Talk:Acharya S/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Word smog 2 Anti-Entheogens have Dirty Minds 3 Lobo 4 Recent edit 5 Minor Change 6 Lobo?uhm... 7 For Whom the Bell Trolls 8 Privacy and other idiocy. 9 Zarov's view is as irrelevant as he states he himself is! 10 Yup 11 Again. 12 Wordfog. 13 Lets reveiw. 14 Lobo replies 15 Circular motion 16 Ahem. 17 Actulaly Lobo 18 Spacific. 19 hORRIBLE.

Word smog

Extremely long, diffuse posts tend to drive more concise editors away from talk pages an thus away from editing the article in question. I'd like to begin moving posts of this nature straight into sub-pages as they appear, with a summary and a link on the main page.
brenneman^(t)(c) 00:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

All evidence to the contrary... ? What's your point? Allow that an inundation of words be allowed to stand unchallenged by virtue of weight of numbers? Some might be intimidated by such tactics, some might not. No one appreciates brevity more than I. 11/14/05 -el Lobo

ABout the Drug use sheadvocates...

Her website use to contian an Essay "Anti-Entheogens have Dirty Minds", which has since been removed. I suspect toelevate her credibility.

Butin her book, "The Christ COnsoiracy" , starting on page 275 is anentire CHapter dedicated to Sex and Drugs. On pages 293-296, SHe advocates Xrug use whilst scornign Christainity's hatred of the Drugs, eceptAlcahol which is supposedly Encoruaged by CHristainity as it is truely stupifuing. Those that, accordign to her, enhance mental acuity and perception are repressed by the CHruch due to its need ot contorle oens mind.

Zarove 17:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

How about a precise quote? Charles Matthews 18:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

OK...

From page 293...

Also Abhorrent to so-called Moralists is the notion of "Recreational" or "spiritual" drug use, even though throughout the History of such Drug use dates back many thousands of years, with Numerous cultures utilizing herbs, plants, and fungi for a variety of reasons, including medical and religious purposes. In fact, Countless cultures have possessed sacred plants, herbs, fungi , or other Entheogenic "drugs" that allowed for Divination and Communion. Such Sacred plant-drugs included the mysterious "Soma" which was personified as a teacher-god in the Indian texts of the Rig Vega., as well as Haoma, the Persian version of the teacher-plant. Opium, Hashish, and Cannabis also have a long history of use within religious worship and spiritual practices……….

Skipping to 294...

Alcohol, of course, is a potent drug, but it is not frowned upon in Christianity because it is truly drugging and stupefying, whereas Entheogens, including the “Magic Mushroom”, have the ability to increase awareness and acuity.

Is this sufficient?

Zarove 18:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Again and again, you are caught up in your beliefs to such a degree that you allow them to lie to you pressing you to make invalid assertions, allegations and conjectures. You were asked for a specific quote of her advocating the use of recreational drugs and what you quote is merely a recounting of the history of religion's use of drugs. 11/15/05 -el Lobo

Lobo, she says it increases Auity. And lets nto forget your lie. Up till about a year gao she had an enture esay on the benefits of these d rugs and openly adivxted it, until peopel pointed ot this as proof that she was a flake,then she removed it.

Zarove 04:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Entheogens have Dirty Minds

For thousands of years, human beings have utilized plants and fungi called “psychedelics,” “empathogens,” and “entheogens” (lit. “generating god or godliness”) in order to expand their consciousness and commune with the Cosmos, the Divine, Great Spirit, or “God.” Around the globe can be found a variety of plants and fungi that have various chemicals which produce an altered state of consciousness and chemistry when ingested by human beings (and sometimes by other animals as well). These plants often seem perfectly tailored to the area; for example, when chewed, the coca leaf of South America has the effect of alleviating altitude sickness, thus allowing the indigenous cultures a means by which to live in difficult areas. In other parts of the world, the marvelous poppy plant has been a strong medicine for thousands of years, alleviating all types of suffering, from insomnia to intense pain. To this day it grows wild in certain countries, which is only natural, since before mankind started a war on such plants, all of these plants grew wild. Does a Plant Know It's Illegal? Because of abuses by greedy individuals – both in destroying the intrinsic value of these various plants by distilling them into death-dealing drugs, and in banning hemp cultivation for industrial purposes - man has gone on a mad rampage in his attempts to eradicate from the face of the earth plants that are here for a purpose. Indeed, in looking at this issue within its historical context, i.e., that these plants have been here longer than humans and have been used by humans beneficially for thousands of years, the ”modern” policies seem incredibly barbaric and idiotic, like a cat chasing its tail. While proponents of the legalization of entheogenic plants and fungi claim that they serve as medicines for the body, mind and soul, some defenders of the “anti-plant” policy argue that these plants are poisonous and not at all medicine. Of course, people can become sick from too much of just about anything, including sugar and assorted other “foodstuffs,” so it is certain that individuals over the millennia have not responded well to the ingestion of these substances. But far more people have died from prescription drugs, tobacco and alcohol. People have also died from other non-psychedelic plants and mushrooms, yet we don't find massive, worldwide eradication plans to destroy them. There seems to be something about entheogens that is uniquely threatening to the status quo. The “Evil Weed” is a Life-Giving Resource As concerns hemp - widely vilified as marijuana, the “evil weed” - the biggest threat to the status quo was the fact that it could be used for hundreds of purposes, such as paper, oil, plastic, rope, food, etc., thus undermining the profits of the various industrialists such as William Randolph Hearst, J. Paul Getty, Dupont and others who cornered the paper, petroleum and chemical markets. If hemp had not been made illegal and had been cultivated for these very purposes, there would be far less pollution and destruction of the environment. And for this, these people should be viewed as some of the greatest criminals in human history. Likewise, hemp and many of the other plant sources for illegal drugs such as the poppy and the coca plant, have been used for medicinal purposes, readily grown and available to the common people. Therefore, they have represented a threat to those who want to monopolize the medical industry with patented and often poisonous drugs. No longer are herbalists, healers and the common folk allowed to simply grow their own gardens of “God-given” medicines but must first go to an expensive doctor and get an expensive drug with often horrible side effects that are sometimes worse than the illness itself. This is the second tier of great criminals who have aided in reducing the quality of life worldwide. In most parts of the world the population is extremely impoverished and can hardly afford to go a doctor, if there is one nearby, but they are not able to simply pluck a plant if they become ill, a natural instinct that is also found in animals who become sick. The Plants are Here for a Reason - Duh! What this all means is that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence and reason behind the desire to have access to such healing plants, that our natural instincts tell us that what we are doing is not only perfectly “legal” but is righteous, as we are supposed to use these plants, just as we are supposed to eat certain foods in order to live. These plants are here for a reason, not as some sort of demonic entities to tempt and seduce us. Yet, those individuals who are violently opposed to such plants frequently appear to be foaming at the mouth in their vehemence against them. Indeed, they often snigger lasciviously and make rude comments about “stoners” and “druggies” when the subject is brought up. “You just want to get high,” they self-righteously slobber and chuckle, as if this is a great titillation for them. In truth, since they will never register a word of any intelligent argument in favor of the utilization of such plants not only for physical medicinal purposes but for the soul as well - having been used in monasteries, mysteries schools and other spiritual groups globally for millennia – these ignoramuses immediately and childishly bat away logic in favor of sophomoric frat house insults akin to leering at women's breasts. Even the manner in which they pronounce such words as “pot” or “dope” comes across as being lewd. These people also have dirty minds because their minds have never been “brain-washed” by these healing substances. And, naturally, those who have “indulged” (snicker, snicker) are viewed as being straight out of “Up in Smoke” (chuckle, wink, wink). What the Hell is Wrong with Getting High? Of course, even if someone does want to “just get high,” what is wrong with that? These selfsame anti-“drug” slobs hypocritically slug back pitchers of beer, light up butts or stogies, drink large amounts of coffee and are addicted to sex. Not to mention a fair portion of these hypocrites have been caught with spoons up their noses, which explains their rude and aggressive behavior. But no, other people who understand exactly why these psychedelic plants and fungi have been made illegal in the first place - not because of any great moral standards but because of the fear of the empowerment behind these substances - cannot use their “drug” of choice to feel good, to relax, or to make their lives worthwhile. Cats can be given catnip; this is a perfectly good thing. But when it comes to humans, no “highness” is allowed - unless it comes out of a bottle at a social gathering. Expanding one's consciousness or empathy is considered wrong, but drunkenness is viewed as being amusing (unless you drive). The Determination of Which Drugs are Considered “Legal” and “Illegal” is Based on Cultural Bias Needless to say, there is also an extreme cultural bias going on here in the decision as to which plants or “drugs” are to be viewed as both legal and moral. Alcohol - which accounts for more deaths and trauma than just about any other drug - can be utilized in the rituals of the Catholic sacrament, but, in general throughout history, other mind-altering substances have been banned in the countries that the Catholics invaded, destroyed and enslaved, such as mushrooms in Central America and peyote in North America. The Catholics knew well that these substances allowed their users to commune directly with the cosmos/God without the priestly intermediary; thus, they had to stamp out their usage, to the point of massacring thousands of shamans and medicine men and women. The vicious and aggressive campaign to eradicate mind-altering plants around the globe comes not from any righteousness or morality, but purely serves self-interested, arrogant egotists who feel that it is their “divine right” to impose their will on others - bullies, in other words. It is high time (pun intended) to tell these impostors to get their noses out of other people's brains, leave their dirty “you-just-want-to-get –high” minds at the door, and take a hike. It is time to demand the legalization of plants and fungi. As With Anything Else, Wise Use is the Answer This is not to say that the distilled drug compounds made from such plants should be encouraged or made readily available. People who use entheogens truly as sacrament are rarely interested in the distilled, deadening and deadly versions such as cocaine or heroin. Nor is this to espouse that people should be running around ingesting these things all the time. Nor is it to claim that there have not been people who were unable to utilize them with maturity. There have been unfortunate abuses, and there have been fools who have spent far too much time “wasted,” on any number of substances, as well as committing crimes while “under the influence” of just about anything, but usually there is alcohol or the harder drugs involved in criminal behavior. These tragedies could be prevented to some degree with proper education and an instillment of genuine self-respect and self-love (not egotism and arrogance). These plant substances should be used for the most part for purposes of bettering oneself, with the occasional “just getting high” for the sake of fun. But this regulation of and discipline in using these substances must be left up to the individual and not to governmental bodies and policing agencies. Rather than having someone else legislate behavior, every individual must be allowed to attain to maturity and wisdom in gaining mastery over the plants, should he or she so choose to use them. This is true adulthood, the test of a genuine “spiritual warrior.” It may require some effort, one may even fall while reaching for the heights, but for the sake of evolution and enlightenment one must be allowed to determine one's own autonomy, including in the use of entheogenic substances. - © Acharya S (from <http://www.truthbeknown.com>)

