User talk:Eric Bond Hutton

I'm sorry to bother you so long after the event, but I was wondering why your 16:07, 14 Nov 2004 edit of the Fritz Lang article removed the words "(an ambitious two-part adaptation of the Ring of the Nibelung saga (better known from Wagner's opera)"? Of course, it was a clumsy phrase and could have been worded better, but I wondered what made you decide to delete it rather than replace it? I hope this doesn't sound nosey, I was just curious. --Chips Critic 00:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have only recently noticed your message. Hence the tardiness of this reply.

You seem a little confused - as indeed was I on first reading your message! Take a look at the alterations made to the article on 30 October 2004 by somebody calling himself Jallan, and you will see what I actually cut.

Your statement regarding Die Nibelungen is of course correct.

alderbourne 17:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it was my statement actually (certainly, I never made any reference to Wagner when I worked on the article months ago, as I didn't think it was necessary). Checking again I realise that phrase wasn't cut on your 16:07 edit, but was cut in your 16:20 edit on the same day. As you don't recall cutting this, I'm assuming it was some kind of accident or technical error, but if you make a comparison of your 16:07 edit with your 16:20 immediately after it, the alteration is there. I'm sorry to bother you about this, but I thought I should correct my earlier comment. --Chips Critic 21:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, take a look at the alterations made to the article on 30 October 2004 by somebody calling himself Jallan, and you will see what I actually cut.

alderbourne 17:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I already did, and have again, but the lines relating to Wagner were also deleted under your name. Check the histories, comparing your 16:07 edit with that of 16:20. Those words were removed under your name, whether you yourself made the edit or not. --Chips Critic 22:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I thought my first reply was clear enough. Let me explain once more, this time in greater detail.

At 12:22 on 12 September 2002 Modemac greatly expanded the Lang article. Among his additions was a reference to "an ambitious two-part adaptation of the Ring of the Nieblung [sic] saga (better known from Wagner's opera) [recte operatic cycle]". Subsequently somebody else corrected the spelling "Nieblung". Then, at 21:43 on 11 August 2004, you added the film's title and year of release. The passage now read: "Die Nibelungen (1924), an ambitious two-part adaptation of the Ring of the Nibelung saga (better known from Wagner's opera)". (I see, by the way, that what I referred to as "[y]our statement regarding Die Nibelungen" was in fact Modemac's, but this is a minor point.) At 20:30 on 30 October 2004 Jallan changed this to: "Die Nibelungen (1924), (an ambitious two-part adaptation of Wagner's Ring of the Nibelung operatic cycle)". When I came to add my pennyworth to the article on 14 November 2004 I consulted some books I have on Lang. They confirmed my suspicion that the Wagner reference was wrong. So I cut it - at 16:20. The passage had now shrunk to: "Die Nibelungen (1924)". I was puzzled by your first posting because in tinkering with the article I had, for reasons I am sure you can appreciate, always confined my attention to the most recent version; there were after all about 50 earlier ones! It was not as you assumed because I couldn't remember cutting a reference to Wagner (I could), nor because you had the time of my edit wrong!

To quote my first reply: "Take a look at the alterations made to the article on 30 October 2004 by somebody calling himself Jallan, and you will see what I actually cut". I still think that should have been sufficient.

I hope this discussion is now at an end. I really do have more important things to do.

alderbourne 17:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have restored my "Wow" edits that were reverted by the extremely prolific editor "FayssalF" (or done some similar improvements) - thanks! Bob Gray

Hello Alderbourne,

I have attempted to unblock you via the the Unblock User tool, but it stated that your user name could not be unblocked as it wasn't found on the block list. Can you put your IP on my user page? Oberiko 03:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Tony Pond.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Page restored, jimfbleak 04:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent to see David Holt in your Dream Diary list. You may like to know that his library has been accepted by Essex University and that the Jewish Chronicle this week records the establishment of a new ethical institute to be called ResponsAbility. Jeffrey Newman

Actuall, I think the deleted have a point about notabuility. The page should address the book rather than a syndrome.1Z 12:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see Nancy Price in your Dream Diary list. Wonder if you could have a look at the entry for Nancy Price and give your thoughts. Excellent regards Excellentone (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal testimony is not allowed on wikipedia, see WP:OR.--IvoShandor (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your not even talking about the article are you, you're talking about the talk page. I archived it because this isn't a discussion forum. The talk pages are for dicussing improvements to the article. If you can back up your testimony with published sources it can improve the article but as it stood you were simply using the talk page as a place to discuss EHS, so were a lot of other people, so I just archived it. --IvoShandor (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mentioned the Exploding head syndrome talk page and the fact that you had archived it with the comment "my lord, what a bunch of nonsense".

I also suggested that you read Oliver Fox's Astral Projection (1939) and Robert A. Monroe's Journeys Out of the Body (1971), follow the instructions in them on how to have an out-of-the-body experience and see for yourself whether it is nonsense.

