Talk:Cosmotheism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Cosmotheism/Archive 1
Talk:Cosmotheism/Archive 2
Talk:Cosmotheism/Archive 3
Talk:Cosmotheism/Archive 4
Talk:Cosmotheism/Archive 5


[edit] Discussion belongs on Talk and not on the article page

Please do not add discussion to the article page. It is not the appropriate place for having debates and discussions concerning article content. - Tεxτurε 16:06, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


I kept the original criticism headers and links the same, per David Gerard's pov request, and I added a few relevant links, and I added additional content to the Advocacy section including a NPOV "criticism" to the pov biased and slanderous "criticisms" of cosmotheism and I added an actual interview of the late Dr. Pierce by Dr. Griffin, from his book, "The Fame of a Dead Man's Deeds", which also can be bought at Amazon.com, and which actually quotes the late Dr. Pierce quite extensively and fully reveals his own and unique "interpretation" of Classical pantheism or Cosmotheism.-PV

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a source text repository. Please don't paste in an entire interview—but feel free to quote relevant bits and to cite it as a reference. —No-One Jones 16:29, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

(cur) (last) . . 16:14, 3 May 2004 . . Mirv (oh joy, Vogel has found a new source text to c&p into this article. How many times will we have to revert before he gets the message?)

What is wrong with providing factual text or content that is quite relevant to the section on Advocacy of cosmotheism, Mirv???? Unless of course, the "message" is only that only your own quite biased and bigoted POV is allowed within Wikipedia articles, hence, the constantly pov and biased revert wars?-PV

"Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a source text repository."

No one said that it was, but, my citing "primary sources" verses slanderous hearsay really seems most appropriate in this controversial case.-PV

"Please don't paste in an entire interview—"


From debates:

(except for very rare important texts that can't be found anywhere else) maveric149 (small annotated sections are fine, dumps of entire books, laws or other documents without any or very little annotation is useless because any yahoo can change what the author or the text said -- which is the only real value of the text itself) DanKeshet Kosebamse - small portions and exceptional texts, yes, but generally, no source texts please.


Quoting such "primary sources" or quoting the entire interview of Dr. Pierce by Dr. Griffin is actually the only valid way to provide Dr. Pierce's own actual "interpretation" of cosmotheism. Any quote can otherwise be just taken out of context and be falsely and quite deliberately distorted, as also has happened with me, recently. This is a small enough and a important enough and rare enough interview of Dr. Pierce that it deserves to be cited in full. -PV

"but feel free to quote relevant bits and to cite it as a reference. —No-One Jones 16:29, 3 May 2004 (UTC)"

Quoting such "primary sources" or quoting the entire interview of Dr. Pierce by Dr. Griffin is actually the only valid way to provide Dr. Pierce's own actual "interpretation" of cosmotheism. I won't chop it up, unless you can cite a far more factual and VALID reason for my actually doing so, and that will not distort the facts and nor his own actual and unique "interpretation" of cosmotheism. -PV

Yeah, except that quoting the entire thing appears to be a gross copyright violation! Is it actually on line anywhere other than as the PDF of the whole book? Then it can be linked to - David Gerard 18:20, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
I found one (1) copy on the entire web: [1] - now linked - David Gerard 18:27, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

I told you that it was a very "rare" and informative interview, David. Citing just the relevant section only on "Cosmotheism" for critical or for any advocational review, as I and you have just done, is a valid and fair and non-copyrighted use of "primary material". The only part in the book that was mostly relevant to Cosmotheism and thus to the article here is the very one that you had found and linked to above. -PV

Being open to newcomers is crucial for the preservation of neutrality and quality. We are a very diverse group politically and religiously and philosophically and so on, and we want to keep it that way. But even maintaining that, we could be guilty of cabalism, of being cliquish and closed, of refusing to listen to new advice that makes us uncomfortable.-

