User talk:CTSWyneken/Archive 2

Thank you

CTSWyneken, I agree with you. Even as our views differ at times, I believe that our continuing dialog and constructive collaboration would (and I hope will) produce a compromise. On the content of the article, I will write in its Talk page. Regards. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 22:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Jewish affairs, I have no clue, will try to find out. I am against simply harvesting quotes. That way, we can prove even that the earth is flat. The bigger question is, is/was that a notable view among scholars? If it is a fringe view, we don't. Of course an affected group (e.g. Jewish voices) deserves to be represented. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 03:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infant Baptism

Greetings. Could you take a look at the Lutheran section in the Infant Baptism article? I've given a go at massaging it, but it isn't coming out well (given what was there to start with), and thus may need a complete rewrite. I know it came from the LCMS pages, but even so...it's pretty weak. I think that, perhaps, using the definition for the RCC and Orthodox while making clear the difference in the understanding of Justification might be the best way to go. Thank you! -Rekleov 15:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luthor

I am afraid that I am in transit and do not have access to a library. But I would think that some press has published the collected works of Martin Luthor. I am afraid I cannot help you now, Slrubenstein | Talk 01:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Affairs

It might be this: Jewish Affairs Magazine, 235 W 23rd St, New York, NY 10011-2302, (212) 989-4994 Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had time to do some more checking. Consistent with what Jayjg wrote, I believe that Jewish Affairs is the journal (or magazine) put out by the Office of Jewish Information, American Jewish Congress. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, friends. I'll contact them in the next week or so. --CTSWyneken 11:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

95 theses

No problem! :)

--ZekeMacNeil 04:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please pare down quotation if you wish

Dear CTS, I have quoted Luther in extenso in order to present the quotation that they want in context, c.f. Martin Luther and the Jews. You may wish to revise it, and I welcome you to do any revising you want to do. I am bewildered and disappointed that persons like Doright have their way.drboisclair 13:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

possible request for coment

I am inclined to let it slide because I think I am dealing with a nut-case. But do you consider this (the last sentence) an anti-Semitic threat? [1] Slrubenstein | Talk 19:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think I should handle it? I am not sure that it is worth the trouble of requesting mediation. It's just that I am getting pretty pissed-off at this fellow. Would you be willing to explain to him what he is doing wrong (if, that is, you do think he is doing something wrong)? I ask because I fear I lack the detachment and peace of mind just now to do so in a constructive fashion. Either way, sorry to bother you. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice - I do appreciate it. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certinly look forward to that! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Lutheranism

Pastor Smith,

Some time ago, I created a stub article on high church Lutheranism. I gave it the name that I had read was appropriate for such a form of Lutheranism--namely, Neo-Lutheranism. An Episcopalian user who studied in the Concordia Universities system contests this terminology, arguing that it is POV and meant to denigrate the movement. I am not an expert on Lutheranism (though I am a high churchman and a member of a church in full communion with the ELCIC) and I was simply using the term that I understood to be correct. This user has changed the articles title in the lead sentence and is "appealing" to the "powers that be" to move the article, evidently not realising that he can do so himself. He refuses to allow "Neo-Lutheranism to be even mentioned alongside his preferred terms ("High Church Lutheranism" and "Evangelical Catholicism"). Perhaps you can weigh in on this, since you are grounded in Lutheran history.

Many thanks,

Carolynparrishfan 22:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luthers less than felicitous writings on the Jews

Sorry, have been out of the running for a bit, will take a look at the talk page and add some points if necessary, kind regards & God bless, --Isolani 18:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a snakepit! As far as I can tell, you stayed well within the bounds of reason, of course statements holding Luther accountable for the Kristallnacht 400 years later are completely absurd, there seem to be a few editors out there who have 'scores to settle'. Keep up the good work, God bless, --Isolani 20:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you need any translating done out of German, I`m quite willing to give it a try, have earlier translated philosophical texts from German into Dutch and English, can`t promise you I can get to it any time soon though, made an edit on the main page concerning one "scholar".

