User talk:Morphh/Archive1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Morphh. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Morphh/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! 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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Un focused 17:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to the FairTax article!

I see you made some edits on the article page; welcome to the FairTax article. I'm not trying to 'claim' or 'own' this article, but I would like to see a broader base of contributors, regardless of viewpoint. This article is one those that seem to attract a lot of anonymous attention, so thanks for taking your interest far enough to register a user account.

Don't worry if you revert me, if you have a legitimate reason, I won't be offended. Just jump right in and be bold. I try to remember that contentious articles like this are the very reason why we have an NPOV tag to apply... people aren't going to agree fully on this (or any other political) issue, but we should have differing views documented properly to have a proper encyclopedia. We can disagree and still produce a great article. Thanks again. --Un focused 18:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree :-) Thanks Morphh 18:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I replied to your message on my talk page. I've also posted this exchange onto the FairTax talk page, as I don't want to be put in position to be a "gatekeeper" of the article, and think others should have input on this as well. You made some good points that are worthy of discussion. Un focused 20:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Is there a way to have wikipedia e-mail me on items in my watchlist? Morphh 23:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Exclusive/inclusive definition placement

I did some work on FairTax. I eliminated the terms inclusive- and exclusive tax rate where they appeared prior to their definitions. Since inclusive tax rate is a bit of a neologism, it shouldn't be used until defined. I think the definitions are in the right place for the article, so the best solution seems to be avoiding the terms until they're clearly spelled out. Feco 28 June 2005 19:55 (UTC)

Addendum: after doing some research on Google, I've come to the conclusion that the term inclusive tax rate is a neologism. I've proposed changing the way it's treated in FairTax on the talk page. Since you've been involved in editing the article, I wanted to make sure you had a chance to read and comment about this on the FairTax talk page. Feco 29 June 2005 17:15 (UTC)

Thanks for the chance to respond and discuss this. I'm sure we'll be able to come to some agreement on how this should best be presented. For some reason, my watchlist did not show your post to me until today. They seem to be having some system problems. Morphh 30 June 2005 01:25 (UTC)

Apology for my last edit summary in FairTax article

My last edit summary on the FairTax article reads a little harsher than I intended it to. In other words, I still want to work with you on the article rather than against you, even though my edit summary might not convey that feeling.

I apologize. Choose any one other article in Wikipedia and I'll make a good faith, content contributing, referenced and cited edit to the article as token of the sincerity of my apology. (Yes, I'm serious.) ;) Un focused 19:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem - I'll post to the talk page so all can participate. I thought this one may have been debated but I didn't have enough room in the summary to explain my reasons. I should have posted to the talk first. Morphh 21:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Even so, if you'll pick an article (or a subject that doesn't have an article), I'll get to learn something new, Wikipedia will be improved in an area that you choose, and you'll know I am sincere about my apology. It's a nice way to spread good feelings that I hope catches on. Un focused 01:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Interesting approach... only since you insist - Give a shot at Life Extension or something under Transhumanism. There may be some good info from Raymond Kurzweil at his website KurzweilAI.net Morphh 04:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for playing along, and thanks for the starter references to let me know what you had in mind. Each of these usually takes me a week or two, or perhaps a bit longer, depending on what I need to learn to get grounded in the topic. Have a look at George Powell and Sigurd Syr to see two previous efforts. George Powell was created from scratch, and I significantly expanded Sigurd Syr. Un focused 15:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Very nice. A side effect of your proposal is my own exploration of wikipedia. I've added half a dozen sections to my watch list. I've already made small edits. I don't have the time to make good contributions to many articles but its fun to get involved. The amount of information available on this site is amazing. Morphh 01:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm up to 20 now.. make it stop! Morphh 13:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

