"For the fanatic, the Devil is the intellectual, because the intellectual has doubts." Paul Zarifopol
drs. Tudor Georgescu or T. Georgescu, BSc, M
|Search user languages|
Romanian citizen by birth, Dutch subject by naturalization (double nationality, thus).
- 1999 License in Philosophy from University of Bucharest (comparable to Master of Arts);
- 2004 Propedeutic diploma in Sociology from University of Amsterdam;
- 2007 Bachelor of Science in Sociology (BSc), University of Amsterdam. Specialization: work, organizations and policy sociology.
Member of the Dutch Sociological Association
Member of Dutch Society Against Quackery.
Member and friend of File Threads Database. FTD has been replaced by SpotNet.
Spoken languages: Romanian, English, French, Dutch (level 4, now called level B2, according to diploma NT2-II, do not confuse it with Wikipedia:Babel level 4, which would mean native or near-native speaker).
Reads and understands: Italian and a bit of Spanish.
Hacker (hobbyist) (hardware modder; I am no cracker and no haxor, since my identity as hacker is based upon hacking the Device Configuration Overlay for certain hard discs). Accordingly, my psychological profile is listed on the following sites: Hacker's Manifesto, A Cyberpunk Manifesto.
Online references: from Dan A. Lazarescu (Ad-Vitam Sovereign Grand Commander) and from Lucian G. Iordanescu (Fr. Hermes)
My ideal for Wikipedia: academic learning in the image and likeness of Ivy Plus.
Briefly: I am committed, for the most part, much more to truth than to tribe. For The True Believer I'm from Satan with a mission to deny WP:THETRUTH. E.g. Napoleon Săvescu has accused me of being an agent of the New World Order. I don't know if he realizes, but his criticism of my edits boils down to this: the historical method is the most pestilential doctrine ever vomited out of the jaws of hell. Because the historical method, as practiced by WP:CHOPSY, necessarily leads to what he sees as defilement of the history and religion of my native country. What he sees as defilement is simply academic-level history writing. WP:CHOPSY do not pander to piety and neither does that Wikipedia. If all reputable universities have plonked him, it is not our task to WP:RGW. And I am certainly no traitor of my country merely because I state that he got plonked. If he got plonked it is his fault, not my fault.
If your basic complaint about my edits is
your professor ran over my dogma, you are completely pitiful and pathetic. We are unapologetically in favor of the academic consensus, so you don't belong here. As Neil Asher Silberman stated,
what we're doing is just continuing a struggle a scholarly struggle that's been going on for a hundred years the boundary just now happens to be in the story of the Israelites and the Israelite Kingdom and it's moving forward slowly to separate religious literature and spirituality from what we call history.
The scientific method and the historical method do not hate religion. There is no hate of ants required in order to crush ants nests with a bulldozer.
- 1 A word for newbies which I seem to be in conflict with
- 2 What Wikipedia is
- 3 Barnstars and such
- 4 Wikipedia activity
- 5 Name confusion
- 6 Books
- 7 April Fools' joke
- 8 Why am I a god and a Son of God?
- 9 Cracking my PC
- 10 Social media
- 11 Footnotes
A word for newbies which I seem to be in conflict withEdit
Wikipedia has WP:RULES which govern how editors should edit, how should they behave and how conflict gets mediated. Everybody is entitled to occasional mistakes, but persisting in mistakes will get you blocked from editing. Our wish is, however, that WP:RULES breakers repent from violating our rules and become instead productive editors. The decision to obey our rules is always personal, but it has enormous consequences for one's activity inside Wikipedia. I cannot decide for you, but I can tell you that it is wise to obey our rules. So, it's not that I like to see you blocked. I would like that you learn from your mistakes and become a productive editor. But if you are not up to the task, you will be blocked. I cannot ban you, in fact there is a single editor able to ban you from Wikipedia, that editor is you. The key point about getting to read about our rules is changing your behavior. We want you to behave according to the rules of our encyclopedia, if you cannot behave you will be blocked or banned. I will report you to admins if it is clear to me that you don't want to comply with WP:RULES.
