User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive April 2004

I see we're of differing opinions on this subject. However, although I've concluded that they're more trouble than they're worth, I did take the time to update the toctally after your vote, since you may not have observed that there was one. It's good to see you around - with Lord Kenneth returning from his hiatus, my sympathy increases for what you've had to deal with in the past. --Michael Snow 00:38, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Funny - crossposting each other like that. --Michael Snow 00:39, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I try not to advocate banning even hotheads and extremists (at least not permanently, but quickpolls are okay in my book). But I don't care to subject myself to their abuse if I can avoid it, either, and I usually wouldn't mind if they left of their own accord. I have no hope that they will ever become good editors, but in a way they are part of the process that forces us all to be NPOV, in spite of each individual's subconscious resistance to that. Anyway, that's part of the reason you don't see me working on the ideologically heated articles very much. --Michael Snow 00:58, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Irismeister

they are trying to delete Dan Waniek at vfd. Lirath Q. Pynnor

UninvitedCompany

Sam, I updated Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Everyone_using_a_username_which_is_against_policy after you voted to include "Paki" in the top list. You may amend your vote if you wish. Thanks. UninvitedCompany 19:36, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

WikiSex

Are you a sysop? Please un-delete my WikiSex page. Dori deleted it with no community consensus, but she allows other people play WikiChess on the wiki! That's not fair! Wikipedia should have consisted policies, and you should either delete both WikiChess and WikiSex or allow both to exist. There isn't any policy saying Wikipedians can't have virtual sex with each other. I am sexy 21:15, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

wikivacation

Hey dude, Im outta here. This site is a waste of time. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Nah dude, its just too stupid. The cabal is way entrenched. Start your own wiki and Ill come grace it. Lirath Q. Pynnor

bastion of decency, his lordship of the Vehmgericht court of outer Westphalia

Hiyas - I saw "I propose he be given a request for arbitration" just now - but too late! My apologies. Martin 21:49, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

MSN

Sam, please get on MSN Messenger :-). Thanks, ugen64 22:37, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

Confirmation Allelulia Confirmation Allelulia

The reference librarian at the Hoover Institute has just e-mailed me that H. Hoover is RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! She will snail mail me the pages. Yes, and the Left is putting out doctored documents. I will demand that all my original stuff be put back in. "This is the Century of the Left". It sure is and FASCISM IS LEFTIST.Amen Alleluia, Praise the Lord and Pass the ammunition.WHEELER 23:02, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

sass-mouth

I reccomend you behave better in talk. - You misspelled 'recommend.'
I chose to respond with a bit of humor and insight to your hokey ad hominem, but that doesn't make it less silly. -"Hokey" - no. "Ad hominem" - not at all. I finally get the humour, but it wasnt really funny. Continued on N&S talk page.
Try to be respectable enough to deserve a thoughful reply... -Now, I understand that there are situations where you might not want to give a "thoughtful reply," but you just might consider that the case in point was not one of them.
...if you want to speak to grown folks, you'll need to come correct. - Well, I'sa just learnin' bouts talkin ta gro-nups and setch... mebbe, inna cupa-a yee-arz (when I'm sixty-fo) I'sa gonna be able for accomodatin' ya. Re-gards,-Stevertigo 00:53, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I may have to eat crow

The reference Librarian at the Hoover Institute just e-mailed me with an reversal. Saying she mistranslated also and that Hoover is wrong. I can't believe that the London Quarterly that Hoover quoted from, botched the translation. I would like to have someone in Italy to pull up the "Original" l932 Encyclopeadia Italiana and other corroborrated material from Mussolini himself. I don't want "reprints".

I just may have to eat crow but I don't want to. I want the Original!WHEELER 14:09, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

message

I don't mind you advocating that beleif system (though I think its wrong) but don't vandalize the page to try and prove your point. thanks GrazingshipIV 19:26, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

response to retard

Sam I agree people should be free to live with who they want providing it does not involved infringing others rights, but as a TECHNICAL beleif don't you think white seperatism has racism in it? Thats all I'm saying people see racism as so negative they "seperate" themselves from the term. But truly it is a commonly held belief, one that is wrong from my POV.

