Name: Gabriel Koulikov
Contact: e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Update: The bio previously on this page I now see was poorly worded, somewhat out of date, and at times misleading. I’ll post an updated version on my LJ userinfo page soon.
Finally putting things online: I have started putting things about myself and my research online. The following is a semi-comprehensive list for those who would like to keep track of me or what I'm up to:
- My main blog, LJ
- My less-used secondary blog, Xanga
- My MySpace
- My Facebook
- My 43 Things
- My YouTube channel
- My Netcipia, website under construction
- My fiction writings, up-to-date
- All roads lead back to the wiki.
Explanation: Why I try to post everything about myself and what I do online: *Note: this is a subset of "Gabe is willing to talk with anyone about anything without qualification," with only slight modification based on time limitations, kind of relationship, interest level of the other person/people, and other contextual elements. Consider this an invitation. -I only refer people to my online stuff to prevent me having to repeat the same general info 100+ times per month, or whatever. The next best alternative solution is to begin telling certain people, "I have no time for you," which is something I am not willing to do; I aim to serve/answer/whatever anyone who's up for talking/doing something with/asking help/service/assistance of me, and practical concerns such as this inevitably creep up. -I like people. I believe this is part of being pro-life. -Posting everything online (and being willing to talk about whatever) also helps me be completely transparent (i.e. I have nothing to hide), have some measure of comprehensive accountability, allows for greater feedback, helps address complacency issues (hypocrisy, apathy, and compromise to reinforce uncompromising proactive integrity), provides greatest opportunity for correction of errors (in particular, my own errors/false beliefs), and I believe sets a good example in too many ways to list here (such as to encourage people not to be inhibited when it comes to exploring all truth). -For those that say, "Only a fool speaks his whole mind": well.... (appearances can be deceiving)
Is there a way to save or archive your older wiki comments without deleting them?
2005-11-15 22:52:18 Hi, Gabe. —SteveDavison
2006-06-21 22:37:33 What is 'Interdisciplinary Science Activism (ISA)'? I'm intrigued. Congrats on your graduation, BTW. —KarlMogel
2006-06-22 00:09:54 Gabe is one of the founders of Students for Life at UCD. He is responsible for the people who brought the disgusting photos equating the holocaust to abortion. —JamesSchwab
2006-06-22 09:05:26 Okay, this will probably cause chaos and disruption but I disagree Schwab. Reality is reality and if you don't like the pictures you should work to have it stopped. —SteveOstrowski
2006-06-22 14:09:21 I believe in free speech so I would not work try and stop their presentation. I would inform those who saw the pictures that they were not scientifically accurate. Their reality is not reality. —JamesSchwab
- Can you be more specific about what you mean by "not scientifically accurate"? In what way(s) specifically were the pictures inaccurate? —GabeKoulikov
I think a conflict between Steve and James has bled onto your page. Even though I don't know what exactly James meant, I might also add that the presenters were not scientifically literate. I recorded an interview with one of them wherein they said that it takes a human egg and a sperm to make a human being, they didn't seem to understand that clones don't involve sperm cells at all, and that their criterion didn't apply - yet, they thought it was wrong to kill cloned embryos. When I pointed out this and other flaws, they said that they "felt tricked."
Anyway, I can't seem to find anything resembling 'Interdisciplinary Science Activism (ISA)' on the net, what is it? -KJM
- The pictures were said to be aborted fetuses, they were not. The pictures were of abandoned babies, still born babies, and a doll's hand next to a quarter. —JamesSchwab
- LOL. -KJM
- Where is your evidence that this is indeed the case? (Remember who you're talking to) —GabeKoulikov
- What is you evidence that they are pictures of aborted fetuses?
So you would like me to go first, I take it. To be honest, I am a skeptic, although I consider myself pretty lazy, but every time I look into it, I only see evidence which supports that the GAP photos depict what they say they do, including from my classes at UCD. Have you taken any of UCD's embryology classes (ex: MCB150)? Seriously, these pictures are in textbooks which the UCD bookstore sells! Who told you/where did you hear that these pictures were fakes?
