User talk:Sophia/archive2

User SOPHIA Archive 2 From 6th March 2006 to 15th April 2006

Pets

Looks like you've got your share of pets. We have dogs, cats and rabbits too. (See my user page) I'd love to see your pets.Gator (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about your guinea pig. 5 1/2 years is a nice long time though. I love guinea pigs myself but they are the only animal I am allergic to, so that sucks. The white bunny on my page is Jack and he's a pink ass bitch, but I love him. My wife doesn't let him out enough so I'm constantly advocating for his freedom. "Let my bunny go!!" I feel like Moses. :) Can't wait to see your pictures. I love animals.Gator (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice pics! Unfortunately, my apartment does not allow pets. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the unfortunate position of loving cats, but also being allergic to them. You can imagine how much I used to spend on antihistamines! Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love your pictures! I showed my wife nad she got a kick out of them. Animals so rock!!! Thanky oyu for your support and very graciosu words, I wasn't sure where you and I stood and I hoped that we had been able to make amends. Your vote means the most to me. Thanks.Gator (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An honourable "enemy"!

Hi, SOPHIA, thanks for your recent support. I do appreciate the fact that you're always prepared to publicly agree with your "opponents" whenever you can do so. Since we have such hugely different POVs, we'll probably always be on opposing sides, but I think an honourable enemy with integrity is the next best thing to an honourable friend with integrity, so I am glad to see you around! ;-) Cheers. AnnH ♫ 12:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that.Gator (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll third, although I'm in an alliance with SOPHIA right now (click the TCF link in my sig for more details). I do prefer "opponent" to "enemy"; it's just more civil. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I think something along the lines of "universally opposed antithesis" would work as well! =P --Avery W. Krouse 16:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it leads to synthesis, as Hegel might say. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prothesis sounds good to me as well.

As for the signature, basically you click "raw format" on the nickname in the preferences. You can then uses any valid Wiki or HTML commands. I've got a sandbox where I receieved the instructions and where I experiment: User Talk:Archola/Signature.

Historical Jesus

Sophia, Arch left this on my user page:

"Jim, I wanted to thank you for the work you've done translating the German article. I think you might make more progress if you applied the translation to Historical Jesus and related articles before you apply them to Jesus. You might also talk to SOPHIA, who has expressed concerns that Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus are separate articles.

I am one of the people who believes that the main article should cover all relevant perspectives on Jesus' life; religion is as important as history, since Jesus is a religious figure. However, some people seem to forget that Jesus is supposed to be a summary of the other articles, and that the introduction is supposed to be the summary of the summary. Who knows, you might be able to get Historical Jesus to FA status before we can do the same with Jesus! Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)"

I left this on his:

"OK, great idea. Given that, can I suggest then that you rename the article Jesus Christ? I'll contact Sophia to start work on a Jesus of Nazareth page. (This is what I wanted anyway...and explains all the hints about two articles.) If you agree to this suggestion, how about if I make the suggestion on the Jesus page (after I contact Sophia), then you guys could do what you want unfettered, but we can each feel free to borrow good info from each other. Let me know. "

The weekend will be great. In the meantime, I'm going to continue with my translation of the German article as that's likely a good starting off point. Yes, Haldrick is correct in his definition, I think that's what I've been trying to say, but several people keep acusing me of denying the existance of Jesus, and a whole load of other crap I didn't say. And yes, let's take Arch up on his FA challenge. Jim62sch 22:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? Jim62sch 22:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't think that page will ever be less volatile -- there are too many divergent viewpoints within the Christian community -- and they are only at the beginning of the article. I can see a number of other points looming in the near future that could be more volatile than John 3:16, parthenogenesis, Jesus' name in Hebrew, etc.

