User talk:Doc glasgow/Aug-Sep05

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

This is an archive, talk to me at User talk:Doc glasgow

Contents

The -Ril- deal

I honestly believe every word I wrote there, as well as in my most recent edit of his talk page. I don't regard him in the same light in which I regard Sam nor am I quite ready to yet dismiss him as Everyking Jr. as others have long since done. My only problem with volunteering to be his sole mentor, is that if I were his only mentor, I'd be opening myself up to possible recriminations if he should get excessively upset with my opposition to any of his several edits. That's why I want (1) for there to be at least 3 mentors and (2) for him to agree by so little as a 50%=majority vote of mentors that he should chill out, if need be. I think his edits demonstrate that he's knowledgeable on the one hand, but cantankerous on the other. "Knowledgeable", however, has never been the problem, it's always been the "cantankerous" that's been the problem, and if he'll agree to a 3-month mentorship, and to abide by its rules, I think "temperance" can be learned. Pray it's not a case of wish in one hand... Tomer TALK 12:07, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a believer in redemption, but sometimes it takes great faith. --Doc (?) 14:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Cannot as logical impossibility

"Cannot" may mean practical impossibility as well as logical impossibility. "I cannot go the beach today, for I will be fired." If a jew accepts the divinity of Christ, or the unique and final authority of Mohammed, he becomes a christian or a muslim and ceases to be a member of Judaism as that term is normally understood. As has been often pointed out, "Messianic Judaism" is a form of Christianity that continues to observe the Ceremonial Law. Calling it Judaism is misleading. I am not sure what problem you saw: perhaps I should have said, "Cannot accept the claims ... and remain Judaism?" Robert A West 14:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


Hi, I think 'cannot' would be POV - although doubtless a vast majority POV. (As a Trinitarian Christian, I may think that calling Jehovah's witnesses or LDS 'Christian' is misleading - and most Christian theologians would agree - but since LDS and JW's call themselves Christians, it would be POV in an encyclopedia to say they cannot be). Most Jews do not regard Messianic Christianity as Judaism (fact). That it is not, or cannot be, Judaism is opinion, and one not held by Messianic Jews themselves. This does not only concern the (small) Messianic Jewish communities today, many early Christians were Jewish, many were Torah-observant, and some regarded Jesus as divine. I think it is sufficient to say that 'overwhelmingly Jews reject the divinity of Jesus', rather than to say they 'cannot accept it'. The exceptions may be marginal, but they dispove the rule (whether logical or practical). --Doc (?) 14:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...I am reminded of C.S. Lewis's comment on the expansive use of the term, "Christian" to include those who espouse many Christian principles while denying the divinity of Christ: "[It] is broad-minded, modern ... in fact has every amiable trait except that of being useful." The current phrasing is fine, but it gets difficult to say meaningful things on this subject if one cannot make the common-sense semantic trifurcation:

Robert A West 19:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Except, Paul said 'I am a Jew' Acts 15:29 - life is never quite as simple as you think. --Doc (?) 20:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

You cite out of context: that was an ethnic statement in direct response to a question. "Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers? But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people." In any case, the situation was far different then: had the jewish authorities decided to accept the Christian claim, then the word Judaism would mean something much different than it does, and "Christian" might not even be a word outside of discussing classical antiquity. Robert A West 23:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

No, to see Christianity and Judaism as always seperate religions is simply an anachronism. Neither were, nor are, monolithic entities anyway (scholars speak of 'Judaisms' in the first century CE. Most NT scholars would agree that Paul always considered himself a Jew - he (voluntarily) subjected himself to synagoge discipline. And there were many more devout Torah-observant Christians than Paul (Acts has the disciples worshiping in the Temple - and other more rigorous Christians insisting that gentile believers become circumsised). The 'parting of the ways' between Judaism and Christianity was in many places slow and gradual. Well into the third century, there were still groups of 'Jewish Christians'. --Doc (?) 23:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Aincent Irish peoples

Hi Doc, no I don't. I wish to outline to people the many different groups of people who lived in Pagan and Early Christian Ireland, not all of whom claimed Gaelic or Irish descent. Cheers. Fergananim 11th August 2005

Thanks

I appreciate your open mindedness and realization of what is being talked about here. You're quite possibly the only one who gets it. I've changed my opinion on the VfD though, because the fact that you are the only one just proves Wikipedia isn't about free speech, but just the right kind of free speech. Anyway though, I wish the world had more people of your calibre in it. Agriculture 08:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Josephus

I have no particular desire to inject myself into this quarrel, but find some of the name space a little bizarre. Great Jewish Revolt is about as unfamiliar as it gets, while Jewish War, is probably the principal English term for the war, but this redirects to a mangled title for Josephus's actual work, which had no reference whatsoever to the Jewish War article. I had to do a brusque rewrite just to disambig it from Antiquities of the Jews. The main translation is the Pelican paperback and it is titled The Jewish War. I have seen worse areas (The Balkan wars tend to take the cake; look at Cucuteni culture for an example), where title outranks content, and any content whatsoever in seems to be offensive to everyone.--FourthAve 19:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Is their a quarel? If there is, I'm ignorant of it - and until you raised the question, I had expressed no opinion. However, Great Jewish Revolt did always strike me as unusual (I didn't put it into the text) - I've always known the 66-73 war simply as the 'Jewish War' (or the first Jewish revolt)- but I'm not sure how Jewish history names it. What I'll do right now is change Jewish War from a redirect to Josephus' work to a disambig page. I'll post a note on Great Jewish Revolt's talk inviting comments on it's name - and invite the project Judaism folk to comment. We can see what consensus emerges. How does that sound to you? --Doc (?) 20:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Apocrypha, Deuterocanonical works and Pseudepigraphia