Indeed. Cosmotheism and people like myself are necessary here to preserve neutrality (NPOV) here and to preserve quality and political, religious, and philosophical diversity of ideas and ideals, and to help keep it that way. Otherwise, a "cabal" or "clique" or "ilk" will arise, I and some others do claim that this has already happened, and that Doublethink and that a Politically correct of Groupthink or of "closed-mindedness" has caused most here to refuse to listen to any new advice or to any new ideas or ideals that would make any intrenched "ilk" or "cabal" here uncomfortable. So be it. -Paul Vogel, a Witchhunted and Kangaroo courted and pov Censored true Cosmotheist.

http://www.cosmotheism.net

(cur) (last) . . m 19:38, 5 May 2004 . . Texture (Reverted edits by 24.45.99.191 to last version by Bcorr) (cur) (last) . . 19:34, 5 May 2004 . . 24.45.99.191 (cur) (last) . . 18:51, 5 May 2004 . . Bcorr (remove links to pro-separatist sites erroneously listed under "Marxist criticism" and generally restore David Gerard's version before Paul Vogel reinserted his pro-Pierce material)

(cur) (last) . . 19:48, 5 May 2004 . . Bcorr (remove links to pro-separatist sites erroneously listed under "Marxist criticism" and generally restore David Gerard's version before Paul Vogel yet again reinserted his pro-Pierce material)


Pro-Pierce or Pro-Cosmotheist material?

Hardly!


It was actually the "Fundamentalist Christianity" criticism, not "Marxist".

[edit] ...and Fundamentalist Christianity Criticisms

Obviously, Bcorr and Texture must be reading impaired! LOL! :D

Here is the "criticism" of Cosmotheism from the added link referenced above:


"Thus, true positive Christianity from the Word of God defines any deviate belief system that is in contradiction to true Christianity as atheistic.

Closely akin to Deism and Pantheism, which are in truth merely different philosophical labels for the same infidelity of the mongrelized mind, is the atheistic philosophy of Cosmotheism.

Cosmotheism is defined as, "Ascription of divinity to the cosmos: identification of God with the world: Pantheism" (Webster's Third New International)."

Unlike Bcorr's typically ignorant and false allegations, this is hardly any pro-Cosmotheist "criticisms" website!-PV

PS--This fact also supports the fact that White separatism is a political position and is NOT a religious one, as these folks are White separatists but they are NOT Cosmotheists, whatsoever, but are actually just Christian Fundamentalists[3]!

Kangaroo court for Thoughtcrime or for Paul Vogel's NPOV edits being pov and falsely called "vandalism" or for lacking Political correctness or for posting Hate speech in the Social Marxist-Jewish pov of the actual "Haters", "Trolls", and their POV political "Censorship": of this article[4] on Cosmotheism[5] below: and many others:


[edit] A response to posts of a most conniving and pernicious nature:

To those who are not very interested in the matters being debated, excuse my verbosity, but sometimes no amount of words are adequate to convey the irritation we can feel at some forms of behaviour, and yet we must vent our outrage with some form of expression. Sometimes a rant is well deserved response to some forms of extreme arrogance, presumption, and forces at work for sheer EVIL.

To anyone who is reasonable: I am intent on erasing MUCH but not all of the asinine idiocy that a certain individual has seen fit to post on my talk page, perhaps thinking I might provide a place of safe haven for posting MANY of his extremely warped views. It remains in the database record if you are masochistic or deranged enough to want to try to read through all of it. If a person is so paranoid, unsocial, anti-social, pig-headed, obnoxious, rude and just plain stupid that they don't even try to establish and maintain their own user page among decent human beings, or behave in a manner that even attempts to acknowledge or accommodate the rights of others beyond those that are imposed by their own selfish and bigoted interests, I am certainly not going to let them take over my talk page to post all the extremely insulting and spiritually retarded nonsense they are inclined to post that they can't get away with posting elsewhere. I'm sure there are probably worse and more obnoxious fools in existence, but thus far I have encountered no one on the Wikipedia, or on the entire web for that matter, who more exhibits the severe signs of the narcissism that this person is so fond of accusing others of exhibiting. Some people seem to have their heads so far up their own fundaments that it is a wonder that they can see anything at all. It doesn't take a "Kangaroo Court" to recognize a pile of manure.