I only revert edits for which it is clear to me that they are WP:CB (speaking from the viewpoint of academic learning), deteriorate the article or violate WP:RULES. I don't revert if these are uncertain. I think that you need to make up your mind if you are for or against our WP:RULES. If you're against our rules and act on that, you'll soon find yourself in hot water. If your edits are WP:PAG-compliant, they will likely stay, otherwise every experienced editor will have to revert you. By saying this I am not aggressive, I just tell it as it is. (Dutchies don't beat around the bush, but bluntly tell you what's wrong.) I'm blunt but not mean. I could appear mean, but in fact I am only defending the norms and values of this website. I am very hard with bigots, but reasonable and conciliatory with reasonable people. With people which present themselves as reasonable, I am much more conciliatory than other experienced users. If I can reasonably give you the benefit of doubt, I will do it, otherwise I have a low tolerance for bullshit. I have only become an anti-bigotry vigilante because of the unending attacks of fundamentalists upon our secular encyclopedia. I am very tolerant with those who don't deride science/history/our encyclopedia.
I don't hate editors as persons; I hate rule-breaking. I consider that any editor can change his/her mind/behavior at any moment. Few edit warriors do that, but that's another matter. As long as you know when to stop, you can get away with almost anything at Wikipedia. It's not the mistake which is a matter of being blocked or banned, but persisting in that mistake. Exceptions: outing and legal threats. When the community thinks that you made a mistake, accept the judgment of the community.
If you get criticism compliant with WP:RULES, accept the criticism and comply with it. If you have started a conflict, stop the conflict and offer your excuses for it. If you seek to avoid blocks or topic bans through WP:SOCKS you will get banned from Wikipedia. We are tolerant, but not retarded.
I'm not absurd: if you give me WP:RS showing that you're right, I will write myself from your POV.
Wikipedia has a purpose, it has norms and values; those who violate these get blocked or banned. I am prepared to explain you these norms and values, otherwise to those that do not heed these I believe that giving the cat enough rope it will hang itself. But we're not a clique: everyone who earnestly obeys our WP:RULES may join us. (Yes, yes, Wikipedia has to have rules; we cannot run such a website without rules.)
If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say. Imho, using Wikipedia to promote pseudoscience is worse than using it to promote criminal behavior (seen that definitions of what is a crime largely depend upon the country). For my contributions to Wikipedia I could get the death penalty in several countries (e.g. in North Korea for bourgeois propaganda, in Iran and Saudi Arabia for blasphemy, sorcery and LGBT-friendly propaganda—what Wikipedia sees as mainstream science, they see as propaganda; in totalitarian countries ideology trumps reality).
If you are here to complain about my edits in respect to porn addiction: there is no official document from WHO, AMA, APA, Cochrane or APA which would imply that sex/porn/masturbation addiction would be a valid diagnosis. None of that has anything to do with my own person, does it?
"We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."
|“||A little bird was flying south for the Winter. It was so cold the bird froze and fell to the ground into a large field.
While he was lying there, a cow came by and dropped some dung on him. As the frozen bird lay there in the pile of cow dung, he began to realize how warm he was.
The dung was actually thawing him out! He lay there all warm and happy, and soon began to sing for joy.
A passing cat heard the bird singing and came to investigate. Following the sound, the cat discovered the bird under the pile of cow dung, and promptly dug him out and ate him.
Morals of the story: (1) Not everyone who shits on you is your enemy. (2) Not everyone who gets you out of shit is your friend. (3) And when you're in deep shit, it's best to keep your mouth shut!
What Wikipedia isEdit
I will give you the basic rule of Wikipedia: we have to find to the best of our abilities what the academic mainstream says and then kowtow to it. See WP:ABIAS.
Barnstars and suchEdit
|This user is a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians.
