User:Invictus

Invictus is long time nickname of a dumb redneck geek named Grant Cole[?].

---

Funny, I wouldn't have guessed that there are any dumb redneck geeks, but you learn something new every day. :-) All of them are welcome at Wikipedia, needless to say! :-) -- Larry Sanger

---

Hey, I map EDI and ebXML for a living, but I live on a mid-sized ranch in central Texas. This weekend, I hope to begin collecting information on and writing in Wikipedia about the histories of Brazos[?] and Brazoria Counties in the Lone Star State. That, and I'll clean up the Rugby entries! -- Grant Cole

P.S. My misfortune graduated me from Texas A&M University[?] with two B.A.s (History and Philosophy) after a 6-year stint as a Russian Crypto-Linguist[?] for the United States Marine Corps. However, I am now trying to improve upon my writing skills, thus I have latched on here.---- Adding a welcome from RoseParks and a thank you.

---

Hello and welcome from AyeSpy - vest-pocket rancher and amateur philosopher. And because the greater society demands that I pay for things rather than simply taking them, I work for (ick) money as a private investigator...

---

Welcome aboard fellow Texan.

---

There a lot of redneck geeks.... even some redneck geek jokes:

You know you are a redneck geek if

  ...you computer is camoflague color
  ...your monitor is up on blocks
  ...you figured out how to use the computer's skoal can holder 
  ...all of your c++ comments start with "Y'all' or contain one word with a "in'" instead of "ing"

---

Thanks for the welcome Rose and AyeSpy. AyeSpy, I see that you understand something about the effects of totalitarian agriculture[?]. Is an amatuer philosopher someone who reads Hegel[?] and professes to understand not a wit of it? (that would be me). --Grant

---

One reads Hegel, yes - and, by the way, finds his thinking rather convoluted. I tend to find that the more complex treatments of the truth become, the farther they stray from the truth, itself. In most respects, not a great admirer of Hegel. As to your question to Rob, I don't know that Wikipedia really invites such partisan expression as might cause the blood pressure to rise in those with non-congruous viwepoints. However, You might have a strong opinion which you feel is straining to see the light of day. If you wrote an article which gave credit to opposing views, even while mentioning that you yourself do not see eye-to-eye with them, you might resonably place it within Wikipedia commentary. If objection, hue and cry are raised, then you might modify or remove it in the interest of peaceful coexistence. But it's hard to gauge the impact of something without at least letting it breathe a little.

---

Grant, in case you didn't know this already, the eminently reasonable request is that one not present one's essays, which are full of idiosyncratic[?] personal opinion (however brilliant it might be), as though they were encyclopedia articles. Your opinions and mine are not of interest (unless we are the subject of an encyclopedia article, which you'll forgive me for saying is a little unlikely). There are rules against this--to be specific, an "avoid bias" rule to which Bruce has (curiously) put his name. See also NeutralPointOfView. To satisfy Bruce's opinionizing urges, we have set up the Wikipedia commentary page. He and you and everyone is free (at least as far as I'm concerned--I predict that no one will change your productions, but I don't know) to opinionize to whatever extent you please there (as long as it's non-libellous and otherwise legal). Hope this helps. :-) --LMS

---

Hmmmm - I don't find it curious that I subscribe to the "avoid bias" rule. The encyclopedia articles which I have contributed or contributed to (though mostly as an anonymous DNS) are arguably bias-free. In fact I have removed bias from some of them. These are vampires, nez perce, tao teh ching, all the law articles, handgun, scientology, hare krishna, hate crimes, Las Vegas, horse training, the ultimate, &c. I am opinionated in my commentary, which is why I want it labeled commentary. Some tell me my opinions make them think, else I would not express them - 'cause I think people thinking is a good thing... --AyeSpy

---

Bruce, perhaps if you had taken credit for all that good work, it wouldn't have seemed so curious to me! I'm glad that you agree with the rule and I'm also glad we've arrived at a satisfactory solution! I'm not glad we're cluttering up Grant's page. :-) I wouldn't stand for it, myself. :-) --LMS (please feel free to "refactor" your page, Grant, of course...)

---

My admiration of Hegel lies solely in his complexity of thought, not in his truth, whatever that might be. As far as my personal opinion is concerned, I do not consider mine to be sufficiently backed by knowledge to be presented. Thus, I am here, to read and present fact/truth and improve my discernment thereof. I try to chain my written opinions to mild adjectives. Not always successful, but too much time on the Web has proven that this is best (for me). Thanks for the advice, though, it is excellent and thought-provoking. --Grant

---

I see. If you have fact/truth, why not simply contribute it in the form of articles? AyeSpy

---

Bruce, I am here to read and PRESENT fact/truth as I said above. Presentation here, will of course be in the form of contributed articles, unless I make or contribute to a /commentary[?] or /talk page otherwise. I may refactor this page (not today). I don't mind it being cluttered as long as I know I can makes changes to it at my leisure (and other's chagrin?). :-7 -Grant

---

Heh heh - another happy ending... AyeSpy ;^)

---

I can't find an e-mail address for you here. --Lee Daniel Crocker

---

Thanks for the presidential addresses, but I think that they should go into subfolders of the president. please see what I did with John Adams/Inaugural Speech if you think I an wrong please let me know -- Mike Dill (fortunately Wikipedia lets us change things back :)