To PV, whose addiction to rants of Pathetic Vitriol against others is truly alarming; to whom anyone who does not agree with him is regarded as a "Marxist"or "Zionist" agent or dupe, or else a "malignant narcissist": "Narcissistic" does not even begin to convey your absurd infatuation with yourself, and your extremely deficient ability to respond to others in civil and sincerely respectful ways. There is a great deal of calm, restrained advice that certain professionals might be able to give you, that I doubt you would seek, but I will indulge in a little venting of my own irritation with you, without indulging in some of the profanity that can come very easily to mind: GROW UP, YOU PALTRY MISERABLE WRETCHED WASTER OF OTHER PEOPLE'S TIME AND LIFE AND ATTENTION. Why don't you actually try reading something by some of the great ethical and mystical philosophers of history instead of trying to imply or claim they would all eagerly embrace the grandiose pettiness and absurd enshrinement of paltry bigotry that you seem to think is a path to eternal grandeur and "Godhood".

I will now quote an article on your "hero", "Dr." Pierce:

"All of the homosexuals, racemixers, and hard-case collaborators in the country who are too far gone to be re-educated can be rounded up, packed into 10,000 or so railroad cattle cars, and eventually double-timed into an abandoned coal mine in a few days' time," he wrote in a 1994 newsletter. "All of these people simply don't count, except as a mass of voters. . . . Those who speak against us now should be looked at as dead men, as men marching in lockstep toward their own graves." Like others on the far right, he held Jews, not blacks or gays, to be the main target. He had a special thing for race-mixing women, whom he pictured in The Turner Diaries hanging by the neck from telephone poles with their eyes bugged out. - Village Voice article

I suspect the source will imply to PV that I am definitely a "Pinko" of some sorts (but just speaking against his views usually suffices there) but it just happens to be the top hit I got when I entered "Pierce", "Hitler", and "nazi" into a google search.

I will quote a certain individual that Pierce, and you and your "ilk" seem to have a great deal of admiration for, and then a few people who were executed during his brief but bloody reign.

We have to put a stop to the idea that it is a part of everybody's civil rights to say whatever he pleases. - Adolf Hitler, from a conversation transcribed on Februatry 22, 1942

Luckily for you, most people who disagree with you don't go so far as these "great heroes" of the "National Alliance" in seeking to silence you, though you certainly can sometimes make the idea seem appealing.

A few others from Mein Kampf that I do think go a long way to explaining your own behaviour, and apparent ideas:

No amount of genius spent on the creation of propaganda will lead to success if a fundamental principle is not forever kept in mind. Propaganda must confine itself to very few points, and repeat them endlessly. Here, as with so many things in this world, persistence is the first and foremost condition of success.
The application of force alone, without moral support based on a spiritual concept, can never bring about the destruction of an idea or arrest the propagation of it, unless one is ready and able ruthlessly to exterminate the last upholders of that idea even to a man, and also wipe out any tradition which it may tend to leave behind.
Any violence which does not spring from a spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. It lacks the stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook.
In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie.

And finally another quote of Hitler's:

I have not come into this world to make men better, but to make use of their weaknesses.

It is appalling that there remains so many weak-souled and weak-minded individuals as can still consider this depraved abomination a hero, and I will now quote from some leaflets of a few who died opposing him , who belonged to the German group known as The White Rose: [6]

It is impossible to engage in intellectual discourse with National Socialist Philosophy, for if there were such an entity, one would have to try by means of analysis and discussion either to prove its validity or to combat it. In actuality, however, we face a totally different situation. At it's very inception this movement depended on the deception and betrayal of one's fellow man; even at that time it was inwardly corrupt and could support itself only by constant lies.

In the next passage I will concede that they go a bit too far in their own rhetoric, for I do not accept that every word out of his mouth was a lie… but I do not doubt that most were spoken by a man deranged, and very much inclined to lie to others, and even to himself about the nature of reality, historical circumstances and his own personal fate.

Every word that comes from Hitler's mouth is a lie. When he says peace, he means war, and when he blasphemously uses the name of the Almighty, he means the power of evil, the fallen angel, Satan. His mouth is the foul-smelling maw of Hell, and his might is at bottom accursed. True, we must conduct a struggle against the National Socialist terrorist state with rational means; but whoever today still doublts the reality, the existence of demonic powers, has failed by a wide margin to understand the metaphysical background of this war.