BTW I didn't report you and I don't think your a "vandal" or whatever but you did mischaracterize the debate. GrazingshipIV 19:40, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe this is the issue, Racism in my analysis is a belief system that comes from social darwinism in which you must believe that there is a difference between certain groups of people who can be labeled "white, black, brown, yellow etc" and that those differences are drastic enough for them to be seperate in nature. This belief system came from early science which is how people where characterized in early 19th century Europe the terms have stuck and I and many scientists contend that as a term it is incorrect. I and many people beleive that the term is morally wrong. I am arguing the science of the term in the article and to some degree the morality on the talkpage. GrazingshipIV 19:51, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

in response to your PS point taken, I think we should have a vote to decide how contentious but touche. GrazingshipIV 19:54, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

I'd still kindof like the vote but I proposed a compromise on the talk page. GrazingshipIV 20:23, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Sam, you make allot of good points. I understand your logic completely what I want would be a vote on the Page not on quickpolls or elsewhere (although I did intially consider it). I think what we are seeing is the downside of NPOV by claiming themselves to be White seperatists they are by definition racists not bigots which I think is the cause of the confusion. I am not stating they are necesarily hate-mongers (although many are) I'm saying they beleive in race which one would have to, to call oneself white. Eitherway it will probably deteroriate into something stupid but I think its worth it. thanks though I agree with many of your points. GrazingshipIV 01:00, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Paul does ramble on...when pointing out such "lying hypocrisy"

Notice Sam, that these same users never seem to have any such "problems" with "Jewish Separatism" or with "Jewish Supremacism" or "Jewish Racism or Ethno-centricism" only "White"? Why do you think that this is clearly so?

Here is my "ramble on" answer:

Judaism

Freud's criticism of the ancient origins of Judaism and how it de-evolved away from the original ethical Judaism also later advocated by the prophets (http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:BMxhzp-iogEJ:www.rishon.com.ar/rishon/rice1.asp+Freud,+Moses+and+the+Religions+of+Egyptian&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)
Jews as a chosen people
Jewish ethnocentrism
David Duke's critical historical analysis of "Jewish Supremacy" and its impact on the modern world (http://www.duke.org/awakening/chapter16_01.html)
Anti-Semitism Is a Mismomer [1] (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:XSN7D_yRFdAJ:www.coastalpost.com/01/5/13.htm+Coastal+Post+Real+Anti-Semitism&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html Judaism and Jewish Apologetics] - Critical analysis of the moral aspects of parts of Judaism; from Infidels.Org
Piety and Power: The World of Jewish Fundamentalism David Landau, Hill and Wang, 1993
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0745308198/102-2015385-6701711?v=glance Jewish History Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years]

existance vrs. belief

I had a look at the talk page prior to removing it from the list. You have simply re-added it to the list without justification, while I have given a justification for removing it in the edit summary. That having been said, on what do you base your opinion that it is infact an argument for the existence of God, and not merely for the belief in God? - snoyes 10:53, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

What's the link for that nice two-axis political spectrum thingie? I wanna bookmark it, and I'm on a school computer anyway. Thanks, ugen64.

National Socialism

Sam, I didn't revert you, which I might well have done, given that you, also, did not talk about the changes you were going to make. I worked with your changes, and just changed some of the stuff. At any rate, I fail to see why waiting until everyone else is done, and then making a lot of unexplained changes is the way to go about changing an article. We should discuss our disagreements, and try to come to some consensus, rather than just making changes. I was going to post a note on the talk page saying much the same, but then I wasn't sure. john 06:21, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd also note that I was looking at my watchlist time stamp, which apparently doesn't automatically change from standard time to daylight savings time, so I thought you'd made your changes an hour or so before I edited, and had stopped, and only realized my mistake when I came on an edit conflict. john 06:24, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

zen

I have a concern about "which incorporates Taoist thought," in the article on Zen. My concerns being (1) that the influence of Taoism on Chinese Buddhism is pervasive, and that, as a result, (a), it's wrong to say that Zen in particular is Taoist-influenced, and (b) it's wrong to say that Zen as a whole is Taoist-influenced, and (2) that even it were accurate to include this in the Zen article, it would be wrong to do so right at the beginning, as Zen is not primarily Taoist-influenced. A section in the body which took up a discussion of the ways in which Zen is influenced by Taoism would be quite desriable, on the other hand; I'd put it under Chan myself, but that might be nitpicking.कुक्कुरोवाच 02:57, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Future of Wikipedia Ruminations