The motto of the AIW is conservata veritate, which translates to "with the preserved truth".
||The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar|
|Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping articles clear of spam and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)|
|The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar|
|This is for all your tireless and heroic efforts last night defending the article Yahweh from our perennial troll friend Wittgenstein123, even in the face of some seriously deranged (and somewhat incomprehensible) attacks on your personal character. I am sure he will probably return eventually, but, for now, I just wanted to let you to know how much I appreciate your work. Thank you so much! --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)|
|The Original Barnstar|
|Many thanks for your help with the translation project! Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)|
|The Purple Barnstar|
|For acting reasonably even when doing so aggravates the unreasonable. John Carter (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)|
|The LGBT Barnstar|
|For the work done in editing the articles regarding the LGBT community and for the firm activity against bigots inside Wikipedia. Alexandru M., 8 februarie 2017, 12:41 (EET)|
See ,  and . Just if you wonder: all these are my own accounts, but I have never used them together in order to violate WP:RULES and two of them are inactive for years. Tgeorgesco was mainly a French Wikipedia account, since my name sounds odd in French, and the other is a ro.wiki bot. Both identities are properly disclosed on their own wiki. The invention of the global account and the integration of the citation bot in ro.wiki made their use obsolete.
I am not dr. Tudor V. Georgescu, I am drs. Tudor Al. Georgescu.
- Georgescu, Tudor (2000). Doctrina liberala. Revolutia conceptuala si centrul transcendent (in Romanian). Bucharest: Editura Semne. ISBN 973-654-035-9.
- Middel, Alex; Georgescu, Tudor (2008). Le Nobel, Bob (ed.). Alle wegen leiden naar... Roemenië! (in Dutch). London: Lulu.com.
April Fools' jokeEdit
— Knock, knock.
— Who's there?
— We're missionaries.
— What do you want?
— We preach the word of Freud, Marx and Darwin.
Why am I a god and a Son of God?Edit
According to Psalms 82:6, all human beings are gods and Sons of God. According to John 10:33-36, wherein John is quoting Jesus Christ's own words, all human beings who heard the Scripture talking to them (e.g. heard the Scripture being preached by a priest or pastor inside a church) are gods. According to Acts 17:28, all human beings are the offspring of God (Elohim, YHWH). Till here this is simply reading what the Bible has to say, literally, without any kind of "interpretation" (other than the purely literal one). The Bible is a print-published source, peer reviewed by Dr. Jerome of Stridonium and Dr. Martin Luther (they established two different canons for the Bible; both such canons regard as valid and authoritative all verses quoted in this argument).
All humans are thus gods and Sons of God. I am a human being (and I heard the Scripture being preached in churches), therefore I am a god and a Son (offspring) of Elohim (YHWH). This is a valid syllogism based upon assumptions derived from the Bible. Does it count as interpolation? Since Sir Francis Bacon affirmed that syllogisms are no tool meant to increase our knowledge (or: science), we may consider that performing a syllogism upon some assumptions is not interpolation. This is thus encyclopedic knowledge according to Wikipedia:Verifiability criteria. Not.
By the way, Genesis 6:2,4 and Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 speak about the Sons of God (using a capital letter is justified, since the Hebrew writing does not have capital letters, thus as far as the Bible authors are concerned "sons of God" and "Sons of God" are one and the same "thing", or the same idea). Therefore the Bible says that God has more than one Son.
So, I do not claim such titles only for myself, but for everybody else as well, because so says the Word of God expressed in the Holy Bible. The good news of the Bible tells you that you are a living god, making you thus aware of your divine nature.
I don't want to be associated with the absurdities of the Bible. Therefore, I make it more clear: the above is not my opinion about the Bible, but the opinion of the Bible about me. Is it absurd? Yes. Is it my absurdity? No.