I am posting this on my talk page, and might post it in a few other spots where I and others have attempted dialog with you, only to have our statements butchered up into convenient little bits that your plainly small mind can attempt to digest and respond to, and do not expect that it will be spared from the same treatment. Except that on my talk page I can certainly insist on maintaining it intact.

Despite the loathsomeness of your attitudes and behaviour, I don't wish that any ill fate befalls you, indeed I hope that lucidity can eventually arrive into your mixed up mind, and I truly hope you evolve to the decent human being level sometime soon: I assure you, with great confidence: YOU ARE CERTAINLY A VERY LONG WAY FROM GODHOOD. - Moby 17:09, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Vogel banned

Paul Vogel has just been banned for a year. - David Gerard 21:23, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

And there was much rejoicing. :) —No-One Jones 12:02, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nesiyahu

I've decimated the Nesiyahu text. Basically, this person is totally unknown in Israel. He is not a lecturer in Beit Berl — I checked the site ([7] warning: Hebrew). He is definitely not a thinker of the Labor movement. The page about the construction of the temple was the revealing crux: rebuilding of the temple is a classic crackpot topic. If there are no non-anon objections, it can be removed completely. Gadykozma 17:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fine by me. —No-One Jones m 19:58, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I removed any mention from the main text, rearranged the refereces to put it under "other" and added a small context clarification. I think this topic now receives only slightly more attention than it deserves ;-) Gadykozma 14:19, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Is this constant reverting because of a banned user?

Who is the anonymous user who keeps inserting material? I had considered protecting the page but it appears that would be a poor solution. Is this banned user Paul Vogel? silsor 21:12, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

It appears to be Paul Vogel. That is, acting just like Paul Vogel on the same selection of articles. As such, it's considered Paul Vogel. I'd say protection isn't really warranted at this stage - David Gerard 21:49, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I wonder if protection would be a good idea. This article is quite obscure and has only had a handful of non-Vogel edits in the past few months. —No-One Jones (m) 16:14, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Mirv, I think protection would be a better solution than putting Vogel's version on the talk page. Gadykozma 18:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I put Vogel's version (clearly marked as such) here because I thought it would do less harm than reverting this talk page constantly, but perhaps you're right. I'm going to vprotect the page; considering how little editing it's had, I don't think that's going to do any harm. —No-One Jones (m) 18:47, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How about putting the something like that on the top of the talk page?

This page is only protected from Paul Vogel.

  • If you are an adminstrator, edit it as if it were unprotected.
  • If you are any user which is not Paul Vogel, put your requested edits in the talk page and they will be inserted unconditionally into the page.

Please login first to make it easier for us to see that you are not Paul Vogel. Thanks.

What do you say? Gadykozma 19:39, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It would be convenient for this article, but it would be ... unwikilike. Or something. Convenient for the article isn't necessarily a good precedent for the project - David Gerard 20:27, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree, but I think the alternative is worse. Gadykozma 23:32, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Why not delete the article?

If there aren't any cosmotheists other than followers of William Luther Pierce, the paragraphs in the article describing his religious views might simply be merged into the article on Peirce, and this article redirected there. How many cosmotheists are there, even? Does cosmotheism have any notability independent of Peirce? --BM 22:55, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you're absolutely right. In the year of controversy over this article, not one "Cosmotheist" has shown up to edit it, besides Vogel himself. This could certainly be merged with the article on Pierce. Cosmotheism is hardly notable enough to be anything more than a footnote on Pierce's religious beliefs. --Nat 05:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is a fine idea, except that the section on Pierce's cosmotheism is about as long as the entire William Luther Pierce article, so merging this page might unbalance that one. That said, it's not a huge problem (Pierce's article could be expanded, or this one trimmed a bit), and if anyone wants to do the merge, I won't object. —No-One Jones 23:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Who would you say are the currently active editors of this article whose opinion would be important to have regarding its merging with the Pierce article? --BM 01:32, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wrote most of the current article; other interested editors may be found on this talk page, above. If I were to solicit input it would probably be from David Gerard, Gadykozma, Sam Spade, and maybe Bcorr and Texture (and Vogel, of course, but he's banned). —No-One Jones 03:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