http://www.radicalpress.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=35

Zarove 03:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, but this argues for legalization, doesn't it? You know, Wikipedia can't contain statements that say that someone incites breaking the law, without firmer evidence than this. Charles Matthews 08:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

May we remind you that there is a difference between advocating legalization of drugs and advocating illegal use of drugs? alteripse 12:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I never siad she advicated he brakign of the law. We can amend the text.

67.213.51.73 18:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Or you could leave this issue. If you want it mentioned, it has to be as a (fair) discussion of 'entheogens'. I'm not sure whether or not that's a neologism. Charles Matthews 19:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, it seems we already have an extensive entheogen article. Given that, the word can be used in the article without needing a qualification. I'll see how it looks. Charles Matthews 19:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

From this article and from her chapter in "The Christ Conspiracy" called "The Bible, Sex and Drugs," which explores the possible ancient use of plant substances for the purposes of divination, it is clear that Acharya does not actively promote the use of "illicit drugs" but favors the decriminalization of cannabis use. I concur. That said, it is again apparent how the fundamentalist view allows that allegations become red herrings for lack of anything of substance. 11/20/05 -el Lobo

And it is equally apparent that her disciples will readily smear any critic as a "fundamentalist", apparently under the impression that that somehow makes her and her disciples seem less ridiculous to the rest of us. alteripse 03:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Lobo

1: She advoctyes mroe than just Canibas in tat essay.

2: Nooen said she advocated breakign the law, and the text was amended to clarify that spaciifc point already.

3: No one here i s bign a fundamentalist out to discredit her. This is, as we have sid before, an Encyclopedia. She advicated the decriminalisaiton fo drugs, so that gors intot he artyicle. As will, eventually, more detials on ehr life, form her sons recent kidnapping, to her stay in Greecd int he 80's.

This is not a debate over rather or not what she says is true, nor is it an attemot to disprove her premise that Christ didnt exist and was a solar myth. It sonly an attmept to tell what is known of her. Nothign mroe and nothign less.

As her advcacy of legelisaiton of Entheogens is evident, it belongs int he article.

Recent edit

I haved re-ordered the sections, and tightened up some of them. Charles Matthews 09:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Alteripse, the fundamentalist comment was an observation of the evidence provided by at least two of the three of those who were listed as her detractors who are professed fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is the point of view that adheres to principles that are intolerant of other views not in agreement with the literal truth of the bible. If that makes the rest of you ridiculous, so be it.

To the bad speller... She does not advocate using drugs at all, quote where she does. If you wish to state that she is pro decriminalization of cannabis, do so but I would point out that it such a hypocrisy that you exude to say that this is not about refuting the premises of her two books. If this were true, all that this article would contain is the fact that she wrote the books, what they are about, perhaps a brief of her credentials and let the reader be the judge of her works and not you. The fact that you have posted a warning before anything else is said about it that says: "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed" belies every word you have to say about her and her books. When you get personal, you not only show the weakness of your arguments but of your intellectual prowess as well. 11/23/05 -el Lobo

Can I take the NPOV tag down, now? Charles Matthews 10:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Lobo, I reprodiced the whole essay.

I didnt tak eit out of context. Merley poitned out the fac tthat she does, in fact, support hte "Just getitng high for fun" angle. I never said she advicated illegal or irresponcible drig use. But the essay does defend th epesosn right to use these without Govenrmental interaciton.

67.213.53.50 00:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

To quote her advocacy of the use of the Drugs...

"These plant substances should be used for the most part for purposes of bettering oneself, with the occasional “just getting high” for the sake of fun."

Zarove. ( Cant ign in right now.)

67.213.47.220 18:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

By shamlessly lifting this line out of context in an effort to cover being caught again in another fabrication, you prove to one and all just how desperate belief becomes. What she said was:

This is not to say that the distilled drug compounds made from such plants should be encouraged or made readily available. People who use entheogens truly as sacrament are rarely interested in the distilled, deadening and deadly versions such as cocaine or heroin. Nor is this to espouse that people should be running around ingesting these things all the time. Nor is it to claim that there have not been people who were unable to utilize them with maturity. There have been unfortunate abuses, and there have been fools who have spent far too much time “wasted,” on any number of substances, as well as committing crimes while “under the influence” of just about anything, but usually there is alcohol or the harder drugs involved in criminal behavior. These tragedies could be prevented to some degree with proper education and an instillment of genuine self-respect and self-love (not egotism and arrogance).

These plant substances should be used for the most part for purposes of bettering oneself, with the occasional “just getting high” for the sake of fun. But this regulation of and discipline in using these substances must be left up to the individual and not to governmental bodies and policing agencies. Rather than having someone else legislate behavior, every individual must be allowed to attain to maturity and wisdom in gaining mastery over the plants, should he or she so choose to use them. This is true adulthood, the test of a genuine “spiritual warrior.” It may require some effort, one may even fall while reaching for the heights, but for the sake of evolution and enlightenment one must be allowed to determine one's own autonomy, including in the use of entheogenic substances.

That is not advocating their use, it's voicing a caution. 11/23/05 -el Lobo

Re: Can I take the NPOV tag down, now? Charles Matthews 10:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

For my part, you can leave it because it proves the incredible slant, if not arrogance, of this whole piece. But if you see fit to do so, I won't object. 11/23/05 -el Lobo

All the opinions listed in this piece have been repudiated. I think this version has run its course and it has become time to correct the image it presents. If these opinions are allowed to stand, then an alternate set of opinions that contradict them should be allowed. However, it would be preferable if they were simply removed and only the facts be presented in a manner that allows the reader to investigate and make up their own minds instead of having tehm made for them. Which of you admin's are up to the chore? If you are in fear of a Christain backlash, I will do it for you if ask. I'm not afraid of them. 11/28/05 -el Lobo

---

I can't believe Zarove is still having his way with this article. It's an obvious hatchet job by an obviously zealous Christian. ^^James^^ Nov 30/05

Minor Change

Changed:

Acharya S is the pen name of D. Murdock, an American critic of Christianity who operates a web site called "Truth be Known". She is the author of two books which promote the website's premise.

to

Acharya S is the pen name of D. Murdock, an American critic of Christianity. She is the author of two books and operates a website called "Truth be Known".

^^James^^ 03:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I havent edited it in a while.

The latest verison is concensus. And what evidence do you have that this is base don Zekous CHristain beleifs? Facts are facts. She does promote legilisaiton and use of Entheogens. SHe dis an American. SHe operates a website. Ect...

I didnt put " SHes an evil satanic forc eint he world , listen tohr only of you wantot be damend ot Hell."

I didnt say her ideas where wrong either. MErley had to place the (Obvious) Critisisms ot her work. And CHrisyain critism, Ill remidn you, is vlaid as this si what she critisises.

This is not beign overzekous and I like how its shapign up now.

Zarove.

67.213.47.51 21:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. Every so called "criticism" listed in this piece is nothing more than personal opinion and damned cheap shots meant to do nothing more than "kill the messenger". Anyone with half a brain should be able to see thorough its shallow attempt to justify its own belief. There is no concensus... there is only the followers mentality of cowardness to stand up and challenge the indoctrination instilled in the child that endures in the adult. What we seem to have here is an open willingness to secumb to the emotional response of belief rather than stand up for fairness, onjectivity and principles.