Sam, thanks for your support and nice comments! I think we see some of the same issues in editing in this open environment. I'm afraid that a lot of contributors who initiate POV and then are intolerent of any attempt to remove it, NPOV it, or balance it do not understand that (non-Wiki-involved) readers can see obvious bias, even one they share, and that pulls down the credibility of the entire project, including the point they're trying so strenuously to make. To put it another way, if a reader wants to bolster their own opinions, they might read Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore, according to their tastes; but when something claims to be an encyclopedia, they expect more comprehensive information. Cheers, Cecropia 20:13, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Plague

I think you were too quick in deciding that Plague should redirect to Disease. If you look at the list of pages that link to plague, and see the context the link is used in, almost all of them are referring to the particular bubonic plague as opposed to plagues in general. I have added a line at the top of bubonic plague which I hope makes you happy. — Timwi 00:58, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

RfC listing for 172

I am considering at this point removing the listing of 172 on RfC, and moving it to the User conduct disputes archive. I wanted to let you know before I do this, in case you wish to object. My reasons for doing so:

At this point, the listing is a couple weeks old and doesn't seem to have any current activity
Only one issue, the talk page vandalism cited by you and RickK, arguably meets the requirement that two users certify the basis for the dispute
Most of the material does not relate to that particular issue, but to disputes that were never certified
VeryVerily has already unilaterally removed his own RfC listing, which was a parallel complaint by 172

I recognize that the evolving procedures on RfC probably interfered with the process in this case, and I apologize for any confusion and difficulty that caused. However, I feel that since things seem to have died down, we should be able to move on. In particular, please let me know if you think the problem is still active, and if there are more recent situations where you believe 172 has acted inappropriately. --Michael Snow 21:17, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Usage guide

moved to talk:Racialist

Message

Sam, your defense of white seperatism and now repeated attempts to create a revisionist racialist page trouble me. Racialism and racism are synonimous. I accepted your advice before because I believed you were working in the interest of wikipedia. By trying to compromise with a link to a site you then planned to create and white wash the history of, is very suspicious behavior. I suggest you view your handy dictionary you will most likely see the following definition.

racialism

n : discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race [syn: racism]

Please do not pursue a policy based on apologizing for racism. GrazingshipIV 05:30, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to consider my nomination and support me, Sam! Cecropia 03:57, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your claim that I am "baiting Paul"

Next time you come to my talk page I would like you to try something for me. Ask a question. Don't tell me what I think or what I am doing in any encounter. Ask me what I think or ask me what I am doing. Thank you. - Tεx τ urε

In this case you could have asked what I am looking for in my exchange with Paul. (Rather than a very accusatory claim that I am "baiting Paul".) The answer to the question would be that Paul seems to have a preconceived notion of what I am. You don't even seem to know what category I fit in. I do want him to use some label on me. If he calls me a "jew" or "communist/commie" or "wanker" then I will either agree, correct him, or tell him he's wrong. The labels you have listed are not offensive. I just want to know what label he is dancing around so I can clear the issue. I have spent the last few days defending Paul's addition of critical links to Judaism. In response he has ranted at me and I am going to back off and let him fight the world by himself. While fighting to have his links kept on the page he attacked me and my 'ilk" despite my attempts to help him in that fight. He made a valid point that Judaism is not above critical links. The talk page there has convinced me that jewwatch is not appropriate but his other link has been kept and remains. I think if he can find less inflammatory links that give clear criticism that they can make it on that page. I am done helping Paul. The last thing he did after my repeated attempts to get his links included was to rant at "me and my 'ilk'". I tried to draw out what he was including me in and since he won't say I can only assume it is because it is intentionally hurful and irrational. I will not negotiate for him any more. - Tεx τ urε 03:29, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sam, if this is the way Texture "negotiates" for me, then I really would be far better off without it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cosmotheism LOL! :D -PV

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RickK

Per your comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/RickK, I request endorsement of the summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Please sign "Other users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):" -- Thank you, Paedia | talk 04:06, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)

AMA co-ordinator election is now on

You may now vote for user:Ed_Poor or user:Alex756 in the first ever AMA co-ordinator election. Follow the instructions on Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator Election Procedure for more details.