David Gerard wrote most of his pov censored and edited version of the Cosmotheism article, but, most of his "sources" are from biased and bigoted and slanderous "authors", that are more interested in "spin" than in the "facts", or Whole Truths of Reality.-PV


I did not have the inclination to read this entire discussion. Seems like there has been a lot of passion involved. I have never heard of Pierce. I linked to the page from a link on the Pierre Teilhard de Chardin page. I guess that shows that there is at least one other person whose views are considered by some to be cosmotheist. I think there should be a separate article. As far as I know, there is no suggestion that Tielhard is linked to Pierce in any way. --Peacenik 19:24, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Linked" in what way? Linked by way of an "idea" or "train of thought"? Then, of course, both Pierce and Chardin are linked. If by "officially sanctioned", then, likely not, as Chardin died long before Pierce became a Cosmotheist or Classical Pantheist.-PV



And there is hardly any suggestion that Chardin is linked to cosmotheism either. The link you followed was probably from the 'Talk' page, where editors were discussing how inappropriate it was for an editor to have added a 'cosmotheism' link to the Chardin page. If you Google Chardin and Cosmotheism, you won't find much of any connection. -Willmcw 21:49, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, there "were" relevant links, but, some like David Gerard and BM, and their "ilk" have seen fit to "edit" or "delete" or "censor" them, whether relevant or not.-PV

No, the link was a specific reference in the body of the article to cosmotheism. I have just started to investigate this debate, but I think it is part of a 'crusade' by someone who disagrees with cosmostheism to denigrate anyone who'se views differ from their own. I am going to advocate to remove the reference to cosmotheism in the Teilhard article as Pantheism adequately describes his views and referencing cosmotheism only confuses the issue because of the close association of the word with a particular group of people. However, I think the word probably does accurately describe Teilhard's views, just too loaded to be useful. --Peacenik 22:22, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Too loaded" to be useful? Just who or whom do you think "loaded" the term Cosmotheism, Dr. Pierce, or his political enemies? Think about it.-PV

I don't really care who loaded the term. I have only even heard about Dr Pierce because I linked through from the TdC article. I can't see any reason why he should be linked to Dr Pierce directly, and that is what I wanted to change. Either the therm cosmotheism is a generic term that may need to be disambiguated to differentiate from the church, or if it is exclusively to do with Dr Pierce and his group, then it needs to be removed from the TdC article. --Peacenik 02:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


OK, I must have missed it. Yes, the term cosmotheism has acquired a lot of baggage due to Mr. Pierce. And like transhumanism, it is a term that has been applied to different things, making for more confusion. -Willmcw 00:04, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Again, "Too loaded" to be useful? Just who or whom do you really think "loaded" the term Cosmotheism, Dr. Pierce, or his political enemies? Think about it.-PV


It is doubtful that cosmotheism describes TdC's views. His views may be pantheistic, in which case that word would describe his views quite well. --BM 12:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, to the exact same extent that TdC's views are pantheistic they are equally cosmotheistic, as the two term are synomynous to each other, regardless of the pov and slanted view or spin or "too loaded" term "cosmotheism" by Dr. Pierce's political and racial enemies.-PV

[edit] Need to Add

H. G. Wells (he describes basic cosmotheist priciples in his book God the Invisible King and some references in his Outline of History (concerning the teachings of Siddhartha and Jesus Christ).

Also try to add Carl Jung, Vladimir Vernadsky and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin as possible candidates for the list.