Thanks, Isolani! It could take quite some time to translate the whole thing (it runs 140 pp. in the WA). Let's see what the folk working on these pp. will want to do. Perhaps several can work on it. --CTSWyneken 14:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question

Hello Rev., what materials are on Wikipedia that you believe are infringing? -- Cecropia 00:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I know what we are talking about, but though I've read the argument on the article talk page, I'm not sure where the infringement is supposed to be. Do you mean that the page being linked to is, in itself, infringing? And if so, who or what is the valid owner of a copyright that is being infringed? If it's not the page being linked to, what else is being infringed? -- Cecropia 01:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, looking at the situation more closely, are you saying that it is the pages at Fordham U. that are infringing? -- Cecropia 01:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now I understand what we are talking about. At the outset let me say that I have (for a variety of reasons) some amount of experiuence with Intellectual Property but IANAL. At any rate, the following are my opinions.

It seems to me there are three issues going on. If we link, is it legal? is it ethical? is it a violation of Wikipedia policy. Ordinarily a "yes" to any of those would be enough to pull the link.

Is it legal for us to link? I would say it probably is. Linking rights, even so-called "deep linking" have been upheld in U.S. courts. IOW, it is legal to link so long as you are in no way obscuring the place you are linking to. For example, if you embed a photo on your web page on someone else's server in such a way that it looks like your own picture, that's prohibited. But if you supply a link to a page on someone else's site, and don't do something (like framing) to make it look like it's on your site, that's OK. In this case, we don't seem to have definitive word that fordham doesn't have the right to republish, and if we did, that would lead us to:
Is it ethical to use the link? If we KNOW it's a pirated page, it might not be ethical to link. But do we know this? It would seem reasonable to ask the proprietor of the Fordham page how he came by and whether he has permission to use it. By extension, though, that raises another moral issue, if we know for a fact the Fordham pages are infringing, should we tell the copyright owners about the page for their own action?
Is it a violation of Wikipedia policy? I can't say for sure and though I have some respect here, I'm not competent to have a useful opinion in this case. I would email Jimmy Wales (jwales@wikia.com), describe the circumstances, and ask for his judgment. In this Wikidemocracy, some would say he doesn't have the last word either, but I'm certain he will respond and give you the best answer.

Speaking for myself, it would be good if we could point knowledge-seekers to this work if it is legal, ethical and policy. I think we should know rather than assume we are abating an infringer before denying users this valuable work. Kind regards, Cecropia 05:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More on the copyright issue

Looking at the material on Talk:On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies_(Martin_Luther)#Copyright_and_On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies.

Am I to understand that this issue is based on the fact that the translation was first published and copyrighted in 1955 (but not renewed in 1983) and also included verbatim in a new work copyrighted 1971? If that is the case, I can state my non-lawyerly opinion that the translation is in the public domain. Republication of a work does not, in and of itself, extend the copyright. If it could, writers and their descendents could copyright a work ad infitium by simply publishing it again, with a new copyright notice, while a prior copyright was still valid. So if the valid holder of the copyright did not file an extension certificate with the Copyright Office in 1983, that is the end of the copyright.

You will notice that a lot of public domain works (or works containing public domain works) bear current copyright notices. These notices only cover the new works of authorship contained therein, such as a preface, notes, evaluations, etc. Of course someone wishing to reproduce the public domain portion of such works must be confident that they are the same as the original. For example, if I were to publish a new version of Hamlet, and I modernized the most obscure parts of the language, someone copying my version would be in violation of copyright if they published their work with my changes. -- Cecropia 08:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your latest on copyright

Thank you for your most recent elaboration--you certainly know how to dot your 'i's and cross your "t"s.

I completely agree with your analysis that the volume cited is in copyright and that we ought not to link to it. Having said that, what do we (as Wikipedians) do with it? The following part of Wikipedia policy after the "Linking to copyrighted works" section says that "It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police content for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page", which you have done, extensively.

At this point I sympathize with your ethical compulsion to remove the links but see this as fruitless in the face of so much opposition, though I don't think the discussion need be abandoned. As an aside, you made the point that "if you were to buy a TV from a fence, should you say: 'But I didn't steal it?'" A more apt comparison is the position of someone who announces to his co-workers "there's a guy outside selling TVs from the back of his station wagon." Working in NYC for many years I was exposed to that sort of thing multiple times. It might satisfy you to know that in one such situation a lot of the fellows, including both owners, raced out to buy sealed boxes of TVs at $50 a pop, some buying them for friends and family as well. When one of them opened a box so they could plug a TV in and watch it at lunch, he found an empty TV cabinet and some weights inside. I'm sure it was said long before, but I know Leslie Charteris used to like to point out that a successful con depends on the willingness of the mark to engage in illegal activity.