If only I knew how. My watchlist is nearing 700 items. ;-) Un focused 03:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Added a few more to my list and made some posts - I don't have the time to do it but it is addicting and I just keep finding more articles to add to the list. I don't see how you can keep up with that many. Morphh 03:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Per your instruction to complete my apology, I just made a very large expansion to Roy Walford, an expert in the field of life extension. Fascinating man, incredible career. I expect to revisit this article many times to improve it further. Frankly I was stunned when I saw how little was there before I edited it. Hope you approve. ;-) Un focused

Wow! Very nice Job :-)

I thank you very sincerely for your response, and for the barnstar, which was a very pleasant and unexpected surprise! I've been (mostly) away from Wikipedia for a little while, but this reminds me why I keep coming back. It's the community spirit that is so addicting. ;-) Un focused 22:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Generational accounting of FairTax

Do you know if AFT or other pro-FT groups have done any analysis of FT's effect on inter-generational transfers? In a nutshell, inter-generational accounting looks at how policy burdens are passed from current generations to future generations. Right now, the US government is passing huge liabilities to future generations. FT would lessen significantly the amount passed to the future generations. Most econonmists would agree this is unequivocably good, hence I'm surprised pro-FT groups aren't using this argument. Feco 17:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I wasn't aware of these studies. They use a similar discussion topic when talking about Social Security and Medicare / Medicade. Usually this is around the ratio of workers to collectors and that the current system will not keep up. I'll do a search for the studies you mentioned. Very Interesting :-) Morphh 13:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I've been told that they are in process of reviewing the final draft of a study that does exactly that. It should be final shortly. It shows the FairTax in a very positive light and is done by a very credible economist. Morphh 12:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Everybody has a POV

bias is everywhere, we can't really hide it. There is however a difference between fact and fiction. I dont believe my post was "horrible" bias. I believe it was fact. I think there may be a good way, a better way, of saying what I said...but what I said was fact. :P Did you follow that bad sentence? (Gibby 23:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC))

True bias is everywhere and I did think most of it was factual (there was one small piece that was a correction). I also don't think it was "horrible" bias. Though, I'm in favor of the FairTax so maybe someone against it would find it more bias as they think the FairTax is Regressive. Points that are discussed in the article but not major titles specifying a particular view. :-) You should read some of my discussion on progressive / regressive in the talk - got a little heated as these types of articles sometimes do. One of the challenges we have in that article is the point / counter-point tone. I'm not sure we'll be able to get away from it though as it is a charged subject. I left most of your post. I just moved it around a bit and reworded some. :-) Keep up the posts. Morphh 02:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I didnt find where you moved it to. For some reason it didnt show up on the history page. I did put a small segment at the very bottom, tried to word it carefully to be factually but "unbiased"...but I doubt it will avoid complaints. Here at OU Political Science I angered half the student body by arguing that the pre 94 welfare reforms created major disenentives toward "positive" behavior. IE seeking and retaining stable work rather than quiting every few months. Or creating incentives toward behavior like having multiple babies and not even a live in boyfriend to help take care of things (Remember how welfare paid mothers so long as they didnt work and didnt have a husband or live in boyfriend? And that doesnt create an incentive towards the behavior I described?" Yeah...so despite being fact its still denied by my collegues. Of course I worded it all alittle more bluntly ^_^ but after I restated it and presented the evidence they still didnt accept it. (Gibby 08:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

Not sure if your checking your user talk page but I made some comments there. Your section was retitled "Monthly Entitlement Checks". As of now, your new post has duplication of this section so we'll want to remove one of them. Neal Boortz mentioned that in his new book he would have a chapter called "punish the poor". It should be interesting as it will talk about how the American society rewards and propagates poverty and disincentives work. Morphh 12:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I had a similar battle in college when I argued that affirmative action was reverse discrimination, unconstitutional, and against the self-evident truths presented in our declaration of independence. Morphh 12:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

RFC against KDRGibby

I regret to inform you that things have come to such a state of affairs that I have filed a requests for comment against User:KDRGibby at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KDRGibby. As you were a user involved in the Liberalism article, you may wish to make a statement or insert or discuss evidence pertaining to the requests for comment. -- Natalinasmpf 05:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)