I have already stated how this piece is based on christian belief... go back and read it. Besie, the fact that you bring satan and hell to the table establishes the whole stance of this piece as christian diatribe founded in its apologetics. Acharya does support legalizing entheogens but she does not "promote" their use. That's a fabrication of the kind of self justification that belief is want to do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogen

By your deeds, you clearly display the attributes of a zealot. No one said you were over zealous. Look it up. 12/02/05 -el Lobo

Where is Satan or Hell broguhtup? And what, spacificlaly,is wrogn withthe article as it standsnow?

67.213.47.138 03:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You stated that "I didnt put " SHes an evil satanic forc eint he world , listen tohr only of you wantot be damend ot Hell."...

The entire piece reeks with bias, slant, innuendo, conjecture, and accusation. It is unfair and dishonest. What it should look like is something like this:

Acharya S is the pseudonym of D. Murdock, is a critic of Religion and Christianity who has published two books, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold and Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, and operates a web site, Truth Be Known. According to Paranoia Magazine, she is also a "historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist, and archaeologist".

Education and career

Acharya S received an undergraduate degree in Classics–Greek Civilization from Franklin and Marshall College. She is a member of an institute for the study of Ancient Greek civilization, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece and is a member of CSER (Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion). She has served as a trench master on archaeological excavations in Corinth, Greece, and Connecticut, USA, as well as a teacher's assistant on the island of Crete.

Theme of books

In her works, she contends that the Bible story of Jesus in the New Testament is fiction plagiarised from largely pagan sources and is "riddled with errors and contradictions". She claims that the early Christian Church created the story with the goal of unifying the Roman State. She uses parallels to the story of Jesus in the stories of Krishna, Buddha, and many other saviour Gods throughout history, to argue that the Jesus story is fictional and mythic in nature, and not historical. Her work is a popularization and synthesis of many themes found in works of Freethought writers and earlier critics of Christianity.

That simple.

Without the interjection of what you or anyone else thinks or feels about it. Let the reader discover for themselves what is there. They don't need you or I telling them how they should respond to the ideas presented.

12/03/05 -el Lobo

Lobo?uhm...

THose lines where taken otu of context, and ar eofmr the tlak pages. What I was sayign was that those sorts of comments are not int he aritlce.

And, your omision of tyhe critism may lead oen to htinks hes not had any rebuttals at all,which , though Acharya and her disiples,y ourself included, may wantt to pretend is true, clealry isnt.

Further,y our redecorating of the matiral is less than honest. You wan tot presetn her as a respectabel schoalr with grand credentials.

You make no effort into placign the factsabout such credentails itn eha ritcle, in the hopes that the unaware iwll make the mistake of thinkign shs soemhow accredeted inthese feilds.

And lets not add her "Responce" to the headr again, James.

Zarove.

PS, I am haicng touble logging in. Any help appriciated.

67.213.51.224 12:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

So you admit they were taken out of context to justify your having made the statement that she "promotes legilisaiton and use of Entheogens"... that is dishonest and you were not saying they were not in the article, that is an outright lie. Trying to CYA again?

As previously stated. What you are calling criticism is nothing more than unsubstantiated personal opinion. Show that it is otherwise or get off the subject. Every single one of them have been repudiated. Not one of them is a rebutal to a single thing she said. And further... do not dare to presume to know what another person wants. Gaging by your responses you aren't capable of such deduction. I don't have to present her as anything... her works speak for themselves. Let the reader be the judge instead of you judging for them. What fools are made by following a fool? From what I have observed, there is nothing you have stated or presented thus far that would lead me to want to follow a single thing you have said. I cannot understand why the admins are so in fear of you.

Her credentials have not been discredited... it is only you who take issue with them. Any simpleton can read her books and see for themselves the massive amount of research that has gone into them. The proof is in the puddin'.

12/04/05 -el Lobo

---

I cannot understand why the admins are so in fear of you.

In fear of Zarove? Hmmm, I thought they were rather in love with him and his ideas. He has them running around correcting his spelling, rephrasing his horrid writing... they appear to want to play the role of his secretary.

Of course, what the actual facts are, seems to be irrlevant... when you've got spelling to correct.

In this case, we've all had a monumental failure of perception. Here is a fact to consider: Zarove is a notorious troll.

^^James^^ 19:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

admins tend towards janitorial work. Spelling correction is part of this.Geni 20:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

---

It is clear you know your station, Geni.

Zarove, our covert Christian zealot, claims he is here because of an interest in 'crackpots'. Just as he claimed on a hindu board that he was merely interested in talking about the similarities between hinduism and Christianity (!?), when he happened to notice anti-chrisitian sentiment, then proceeded to engage in a 'my religion is better than yours' flame war. "Basically you want everyone to Hate Jesus", he accuses.

more to come... ^^James^^ 22:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

1: Lobo, you took my word sout fo context.

2: James, nothign int h article indicated a Christain bias. It conforms ot wikipedia standards. Rather yo yuliek it or not. Guilt bu ssociation isnot vlaid. And is chepa manipulaiton tactic.

3: Im not a Christain Zelot, and my past internet delaigns arenone of youyr affair. Ivebeen itnernet stalked and lied about before, so Im not ogign to rellsy bdbotheredby your " See how bad Zarov eis" Crap. Ivebeen acucsedof everyhtign form Pedophilia to beign astalker myself. And what your ouign now is digigng up dirt to smear soemone. this is, Ironiclaly, what your complainignbaout me doing.

4: Can you hsow any peice ofthis aritcel thats eitherr factulaly inacurate OR shows a bias? I mean, unelss it s" Ahcarya has proven Jeuss dint exist" thn your cgoing to complain.

5: Most wiipedia artilce si ediit are, surprisingly, not related to rleigion. Ive edited Dinosaur aritcles mainly, and Sci Fi. As a Chrisain Zelot, those seem odd choices.

Now, can you so somehignotherhtan show links ot message baords Ive psoted in in a vian attmeot so badmouth me?

Why dont you show any realbias int eh arilce itsself?

Zarove

67.213.79.150 03:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Re #1... Really? I showed how you did, now, you show how I did.

Re #2... Wikipedia standards? Do show how this is so. I think you are making things up again.

Re #3... Why is it that I am not surprised? Glad to see that you understand what it is that you are doing and admit to it.

Re #4... This has been done numerous times without challenge from you. What you do is plod along with the same song and dance.

No one can show a thing to not be... what has to happen is to show that it does. Do that and you end all speculation.

Re #5... What you do is not edit. The act of editing written material for publication or presentation means you correct, revise, modify, or adapt it to make it suitable or acceptable.

No one has to badmouth you... you do that for them. This article has been refuted and repudiated point by point. Doing it again for you would be as worthless as what you have put together.

Admins... if you haven't the courage to make it right, then tear it down and eliminate it from Wikipedia.

12/05/05 -el Lobo

I second that! Please delete this travesty! ^^James^^ 05:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

see WP:AFD I don't think you will get it through though.Geni 12:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

For Whom the Bell Trolls

2. Re: nothing in the article indicates a Christian bias... [emphasis added]

LOL. I said you are a covert christian zealot. So yes, the bias in the article is not specifically Christian. (well, unless you count those two fundy sites masquerading as legitimate criticism... Funny how our astute admins haven't picked up on that yet...)

3. Re: digging up dirt... Well. You were digging up dirt when you 'exposed' the nature of my relationship to Acharya (I'm a member of her email group).

I also recall that Acharya's name was published here against her wishes because it was 'available via a simple google search'. Where was your objection to privacy then?? You can dish it out but can't take it??

On my user page, where you threatened to publish Acharyas supposed court records and credit information if I didn't let you have your way with the article, you say: "All her information is public if you know where to look, and I do. So this isn't stalking". Well Zarove: all your information is public, if you know where to look (and I do), so this isn't stalking either.

Besides, I think it appropriate, since you have been less than forthcoming, that everybody know what a die-hard christian you are. You even moderate a christian discussion group!

(I think that it's very impressive, by the way, that a person suffering from severe dyslexia would manage to get a masters degree in journalism, and later work as a reporter. But that's not all... Zarove was also a physics major in 2001! He knows hebrew and latin.... and he's only 28 years old! Amazing.)

4. I and others have refuted your points till blue in the face. You (and near everyone else) just ignore them. It seems John Seigenthaler had a similar problem. Perhaps it is systemic.

5. I've edited Dinosaur articles mainly, and Sci Fi. As a Christian Zealot, those seem odd choices.

So. You're still going to play coy with your religious beleifs. (Why is it, pray tell, that we are practically the only ones on the internet to receive such a courtesy?) Yes, they are odd choices (although you've claimed elsewhere that dinosaurs do not prove evolution(!!) so perhaps these interests do dovetail). But since I'm claiming that you are *undercover* - that your motives for writing this article were entirely religious, and that you've been actively hiding these motives here on wikipedia... it makes perfect sense. Besides, anybody who cares can check for themselves. Your spelling is unmistakable.