[edit] REMOVALS

I just want a detailed explanation as to why my material is removed? Many of the things I put up their ARE related with eachother. I am not the "Wikipedia is NeoNazism" vandal, so I do not know why my stuff is removed, given that it is based on present analogies between the subjects I presented (particularly Carl Jung and Vernadsky). Can I have any feedback on this? 69.248.43.27 00:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of word

"Cosmotheism" is clearly an archaic term, as the Webster's Dictionary of 1913 can factually attest. So just how can any Modern Zionist[[8]] person then either invent or create this term, "Cosmotheism"? Curious. :D

"Cosmotheism" isn't archaic but modern, as has been established on other pages. Its more recent racist users desperately want to make it appear as though they're part of a long tradition, but they're not — they're just sad little people who've adopted a rather silly and pompous pseudo-religion to go with their silly pin-brained ideas about race.
I hope that that's NPoV enough for everyone? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a Modern version of Cosmotheism that isn't archaic but the term "Cosmotheism", itself, is clearly archaic, and as has been proven above by that reference to "Cosmotheism" that is in Webster's Dictionary of 1913. Clearly Mel, you are quite mistaken. http://www.bootlegbooks.com/Reference/Webster/data/348.html

You think that 1913 is archaic? Er, we really do live in different worlds. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Pretending that a Modern Zionist[[9]] either "invented" or "created" what is clearly an archaic term, "Cosmotheism", and which is the only and most accurate synonym for the actually more Modern term, "Pantheism", is factually neither any NPOV and nor is it even remotely factually accurate. Any unbiased and unbigoted person can do a Google or a Yahoo search for themselves and can discover what a POV liar and POV bigot this Editor Mel has been regarding this issue. http://www.bootlegbooks.com/Reference/Webster/data/348.html

[edit] ========================================================

What evidence is there that Mordecai Neshinyahu "created the term" Cosmotheism? I've found none at all. His book "cosmotheism, Israel, Zionism, Judaism, Humanity - Towards the 21st Century" was published by Poetica - Tuvi Sopher Publishing in 1997. I'm sure that the term was in use before 1997 and perhaps even before Mr. Neshinyahu was born. I will edit the page to draw attention to this error. signed "Oklahoma".

[edit] ========================================================

There is no evidence that Mordecai Neshinyahu "created the term", Cosmotheism, whatsoever. Even though the overwhelming evidence presented actually suggests quite otherwise, this has still not prevented the "Usual POV Suspects" from reverting it to say so. Just like the Official Holocaust Story Propaganda Industry. What else isn't new?

[edit] ========================================================

[edit] Semi-protection

As the page has been under constant attack by a string of anons, I've had to semi-protect it, as well as blocking all the anons who've been involved so far. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss the Issue

Mel Etitis, why don't you discuss the fact that the term Cosmotheism predates the publication of Mordecai Neshinyahy's book. Do you personally believe that he "created the term"? If so why? Do you have any evidence? The term Cosmotheism predates both Neshinyahu and Pierce. The statement "Neshinyahu created the term" is not true. Let's keep the credibility of Wikipedia in tact, let's be truthful about the creation of the term "Cosmotheism". registerd user "Oklahoma"

  1. Don't edit archives, as you did on my Talk page.
  2. You've been blocked for a week as an anonymous editor, so your new account should also be blocked. Given that you're actually Paul Vogel, I'll in fact block it permanently as a disruptive sock-puppet used to evade a year-long ban.
  3. Your claims about Mordecai Neshinyahy seem clearly to be a smokescreen. After trying repeatedly to turn this disambiguation page into a substitute article on Cosmotheism, when the original article had been deleted in line with an AfD, you started fiddling with the page to make a point. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are Wrong Again

1. Neshinyahy did not "create the term" Cosmotheism. 2. I am not Paul Vogel. 3. My calaims are not a "smokescreen" 4. I have not "repeatedly" tried to do anything, I edited the article one time. 5. You cannot prove that I am Paul Vogel or that I edited the article more than once, because neither are true.

I am interested in truth. Thank you, Oklahoma.

  1. I don't believe you.
  2. You haven't even bothered to look at the page. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm Not Paul Vogel

I'm not Vogel, regardless if you believe me or not. I have looked at the page. Ask Will Beback, or look at my message to him on his talk page. How could you possibly know if I've looked at the page. Your arrogant presumptions appear to be boundless, and perhaps endless. I'm waiting with anticipation for the next baseless claim you stick upon me.

Hold your breath. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That is right, he wasn't Paul Vogel, I am, and Mel the Dope is wrong yet again! LOL! :D What else isn't new?-PV http://www.cosmotheism.net and http://www.nationalvanguard.org

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/s/Talk%7ECosmotheism_6de5.html"