Plus, some of the editors seem to me to be very poorly read and barely educated (Homestarmy for one), while Haldrick, who is actuaslly right about a number of issues, just doesn't know when to stop. The problem with the faithful is that they needed to suspend disbelief to accept their faith, and having thus suspended it, the truth is either a plot or just gibberish. Jim62sch 22:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're trying.... Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

very simple: you made the kinds of mistakes everyone makes when they aren't yet familiar with all the policies, recommendations, guidelines, etc., etc., etc, of a new community or project. As it says in the welcome message (if you have received one yet), the Wikidepia is enormous and it can be an intimidating and confusing experience to try to learn by trial and error. But it isn't a problem, if you make a mistake (and there are plenty of people who still don't know all of the guidelines or ignore them after two or three years of experience working on this thing), almost certainly someone will correct your error within a short time.

In any case, welcome to Wikipedia and thank your for your contribution!! --Lacatosias 15:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear Sophia/archive2: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD!--Lacatosias 15:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SOPHIA was previously welcomed by KHM03 (check SOPHIA's talk archive). Sometimes I think the welcoming commitee is a bit hyperactive. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

Thanks for your comment! Though I'd like to help on Jesus, I know nothing about him except what I've read in the Bible... I think I'll stick to my strengths! Besides, as a pretty hardcore atheist my pov might get in the way... :) Mikker ^... 14:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia, I didn't start yet, got hung up on the Adam and Eve article (I'm working with PiCo, the person I worked on Noah's Ark with), and we now have an insane interloper, Codex Sinaiticus, fouling up the page.

The Jesus article is turning into a Sunday service -- that's fine if that's what they want, but they should really retitle the article "Jesus Christ". Jim62sch 23:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So as Dylan called them, there'll be no "flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark" in that section? :) I'm going to propose a renaming. I'll no doubt get flamed by a few folks, but, that's life.

Anyway, I have a three day weekend coming up (Yes!) so I'll get started on the other article. I'll set up a sandbox in my user space.

Thanks for the tip on Dream Guy. Jim62sch 11:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Jesus#Proposal_on_Naming Jim62sch 11:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I still feel we need a main article that covers history, theology, philosophy, art and whatever else may be relevant. We have Christian views of Jesus for our Sunday sermon ;) BTW whatever happened to the "Jesus in pop culture" section of the Jesus article? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion Articles Lacking Alternative Religions

noticed that in WikiProject Countering systemic bias.... which you have claimed a part. Well, if you let me know of any such sections, I'd be happy to attempt to find an appropriate Hermetic view. Let me know.

KV 05:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Bach

To be honest with you, I've never read any of this books!! I seriously doubt I could find them, even in translation, over here in Italy. I have to go up to Milan (a good distance indeed from where I am currently located) sometimes to find even major works by well-known authors like Hilary Putnam. I've read most of his on-line papers and I would highly recommend the three that I cited in the article in particular, as well as his wiritngs on contextualism versus invariantism in epistemology, if you are also interested in that sort of thing. All of the on-line papers that I know of by hundreds of well-known and not-so-well-known philosophers can be found at the two David Chalmer's links on my user page.

For philosophy of language in general, if that's what you mean, I would recommend the usual classics Kripke's Naming and Necessity (not on-line) Putnam's The Meaning of "meaning" (not on-line), anything by Frege (some on-line), Russell's On Denoting (on-line) and Principles of Mathematics (on-line), Michael Dummett's Frege and the Philosophy of Language, etc.. --Lacatosias 16:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Mysteries

Thanks, Sophia! What I need is, from the title page, the title as it appears there, with its subtitle, if any, the name of the author, as it appears there, the city of the publisher and the name of the publisher, as, you guessed it, as it appears there. Now, go to the back of the title page (we called it the verso) and find the most recent copyright date. Need that, too. Now, find in the book somewhere that the author says, to the effect, "There never was a Jesus." Get me the page number. Now, if you can find him making the argument "'cause there are no contemporary docs," and give me the page no. for that, too. All of it goes in the note on the minority position. Thanks a million on that one! Bob --CTSWyneken 11:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! That's good info. In the article it will go. I did a quick check for academic book reviews for this one, and found none. Several trade publications treat it as a polemic with little to recommend it academically. That's strange for a HarperCollins book... I wish I could find more on the authors themselves. --CTSWyneken 11:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But the trade press tends to go out of the way to be kind to books. Anyway, it's telling to me that we have found no academic historian, even those somewhat hostle to Christianity, that back the nonexistence hypothesis. --CTSWyneken 12:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the US you could and can write anything you'd like about Jesus. Our free exercise clause protects quite a bit. Anyway, fairly recent books, esp from HarperCollins, normally get some kind of innocuous review from the trade -- and Library Journal tends to sympathize with less than conservative tomes. To receive a less then glowing review from such sources tends to mean the work isn't all that good. Not that any of this matters other than to observe this is not a scholarly work. --CTSWyneken 13:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrik Bendz