Here are some pictures of embryological and fetal development:
http://embryo.soad.umich.edu/carnStages/stage18/stage18.html (This is the earliest stage where you can see all of the easily recognizable human characteristics @ ~44 days old. These pages go until about "stage 23". This is from the embryology department of the University of Michigan which has references)
Embryo and Fetal Growth picture (This is relative sizes and features of developing pre-born human individuals. Note that 9 months of pregnancy=36 weeks, and that these pictures only go to ≤15 weeks, or early in the 2nd trimester. This is from the McGraw-Hill Higher Education website, a major textbook publisher)
I'm sure you can find even more and better photos using Google image search, or other more trustworthy science sources. Now compare these to the graphic photos on the GAP signs and see how they match up with the identified development times for yourself (many of the GAP pictures have common objects for you to be able to more easily make a size comparison). Seriously, James, where did you get the idea that these pictures are photoshopped/staged? Please know that I am open to correction. I am always thankful for constructive and insightful discussion. —GabeKoulikov
- Interesting - they label the same fetus as being 10 weeks old, then 9 weeks old, then 10 weeks old... That's pretty sloppy. Already the expertise of their "doctor" seems dubious. (And if you'll look at the Matthew 28:20 page, they label the EXACT SAME image as being both 9 weeks and 10 weeks of age.) And if I'm not mistaken, the head pictured by the jar, and later on its own looks like its the one that was a preserved stillborn (the possessor of which was arrested for possessing it) and not an aborted fetus. Thus the formaldehyde jar. -KJM
- "Pretty sloppy"?; I could say the same for your response, especially coming from another science guy. I have no way of verifying what you have asserted. Please provide some form of evidence/link. The 9-10 week tells me nothing other than “9 weeks” and “10 weeks” are arbitrary categories that bump up against each other. Like I said, I’m a skeptic. Please help me do my skeptic thing! (arguing for your points in a clear, concise, straightforward manner helps also) —GabeKoulikov
- Ok, there was no need to provide another link to their pictures for the 9-10 week mistakes, as you provided the link above. I then gave you directions for how to get to the other mistakes: if you'll look on the Matthew 28:20 page, which would get you to THIS page, check out pictures # 4 and 6 - they are the exact same image, yet, are labeled differently. I hope this is simple enough for you to follow, as you suggested, we should remember who we're talking to. :) J/K I'm afraid I don't have time today to investigate the preserved stillborn surmise, but I'll investigate it soon enough and let you know. (working on an essay contest.) -KarlMogel
On their website, they cite a doctor who swears that they are accurate, however, I have found many news stories where they have been accused of pushing the ages of the fetuses to portray them as being more developed than they really are. Even so, the people presenting don't know a lot about the facts involved - for example, the woman I talked to asserted that a human pharyngula-stage embryo that I showed her could think and feel - despite the fact that it has no brain, go figure. Her criterion of egg + sperm = human being doesn't apply to cloned embryos, which took her about 5 minutes to acknowledge, and she couldn't seem to figure out whether a thinking, feeling human clone (in the future) would be considered "life" in the sense that she uses it. Couple that with the fact that she doesn't accept the common descent of humans and chimpanzees, and when I pointed out to her that her humans-beget humans and chimps-beget-chimps falls apart 5.4 million years ago when they last interbred. I asked her to enter into a thought experiment and assume, even though she doesn't believe it to be true, that humans and chimps descended from the same species, so how could she justify treating humans and chimps differently, and she refused to enter the thought experiment. Finally, she said she hasn't much thought about it. And you're going from campus to campus with these signs without having thought much about it...? Not much for thinking.