^^James^^ 05:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Privacy and other idiocy.

1: This sint abotu my privacy. This is about my irreelevancy. Whre I psot and hwat I beelive is not rlevant here. THe aritcle is abotu Acharya. Indeed,the seciton I wan tot emphasis is theoen you wan tot rmeove. The part abotu her life. THats becaue the aritcle is abotu her,nto her ideas. THey ar eonly included, encapsulated, becausehey are what shesnoted for, and critisems, also encapsulated, are included because they are inclided in all contraversial mateirals.

2: THe existanc eof Dinosaurs doesnt prive Evolution. I have no real issue iwhtthe theory of Evoution, and veen contributed ot Wikipedia inormaiton on evolutionary theory. I know a great deal more about it than Creaitonism. DIspite beign a covert Christain and hus a funy, andhterefore a creaitonist. CHerry pikcign quotes doesnt really acucratlry protray me, but, who cares? Yoru whole point is to show me as a Covert Christyain operative here ot defame Acharya, in the jopes that I loose credibility andhtus you can " Make the aritlce unbais" by rmeovign critisisms.

3: Christain critism is included in the article, as I have said before, because Acharya is a Critic of CHristainity. THe only reaosn shes even famosu is that she denies Jesus existed. Not includign a Christain relspomce is neglegant. It owudl be liek me claimign Mohammad didnt exist, then forbididng ISlamic soruces form beign used to rebuttle.

4: Again, guilt by associationdoesnt owrk. You do not know my beleifs. Iwill nto discuss them here as here I am neutral. I am not the issue. You may think you knwo them, and tyr to convence others I am a Christain fundamentlaist, but you donot know anyhtign rlelay about hwat I beleive.

You kno less than you relaly intentd to say, but only rellay need enouy to say "Zarove is a CHristain thereofr eh hates Acharya and wants to flame her, let snot let him get awya with it." THink for a moment. You are her supproter, if I need to not be listened to, because of religiosubeleifs you presume I hold, then why shoudl you be listened to? As her supporter you owudl at leats be equelly biased.

5: Again, can you tlel me, exaclty what is wrogn withhte aritlce asit now stands?

Show me evidnece of any bias? Other than imagiend bias as the aricle doesnt read as you woudl rpefer?

Now, lets end this qyibblign and attmeot to smear and distort me, andmake this personal. Facts,not conjecture, belognint he aritlce.

Acharya S facts. Factd on ehr life and hwo she is. What she supports and beelives. I am not here as her detractor, I am merley rpesentitng informaiton. DIspite her "Repsonce" to Wikipedia. IE, no oen here has claimed she is a terible peson for advocatign decriminlilisaiton of Entheogens. NEither has nayone critissed her beleif that we need to be liberated form the current world syetem, ec... its just informaiton presented. We dont even offer cirtisms to those.

We do offer critism to her most fmaosu claim, because thats the most contraversial and the reaosns hes famous.

I dotn see why this doesnt isnk in.

Zarov's view is as irrelevant as he states he himself is!

It is obvious this fella is only into character assassination by stealth...not about the credibility of the thesis and the details presented therein of Acharya's work. I for one, am not going to waste any further time acknowledging the opinions of a mental midget mucking around in the dump of his own little mind. If you had any integrity Zarov, you would come out from under the debris you live in and admit who you are.....I dont take your atrocious typing or spelling as anything than another guise for hiding your insecurities. Otherwise, go play with the other scavengers, so serious folk can discuss legitimate ideas about "Christ Conspiracy" and "Suns of God". Rene/Skull http://www.truthbeknown.com/wikipedia.htm

Yup

Chepa personal attack. Im an idiot and a CHristain Zelot workign covertly. Who cares abotu facts. The aritlce itsslef is notrelaly biased, and doesnt faovur any CHristainposition. It does include critismes andlinks. Btu thats pretty standard. But a good ad hom agaisnt me wirks every time, ey mates?

67.216.215.176 03:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

You have managed to make you the center of all this... even more important than Acharya. Well, I will set this the way it should be properly presented and will keep it that way until you or I are banned.

12/06/05 -el Lobo

Admin's... I have a suggestion. Why don't you either lock this version in or take down the article all together? Any of you have the cojones to do that? All of you that think this version is superior to that of Zarove, do participate in keeping this version the official version by reverting back to it if changed. It's time to make this right. -el Lobo

Page protection is not required and there is no reason to delete the article. If you think there is see WP:AFD.Geni 13:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually Ive avouded makign myself the centre of attention. James is he one tryign to smear me. ( Using hte same teqniques he sys peopel sueagaisnt Acharya that he hates oh so much...)

And, rmoving ht einformaiton on her critism and life and presentign her as soemthign better other htan she is to mislead the reader is harldy what I call impartial and unbised.

Yoru evidnecehtta Im bias is that I amdinistrate a Christain forum. Whihc means nothing, sicne you know nohtign of my actual beleifs. ( Though Im sureJames can cherry pick. Hed even lie aboutthem as he does the evolution point. If he read the thrad he'd know my stand on Evolution is harldy that of a creaitonist.)

My evidenc that your bais is the fact that you omit any critisms and lif informaiton and ty to fluff up her credentials ot make her sound liek a grand scholar.

I think its pretty evidnt that this aritcle ought notbe let to her supportes to write. And I again ask, what exaclty is wrogn with tlelign of the knwon facts of he rlif or includign critism? Each are standard Wikipedia policy.

Zarove

67.216.215.118 15:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you have done the exact opposite. This whole piece is about you and what you believe. No one has to smear you, you do that for them by your deeds.

By removing all superfluous entries that have no bearing on the subject at hand, it frees the piece from your judgments and allows readers to explore the subject and make up their own minds. It is quite obvious that what you present is an effort to keep that from happening.

I do not fluff anything. I state her credentials as simple as possible and edit out your fluff and judgment of them.

It is quite obvious that this article should be written by someone who is nonbiased, impartial, fair and honest and not a detractor who belives the opposite of the author of two books on a subject they vehemently hate and despise. What is wrong with the criticism PP is that it is nothing more than opinion. What it does is whine and complain of things the nature of which provides evidence of their contempt. You talk of smear and then proceed to doing it.

12/07/05 -el Lobo

I tend to agree with El Lobo. His is a much better version. The criticisms are bogus and should be removed on those grounds.

Consider the "no primary research" criticism. Humourous really, considering the thesis. But I'm sure it sounds bad to someone who doesn't know what primary research is, and doesn't stop to wonder how it would possibly apply in this case.

Or the claim that Acharya's work contains "little substantiation". How does that square with reality? "The Christ Conspiracy alone contains well over 1,000 footnotes, with over 100 bibliographical citations. Suns of God's bibliography comprises over 250 books and articles, most of which are from conservative and respected sources and many of which are Christian, dating back to the earliest times. Suns of God contains 1830 footnotes, citing such sources as the Catholic Encyclopedia. Almost every contention and fact is carefully and meticulously cited and footnoted." Disagree with her you may, but facts are facts.

^^James^^ 05:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Re Page protection is not required and there is no reason to delete the article. If you think there is see WP:AFD.Geni 13:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well then, do it.

Put it before a review board, let them read the discussions pages and make up their own minds as to the travesty being presented. I'm certain that any normal, objective approach would find that what is going on to be unwarrented, biased and contrived in conspiracy among some of the Admin's as well. From what I'm reading, this piece is not unlike others on Wikipedia. Maybe what's needed is some publicity about this article. Is that what it's going to take? You Admin's can be real proud of the presentations made by Zarove and I'm certain that any editor of a magazine or newspaper would be greatly impressed by their willingness to back him/her.

12/07/05 -el Lobo

By the way, Zarove... why don't you do this article like this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP_Holding Since he is a favorite of yours, it only seems appropo. Wikipedia standards, indeed. 12/07/05 -el Lobo

Again.

1: You are removing the informaiton about her life. The aricle is abotu her, nto her ideas. Her ideas are covered because they are what makes her famous, but not rlelay much detail ought be givne to her ideas.

2: J.P.Holdigns article isnt mine. I dontevben veiw the page. This aritle is mine, I created the origional page. That's why Im here.

3: Speakign of Holding, I know yor paranoia maks me just a puppet of this evil mastermind, btu I hae no rformal rleations with him. In reality, I dont spend a good deal fo time on his site. I have little to no contact wiht him. I donot even agree with all his positions. I used his aricle as it was basiclaly convneint, and one of the better coutnerbalances for the aritlve. Regardless of what you beleive abotu me.( And your beleifs abotu me ar epretty coloured.)

4: I didnt make thisabout myself.This article wa snot made to smear Acharya. Nor are you here to remove the slander and make it accurate. Yoru ehre to make it an aritlce that sings the priases of Good old Acharya S. You rmeove all critism because you do nto want oposition to YOPUR worldview. You rmeove life informaition about her because it doesnt further yor worldview. You want to predsent her credentials in thebest posisble light ot manipualte the reader into accpeitng her. This is not a mroe truthful and fair repreentaitin and certianly not designed tobe unbaised.