Having amused you (I hope) with anecdotes, I'll return to the point. At this point, I think the most economical course of action would be to email Mr. Wales and get his take on it. His response will back up (or torpedo) any further action in the discussion.

I can't leave this topic without commenting on Fordham's stance, a Catholic university, no less. I see them as morally, ethically, and legally wrong on this matter. They are taking the "we only provide the space" argument. I imagine they might also claim a "free speech" or "academic freedom" issue. Most web hosts have a user agreement that specifies that the user will not post material that violates law. Even if they don't they are not immune from the action of law. This has been noted especially in the tolerence of child pornography. So far it would seem that you cannot attack a host if someone puts up kiddie porn, but once the host is made aware of it, they must remove it or be a partner in the crime. Fordham's stance is exacerbated by two factors, IMO. First, the material is posted under their URL, creating an impression of official status, and second, the poster is no longer associated with them. This means both that they are hosting something for someone who is now an "outsider," as it were, and that the poster is unreachable through Fordham to be confronted on the infringement. -- Cecropia 17:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted my opinion on the topic talk page. Cheers, Cecropia 23:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doright

Please bear with me until I have a chance to look into this. If Doright is violating Wikipedia rules, then an RfC might be the appropriate course. To mount an RfC at least two users must attempt to engage the editor, preferally on his/her talk page to set out what the grievance is with the editor and ask that it be remedied. If these attempts fail or are rebuffed, an RfC may be mounted to gather the community's opinion and possibly suggest or require remedies. -- Cecropia 00:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered asking an arbitrator (not the ArbCom, one of those willing to help) to mediate as a first step? -- Cecropia 01:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I haven't availed myself of the process so was fishing for what it is called. It's mediation, and you can read all about it at Wikipedia:Mediation. The text there suggests you contact the other and ask if they would enter mediation. If the other refuses, the next step would have to be an RfC, I imagine. Before going to that step, though, I would suggest contacting one or more of the mediators (their names are on the linked page I provided) to see if one of them would intercede with Doright to try to start a mediation. As to RfC (or ArbCom), I almost never even look at these processes any more because they sometimes seem to me like the world's most verbose and tedious Kangaroo Courts. That is, it's always best to see if something can be resolved with a minimum of mechanism. Still, no one should have to put up with personal attacks. So why don't you see if you can get a mediator to help? -- Cecropia 03:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going over my talk, I see you wanted me to look over some of your actions or writing on this subject. Can you provide me with links as to exactly what you think I should look at. -- Cecropia 03:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luther quote

Thanks for finding that Luther quote. That's just what I was looking for! I also found the sermons online here. --Flex 14:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther

I have recently moved and am pretty overwhelmed right now, so it may take me a few days, but I do want to respond to your request, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste

I don't know of any specific rules on cut and paste from user pages. Are your referring the information at the bottom of the "Jews and their Lies" talk? I really don't understand what's being quoted or how they bear on the issue. -- Cecropia 03:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Category:Antisemitism (People)

Up for deletion again - Cordially SirIsaacBrock

Doright

I have been swamped for the past few weeks and have little time for Wikipedia. I hope this will begin changing, soon, and I will try to track the situation you describe. I just looked at two of the pages and it appears for now at least that you have things under control (I didn't see a lot of long and time confusing talk from Doright, nor did I see many recent edits. It appears that he wanted to add anti-Semitism as a category to the article on the Jews and their Lies - do you object to that? Why? Or am I missing something?). Anyway, I will check in but unless he does something again I don't feel ready to say anything to him. But keep me posted on any more recent activity along the lines you called my attention to, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary on St. John?

Reverend-- I've seen a purported quote from Martin Luther in the "sixteenth chapter" of his "Commentary on St. John:" "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all." It looks too good to be true. Did Luther even write a commentary on St. John? Is this a real quote? Thanks.--Jbull 05:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help.

The cite as used on the Internet is as vague as above. But it's only found on Catholic sites, which made me suspicious that it is made up.

If I have not made it clear before, I have enormous respect for Luther as a theologian, and I recognize his Peter-like complexity.