Gabe, so what's that ISA thing, or are you purposefully ignoring my question? -KJM
- Time + real life = procrastination at answering your question, in case that makes you feel less ignored (I have been paying attention). I'm very sorry, Karl, as I've internalized some bad habits like procrastination; ISA is the main thing I'm into, and I was supposed to have all kinds of stuff posted online over a year ago (!), but I thank you for your persistent interest, as it is apparently anti-procrastinatory. ISA is a way of 'testing' to see if there is anything that can be comprehensively done about all the screwed up stuff in the world. From my investigations, observations, and experiences I do not believe that academics, activists, or even the "average person" (really nobody) are doing things appropriately (allow me to explain when I have some more time), so I am trying to come up with something anyone/everyone can do regardless of their sociocultural/temporal context, level of ability, etc., to "help the most people in the best way that lasts the longest." Someone recently challenged me with "help them do what?" which I have currently developed to "help them have the maximized opportunity to do that which is most consistent with reality." These are left deliberately vague (for lack of a better term) in order that we can have multiple comprehensive, scientifically testable and mentally/emotionally/spiritually "satisfying" and practically applicable models of reality be allowed to duke it out through some appropriate combination of cooperation and competition so we can finally figure out what we're supposed to be doing, whether that's objective, subjective, or something involving both, and not let the process of discovery get in our way of doing something now! (I.e. ISA as the general framework everyone can work in, with these models as their own main project/movement/whatever they end up turning into) That's about all I've been able to develop on my own, and so I need to "go public" ASAP, definitely before the end of the Summer. I'm currently working on my own "comprehensive model for reality," and just have to pull everything together and hope that I have something that most people can wrap their minds around and understand and get involved with. I have a sort of "pilot project" we can directly apply ISA to that I'm calling Annotated English, because I tend to be most interested in very "controversial" things and/or things others don't really seem to be interested in discussing and relating to everything else and taking seriously, so I came up with a relatively non-controversial starter: how can we "revise" the English language in a simple way such that we more effectively communicate our intended meaning? I hope you all could follow all that! I'll try to clear things up on post more in a few days, or a week. Until then, Karl, or anyone else who's interested PLEASE e-mail me (address is near top of page), especially if you come from a "different" perspective then me (which I've found is pretty much everyone :-), since I apparently could use the help in not procrastinating. I hope that didn't read like an infomercial. Any thoughts? I am very interested in feedback. —GabeKoulikov
- Hey no problem, I figured it was a combination of terms you came up with, be sure to post your thoughts when you can collect them together - but don't expect everything to fit together neatly over a summer! The english language could definitely use some improvements. -KarlMogel
2006-06-22 14:18:36 Okay, what I mean is that you should use your incredible influence to stop abortion, not the displays. —SteveOstrowski
2006-06-22 15:56:01 Why would I use my fabulous influence to work to stop abortions? —JamesSchwab
2007-09-06 13:05:24 Hi Gabe, thanks for spilling the beans on the Steve Ostrowski page. He's been playing games with the facts for some time on the wiki, and his reaction to your comment may have pushed the other editors over the edge with regard to his status as a user of the wiki. It would be nice while checking the recent changes page, to not have to see him clogging it up with still more re-wordings of meaningless puppet pages of his. Once again, it can be about Davis! I'll get you those papers about human chromosome 2, might have time to dig them up next week. —KarlMogel
2007-09-06 19:44:10 I'd buy you a beer if I could legally buy beer and if you actually drank beer. —WilliamLewis
2007-09-07 15:39:47 We as a community decided that Steve should not be able to work on the pages has abused as of late. Edits that he makes WILL NOT be allowed to stand and the accounts he created to circumvent the lock will be banned. If you don't like the page how it is, feel free to work on it on your own. If Steve uses you to edit it, your edits will be tainted and removed. Let me repeat myself: WORKING WITH STEVE IS CIRCUMVENTING THE LOCK AND ALL THE WORK DONE WITH HIM IS POISONED. Why the gutting, anyway? —WilliamLewis
- I spent some time writing a comprehensive response to... everything, but it's too long and implies not nice things about the wiki users involved. I have real life plans for the rest of the night. Explanations will come along with more reasonable work when real life gives me time, and wiki drama doesn't have the practical result of things taking much, much longer (a month?!). People involved should take a wiki chill pill. Go and watch the sunset tonight if it's been a while. Seriously. All activity Steve is doing from the point of the SFLUCD page wiki lock onward are in no way associated with me unless/until I mention otherwise (whatever else anyone else may say). —GabeKoulikov
2007-09-07 16:36:22 The content on SFL about the history of the organization is pretty good so far.
That he created another sockpuppet account to bypass the locks wasn't a good idea of his, and has made the situation more troublesome. Just try to be cautious about involving Steve in editing, especially since he has just gotten himself restricted. —KarlMogel
2007-12-30 15:30:44 I may not completely agree with all of your points, but I respect you as a mild tempered, well spoken debater. —AlexanderHo