I caught the link you left on Robsteadman's page. While I like the analogy between Jesus and Socrates, it must be said that as a man, Jesus is exactly the kind of person who would have been completely lost to history had he not started (or furthered) a religious movement. It's not surprising that Jesus' followers wrote most of what we know about him, because they placed far more importance on him than anyone else would have. I'm sure those who were not among Jesus' disciples saw him as some carpenter who was spouting stuff they didn't agree with ;) Of course, most of what we know about Socrates comes from his disciples, such as Plato and Xenophon. We don't have much (if anything) from the people who put Socrates on trial. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to accept that non-Christians argue that the historical Jesus was different from the Biblical Jesus. There is a huge difference between "Son of God" and "some carpenter"! What I find harder to tolerate is those who seem to reject the historical Jesus becuase they reject the Biblical Jesus.

Socrates may not have been deified, but "wisest man in the world"? C'mon! BTW since that statement was made by the Oracle of Delphi, it had implicit divine approval (ie, Apollo). Of course, maybe it had to do with noxious fumes! Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My answer would be that there is insufficient naturalistic evidence to either confirm or deny the existence of a historical Jesus. There are naturalistic explanations of all the miracles that would have left much less of an impact on history. I've said before that I'm somewhat agnostic about historicity. Theologically, the physically manifest Word of God was neccesary to effect salvation, but this leaves open the question of how much happened in the material world, and how much happened in the spiritual world. I believe some visions are true! There are also some things that the New Testament does not explain, which is not the same thing as saying that there are contradictions. False dillema and all that. My faith is such that I can leave such questions up to God, at least until we have more evidence. I realize that to someone without faith, this will sound like the classic "things that are beyond human understanding" dodge, but, well, we're still learning.

My other answer is that correlation is not causation. There are elements of both Jewish culture and Hellenistic culture within Christianity. Obviously some argue that the roots are in Judaism, and others argue that the roots are in pagan mystery religions. I think such people tend to talk past one another. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS about "entering Jerusalem in triumph": our Jewish friends have noted that Jesus was just one messianic claimant among many. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It is better for one to ask questions than to assume that one has all the answers, which to me was always the point of the Socrates account. I'm one of those people who sees theology as a branch of philosophy, and who enjoys the philosophical banter as long as everyone remains civil. Beyond that, a wise Jew once said that "God knows what God is." I didn't really have a college motto, but my personal motto from 3rd grade on was "Pay attention to your teacher and learn all you can." That's from Proverbs 23:12 in the TEV (Good News Bible) translation. The more literal translations render it "Apply your heart to instruction, and your ears to words of knowledge." As someone once said, "Go ahead and ask, that's the only way you'll ever learn." Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rude?

You referred to a rude message when chatting with Rob but I could not figure out to what you were referring? What did he say?Gator (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OH I get it now. That makes sense. See yah.Gator (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mythical Hero Archetype

Hi Sophia. Thanks for stoping by with the note about the documentary. Believe it or not I've not yet seen the film myself. As you can imagine, I'm very intersted in the topic and have been wanting to see it for some time now since I'm certainly familiar with the writings of the various notable scholars who are interviewed in the commentary section of the documentary. I also heard it was a very low budget film. Whenever I hear about films like this, I'm always a little appresensive that I'll be disapointed. This is because I tend to have high expectations for both books and films and the latter tends to let me down much more than the former. Maybe I should just learn learn to adopt a pages from Buddhism, and do away with expectations. hehe Giovanni33 00:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sophia for your message. I will support your efforts in this matter. About the Pagel book, I know its highly regarded and its on my reading list. Thanks for the recommendation and I'm happy to hear that my understanding is supported by such a highly regarded scholar on the subject. I'm always open to being wrong but its nice to maybe be right, as well. :)