5: As the article stands, as Mathew write it, what is wrogn iwht it? No personal attakc agaisnt Dorothy exists init. Even though Dorothy's repsonce is to say shes attacked, no attakc is made.

6:You state this.

"It is quite obvious that this article should be written by someone who is nonbiased, impartial, fair and honest and not a detractor who belives the opposite of the author of two books on a subject they vehemently hate and despise. What is wrong with the criticism PP is that it is nothing more than opinion. What it does is whine and complain of things the nature of which provides evidence of their contempt. You talk of smear and then proceed to doing it. "

I agree. The problem is, I also know it ought bot be written by her supporters. You arnet makign her credentals as short as posisbel and accurate. You ar epresenting her "Credentials" as if their anywhere near vlaid. She snot a Historian, a religiosu schoalr, or a Mythologist. Any mro ehtan I am for readingup on thiose topics. Shes not an Archeologist because she was given a trench once in Geece. Nor is she a Linguist because shes multilingual.

I dotn hate her. James may want to smear me ( And No, I odnt smear myself.) By syaign In a funde Chrisyainwith alterior motivs. But read the baord h refrenced. The beelifs are well too broad their to even remotley accuse it of noninclusion.

Im not vehemently opposed ot her. Frnakly shes not worh bign vehemently oppsoed to. Her ideas are discredited.

As the aritlc now stands, peopel ar emade aware of what she claism she is, a Mythologist, religiosu scholar, linguist, hisotiran, and archeologist. They ar ealso told she has no rleated degres in most ofthese and has only a BLA in Classics.

Oh, and shes in a Secular Humanist orginisaiton.

It also telsl brielfy of her views. ( And doesnt disparage them.) It telsl whats known of her life, a seciton I will expand later. ( Again, not to disparagfe.)

WHats worng with yor aritcl eis that its a virtual mirror of her claim abotu herself on her site, a presentaitonamde to make her appear marvelous and grand. Writtenby her supproters. The verison curntly up is designed ot give acutal facts andknwon Data abotu her, not nessisarily form her supproters poitn fo veiw, btu also not form ehr detractors.

7: The reaosn CHristaisn are allowed to have links on her aritle is simple. She critises Chrisyainity. It wodileb wrogn not to include their rebuttles. Regardless of the fac that you think tat ony Dorothy's views ought be rpeasent, and no link to the two soruces we brought up shoufl exist base don them disagreeign with her. She cant badmouht a whole religion and then wave her hand and silenc their reaction.

8: Dorothy is nto that important. Im hrebecause I want to defend the aritcle form her supporters attrition.But this is harldy evidenc eof Bias. Nor have yo nay evidnece that I am biased. So please drop that dead horse till yo show somthgin spacific.

---

What's it called when you flood us with volumes of nonsensical wordfog? ^^James^^ 20:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Wordfog.

What wordfog? Ive goen poitn by poitn already. And the article will be reverted back. Becuae your "Faitr and baalnced" article is a commercial for her, tryig to promote her and her ideas, presentign ehr as she wants otbe rpesented.

Again, the life informaiton is removed, for no reason. ( Because it doesnt advance hercause.)

The aritlc elies by sayign she IS a Histrian, rleigiosu scholar, linguist, and archeologist. Sh claims otbe all of these, but no reference is mad tthe factthat she holds no posiitons, or even degrees, inany of those fieilds and has no publicaiton hisotry within them.

This is OK, just syaign she IS a Hisotrian, Rleigiosu Shcolar, Archeologist, and linguost amakes her sound far more impressive. And thats the point. Just like syaign I amoderate a Chrisainforum is enoguhto show I reject evolution and am a Zealot here to defame her.

HEr boosk ar euncriticlaly examined. Fully accepted and their premise given. Why? Because hwo dare we challegne the GReat Acharya S! The worlds leading Shclar on Rleigion!

Your aticle is a face. You omit the most vigal aspects of it ( HEr loife, againt he artilce is nto abotuher work.) You omit the real credentials in faovur of a whitewash that makes her out otbe soemthignotehrthan she is. You rmeove the critisms of her work because you dotn want anyoen queasitonign it. THen you badmouth other people and smear them, whilst sayign this is the tactic they use.

You do nto acutlaly state whats wrogn withthe other artile. You give no jistification for the alteration. None. No reason for removing hte life informait.NO REASON for removal of the critism. That is, ther than the factthat it contradicts Acharya. ( I knwo I know,the "Crap soruces" argument. But Acharya S sint exaclty considered top flight.The real reason, and lets be hoenst, is because htey disagree with her.)

Yoru curent argument for the new artie is that I administrat eon a Chrisytainforum. You then Chery pick quotes dformtheir to show me as a Zealoted Fundie CHfistain. Any idiot coudl , if they viist the ofrum, see my beleifs arent fundamentlaist and that Im open tootherbeelifs. Nor is this arutlce rlelay directed at me. But chepa ad hom is OK as it discredits me. And if I try to poitn out that Dorothy has only a BLA andno record inacademia beyond htis, Im using a msear tacitc. But you syaign Its odd that I do much WIkiediting on DInosaur Articles because I say that Dinosaurs ar eno proof of Evolution is somhow not misrepresentation?

Im an evolutionist, for cryign out loud! I dotn even try to hidhtis fact. But yo do, because it doesnt serve your ends.

Now, unless you grant actual reaosn for the omision of informaitin and reqording of the text to reflect the "Acharya S spin", then please donto rever the article. You render it Biased. And we have a concensus verison.

I will not revert againtill Friday, a I do nto wishto violate hte 3RR. However, yourown obviosu bias ( THough refused to be admited) is becomign evenmroe evident,and so is you rhypocracy.

Zarove

ZAROVE 02:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Again

By virtue of your your response, it appears that your thinking is as clouded as your spelling.

1 This article should be about the books... any reference to an authors life should be secondary and only a note in passing if :interesting or enhances the purpose of the piece.

2 I didn't say it was. I said you should pattern your input on this article on the Holding article. But you don't have to, I did it :for you.

3 I have no paranoia about Holding. I call them as I see them and I do so with objectivity, logic, reason and consideratton. I have :no belief's about you. In the first place, belief begins where facts ends. Facts do not need belief to be... they exist without you :and I to give them life in our feelings and indoctrination.

4 You Have made it about you by virtue of what you believe. It is a smear by virtue of the definition itself. To smear is a tactic :that vilifies or slanders. Nowhere do I sing in praise of Acharya or her books. If you think so, show it. You don't listen, you :ignore every counter made and blindly put forth your christian diatribe, defending to the end what you believe to be so regardless :of what anyone says. The criticisms, as has been noted so numerous to be counted, are opinion. They are not criticisms. I don't :have a worldview... not even sure what that is supposed to mean as regards this conversation. No, I mad no elaberations about her :credentials and in fact, presented them in as brief a form as possible. I don't have to manipulate the reader because I made the :article as neutral as possible to allow the reader to read her books and decide for themselves. As stated before... your version :tries to discourage the reader from even opening the books , let alone read them. You apparently think your judgment is supperior :to theirs.

5 When you cast aspersions, make conjectures, make accusations and intimate that she lies... you are, in affect, attacking her :name, reputaion and standing.

6 How do you know I am a supporter of hers and not simply a supporter of fairness, honesty, and objectivity? Nothing I have said :and nothing I have ever posted would indicate I am anything else.

You are, most definitly, opposed to her and her books. What you say and your actions prove this, I don't have to say a word about :it.

She doesn't have to "claim" that she is a mythologist, religious scholar, linguist, historian or archeologist. Her books prove that :these are facts.

No, she is a member of a group that is a division of the Council for Secular Humanism. http://www.secularhumanism.org/

"linked through this association to a number of international organizations, including the Center for Inquiry Transnational . :Since its 1983 founding in Washington, DC, the Committee has worked to encourage humanistic, critical and non-parochial approaches :to the study of religious traditions and institutions and to develop programs which promote the public understanding of religion in :an international context."

"CSER is an international research and educational consultation comprising members (fellows) of the Committee who are nominated and :appointed by an executive board."

Her life is not, and should not, be the subject of this article.

Can you not see and hear yourself? "make her appear marvelous and grand"? Nearly everything you have written in this article is :nothing more that your subjective view guided by your beliefs.

7 How does she criticise christianity? What she does is show how it has been created from myth. I't only a criticism to you becaue :it does not square with your indoctrinition and teh dogma of your beliefs. You take it as a personal affrot as though you are being :attacked, no matter how true it is.

8 Dorothy. Are you intimating that you are on a first name basis with her? Or is this a cheap way of minimalizing her? In the first :place, where is it cited that the "D" stands for Dorothy?

12/07/05 -el Lobo

Lets reveiw.