Thanks again--Jbull 19:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After more research, I've concluded that the quote, if real, comes from one of Luther's sermons on John 16. But that's just an educated guess.--Jbull 19:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josel of Rosheim

Hi, thanks for your note, Sorry I don't have any of Josel's texts. I don't have a clue what is "Gelehrter" but I think I got the idea. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lutheran Wikipedians

I was wondering if you would consider adding your user page to this category. As I am currently the only user in this category, I'm feeling a bit lonely. archola 16:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got both your messages

Hi Bob. I left Doright a message. Please do what you feel is proper. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving and Doright

The archiving looks good to me. Regarding Doright, I'm not sure what to do, as I'm not familiar with the sources. Can you give me more information, please? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jesus

I suggest you add the talk page to WP:RFC/REL and get some input from third parties who will know a lot more about the subject than I do. Regards, howch e ng {chat} 06:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --CTSWyneken 10:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: bios - well, thank you for starting! Still, I suspect some people will simply not accept the fact that one can be both a Christian and a scientist or critic... As for Jewish historians, I will look into it, but my resources are limited. For what it is worth, I never read a Jewish historian who claimed that Jesus didn't exist. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what you think about my versiona dn let's try to bring this to a final conclusion. We've had enough discussion.Gator (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to get them on board too, but it will never happen, so we need to be realistic. We need to focus on getting consenus over their objections. We all lose battles and we learn to live with that. They need to learn thatGator (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bring it.Gator (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind signing your singature under the "accept" banner to make it clear? Thanks.Gator (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK that;s fine. I included one of the reasons, just not everything they want. They need to learn to compromise here too.Gator (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jesus article ¶ 3. Not to jump the gun, but I thought I'd respond to your comment "so that I can get into a fight with other Christians."

The paragraph has been discussed. It's essentially Aiden's summary combined with my Nicene Compromise. The compromise is meant to acknowledge the historic and ongoing distinction between Nicene Trinitarianism and other forms of Christianity without making a judgement as to which version of Christianity is correct. This is when I first joined the discussion. The reference to Bible prophecy came much later.

I'm not sure how long you've been following the discussion, but I thought this might help. archola 09:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: When we're ready to move on, I've extracted the relevant discussion (since Jan. 6) to Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro. archola 10:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several topics

Hi CTSWyneken. I haven't been able to get on Wikipedia much recently, and I must apologize for being behind in my responses. Regarding Doright, it certainly appears that he is abusing the sources; if you need me to help out on a specific page, please let me know. Regarding the Jesus article, I'm glad the warring has died down, though I fear it will always be a contentious page. Votes can be held on Talk: pages in any way one wants, but ideally one should work hard for consensus first. If you absolutely need to vote, then simply set up a section with the question at the top, and sections underneath for supporters and opposers. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding me

Thankyou for taking the liberty of adding me to Lutheran Wikipedians. I am glad to be among a prestigious assemblage. drboisclair 12:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

proverbs 15:1

Yes. I know you are right. It just pisses me off when people want to edit without having done any research and having no idea what scholarship is - regardless of their actual views. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I could not help myself. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob

I appreciate your comments re:my rebuttal of Rob (which is I also added to his talk page, BTW) even though I had to go back and re-sign all of Rob's and my comments to make everything clear.

Some feel I may have gone too far to accomodate Rob, but I felt that the best way to refute his assertion that "faith" is inherently irrational was to engage him in rational philosophical discourse. Part of the problem might also be over the connotation of words such as "faith."

Well, I've made my point to him and I probably have little to add to it at after this. Time to move on. archola 23:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luther Bible

Hello, Robert, I have made some initial changes to the Luther Bible article. I am checking out the claim that Luther made forays into Eisenach to help him with translating. I took out a glaring misrepresentation that Luther translated the Bible to errode the influence of priests. Please look at my changes if you get a chance. drboisclair 01:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus article