I agree that a fair representation of this real and legitimate perspective, even if its minority view, should not be ignored or suppressed as they are no longer fringe but have been increasing in popularity among prominent scholars who are very well respected authorities in a field that is directly dealing with this subject matter. Moreover, the other more traditional church directed POV does not refute (or at least I have not seen it) the work or understanding of Pagels and others. I see no valid excuse that such an understanding should not be given its appropriate representation. That this might upset the sensitivities of those who are emotionally committed and ascribe to a religiously motivated and inspired construction of the history of Christianity is to be expected, but to accede to it would be to give-in to POV pushing (even if it's not intentional but well meaning on the part of its advocates). Often times those who are too close to a subject, esp. emotionally attached to a particular mental construction, are unable to see how their own bias is affecting their treatement of the subject. Hence, some confict, and probably outside intervention, is necessary if the status-quo, religiously defended (pun intended here) is to change along with the changes reflected in modern scholarship. Giovanni33 04:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You For Your Interest

I'm pleased that you have expressed an interest in my edit history. Didn't you ask me directly about this a couple of times? I'm sorry that in the last 4 months I have only edited a dozen or so articles. I'm not very technically minded and I'm afraid that I only feel confident in making minor edits. I do intend in the near future to read up on how to create articles on: RF Deldefield's Diana 2000ADs Bad Company 2000ADs VCs Will that be to your satisfaction?Crusading composer 00:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Sophia - while my user page might look impressive, if you look carefully, you will see that it's a mish mash of ideas poached from others. I don't really understand how it works - there are odd bits that I can't figure out how to remove. If you read the edit history, it took me forever through trial and error. The same can be said about my AfD. I had to have help from an administrator to complete it properly.Crusading composer 00:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit concerned about the tone of your questions on my talk page.Crusading composer 01:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Sophia. I shouldn't have had been so sarky. I don't want to get involved with anything to do with Mr Steadman. He makes me cross. I'll admit that I started editing in order to get him to make his article less biased and self centred and it was fun for a while. However, that was in the past. I have edited a dozen or so articles of interest to me or that I have found on the random articles. I prefer reading articles to editing them. I have left a couple of gloating comments to counter some of VHJH's nastier/hypocritical comments but that's just closure. If Mr steadman stops complaining about me, I'll happily put him behind me.Crusading composer 01:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slight disagreement

SOPHIA, I just finished sorting, archiving and subpaging Talk:Jesus. I notices a comment you made earlier Arch O. La^TalkTCF 09:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC):[reply]

The dates commonly quoted for the earliest gospel range from 68AD all the way down to 40AD (although that is not commonly accepted. We compromised on the wording so as to express this range. Technically you could say "in the latter half of the 1st Century" but that was not popular with some editors who wanted to allow for the earlier datings. It's always good to have a new editor on this page - things get interesting at times but we're a friendly bunch (and not all Christians - I'm an atheist!). Sophia^TalkTCF 14:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SOPHIA, I just think you answered your own question about "generally agreed to have been written in the decades after his death." The "slight disagreement" comes not from people who think that the Gospels were written in Jesus' lifetime, but those who argue the gospels were written around 40AD and that Jesus was crucified less than a decade earlier (33 AD is the traditional date of the crucifixtion). Arch O. La^TalkTCF 09:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(re:Dates) Yeah, I know. Well, discussion continues. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the welcome! It's nice to know I'm not alone 'round here. I've toyed with the idea of diving into alt.athesim long enough to attempt to lure a couple of the regulars over here...Iasion and Darrel Stec certainly come to mind--those two really know their sh...tuff. I am but an egg. TrumpetPower! 18:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

I would support an RfC at the Jesus articles, but have never put one together, so I'm not sure where to begin. I'd be happy to include my name, though, on the list of people supporting it. KHM03 ^(talk) 13:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If ever I needed an AOL tag for something, this is it. TrumpetPower! 14:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would start here WP:RFC but I am new at this area of Wikipedia myself and have stayed away from it (gets nasty). I read this through and it looks like an article RFC isn't quite as onerous a task to set up as a Conduct RFC is. Take a look and I will too and go ahead and start putting it together. I wish I could be of more help, but I'd jsut be making it up as I goa long...I can do that if you want. ;)Gator (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to help out in any way I can. Just let me know.Gator (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to an RfC, but I do not think it will solve anything. True, some reasonable people will come by, but also a ton of people wanting to reopen all the issues that we've more or less settled.