Re: Again By virtue of your your response, it appears that your thinking is as clouded as your spelling.

Ad hom will get you no where...

1 This article should be about the books... any reference to an authors life should be secondary and only a note in passing if :interesting or enhances the purpose of the piece.

The article IS abotu her. If youthink their shoudl be oen abotuher boojs, a new aricle shoudlbe created. But ths article is titled "Acharya S" not "The CHrist COnspiracy." It IS abotu her. Not her books.

2 I didn't say it was. I said you should pattern your input on this article on the Holding article. But you don't have to, I did it :for you.

Np you didnt. You omied all Biogrpahical informaiton and critisms, which wehre basic to any contraverisal issue. You also paddedher credentials. Its a lie to say "SHe is a Historian, Archeologst" ect... she has no degre inthose feilds and his is diliberatley doen to mislead. You wotn allow her real degree to be rpesented and only fluff.

And again, I dont care abotu Holding.

Tjhis is my article. I wrote thoriigonal. Thats why Im here. I know next to nohtign abotu Holding.

3 I have no paranoia about Holding. I call them as I see them and I do so with objectivity, logic, reason and consideratton. I have :no belief's about you. In the first place, belief begins where facts ends. Facts do not need belief to be... they exist without you :and I to give them life in our feelings and indoctrination.

You said Holdign was one of my faovurites. THis is a beleif,nto a fac. its based on the Paranoid worldview you and other Acharyans have of him and anyoe who dares citise yoe mentor. heck, Im nto critising her. I only want a Biopeice onher. THis is taken as critism as it doesnt make her sound oh sowodnerful with trumped up egotistical credits.

Wheres the logic in syaign Im a Holding fan?

4 You Have made it about you by virtue of what you believe. It is a smear by virtue of the definition itself. To smear is a tactic :that vilifies or slanders. Nowhere do I sing in praise of Acharya or her books. If you think so, show it. You don't listen, you :ignore every counter made and blindly put forth your christian diatribe, defending to the end what you believe to be so regardless :of what anyone says. The criticisms, as has been noted so numerous to be counted, are opinion. They are not criticisms. I don't :have a worldview... not even sure what that is supposed to mean as regards this conversation. No, I mad no elaberations about her :credentials and in fact, presented them in as brief a form as possible. I don't have to manipulate the reader because I made the :article as neutral as possible to allow the reader to read her books and decide for themselves. As stated before... your version :tries to discourage the reader from even opening the books , let alone read them. You apparently think your judgment is supperior :to theirs.

No I didnt. Jmaes broughtup my beleifs. ( Or rather, a misrepresentaiton fo them.) I remaiend neutral and did not engage in dialouge baotu my beelifs. James also attmeoted ot prove I opposed the evolutionary theiry.

Keep this in mind. I dint get my own beleifs invovled at all. So, syaign otherise is deceptive.

Also, "My verison" Is Charles MAthews version. I did preciosu little editing to it.

And it doesnt disocurage the reader form openign her books. Nor is it an attack onher. this is hwo she and you take it, btu hats onlybecuase its not a glowignadvertisement for th ebooks. ANythign shert of "Ahcharya is a wodnerful eposna nd agreta shcoalr and speaks the turth" you reject.

IE, on her "Responce" to Wikipeidia, she claism we attack her for her sexual ethics. We didnt.

Nor did we say Acharya is fullof hot air." We present ehr viesa and itisms. And her knwon biogrpahical data.

Thast all.

5 When you cast aspersions, make conjectures, make accusations and intimate that she lies... you are, in affect, attacking her :name, reputaion and standing. 6 How do you know I am a supporter of hers and not simply a supporter of fairness, honesty, and objectivity? Nothing I have said :and nothing I have ever posted would indicate I am anything else.

Except noen of this appears inthe aritlce. Again, this is imputation.

All I did was rever bakc to Charles MAthews verison. And all it says is that sh has a BLA, claism to be such and suchbut has no academic qualigficaiton to prove this,and tells a general overview.

Nothign more.

You are, most definitly, opposed to her and her books. What you say and your actions prove this, I don't have to say a word about :it.

Actiosn such as? BE spacific.

She doesn't have to "claim" that she is a mythologist, religious scholar, linguist, historian or archeologist. Her books prove that

So if I wtite a book, about Jeuss, say, then I becorm a rleigiosu scholar? COme on...

Her boosk prove that she is literate and capable of cullignquotes form a few sources. Not that shes a shcolar at all.

Any mroe than Elizabeth Barret Brownign can claim to be. She wrote on rleigion too.

:these are facts. 

No, she is a member of a group that is a division of the Council for Secular Humanism. http://www.secularhumanism.org/ "linked through this association to a number of international organizations, including the Center for Inquiry Transnational . :Since its 1983 founding in Washington, DC, the Committee has worked to encourage humanistic, critical and non-parochial approaches :to the study of religious traditions and institutions and to develop programs which promote the public understanding of religion in :an international context." "CSER is an international research and educational consultation comprising members (fellows) of the Committee who are nominated and :appointed by an executive board." Her life is not, and should not, be the subject of this article. Can you not see and hear yourself? "make her appear marvelous and grand"? Nearly everything you have written in this article is :nothing more that your subjective view guided by your beliefs.

You say shes a "Hisotrian, linguist, archeologist, and rleigiosu shcolar." THis is designed to. You omit the fact that she hodl sno rleated degre in any of thes, has no publciation hisotyr, and worksfor no major institutions. THeonly claim to these are her website andbooks. WHich prove nothing.

THis sint guide dby my beelifs ( And again I Didnt compose the spaicif vwrisonfo the aritlce we are discussing.)

Nor is it guide dby my beelifs.

However, the whirewash is guide dby yours.

7 How does she criticise christianity? What she does is show how it has been created from myth. 

On her website aloen she calsl it " A disease." She claism preahcers and such are conpsirators. She claism ti generates PSychosis. She doesn tjustsay it was created frm Myth. She does openly attakc it and no oen in their right mind woul asusme otherwise.

I't only a criticism to you becaue :it does not square with your indoctrinition and teh dogma of your beliefs. You take it as a personal affrot as though you are being :attacked, no matter how true it is.

Uhm... you dotnthink these esays are critism to CHristainity?

http://www.truthbeknown.com/pope.htm

http://www.truthbeknown.com/bible.htm

http://www.truthbeknown.com/biblecontradictions.htm

http://www.truthbeknown.com/biblicalmythology.htm

http://www.truthbeknown.com/egos.htm

THis is nt merley soemone who beelives in dogmas based on indoctornaiton takign offence because soemoen doesnt agree. These esays where spaciifclay written to critise Christainity.

Now lets not be obtuse here.

8 Dorothy. Are you intimating that you are on a first name basis with her? Or is this a cheap way of minimalizing her? In the first :place, where is it cited that the "D" stands for Dorothy? 

THis is just a stupid and irrlelvant complaint. Its also base don her wikipedia repsonce. Hey, At leays Immentined as a Demented VIrulant Psychopath! But she seems ntot o rmemebr myname is Reginald Maxwell Cook! Im hiding behidn anonimoty baby!

And, Doorthy admits it a couple of places. Ill tyr to dig them up, btu in her Wikipeida repsonce she admits it recently. Their ar ea coupel othe rpalces. I think Bob Price had it ontheir.

Lobo replies

I did not appeal to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason. I made an observation about your constant self justification, circuitous thinking and ignoring anything that does not agree with you.

1 This article would not exist were it not for the books. (this response demonstrates 'your constant self justification, circuitous thinking and ignoring anything that does not agree with you.' An author should be secondary to their works and any note of them should be a brief description of their background, not used to disparage, demean and "kill the messenger" to defame their books.

2 It is not a lie to say she is a historian. Historians engage in a "process of historical analysis is a difficult one, involving investigation and analysis of competing ideas, facts, and purported facts to create coherent narratives that explain "what happened" and "why or how it happened." Modern historical analysis usually draws upon most of the other social sciences, including economics,

sociology, politics, psychology, philosophy and linguistics, in order to ensure these narratives are thorough, balanced and holistic.

I didn't say you cared about Holding... but you did favor him by using him. I said you should make this piece like the Holding article, brief and to the point. But instead, what you have done is engaged in a campaign to discredit the books and in the process endeavored to trash the author to that end.

3 See #2 2nd PP.

Belief begins where fact ends. Facts do not require you and I to exist. Belief breaths life in to that which would not otherwise live except for what we put into them. This article as you have written it, reeks of your beliefs.

And that is a cheap cop out. Charles Mathews should step of that shadow of yours and set you straight. He "tightened" what you had presented but it was all you.

When you accuse someone of poor scholarship, of one-sided, biased, inaccurate, and outdated sources... and then attack the sources of a book as "suspect authority and lacking in primary research" and that their "work shows ignorance of the topics" on which is being written... you are deliberately painting picture to influence and deter a reader unfamiliar with the topic to keep them from even exploring the topic. Every one of these are subjective opinions and have no place this article. Nowhere have I lauded Acharya or her books. Show where I have done so.