It's been semiprotected for now to allow the vandalism to die down. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --CTSWyneken 19:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda wish you hadn't proposed a new version. That's what I was trying to avoid and now the consensus from the old paragraph is completely thrown out, we're starting from scratch and we have to deal with Rob all over again...oh well. I support the old version with all those votes if that means anything. It's the only one with proven consensus right now.Gator (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the vote tally there was still debate over "minority" vs "small minority." My only objection to Rob is that it omits historians. Why not current historians? Arch O. La 20:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on "current historians". I find "large majority" at least redundant, but I'll accept Slrubenstein's compromise re:his comment on the vote tally. Arch O. La 20:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you may want to vote on your own proposals ;) Arch O. La 21:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have been involved in the Talk:Jesus conflict, I would humbly request that you view this section on Rob Steadman's talk page concerning the recent war that has transpired. I do ask that you do not edit or add to / add comment to this material for the sake of clarity and conciseness. You are free to leave any comments on my talk page if you so desire. Thank you. --Avery W. Krouse 00:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've tried and I've failed. There is only one thing left to do. --Avery W. Krouse 21:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. —Aiden 22:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished explaining the edit I want to make, it isn't to a note, see the talk page, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once a consensus has been reached, I don't think there is anything unreasonable about reverting twice a day to maintain it, unless some amazing new arguments and reasoning against the consensus version are brought up on the talk page. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. actually, have you folks read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle ? Sometimes you end up in such a cycle without noticing. Then the challenge is you to figure your way back out, with minimal disruption. :-) Kim Bruning 20:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim: Just read it.

Bob: Perhaps we all need a chance to back off & cool down, but I did invite someone with a fresh perspective to come back. I'm not sure how concensus leads to censorship, but we should be careful, and anyway Robsteadman has made essentially the same point.

Well, I've called for clarity and I've posted my own editorial to Avery's "one thing" page. I also read your response; sometimes it seems you must have the patience of Job! Religiously I believe in turning the other cheek, and politically I believe in the third way, but this is all starting to fray my nerves. Arch O. La 02:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC) PS-I think Rob needs the same kind of proof that this guy did. Arch O. La 02:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Censorship and concensus

I understand and agree with everything you say. I was simply noting that there were new people coming into the discussion for whom it seemed like censorship as per their remarks on the talk page. I don't want to scare anyone off ;) Arch O. La 03:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll try to shut up ;-) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okydoky! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

revert and Joe

You do not need to apologize about the revert. That said, it does seem to me that moving the dates to the second paragraph fully resolves the problem, without losing any important information.

About Josephus: Either one of us misunderstands Steadman, or you and I disagree. Although I agree that Josephus is, once his biases have been taken into consideration, a reliable source, there is ONE paragraph concerning Jesus - I suppose in Antiquities but would have to check - that many scholars do believe was inserted into the text by Christian apologists some time after Josephus died. If this is what he is referring to, I agree with him on this point that the paragraph in question is questionable. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we agree on Josephus - I am glad (and not surprised). Slrubenstein | Talk 12:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aw man, give me a chance! :D

Rob just set himself up perfectly to get shut down, he just accused every scholar who asserts that Jesus existed of being a preist, it's like one of the most ridiculous things yet! Homestarmy 15:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob's recent profession of being a Bright only goes to show that the debate is as much political as it over standards of informed opinion vs. proven fact. The whole point of the Bright meme was to politicize the scientific worldview. Arch O. La 20:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason to not engage him on old saws. Just revert anything contrary to consensus with a polite reference to previous discussion. --CTSWyneken 20:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, and if you look at my contributions today you'll see I've actually been playing devil's advocates over standards such as NPOV and weight of evidence. I just hope we can draw more people toward "not engage him on old saws." Arch O. La 20:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine fine, but you gotta admit, this last thing just looks so increadibly easy to totally defeat him on! :/ Homestarmy 21:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I will not engage Rob further in the assertion I put forward in "further clarity." I made the assertion as much for other editors to consider as for Rob. Henceforth, I will attempt to seperate the rational (scientific and semantic) from the political. Arch O. La 22:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I loved the allusion to Locutus of Borg. I won't be assimilated either, but I just think the indirect approach is better than direct confrontation in light of Rob's behavior thus far. Arch O. La 23:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC) PS: I will admit that my own patience is getting strained. The trouble with striving for the center is that sometimes you get caught in the middle. Arch O. La 23:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Lt. Colombo: Amen. Well, I've withdrawn a bit to try to clear my head. It should be easier now that Rob's been blocked again. As MONGO said, he needs to learn to work better with others. Arch O. La 00:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An even better allusion: "Here I stand; I can do no other." ;) Arch O. La 02:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, Rob got blocked again? Why? Homestarmy 00:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warned by MONGO, blocked by William M. Connolley:[2] Arch O. La 00:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alito barnstar?

What do you mean? I love barnstars!Gator (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I get it. Very funny. Here's yours, now I expect one too! :)Gator (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I award you this Alito barnstar for reverting friends and favourable edits on principle
--Gator (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]