AMA members who wish to abstain from voting must also e-mail wikipedia_ama_voting@yahoo.co.uk with notice of that intent.

To clarify anything before voting, ask user_talk:Zanimum or user_talk:Jwrosenzweig on their talk pages.

AMA members have until April 30, at 11:00:00 EST to vote. -- user:zanimum

Thank you !

Sam, RE: Keep, this is a witch hunt against this man, who is clearly encyclopedic. Put in part about you thinking he's a nutter to NPOV it, but don't restrict the flow of information Sam Spade 22:10, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC), Dr Waniek has asked me to say the following on his behalf:

Thank you for the kind words! While they are perhaps not quite true, their sincerity, sense of fairness and fair play honor the spirit of truth which made the Wikipedic ideal so generous.

Sincerely, irismeister 18:01, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)

Fools be steppin'

Somehow I doubt it ;) and yes you are. GrazingshipIV 07:22, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

No I was saying your not black, your in fact a white racist as you have admitted too. thanks ;) GrazingshipIV 07:30, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

I may not be a racist, but you seem to insist apon being a dumass. Sam Spade 07:31, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are a shmuck who no one likes and if you think archiving something helps you get the last word your...wrong again! BTW it's "dumbass" dumbass! GrazingshipIV 07:33, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

shut up :) Sam Spade 07:35, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Talk about being a dumbass. Your a loser and we all know it. Get a life racist. GrazingshipIV

'yawn', time for bed. If you get bored/lonely, have a glance at http://nazi.org/ Maybe they have a chat room or something. Sam Spade 07:44, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sure buddy, you can try to hide your beliefs in humor or that your some apathetic loser kid just looking for a reaction. But deep down we both know whats there. sleep tight ;) BTW don't leave any more messages on my page. thanks. GrazingshipIV 07:54, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

vote

Your vote has been counted. Jwrosenzweig 15:44, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

reasonable minds

Sam, yours is the voice of reason. I liked your two kind sentences about your vote. Thank you again for your kindness and interest! As long ans it's humanly possibly, please rest assured I will continue to focus on issues, not personalities :O) Cheers! - Sincerely irismeister 17:18, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

Quickpolls

"Popularity contests of death." Nice turn of phrase. I like it. --Michael Snow 21:19, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

waniac/p.v.

Sam? :-) Er.....why did you add a second External Links section to Dan Waniek? I think one is fine. And it looks to me like the links are duplicates of each other, but I won't argue the point if you think them sufficiently distinct. Jwrosenzweig 21:23, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry to have forced you to do work I could have done, but I think it will help Irismeister's mood if I avoid editing articles about Waniek, regardless of how harmless my alterations may be. I may be wrong, but I think caution wise. Can you explain, btw, your objection to the quickpoll on Vogel? I thought calling down a blood curse was a pretty nasty allusion to the historic persecution of the Jews.....is there more here that I don't know about? I'm willing to change my mind, but it'll have to be a pretty good justification for Vogel's remarks, which I thought thoroughly out of line and disturbingly reminiscent of racist invective of the past. Jwrosenzweig 21:43, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Here is the exact QUOTE of mine and in proper CONTEXT:

"The article section is "quite appropriate" for the reasons I have just given, what information, specifically, was "not suitable" and "why" for the position in the article? HOW DARE you personally insult me with falsely and personally insulting me and calling me any "anti-Semitic" or "troll nature" because you do not understand just how relevant and important that section within the article actually is? You are such an narrow-minded bigot that you do not see what the future holds for all Jews, everywhere, with your own selfish and biased bigotry and ignorant pov editing of the truth. A blood curse be upon all of your ilk that always censors the Truth for any such selfish and foolish and bigoted narrow-mindedness!"-PV

PS--If the shoe fits? If not, what "Blood Curse"?