You accused her of advocating a "libertine morality in regards to sexual ethics." "Libertine" has come to mean, one free from restraint, particularly from social and religious norms and morals. The philosophy gained new-found adherents in the 18th and 19th centuries in France and England. Notable among these were the Marquis de Sade and Alister Crowley. In modern times, libertinism has been associated with sado-masochism, nihilism and free love." Without proof, this is slander.

To impune Except noen of this appears inthe aritlce. Again, this is imputation.

Imputation means "Imputed righteousness is a concept in Christian theology directly related to the Protestant doctrine of justification. It is particularly prevalent in the theological school known as Calvinism.

"Justification is that step in salvation in which God declares the believer righteous. Protestant theology has emphasized that this includes the imputation of Christ's righteousness (crediting it to the believer's "account"), whereas Roman Catholic theology emphasizes that God justifies in accord with an infused righteousness merited by Christ and maintained by the believer's good works," (Elwell Evangelical Dictionary).

Imputed Righteousness therefore means that upon repentance and belief in Christ, individuals are forensically declared righteous. This righteousness is not the believer's own, rather it is Christ's own righteousness 'imputed' to the believer.

Regards Mathews... see above.

Re: actions... I would cite your criticisms and the fact that you have steadfastly removed any input that rebutted what you say. This article is a one way street and it is all about what you believe.

Sure, if you do the time. A scholar is either a student or someone who has achieved a "mastery" of some academic discipline. A student is one who directs zeal at a subject. Also known as a disciple in the sense of a religious area of study, and/or in the sense of a "discipline" of learning. To understand the concept of scholarship... see: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Scholarly+method

You do not have to have a degree to be a historian, an archeologist, a linguist or a religious scholar. These are terms that depict what a person does. Her books are ample evidence of the the fact that she is these things.

The great atrocities of mankind have been committed in the name of one belief or another. By virtue of deed, religion is the bane of mankind. And it continues today the world round. What a beautiful exitence we could have were it not for this mental illness that we engage in for our own selfish, ego driven, greed and power mongering.

I think these essays are, on the whole, are observations. Can you show them to be otherwise?

Obtuse? So, you call me dumb... while in the same breath say that I engage in ad hominem.

That You engaged in the tactic of minimalizing cannot be denied. That is not irrelavant nor stupid.

Bob price and Acharya say the same things... the bible is founded on myth. His complaints on her are little more than the nitpicking of one author of another to protect his own book sales.

12/08/05 -el Lobo

Circular motion

I have been offline for two weeks. This page's editors seem trapped in a loop. I'll engage in any specific issues, but you guys basically type too much and think too little about the need of Wikipedia, in pursuit of some agenda that is not at home here. Charles Matthews 16:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I rllay am not thatbad. I just hate Wikipedia beign tund into a commercial. Look at the "Imorived, non-biased" arilves of Lobo and James. All I do is revert them back. I do notthink Wikipedia needs ot rea dlike her self promotional website.

67.213.79.236 17:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, but you have to understand that criticisms must be sourced, also. Charles Matthews 20:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

See what I mean? I told you that what you are doing is eliminating any and all that contradict you and here you admit to doing just that. This is exactly the scenario depicted in Wikipedia's latest troubles.

Growing pains for Wikipedia By Daniel Terdiman

After two scandals in one week, Wikipedia's founder decides to make a change to the anyone-can-contribute encyclopedia.

http://news.com.com/Growing+pains+for+Wikipedia/2100-1025_3-5981119.html?tag=sas.email

12/08/05 -el Lobo

I can certainly understand why wikipedia is having "growing pains". It has taken months of effort to try to have basic factual inaccuracies removed from the article. Zarove simply makes things up, like: "she claims to be a member of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, but they have no record of her." And the admins line up behind him, and defend his statement to the death. Do you realize how long it took to get that one obvious falsehood corrected? And countless hours have been spent demonstrating how the so-called criticisms are bogus. They are unattributed, vague, sweeping and factually incorrect. Yet months later they still appear in the article, backed by the admins. What kind of place is this?

It seems to be some kind of game. Pick sides, then fight it out. To hell with facts, this is about what we can 'get away with' in an effort to make the author 'look like a nut', as one admin has put it. ^^James^^ 22:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You are quite wrong. The problems with the page have to do with partisan editing. We have policies that should be applied. We also have fewer than one admin per 1000 pages. There is no way edit wars finish except by all concerned engaging with the need to apply basic policies: NPOV, cite sources, no original research. It is not reasonable to ask for all the issues here to be sorted out simultaneously. Charles Matthews 23:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahem.

James. I didnt make nayhtign up. But you certianly did.

You also tried to smear me to silenceme. As if Im the onloe whoobjects. I seem to have becoem the focal poitn of your war, as you try to depict me as a covert Christain crusader ( Nicd alliteration) out to smear her.

So a few basic queasitons.

1: In the Charles MAthew edition of the aritlce, which you erroneously lable as "Zaroves article", what acutla attakc son ehr exist? I know her repsoncemakes everythign tobe an attakc, but what acutal attack exists?

2: CLaimign he "IS a historian, linguist, rleigiosu schoalr, and archeologist" just ebcause she says she is, and not givign the reader proer intorduction tot he reasons for those cliams, is itsself manipulative and dishoenst. She is not recognised in any of hose feilds. And writitng a coupel ofboosk doesnt nake her any of those htings.

Just ebcause she wants ot clal herself this doesnt man Wikipdia has ot also call ehr this. Nor is an examinaiton of those thigns ofthey ar einssited upon as nessisary for the arilce anattakc. IE, sayign she has no rleated degrees inany of those feilds andno pblished aritlces as far as is knwon in reputable hournals is not tantamout to "Acharya is worng, give you rlife to Jesus today."

3: Lobo and you boththink he rlife informaiton is nto rleevant. Please tlel why? I knwo Lobo said it shodil eb abotu her work, but its not. The aritlce is about HER. Not her work. HER. The title is "Acharya S." Why doesnthis sink in? The aritle is not rlelay suppose ot be abotu her work. HEr worj is what makes her famosu and is givne in brief, but certianly its nothe focus of this aritle.

4: By omitinght cirtisms, you basilclay remove all oposing views. This is what you claim Im doing. You simply donot want peopel queasitonign her work. THus, critism si rmeoved and claled "Bogus." Itsnto bogus, nor is it even IWkipedias place to detemrienthis. ITs valid inthat their facts check outbetter than Acharya's, and its also wikipeida matieal as pthers say this.

Basicllay you want Acharyas citism of CHristaintiy to go unchallegned and accepted as fact withotu any cooberaton or critism invovled.

5: I odnt take anyone mentioendinthe article seriosuly. I wrote the artilce when I was new ti WIkipeida. I wrote it on essentialy a little known crank. Sorry to birst your bubble, I knwo you wontbeleive this, btu I have no vested interest. Kent Hovind was taken. I think hes a crank too.

This sint abotu me beign vehemently oppsoed toher. her boosk are too ridiculous to waste that muchtime on.

6: Why is it that you think fliffing her up to soun grand is eqiel to unbais?

7: FInal queasiton, its the same as th firts. What spacific problems do yoy have withthe article as it stands now? Please do nto edit this first.

ZAROVE 00:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears that all you have is the ability is listen to yourself. Every contention, every allegation, every accusation, evefy conjecture that you have written in this piece has been refuted beyond question and still, you ignore everything but your own dogma.

3 I have already explained this previously. Do go back and read it again. Every time you do the same things... you ignore what you are told and then bring up the same sorry garbage over and over. Were it not for her books, she would not be mentioned here. You have made her the focus of this article by disparaging her to invalidate her books. It's very pain to see by anyone.

4 Again and again... what you call criticisms are your opinion, not criticisms. They are persoanl attacks to discredit the authoir to cause her books to be seen as you dipict them. There are no facts in them because they are not validated.

Acharya's books are only critical of christianity if you hold the bible to be the literal truth. The two books are nothing if not the validating of the fact that religion is born of myth. Read the books.

5 Calling an author a crank displays the lowness of the level of your input.

I think you are too ridiculous to be bothered with, that's why I made the suggestion to remove this article in its entirety and be done with it.

6 I fluffed nothing. I pared the article back to as near the essentials as possible. I did this in an effort to remove your judgments for it so thaat the reader can be informed as to what it is about and investigate on their own and make their own judgments.

7 I have told you, over and over and over what is wrong with this article... just reread the discussions pages.

12/08/05 -el Lobo

Excerpted from "The Mending Wall" by Robert Frost

"He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."

Actulaly Lobo

All you do is repeat your self. IE, you cliam that the aitcle shoudk eb aoput her work, and the author is seocndary. But, this sitn the case. You dinteven tell why it is. The aritlc eisnt abotuher work, tisbaotu her.

Liekwise, by syaign she "IS a Hisoturan blah b;ah" and not tleingthatth solebasis fohtese claism si the fac tthat shes written a coupelfo books and hasanundergrad degree, you engage insensaitonalism.