If you want to know what I think of Christianity: objectively speaking, rationally, there isn't a compelling reason for either adhering to or rejecting Christianity. As Søren Kierkegaard understood, joining and leaving Christianity are utterly subjective decisions.
About the BibleEdit
Fanciful historians have no idea that Harvard professors teach the following about the Bible/Christianity:
Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that:
• The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive;
• The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)
This POV is enacted all across Wikipedia and you will be crushed if you oppose it. We do not need jokers who deride academic learning.
Recipe: historical method + Bible... and the fundies will cry "Blasphemy!" History well-done and fundamentalism well-done leave no other option. None of that has anything to do with me. It's only a matter of time till fundamentalists will realize that the historical method is the enemy of their faith. Probably stuff for a book called The Academic Learning and Its Enemies.
One day they will say like Luther,
The historical method is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.
Should we compare what gets taught at Harvard about the Bible/Christianity with the idiosyncrasies of bigoted agitators? By design Wikipedia chose for Harvard and against rendering fundamentalist theology as objectively true.
I write about Christianity sine ira et studio: I don't write only favorable stuff, nor only unfavorable stuff, but I write from an outside and disinterested perspective, based upon sources favored by WP:CHOPSY. Of course, POV-pushers construe this as mockery of their own religion, but Bible professors from Harvard and Collège de France don't.
Accusing me of being an atheist is mystical delirium.
Why endorse evolutionEdit
Mr. GIBERSON: When you ignore science, you end up with egg on your face. And the Catholic Church has had an awful lot of egg on its face for centuries because of Galileo. And Protestants would do very well to look at that and to learn from it.— Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve, npr.org
Cracking my PCEdit
Hack tools used against my PC will be reported to Moscow.
- I have no Twitter account
- My LinkedIn account is severely outdated due to being unused
- My Facebook account is mostly unused (I briefly log in once in a while)
- My Wikia (Fandom) account is largely unused
- I do use my YouTube account for messages
So, if you read something by Tudor Georgescu on social media (WMF servers excepted) it's a 90% chance that it is from somebody else having the same name.
- I do not formally have the legal right to bear the title "Master of Arts" together with my name. However, MA is the common (customary) English translation of my title "license in philosophy" from University of Bucharest, Romania. Also, MA would be the proper English translation of my Dutch title drs., since this title has been replaced with MA following the Bologna process, in so far as philosophy graduates are concerned. I do have the legal right to bear the title BSc together with my name. I use the degree M as stipulated by Dutch rules for translating pre-Bologna Dutch titles to post-Bologna international degrees, which do not allow me to use MA, but I have to use M instead. A combination of M with BSc is allowed according to Drs. A Jansen, MBA?, since they are different titles (i.e. my BSc was not a prerequisite for obtaining my M).
- The Romanian baccalaureate is no BA or BSc, it counts as high-school diploma, i.e. the diploma for finishing general and mandatory secondary education.
- I.e., doctorandus; drs. is equal to MA in the Bachelor/Master system, in so far as philosophy graduates are concerned. The Netherlands recently introduced the Bachelor/Master system (according to the Bologna process); in such system change the old title doctorandus was replaced by the degrees MA and MSc, which are equal in value with drs.
- See membership card and membership card (verso).
- "The basic difference is this: hackers build things, crackers break them." E.S. Raymond How To Become a Hacker
- Star Trek - First Contact (1996) Moviesoundclips.net. Rikeromega3 Productions 1999-2013. Retrieved September 26, 2013.
- Baron of Verulam, Viscount of St. Alban.
- It's just tongue in cheek; don't take it seriously. Actually, you should never WP:VERify claims to WP:PRIMARY religious sources.
- ... since I am not delusional about it. All I did is properly read what the Bible has to say about this issue. I am guilty of no more than plain reading. If a reading disability is preventing you from understanding the literal meaning of these Bible verses, I recommend you the program Kurzweil 3000. If theologians had such a program some thousands years ago, a lot of churchly dogmas would have been written substantially differently from today's version.