All right then, but I ask you as his advocate to keep him from talking about blood curses. It is a direct reference (I'm sure Vogel knows this) to the curse that the Jews call down upon their blood in the Gospels at Pilate's judgment of Christ -- it has served as the justification for too much anti-Semitism. He can get upset if he likes, but I won't stand for him bullying Jews around because he doesn't like them. I don't want to make a troll of him any more than you do, but there does come a point when it's better to take on the trouble of law enforcement than to put up with repeated crimes. I am worried that, if he can make these allusions to anti-Semitism and get nothing but a warning from Sam, he'll think there are no consequences here. That frightens me more than a persistent troll. As Bird and Michael have proved, trolls make real trouble, but we collectively have far more energy and vigilance than they have. Jwrosenzweig 22:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are right, Snowspinner shouldn't have made that remark, but Vogel had already said on that talk page (largely unprovoked, in my estimation, other than the fact that his edits were being reverted) that Snowspinner and Mirv were "Jewish pov bigots", "trolls", and "malignant narcissists". I know you are taking the perspective that Vogel was insulted and shouldn't have responded so badly. My perspective is that Snowspinner was insulted and shouldn't have responded so badly -- when he responded in kind, Vogel escalated to near racism (and yes, he was crafty about it -- you're right that it's not open racism. But in my estimation it's close enough). I hope you can help Vogel improve and become productive, but I think time is running out -- we've been waiting 3+ months for him to change, and this latest stuff isn't much better than how he arrived. And don't say we can't ban him. We can. Yes, people can abuse the system and go to great lengths to circumvent the ban. But they're still banned. And history has shown that the banned do not successfully return here for any length of time without making some statement of contrition to Jimmy. I know you feel banning is futile, but I don't, and most of the rest of us don't either. Sometimes it _feels_ that way, but ultimately it's a tool we have to have in our arsenal if we are to keep this project on track. That's my two cents. :-) Sorry to disagree with you again, honestly at some point I hope we do agree -- seems odd for intelligent and polite people to have so little in common! Jwrosenzweig 22:19, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

fun w hats and haiku

Thanks for the laugh at your completely smooth transition into new subjects. :-) Yes, the haiku is quite nice -- I appreciate your and Calmypal's dedication in providing me with the occasional haiku. I myself write haiku that all begin with the phrase "Man with funny hat" purely because I think it one of the more versatile and amusing 5 syllable phrases in English. So, in the spirit of Wiki, I present you with:

Man with funny hat,

Don't listen to your mother:

You're not that handsome.

Not as profound or important as yours, but I do what I can. :-) Cheers, Jwrosenzweig 22:25, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No offense was intended. ;-) Hey, we have the same taste in hats.....well, after a fashion. I like the old styles, though, so perhaps that's what we've got. Heck of a lot better than Breakfast at Tiffany's, to make a very bad allusion to a pop song. In the future, if I begin to argue with you too much, bring up hats. Jwrosenzweig 22:38, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not intending to continue our conversation past the bounds of reason, but a nice straw bowler is a nice hat for wandering about in the Middle East sunshine (and has the added benefit of making me, at least, look un-American -- they always guessed I was Belgian or Australian or something, which made me feel far less like I had a target tattooed to my forehead). And you're right about our general outlook, which is a far more important thing to have in common than any political outlook, etc. I think I'm a bit quicker to decide someone is no longer worthy of assumed good faith, but then viva la difference. :-) Anyway, have a good one, and good luck with Mr. Vogel! Jwrosenzweig 22:58, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User:WHEELER

I protected it by accident. Nice catch! Happy editing, Cyan 00:12, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I must object

like yo man sass is teh worse tword ever, dont archive, its bad u nublet!1!1!11!11!1111!111 fremdom of speech man.......kf= ~!

The League of the Holy Court, Vehmgericht, or just the Vehm was a secret tribunal of Westphalia during the middle ages, the principal seat of which was in Dortmund. The members of the Vehmic courts were called francs-juges ("Free Judges"). The Holy Vehme took cognizance of all crimes in the lawless period of the Middle Ages, and those condemned by the tribunal were made away with by some secret means, but no one knew by what hand. Being despatched, the dead body was hung on a tree to advertise the fact and deter others.

