User talk:Tgeorgescu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

What is New Age? Definition of New Age / definitions © Tudor Georgescu 2002, unless quotations are used:

New Age: the ensemble of thelemic doctrines; Religion: the ensemble of thelesmic doctrines.

Thelema: behaving anarchically; expressed by Aleister Crowley in The Book of the Law as "Do what you wilt is the whole law."; Thelesma: aware choice; expressed by Hermes Trismegistus in The Emerald Tablet as discrimination.

The message of New Age: "You don't think. You're an animal. That's good. Enjoy!"; The message of religion: "You don't think. You're an animal. That's evil. Wake up!".

Apparently in the other category: Anthroposophy, Grail's Movement, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism.

Thelema is always the thelesma of another entity. This is proven by the New Age stance of renunciation to thinking, in search of a so-called peace of soul. Since good entities are not imposive, it follows that thelema is always evil. It is the displacement of personal will through the suggestions of another will. Its purpose is the entitive annihilation, and its consequences are anarchy and anomy.

The thelemic increment is the tiny and apparently innocent quantity of added thelema. On a longer period, the general decay becomes evident.

(Above thelesma means enabling personality and thelema means taking over a personality by giving it a twisted idea that it is able to do everything, with no consequences whatsoever).


Hello Tudor Georgescu, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you realize that by submiting your writing here, you are releasing it under the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows copying, redistribution and modification of your work by anyone. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details. -- Stephen Gilbert 15:03 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)


I quote from reiser4-for-2.6.19.patch by Laurent Riffard: tgeorgescu

"Further licensing options are available for commercial and/or other interests directly from Hans Reiser: reiser@namesys.com. If you interpret the GPL as not allowing those additional licensing options, you read it wrongly, and Richard Stallman agrees with me, when carefully read you can see that those restrictions on additional terms do not apply to the owner of the copyright, and my interpretation of this shall govern for this license." tgeorgescu

I quote from http://www.benedict.com/Info/Law/What.aspx : tgeorgescu

"Copyright protects expression. The Copyright Act of 1976 states that the items of expression can include literary, dramatic, and musical works; pantomimes and choreography; pictorial, graphic and sculptural works; audio-visual works; sound recordings; and architectural works. An original expression is eligible for copyright protection as soon as it is fixed in a tangible form." tgeorgescu

"Consequently, almost any original expression that is fixed in a tangible form is protected as soon as it is expressed. For example, a graphic created in Photoshop is protected as soon as the file is saved to disk. This Web page was protected as soon as I stopped typing and saved the .html file." tgeorgescu

On GFDL, I quote http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.txt : tgeorgescu

"The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others." tgeorgescu

So, if somebody modifies my work so that violence is being suggested, I am not responsible for that. But, I maintain the authorship of the text I wrote, even if it is freely available for everybody to read and comment it. Naturally, I don't charge money for reading it. tgeorgescu

Btw, I don't mind that people copy and/or re-write what I write. According to my guru, one writes something down precisely because he/she wants everybody else to do whatever they please with his/her written words. E.g., the Bible has been mocked in innumerable ways, the same can be said of Shakespeare or Plato. The noble words of Socrates were raw matter for Aristofanes' scorn. And for Nietzsche's contempt. So, by writing something down, one consents that this is a pearl (if indeed a pearl) offered to the swines. So, it is understandable that esoteric groups are fond of secrecy, because they do not want their pearls to go to the swines. tgeorgescu

Book of Revelation[edit]

galien8 06:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Literal, for which the text does not need a secret key for decrypting and interpretation. In: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation Ian.thomson approved it. You expanded it and later removed it yourself? TIP: Make Literalism of it, don't know if that is an English word, but it sounds better in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan van der Galien (talkcontribs) 06:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC) galien8 06:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Some people think there is a key for the symbolism in the book, once you have the key you understand it (maybe only backwards in time). But the oldest and most common interpretation is literal, so this should be in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan van der Galien (talkcontribs) 06:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC) galien8 06:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Interpretations ----> Eschatological list

My reply is that "Christ could come back at any moment in future" is futurism. Literal interpretation does not mean much, see e.g. The Bible Made Impossible by Christian Smith (sociologist). Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
There a hundreds of competing and irreconcilable theologies which all claim that they interpret the Bible literally. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

galien8 08:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC) With what you said, is an argument FOR (pro) my * Literalism entry added, I rest my case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan van der Galien (talkcontribs)

  • @Johan van der Galien: do not speak on my behalf. I approved nothing -- I only removed the unsourced and redundant material. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ian.thomson: Oh sorry, I thought since you did not remove it, you approved it, did not want to talk on your behalf galien8 08:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Johan van der Galien: My argument is that "literal interpretation of the Revelation" could fit many different interpretations, so it isn't clear at all which specific interpretation do you mean by "literal interpretation of the Revelation". From what you added in the article, I have inferred that you mean futurism. "Christ could come any time soon" is called futurism. It isn't called literal interpretation, since there are many literal interpretations. So if you mean Second Coming, Tribulation, the Rapture and such, it is already in the article, it is called futurism. It would be odd to add another entry for the very same concept. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

galien8 16:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC) I want to stress on the fact that most people think there is a secret key for the symbolism, but historically many people have believed its literal (actually your artist drawings in the article painted it literal, that can mean two things either they draw symbolism with an intend or they believed it will happen literally so) like "the beast from the sea, with seven heads and seven crowns and ten horns, that spoke like the red dragon". I admit that one could be symbolism! But then again people could think that things like "a quarter of mankind is exterminated by sword, by famine, by plague, and by the wild wolves of the earth" is also symbolic. Moreover "the sea turns to blood". How can these things ever be symbolic? We must not misinform the people. How do you want to call when something is maybe partially symbolic and partially genuine literal intended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan van der Galien (talkcontribs)

@Johan van der Galien: We do not make the call, WP:SOURCES make the call. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

galien8 04:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC) OK! I will try, I will go ...from the desert to the well... soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan van der Galien (talkcontribs)

There are Evangelical literal interpretations of the Revelation which perfectly fit futurism. So, you would have to show that a WP:DUE view of WP:SOURCES is that a severely literal interpretation is different from futurism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

galien8 01:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC) OK I will try, I see the Dutch expert(s) 2017-01-22, and listen to what they have to say. galien8 01:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan van der Galien (talkcontribs)

See WP:1DAY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

galien8 03:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC) Dutch experts from the Portuguese Evangelical Church in The Netherlands say the interpretation of The Book of Revelations comes from your communion with Jesus Christ. AMEN galien8 03:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan van der Galien (talkcontribs)

@Johan van der Galien: Here inside Wikipedia we prefer communion with reliable sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

galien8 04:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC) very funny :-D GOOD LUCK!!!! galien8 04:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan van der Galien (talkcontribs)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Thanks Tgeorgescu. I just added to the discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Maldives107 (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Accusations against you[edit]

I've told him to retract them or he'll be taken to ani. Feel free to do that if he doesn't, he's in a different timeline to me. Doug Weller talk 20:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful[edit]

Not sure why you left me this. Ledboots (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It had to do with [1] and the way you defended it with a No true Scotsman at [2]. Basically the idea is that such sophism carries no weight inside Wikipedia and that we only follow or listen to reliable sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Feel free NOT to contact me going forward! Ledboots (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert Sungenis[edit]

Please discuss on the Talkpage also. This is a WP:BLP issue. Joe6Pack (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Though we are already talking there, I am adding a link to the WP:BLP talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Robert_SungenisJoe6Pack (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)