Now, tlel me whats worng iwhthte concensus verison? Or allow it to stand. Iwotn revert nay logner till the weekend. But the oen you prtoesent ehr eomits critisms ( Which existfor her work) agrandise the usbject needlesly with self-promotional claims, and omits the subjects primary ocncern. Acharya herslef. The arilvc is not abotu ehr owrks,and certialy doesnt exist to convence of tther so her works. it exists to tell of her.

I think that's what I said... I respond to your input and have to keep repeating myself because you totally ignore what you are told. You are stuck in a rut. As I have said several times, the article exists because she wrote the books. If it were only about her, you would not need to mention the books. Every thing you say about her revolves around what she has said in the books. Do you read what you write?

Sensationalism? What planet are you from? As I have stated previousl, you can be a historian and an archeologist without being degreed in the fields, because they are terms that describe what one does. The books are evidence of this fact.

What consensus version? There's just you... no one else has done anything more than mimic what you have done. What specifically of what I have posted is not fair, unbiased, to the point, honest and non judgmental? Be specific or let it stand or take it down altogether and end it once and for all. Again and again and again I have told you that you have not posted any criticisms... what you call criticisms are nothing more than unsubstantiated, personal opinion and it has no place in an article about this or any other author. What, specifically, self promotional claims are you talking about? Since I haven't made any, this is just more nonsense you are throwing in to muddy the waters.

Admin's take this article down and end this charade.

1:31 pm 12/09/05 -el Lobo

Spacific.

I was spacific, Lobo.

Take note.

1: It omits crititsm. All cotnraversial mattes are given tyhe critisms in them in Wikipedia. Why shoudl Acharya S be different? Why ar eher critics removed? BEcause you fidn them tobe non-reputable? That is not WIkipedias palce.

2: It omits life informaiton. You have said it shodl be abotu her owrk. Well, why? The articl eis abotu Acharya S. Not her work. The articl eis entuled "Acharya S." Not "Acharya S's works."

The life informaiton is themost improtant part.

3: You give her credentials as she lists them on whr websirte. She is " A Histrian, linguist, rleigiosu schoalr,and archeologist." You give no citation for this othe htan her word. You claim ont he tlak page that her boosk ptroive shes these htings. You ignroe the fact that they dont. Her books do nto cover Hisotry, their wirtten as Conspriacy theory.

Neither do most peopel cll proffessional writters, such as myself, or Dorothy, Hisotrians, linguisst, arhcelogists, or relgosu shcoalrs base don mre w rittigns. I have written on Hisotry and am not a Hisotian. Neither is DOorthy.

She holds no degrees in these fields and has no puiblishe work in reputable jorunals. She is a self-proffessed Archeologist, rleiigosu schialr, linguist, and Hisotrian. SHe is not hwoever a proffessional.

You do this to trumpet her nad make her soudn mor eimpresive than she is. She hodls a BLA degree. Nothign more. By doign this you ensure that her iamge is protected as a reputable schoalr. In much the same way that omitign the critism rmoves the opoaiitont hat is raised to her ideas.

4: The informaiton on ehr books is also distorted. THe peice read slike a promotional for her. Again, no ciritms ar elalwoed in, and no examianiton fo her real credentials is allowed.

5: Speakign of her credentials, you afte rmakign the claim thats he is " A Historian, linguist, rleigiosu shcolar, and Arhceologist" Lead in by tlelign the world shes a mmber of the Am school and CSER. You give no real qualifiers as to what these are. Its added ot fluff her resume. A resume which is dmonstratabley false.( As noted, no degrees and no posiiton in any of thes feilds.)

6: The aritlce as you have written it exists soely to promote Acharya S's theories and ideas, contians no informaiton abot her herself,and omits vital informaiton that you do nto wan thte owrld ot be made emimediatley aware of.

7: The frequent rmeoval fo the totllay disputed tag is doen to assure the reader that the enture artilce is accuat and not in dispute, afte rbign wten by her rabbid supportyers.this is a lie.

NOW...

What, spacificlaly, is wrogn withthe concnecus articl of CHarles MAthews?( And no, I am nto the only oen ehre doign it, I ma the focus, mich Liek Holdign has becoem a focal poitnf or her, btu Im not th enly woone workign this.)

I knwo Acharya's repsonce makes it out that every seciton is an open attakc on her, btu hwo is statign that she supports the legilisaitonof Entheogens an attakc? No oen write itn eharitce that this was worng? Or wrote that her secual ethic was worng. NEither did the arilce attack ehr for her ideas. I t did include her critics, butthis is nto the same as attakcign her as Wikipedia.

Now, be spacific. What is spaciiflcay wrognwithth concensus verison?

I'll keep my word and wont revert till the wekend. However, your verison cannot be allwoed to stand, ebcause dispite your prrotestations, you verison is partisan and biased. You ahev ruiend my rpeutaiton on Wikipedia,btu yors sitnmuchbetter ither,a nd I ask the Admins or nayoen else to please revert the arile back.If not, Ive made minor adjustments. Please do nto rmeove infomaiton because youperosnally disliek it, and do not reedit it to read in her favour again.

I knwo you will sya my verisonis baised, but pelase show how.

1 You are free to criticize the books all you want, but to present unsubstatiated opinion about a person makes it a hit piece.

2 Any surperfluous comments in a written piece are unwarranted. Any journalist would know this. Part of the life info was covered under another heading and making note of her personal tragedies serves no other purpose than to feed the glee of those with a sick, soap opera mentality. To repeat... without the books, the purpose for this article would not exist. By all rights, the name of this article should be Acharya S, author. Nearly every entry you have made in this article is founded in an effor to refute what those books say. Pretending that is just about her is just a shallow smokescreen. The "life" information notes four things abour her... that hardly warrants being called a biography. At this point, is fairly plain to see, you have no credentials as a journalist, if you do, produce them.

3 I have very thoroughly covered the definitions of those terms and explained how they are not only true but appropriate. They are covered in her credentials and demonstrated by her books. You just don't want to believe them because denying them serves your purpose better. She cites volumns of historical facts in her books.

You need to look up the definition of historian. You are a professional writer? Prove it... provide a list of your written works for which you were paid.

I have already demonstrated to you that you don't have to hold degrees in these fields to carry the title. Again, you are blinded by your own image and ignore everything else. A professional engages in an activity that is the source of their livelihood or is their career such as a professional writer. Acahrya's sole income is her writing. But it also means that a person receives pay for their works or has great skill as to be known as an expert. Acharya fills this bill quite admirably. 4. Having or showing great skill; expert

I have challenged you on numerous occations to put up or shut up... still you thorw out this garbage to muddy the waters. Show where I have presented one single thing to trumpet her to make her more impressive. She has an undergraduate degree in Classics–Greek Civilization from Franklin and Marshall College (BA). She is a reputable scholar... you seem to be the only one who states that she is a disreputable scholar.

4 Says you because it flies in the face of your indoctrination. All that you could muster were two christian apologists and a rival author to even make that point. Between the four of you, you can't even make a full hand.

5 http://truthbeknown.com/wikipedia.htm Read'em and weep.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/cser/ check the list of members. You should make a retraction for every time you have posted your venoumous attacks on her. But you won't... all you will do is post what you want to believe and ignore the truth of every attempt to dissuade you from doing so.

6 By what warp of mind do you justify making this statement. I have challenged you to show what you say is true and all you can do is keep repeating the message until yoiu believe it yourself in the hopes that others will follow suit. An encyclopedic article is not the forum for rebuttal or pretend biography as an excuse to defame.

7 You can hang it on yours... because what it says is appropo. What you say is not neutral or factually accurate but the version I have put forth is so it is not needed. I do like it saying to read the discussions pages, though. I would invite one and all to come here and read what you have to say about all this. If that doesn't convince them, then so be it. There's no accoiunting fo rthe indoctrinated mind.

Concensus article? I have already covered this previously. I invite you to go back and read it and this time try to let it soak in.

The legalizaton of drugs and the "libertine" accusation have also been covered previously. Read it over for your answer.

12/09/05 -el Lobo

hORRIBLE.

Charles, I think you qousl agree, Acharya's follwors verisonw asnt exclty pelasant. it omited the life informaiton ( Which is that the aritlc eis bout) and removed the critisms, and gave the veriso of her that is prevailent on ehr website and that which her supporters will to give. My alst verison was not a revrsion to yur previosu article. ( BEcause I Promised I woidlnto do this.) It was, however, an alteraiton fo the oen her supporters invented, to make it more balanced. IE, instead of clalign ehr " A Historian, linguist, rleigiosu schoalr, and archeologist", I called her a self proffessed. THey insist onhaivng this in the article, Ihtink ti best ot notify the reader she has no credentials inthse feilds.

Id prefer your older version. Which I reverted to now. I even said I prefered it in this tlak. Buyt my alst verison was hust minor inscersiosn into the supproters article.

At the very least you will agree that the Acharya supporter article wasnot grand either.

ZAROVE 14:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)