Their origin is uncertain, but is traceable to the time of Charlemagne and in all probability to the old Teutonic free courts. They were, indeed, also known as free courts (Freigerichte), a name due to the fact that all free-born men were eligible for membership and also to the fact that they claimed certain exceptional liberties.

The Vehmic courts were the regional courts of Westphalia which, in turn, were based on the county courts of Franconia. Their jurisdiction they owed to the emperor, from whom they received the power of life and death (Blutbann) which they exercised in his name. Everywhere else the power of life and death, originally reserved to the emperor alone, had been usurped by the territorial nobles; only in Westphalia, called "the Red Earth" because here the imperial blood-ban was still valid, were capital sentences passed and executed by the Fehmic courts in the emperor’s name alone.

REGARDING the AC:

=Paul Vogel's Banning and Censorship

Dear Sam Spade,

This is Steve and his "ilk's" doing. You know that he has falsely tried to have me banned before, and there are ALWAYS at least TWO SIDES to every story.

It is clear that a cabal of censorous pov bigots have falsely accused me of being a "troll", "vandal", or of making "abusive comments" on some TalkPages, or of "breaking the 3-revert rule". This is psychological projection by a pov mob or ilk of lying hypocrites. I do request Sam Spade, to be my "advocate", and I also can provide evidence to demonstrate the fact that those here attempting to have me banned and to have me censored, are themselves "trolls", "vandals", and have themselves broken the 3-revert rule and have hurled "personal insults and have abused and used slanderous and false personal insults and "abusive comments" as their own stock in trade and in their own pov bigoted and biased campaign of "character assassination".-PV

Pantheism

Not sure what you intended. Your edit summary said rv to last version by Bkonrad but you actually reverted to the previous version by 24.45.99.191 Bkonrad | Talk 22:13, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, I see you reverted to an earlier version of mine. Well alright, I'll leave it alone for now in the interests of peace. But I think the current phrasing is a bit biased: "only seen as being a God in an extremely non-traditional". What does "only" and "extremely" signify here? Surely the many conceptions of God are expansive enough to include this conception without the addition POV jugdements. Bkonrad | Talk 22:29, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting. Who is it that describes the conception as "a non-sentient, unconscious, and powerless being"? Bkonrad | Talk 22:50, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've been looking all over the web sites of the UPS and WPM and I don't see that description anywhere. Perhaps it is an interpretation (POV) made by those who disagree? Bkonrad | Talk 23:01, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I didn't mean any disrespect. I'm really a bit confused as to why the highly negative characterizations are allowed to stand. Are you saying it's dangerous to actually do some fact checking and to ask questions? I looked at the web sites and they talk about a sense of awe and wonder at the universe, which is not unlike some descriptions of God. They claim people like Spinoza and Sagan, who are also claimed in the main pantheism article as well as in the cosmotheism article (both of whom were condemned, whether rightly or wrongly, as atheists). So where does the negativity come from? Am I wrong to see this as an attempt to insert POV bias? I might add that the pantheism article also claims that forms of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism have similarities to pantheism. All of these, by at least some characterizations, could be labelled as "extremely" non-traditional. Who gets to decide what tradition is? Bkonrad | Talk 00:43, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I have indeed read the article on naturalistic pantheism in its entirety, as well as most of the other related pages and the article in Atheism Today. Your condescension is revealing. My question remains unanswered, however naive I may seem to you. What does the antiquity of sanatana dharma have to do with anything? So what, it's old? Who cares? What does that have to do with the bias introduced by negatively characterizing someone else's belief's because they do not accord with your own understanding of how a term should be used? The concept of Brahman is also highly impersonal, and many would characterize it as atheisitic. Whatever "consciousness" might be found in Brahman is to a simple person like me indistinguishible from the sort of oneness claimed by the naturalistic pantheists. I'll grant they don't go in for mysticism, but so what? Some schools of Budhism are even more nihilistic. But the comparisons are not the point. I think there is bias in the current phrasing that unfairly valorizes one form of pantheism over another. That sort of sectarianism is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Bkonrad | Talk 01:50, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Don't take your own advice much?

I can read, you loudmouth sock puppet. Sam Spade 03:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

...ad hominem attacks only make you look foolish. Sam Spade 02:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

millerc 02:10, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_April_2004"