I we really ready for people yelling, screaming and getting personal -- again?

To me, a more rational way of handing things is reverting changes of carefully negotiated text, requesting discussion on an appropriate talk page. We then point new people with old arguments to the archives. We engage new arguments.

Consider how pleasing life was for the last week or so, prior to yesterday. --CTSWyneken 17:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, the page got out of hand again, eh? I decided to stay away because reason seemed to be taking a vacation, plus I was busy on a number of other articles and with trying to make some rather POVish editors get their act together and realise that NOR and NPOV are not merely concepts. Anyway, I guess I'll have to stop by and check it out again.Jim62sch 18:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, this time "the page" is Jesus-Myth. Jesus, not so much. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead if you think it will help. I don't anticipate it will. Re: the Cabal thing -- if I couldn't take being called names and having evil, dark motives assigned to me, I wouldn't try to edit on the Jesus page. Indiana High School Forensics Association is much quieter a place, on which I can engage in soliloquy.

Folks make a big deal about the "right" to edit, but wikipedia is also a community that values cooperation. If it takes guarding text so that people will talk first, calling people on name calling, making sure all interested parties have a say, etc. I'm going to do it. So far, it has effected people who agree with me more that those who do not. The result: we talked, we comprimised, we moved on (more or less). Call me worse, if they will. It's a reasonable price to pay to get folk to work together. --CTSWyneken 19:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC or peer review? AFAIK, the conflict now is on Jesus Myth and, to a lesser extent, Historicity of Jesus. Homestarmy had suggested a peer review at Jesus, but I wanted to clean up the early Christian views and find a way to incorporate the Jesus Seminar first. Either way, RFC or peer review, it would let us know where we stand. I just think that a peer review would be less confrontational. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SOPHIA, I have taken the foolish step of commenting on a book that I haven't read. Since you have read the book, then I'm sure you can correct me if I'm wrong. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You put a RFC note on Talk:Early_Christianity#RfC. I asked for clarication. Some of us have no idea what you're saying. Maybe you could post something more to make it more understandable.Wjhonson 05:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COFFEE

Yes, plenty of caffiene and rather irregular hours. Although right now I'm ready to sign off and catch some z's. Some other letters, too, if I find the time. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicking

"generally dated after 65 AD/CE". Um, do we know of anybody who was both alive in 66 AD/CE and who assigned dates to the gospels? "We generally agreed to wait until now to assign dates to these gospels. These gospels were written on the 3rd of Nisan, 3820 according to the Jewish calandar. Let's not forget the date because in two millenia you just know that people will be arging over this." It would be nice if we only has such records! That's why I used the word "to": in order to clarify that we are talking about the dates the gospels were written, rather than the dates that historians and Bible scholars made their decision. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the above is just as silly as any of the other wars of semantics over paragraph 2. I just read what I wrote, and I'm not sure it's clear that I was being satiric. Well, I was being satric. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 06:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AGF

Could you please enlighten me as to which 'single issue' editor you 'hope' has left Wikipedia?Count Of The Saxon Shore 00:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quote was "(hopefully) moved on". You were a single issue editor - your contributions showed that, now however you seem to be adding content to a variety of articles and being a productive editor - you have (hopefully) moved on. AGF works both ways. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 00:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC

Doh! There I go again. I apologise. My only excuse is that I'm a bit miffed about the checkuser request. I'm glad that this will be a resolution to the ongoing saga, but it's still annoying that this has been caused by an editor who has himself commented that the process is unreliable and refuses to acknowledge the results. What will it prove to him - since he will not agree with it anyway? Count Of The Saxon Shore 01:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the checkuser is pointless and that it won't settle anything. I think Gator is just trying to bring this to a close in the only way he can think of. Bear in mind that user pages are not generally frequented by editors and seldom if ever by readers so the remarks on Rob's page will not be widely seen. I think Rob has felt "cornered" by all the goings on and his talk page is reflecting this. It's not how I would choose to do things but I have not been in his situation so maybe I would feel differently if I had. The best way to let this die down is to just let it be. If nothing further happens I'm sure the remarks will get archived eventually as they will be outdated and irrelevant. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 01:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who made God?

I couldn't let this pass without comment. To a Christian, and possibly to other Theists, God is either self-caused or the uncaused first cause. However, this is neither math nor religion, but rather philosophy.

Even if you don't accept God, though, it seems to me that whatever your philosophy is, eventually you either come to something that is self-caused, uncaused or an infinite regression. This could be God, this could be the universe itself, or this could be something else. I recently read Time Travel in Einstein's Universe, by J. Richard Gott. One chapter argued that the universe was self-caused through a causal loop at the very beginning of time. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone who has faith, I agree that faith is required. I am one of those people who believe that God works "through, with and under" the laws of the universe (the words in quotes are actually from Martin Luther's description of the Lord's Supper, but I happen to think they apply to a lot of things). There are, of course, various ways to reconcile science and religion. When it comes to biological evolution, theistic evolution makes a lot of sense to me. As for reading the mind of God in creation, you have natural theology as well as science. I'm not so sure that the math is easier in Christianity; most of us are left trying to explain how God could be both 1 and 3 at the same time!

Martin Luther made a distinction between God's active will (what God commands to happen) and God's passive will (what God allows to happen). I feel this allows for both free human will and the laws of the universe. God generally lets the universe run itself; he only performs miracles when He wishes to get our attention! To paraphrase Einstein, it's not all a game of dice. Unlike the Deists, I also believe that God communicates with the human mind and soul in the person of the Holy Spirit. Of course, this is subjective so I cannot prove it.... Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience?

If PAS can be legitimately categorized as pseudoscience, why was a Surgeon General's report inconclusive? Pseudoscience is stuff like astrology and ESP and whatnot. Do you think they'd be inconclusive a metareview of studies would come up inconclusive on those? The fact is they just don't know whetehr PAS is real or not. That doesn't make it pseudoscience. --Hyphen5 16:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not sure it's pseudoscience..."creation science", yes...PAS, probably not. KHM03 (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I have no idea what PAS is. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused because [[PAS[[ could mean a lot of things, including Polish Academy of Sciences. Oh, post-abortion syndrome. Yeesh, I'm not sure I want to touch that one with a 40-foot pole! I'm not sure how you'd separate the trauma of an unwanted pregnancy from the trauma of abortion itself—not to mention that a lot of women find themselves in a bad place psychosocially which leads them to seek abortion. Speaking as someone who is pro-life, I have to say that I honestly don't know.

I had a friend once who was date-raped. She decided not to have an abortion, yet it was obvious that she had been traumatized. I tried to be a good friend, but after six years she told me that she wasn't comfortable being friends anymore. This was after she had been like family for 17 years. I last spoke to her more than five years ago, her daughter was born 11 years ago, and yet I still have strong feelings for her. There are some things you just never forget. If it affected me this deeply, I can only imagine how it affected her.

Obviously this is something that I cannot be objective about. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words and advice. It matches what other people have told me. I just wish I had heard it during the six years I was trying to figure out what happened to our friendship all of a sudden. All I can really say is that we both seriously underestimated each other or it wouldn't have gone for so long. Well, if she does come back, my family and I are her friends for life and will always be there if she lets us. I'm not sure what else to say. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel Dates

Thanks! Do you have some of the Jesus Seminar folk? Also, if you have access to a library, perhaps the good Bishop of Durham's books would be at hand... 8-) I can do some of the work, but would like to get out of the introduction someday! --CTSWyneken 13:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respect

I originally said this in the 3RR discussion page for User:Bakewell Tart which was deleted by Gator, but wanted to say it again incase you missed it.