Perhaps it is. Perhaps such experiences are nothing more than dreams. Perhaps there is no such thing as a soul, and when I come to die the conscious part of my nature will flicker out like a candle and cease to exist for ever. Yet on a number of occasions during the past 23 years I have had the utterly realistic sensation of forcing my soul to separate from my body; I have then been able to explore my house and its environs in an apparently disembodied state. And on one such occasion – the first, as it happens – I saw two marks on one of the doors of my wardrobe and felt a small bump on the underside of another, none of which had I noticed before so far as I knew and which on subsequent investigation turned out to be really there. As I said on that now archived talk page, cryptomnesia offers a plausible non-paranormal explanation in this case. However, a study of the literature on the subject, which is littered with veridical cases far more convincing than mine, has inclined me to think that something really may have left my body that day.

I am not criticising your decision to archive such personal testimony, only your contemptuous dismissal of it as a "bunch of nonsense".

Interestingly, since I began writing this I have learnt that the Human Consciousness Project of the University of Southampton is this week launching a study of near-death experiences in heart attack patients. To quote BBC News Online:

researchers have set up special shelving in resuscitation areas. The shelves hold pictures – but they're visible only from the ceiling.

Dr Sam Parnia, who is heading the study, said: "If you can demonstrate that consciousness continues after the brain switches off, it allows for the possibility that the consciousness is a separate entity.["]

[...]

Dr Parnia and medical colleagues will analyse the brain activity of 1,500 cardiac arrest survivors, and see whether they can recall the images in the pictures.

Nonetheless, even if this study should provide evidence for the existence of the soul, I have no doubt there will still be some to dismiss it as a "bunch of nonsense".

alderbourne (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment you reference was not directed at anyone in particular, just at the talk page and the fact it consisted almost entirely of discussion only about the article's subject and not actually about improving it, and I am sorry if you were offended. In the future feel free to message me on my talk page, I don't bite, and I don't mind if others see that a fellow editor has problems or concerns with any of my edits. Again, sorry I was so smug. --IvoShandor (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a friendly reminder that Wikipedia is not a forum, and new threads added to talk pages should be directly related to improving the article, not comments about the article's subject. For this reason, some of your comments on Talk:Roman Polanski have been deleted per WP:TALK. While an occasional reply addressing an editor directly is permitted and helpful, a new comment thread that invites forum-like discussion of the article's subject is contrary to the purpose of WP's talk pages. Please bear this in mind when making future contributions, particularly to such highly controversial pages as this one currently is. Thank you, and have a great day! Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 09:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. That said, I agree that there is a lot of misplaced outrage on that talk page, but starting such a thread only invites more of the same. So while I agree with some of your comments, I must delete the thread for the good of the article. I hope you understand.

I think I understand. It is evidently acceptable to malign Polański, to call him a child molester and accuse him of all manner of unspeakable acts, and to do this, moreover, at inordinate length and over a period of several days while all the time giving not the slightest indication that there is another side to the story, that he may in fact be guilty of nothing more than having consensual sex with a 13-year-old girl. But if somebody suggests giving the man a fair hearing and ventures to state Polański's own version of events, the posting must be deleted immediately. Some sense of justice and fair play you have!

For anybody who is at all interested, here is my contribution again:

Are any of you interested in Polański's side of the story? Or do you all prefer to get on your moral high horses and bay for the man's blood while ignoring the possibility that he may be guilty of nothing more than having consensual sex once with a 13-year-old girl who by her own admission was already sexually experienced but by Californian law was under age? In his autobiography he describes what happened:

Then, very gently, I began to kiss and caress her. After this had gone on for some time, I led her over to the couch.

There was no doubt about Sandra's* experience and lack of inhibition. She spread herself and I entered her. She wasn't unresponsive. Yet, when I asked her softly if she was liking it, she resorted to her favorite expression: "It's all right."

While we were still making love, I heard a car in the driveway. It seemed to pass the house, so we carried on.

Suddenly, though, Sandra froze. The light on the phone had come on, which meant there was someone else in the house, making a call from another room. That stopped us both in our tracks, but it didn't suppress my desire for the girl. After whispering reassurances, Sandra gradually relaxed again. When it was all over, I opened the door a little and looked down the passage.†

That's it. He goes on to say he was "shocked and bewildered" the following day when he was arrested on a charge of rape.‡ Having admired his work for more than 30 years and having also read a good deal about him, I feel I know something about his character, his tastes and inclinations, though I have never had the privilege of meeting him. I do not believe he would do what he was accused of. And it is surely significant that in the whole of his 76 years no other woman, young or old, has ever accused him of molestation.

Though he was originally indicted on six counts – furnishing a controlled substance to a minor; committing a lewd or lascivious act; having unlawful sexual intercourse; perversion; sodomy; rape by use of drugs – the DA subsequently withdrew five of these charges, leaving only that of unlawful sexual intercourse. It was to this that Polański pleaded guilty.

