imposed mindset of metanarratives, you cannot comprehend a source of information that is personal and honest and heart-felt. For that, shame on you.
In reality, what is empiricism? It's a group of people who take themselves far too seriously, claiming to represent the truth, and to keep ignoramuses from spouting off foolishness. But what is foolishness? What is truth? It's not that I expect a coherent or logical reply to my question, because most people who actively participate on this site are merely compensating for a feeling of emptiness brought on by their state of existence, and I forgive that. However, what is to gain by empiricism? How can you prove my truth is wrong without being me?
You cannot, and you will not. It cannot be done, and never will be done. Just so, a human will never be able to tell whether a machine has passed a Turing test, because we do not even understand our own minds and thoughts and feelings enough to prove that a machine is conscious.
In conclusion, I emptily plead to you Wiki-mavens, you people who devote your precious lives to this site, stop wasting your time. Wikipedia is simply a referral source for real, hard information. Keep it that way. There is no way in the world that you can simultaneously leave this site open for editing, and expect it to become a respect scholarly source. Even if so-called 'vandals' didn't edit your precious pages, you will still never be good enough to be authoritative or empirical.
Join humanity. We are flawed. So are you.
Get over it. It makes life more tolerable and interesting.
Mate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.89.134 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 17 November 2006.
Categories: Biography articles of living people | Arts and entertainment work group articles | Stub-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles | Unknown-priority biography (arts and entertainment) articles | Arts and entertainment work group articles needing infoboxes | Biography articles needing infoboxes | Stub-Class biography articles | Stub-Class LGBT articles