I have a great deal of respect for you, inspite of our previous differences (or perhaps, because of them). I admire you as a Wikipedian. :-) --Darth Revert ^{(AKA Deskana)} (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Christianity

Thanks, Sophia. The article has problems, to be sure. I've always hoped it would become a critique of crucial doctrines such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc., and in that light could be a very enlightening article. I wouldn't mind also dealing with important events such as the Crusades or Inquisition, which were massive events/movements which involved many Christians. Unfortunately, it's become sidetracked by what I would consider (granted, as a Christian) peripheral issues involving specific sects of Christianity or particular interpretations of Scripture which don't always represent the bulk of Christianity.

My hope is that Arsath/Mystic, who appears to be a new user, finds a way to contribute through high quality writing and gaining consensus. We are all influenced by our individual perspectives, and being NPOV is difficult at times, as we both know. Hopefully, Arsath/Mytsic will learn to walk the line.

I don't think the template is necessary with his material gone...the article just needs some work. Good NPOV work on your part...KHM03 (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship

A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 12:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elves

I thought you were an elf! I am but a simple hobbit, but perhaps an elf-friend? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 21:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your View Sought

blanked spam

Sounds to me like yet another accusation of a "Christian cabal." At least I'm not listed among the "worst offenders". Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 21:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Reminds me of someone. --Darth Revert ^{(AKA Deskana)} (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate "cloak and dagger" nonsense. If someone has an issue with an article then they should state what it is and we can hash it out. I know the problems that are referred to but there are other ways to go about it which is why I filed an RfC as I think there is genuine concern by the editors named that a quality balanced article is built. We all have a POV and learning to put that aside sometimes is very hard. Three months into my wikipedia editorship I have found if you act seriously you are taken seriously. I'm just glad my name was left out of it as a "victim". Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 22:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and when POVs clash, coalitions form, leading to politicking and nothing gets done. My vision for the TCF is that it should be, in the words of Hank Williams, Jr., the coalition to ban coalitions. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 23:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A place where elves and hobbits can live in harmony (not in the cabal sense of course)! Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 23:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a cabal. More like a fellowship. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 23:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TCF "The Centrist Fellowship" - I really like that! Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 23:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to move the page. I hope it doesn't mess up the links. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 23:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just stick a redirect on - that will sort all that out. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 23:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. About the hobbit and elf names: we can ask Jim and Bob if they want to adopt such names, but I don't see the trouble with allowing mere men to join. Of course, we could always ask Olo MonkeeSage to join, he already has a hobbit name! Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 23:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wise hobbit you are right - the Fellowship should be open to all who wish to join regardless of name, creed or race. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 00:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up your alley

Thought you'd enjoy this. KHM03 (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble

I don't know if you're aware, but our friend Gator has had some trouble. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 07:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked my e-mail today. It's getting rather late here, so I'll do it tomorrow. Something else you should know: one of Robsteadman's suspected socks has left a couple of messages on the talkpage: User talk:Vhjh. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 07:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rushing out in two minutes, so won't comment, but see here. AnnH ♫ 07:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel a little better now that I've seen that the evidence has been reviewed by noninvolved admins. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 07:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Software bug

Thanks for letting me know about the bug and thanks for forgiving me. I was indeed experiencing three edit conflicts in a row, but the forth time there was no note popping up. Sorrry. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC) And another one: thanks for your thoughful posting (than one I removed accidentally). (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis

That was a great encapsulation of why NCI needed to be moved up. I've rearranged things in an attempt to reflect their prominance (weight) on the ABC issue. I hope to see more of you there; and elsewhere; you're great! Keep it up. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you very much for watching over my talk page, but the reasont revert you have done doesn't seem like a spam. I never thought there would be web page dedicated for wikipedians like user:KHM03. Anyway that site gave some critical information about some of the wiki's. Please check it well before you revert in the future. On my part I will assume good faith on you, someone could think you are supressing information. Mystic 13:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do AGF and please review the problems on WP:AN/I. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 14: 19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)