Furthermore, since the girl was three weeks short of 14 at the time of the incident, Polański is no more a "child molester" (as some of you insist on dubbing him) than Edgar Allan Poe, Mayne Reid, Paul Gauguin, Charlie Chaplin or Oliver Reed, each of whom as a grown man either cohabited with or married a girl in her early or mid teens. Old goat might be a more fitting epithet. There is a world of difference. And some 13-year-old girls are enough to make an old goat – or a Polański – of any man.

Most disturbing of all is how some of you give every impression of wanting to be his executioner. Astonishingly, the same attitude is to be found in much of the recent press, radio and television coverage of the case. It is disagreeably reminiscent of the witch-hunts of centuries ago, the tricoteuses who sat round the guillotine, the persecution of Oscar Wilde, the Nazi thugs who rounded up the Jews and sent them on a one-way journey to the gas chambers. It is a sad intimation that man is still a vicious, apelike creature, that civilisation is only a veneer and that the lynch mob may one day come down the street to get you for being different from the herd.

* A pseudonym used in the book to protect Samantha Geimer's then still undisclosed identity.

† Roman by Polanski (1984), p. 393.

‡ Ibid., p. 396.

alderbourne (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that was not quite what I had in mind. If your comments were made in support of some proposed change to the article for its betterment, I would have let them stand untouched. But talk pages are for comments directed to improving the article only. They are not a forum for discussion of the article's subject. Just as other editors should not use the talk page to metaphorically lynch Polanski, neither should the talk page be used to defend him. The talk page has one purpose: discussing how to improve the article. That is all. It does not matter who the comments favor. I certainly disagree very strongly with many comments that I let stand on the talk page, but I left them there because they were placed there to propose a change to the article. While I disagree with them, I cannot remove them, unless they are prohibited postings, per WP:TALK. Thank you for respecting the editing process. I mean that. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 15:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MOTION TO DELETE ON BLP AND OTHER GROUNDS. This edit contains an unsubstantiated claim which falsely impugns the reputation of the victim. Further: The editor has plagerized this text, word for word, as well as this edit[1], from an entry in the comments section at the NYT's[2] website that is an explicit defense of Polanski - in which that author who signed as Eric Bond Hutton, states that he is motivated by personal experience of a false accusation. 99.142.5.86 (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get your facts right. Nobody has falsely impugned the reputation of Polański's alleged victim: the findings of the medical examination to which she was subjected – and which incidentally failed to back up her claims – can be read on pages 80–81 of the document I referred to. I have not plagiarised (which you can't even spell) the piece in the online comments section of the New York Times that you mention. It was by me. One cannot plagiarise oneself! Nor did I say I was motivated by personal experience of a false accusation; rather, I said that women sometimes make false allegations of rape out of malice or greed, and gave an example from my own life. (And I might add that I secretly recorded the lady admitting she had made it up. Five years on I still have that recording.) I think an apology is in order.

alderbourne (talk) 08:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not even Polanski disputes the incident. That a child drugged with muscle relaxants and alcohol had no obvious rips or tears in her body does not show that she was not raped - it may however indicate a high probability that the offenders penis was quite small and that he took his time using her.99.142.5.86 (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I thought, not man enough to apologise.

According to Polański it was consensual and there was no use of drugs. So, once again, get your facts right.

The findings of the medical examination indicate very strongly that his alleged victim is a liar. That you are reduced to speculating about the size of his penis speaks volumes.

alderbourne (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: 1) Unless you go through a formal process to prove that you posted those comments to the NYT page (which may not even be possible without contacting the admins of that site), you can't repost the text. 2) Your personal experiences are not enough to satisfy BLP. I suggest you drop the matter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you had bothered to visit my user page and examine its editing history, you would know that I was giving my name there as Eric Bond Hutton as long ago as 2005.

No, I will not let the matter drop.

alderbourne (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you used the name doesn't satisfy copyright needs. You're free to continue this, but I have a feeling it will simply result in you being blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concern, noted above, regarding your claim at Talk:roman polanski has been brought to AN/I for a hearing. 99.142.5.86 (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not reply to Wikipedia emails directly, but I have opened a topic at Talk:Patrick Moore to discuss the issue. Dabbler (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Innovative pen-n-paper cipher! Good work. GirkovArpa (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think before we go through the trouble of a formal arbitration to remove Hutton's paradox from the Dream Argument article we should illicit the community's thoughts and/or a third opinion. Hopefully their insights will help you get a broader view and perhaps resolve it to your satisfaction. Lordvolton (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing no offense to you, I wanted to come here personally to let you know that a good consensus has been reached at Dream argument and also List of paradoxes to remove references to "Hutton's paradox." There do not seem to be any adequate reliable secondary sources about this paradox beyond your own personal writings. If there is another, better source than the ones that you've put forward on the talk page, please bring them forward and the information can be re-evaluated. Thanks for understanding. — e. ripley\^talk 13:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]