User talk:ChrisRed

Welcome!

Hello, ChrisRed, 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! Dunc|☺ 20:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lynott Talk

Just got your message Chris, no problem, I guessed it was accidental. Cheers. --Meiers Twins 11:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

>> I have just edited a message into the page about Ron Healey... Paddy Oates, Canberra. ACT, Auz <<<

Grayrigg reply

I was simply avoiding speculating that the train had come off on the facing points, although I agree that it much more likely than on the trailing points. The Lambrigg Ground Frame has both facing and trailing points (facing ones are the southernmost). -- MightyWarrior 13:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stretcher bars

I think you're right regarding changing it from four to three stretcher bars but as I've noted on the talk page, the report isn't entirely clear. Regards. Adambro 09:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British English

Hmmm... I haven't looked at the article since I restored that big chunk JackLumber unwisely deleted, but I have to agree with him about the claim that modern British English is closer to some original dialect than other world Englishes are. When dialects evolve, they change piecewise. So, British English might be more conservative when it comes to, say differentiating between merry, marry, and Mary...but American English is more conservative when it comes to pronouncing the 'r' at the ends of words. And in any case, as you point out, there is more than one dialect of British English. I suspect that modern dialect that's closest to "typical" 17th century British English is probably some part of Northumbria or maybe even Scotland! I once heard that Shakespeare wouldn't understand the English spoken in today's Chicago or London, but would feel right at home in Edinborough. :) Aelffin 14:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gold dust!!!!!

Get yourself a coffee and a comfy chair before you open this link re autocoaches, push-pull trains, etc:
http://www.igg.org.uk/gansg/00-app3-4/ap3-pp.htm

Happy reading... EdJogg 09:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your message, ChrisRed. Yes, the Cathars are very interesting and, once they have entered your consciousness they grip the mind! I don't know what it is with them but they've been occupying my thoughts for about two years now, returning every two or three months in some way - either through reading something new about them or meeting someone by accident who is equally interested by them. On each occasion some new mystery is revealed.

There's a lot of confusion and misrepresentation about them. In truth, we will never know who they truly were, so misrepresented have they been by supporters and detractors alike. One thing though, I think their relationship with the Old Testament was probably more subtle than we think. They are said to have revered the Psalms, for instance. Also, its not unlikely that the so-called Books of Solomon were important to them. But fundamentally speaking they believed in the God outside Time and Space of John, whose kingdom 'is not of this world' and sent his only begotten Son into it to help us out, not the God who demands total allegiance and kills indiscriminately when he is displeased...

And as a byline, check out the Kabbalistic idea of the Old Testament God. You will be astonished! The Kabbalists didn't think of the OT God as the real God but only as an avatar of a greater God which was infinite and everywhere...

Good talking to you. ThePeg (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jigsaw is right. I would go further and say there is a universal experience of things which every tradition is groping towards.

Another way of looking at it is that the Eastern vision predates the Western, the Western ways being an evolution out of them - Christianity becoming the boldest statement of God's presence in Man yet...

One other is to remember that the divide between East and West that we are conscious of now didn't exist in the past. The 'civilised' world was the East and the Middle East, where Judaism and Christianity actually started. These two religions didn't develop a distinctly 'Western'/European feel until the rise of Islam which took over the region, thus dividing India from Western culture. Before then Romans, Greeks & Christians were freely in touch and in contact with India. So the exchange and cross-pollenation of ideas between East and West was constant.

In fact the Apostles did preach in Asia. Thomas founded a church there and a shrine to his remains can still be found there... ThePeg (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the saddest thing about Christianity is that we will never know what it was originally intended to be. The texts we have - even those counted as canonical - are fragmentary, eliptical and edited. Everything else has either been suppressed or is the result of later thinking. Simone Weill pointed out that, in all likelihood, so many of the original Christians were killed by the Romans and Jews that we may never know what the real beliefs were.

It may be that the Gospels and even the Epistles were like textbooks which would then be clarified by the original Teachers. The Epistles of Paul are a real case in point. With those we get what he said to people when he couldn't be present (hence the massive generalisations in them) rather than when he was present. Each one is either an encouragement to a group or a criticism, but all seem to presuppose a 'hidden wisdom' (Paul's own words) which is not discussed in much detail in them. This 'hidden wisdom' is very interesting because Paul describes it as having existed before Christ's coming and only being revealed to the mass of humanity AFTER his coming. So the idea that the Mysteries of Christianity were there in secret forms and schools before Christ makes perfect sense. On this subject I heartily recommend reading Simone Weill's LETTER TO A PRIEST which posits that Christ is the apotheosis of the Word but that the Word is and was incarnate in other forms in all cultures before the Incarnation in, for instance, figures such as Krishna, Osiris etc etc. Its an amazing piece of writing. A devastating polemic against the Church but not against Christ. In it she draws all human culture together (except Judaism, which, for some reason, she really hates!).

But in the end I think you are right. The one place to start is your own spirituality - 'The kingdom of heaven is within you'. That's it. All else is interpretation and history... There is Man and there is the Cosmos and everything else is netaphor and striving to understand...

ThePeg (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

House of Responsibility

Glad you're on the case. I had proposed it for deletion as a kind of expression of despair, as there seemed to be no one tending to it.

A question on another subject: I see you've been around these parts for a long time. Do you know any cheat sheet on footnoting? The "help" pages don't address footnoting in a way that the simple minded like myself can understand. JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Braunau.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Braunau.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 06:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Ietsism

I have nominated Ietsism, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ietsism. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Robofish (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]