You seem to be the soul of reason in a region racked with sectarian strife. Anyway. You might look at Talk:Deuterocanonical books, Talk:Apocrypha and Pseudepigraphy. All three articles need to be clarified, and there is a dumb proposal to merge Apocrypha and Deuterocanonical books. I've tried to clean up the one on pseudepigraphia but it's been so long since I studied these things. --FourthAve 00:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm biting off your head

You aren't one of the Wikipedians who made me decide to leave. Agriculture 00:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikinerd

I've already speedied his silly vandalism, so I've removed it from CFD. Thanks for the swift response though. Radiant_>|< 10:18, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

OK - next time I'll think to tag for speedy --Doc (?) 10:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Alberto Martin

Not a big deal. I think about half of all administrators would speedy delete that one to avoid the paperwork. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Teamwork

I was actually commenting quietly that if a few people nominated these articles, each perhaps a day after the other, then it is generally recieved better by the community. - brenneman(t)(c) 14:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, slow on the uptake, I thought you were gently ticking me off. I take your point - I'll watch the VfD and if the result is other than 'keep', perhaps I'll nominate the other two and sugggest the same outcome should apply. But, if all are keep - I'd live with that. --Doc (?) 14:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Authentic Matthew

This was subjected to three VfDs, and the result was no consensus, so it should be kept. "Being bold" doesn't extend to unilaterally deleting it and making it a redirect. Given the problems concerning the article, that's hardly likely to stop the arguments, and is very likely to spark more fevered argument. I've protected the article in attempt to let things cool down a little. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Mel, if I'm out of order, I'm ready to apologise. But my action was hardly unilateral. The 'keep no consensus' debate had many keep voters who were suggesting 'merge' (and everything had been merged) or 'rename' - i.e. were unhappy with an article here by this name. Further, if you check the talk page, you will see a fairly extensive debate, in the wake of the vote (and -Ril-'s stupidity), and over a number of days, concerning the possibility of a redirect. A number of people contributed with different ideas - but all were in favour of redirection - and not one for keeping the article as it stood. My action was not unilateral, nor hasty - quite the reverse.

I might add, your protection is highly questionable. There is no revert war here. I redirected two weeks ago - and no-one challenged it. Now one editor, User:Melissadolbeer, has unilateraly reverted it - without any discussion or seeking any concensus - and you have protected her position. I noted her revert some hours ago - but I did not revert it. I was waiting to see what others might say.

I'm not going to enter into a unilateral slug-fest with User:Melissadolbeer - so unless you think others might, please reconsider your action. --Doc (?) 09:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I've replied on the Talk page of the article; I'm afraid that, try as I might, read it as carefully and as often as I can, I can't see on the Talk page what you claim to be there. I should add that I don't take you to have acted in bad faith or maliciously; I just think that it was a mistake --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
That may be because Melissadolbeer also, earlier today, deleted half the talk page [1]. --Ron. 13:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Doc, you have been named as one of the alledged "group" at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ril Group-New Violation-Authentic Matthew --Ron. 14:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but btw Ron/-Ril- buzz off (or at least get yourself a sock that's not so bloody obvious). Your presence can do nothing but help Melissadolbeer's cause! --Doc (?) 14:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

More Authentic Matthew

I haven't been involved in this one yet. Is there some way I can help? --Peter Kirby 10:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I got your message. One suggestion is to figure out the exact Latin used by Jerome and use that for a title. That way, there is no POV implication that this is the authentic Gospel of Matthew being described by the patristic writers. Then, limit the article to describing the references to this text in the Church Fathers and any rational deduction from them offered by scholars. Alternatively, of course, just redirect to Gospel of Matthew. --Peter Kirby 15:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I found the Latin text here. "In evangelio quo utuntur Nazaraeni et Ebionitae, quod nuper in Graecum de Hebraeo sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum, homo iste qui aridam habet manum caementarius scribitur istius modi vocibus auxilium precans: Caementarius eram, manibus victum quaeritans. precor te, Iesu, ut mihi restituas sanitatem, ne turpiter mendicem cibos." Translation: "In the gospel which the Nazoraeans and Ebionites use, which we recently translated from Hebrew speech into Greek, and which is called by many the authentic [gospel] of Matthew, this man who has the dry hand is written to be a mason, praying for help with words of this kind: I was a mason, seeking a livelihood with my hands. I pray, Jesus, that you restore health to me, lest I disgracefully beg food." This text is commonly known by scholars as the "Gospel of the Hebrews" (evangelium quod Hebraeorum in Jerome, On Isaiah, preface to book 18 and Jerome, on Isaiah 4, commentary on Isaiah 11:2; Hebraico evangelio secundum Matthaeum in Jerome, commentary on Psalm 135; evangelio quod iuxta Hebraeos scriptum in On Isaiah 11, commentary on Isaiah 40:9; evangelio quod appellatur secundum Hebraeos in On Matthew 1, commentary on Matthew 6:11; Evangelium quod appellatur secundum Hebraeos in On Famous Men 2). My first preference is to merge this page with Gospel of the Hebrews. My second preference is to rename it Matthaei authenticum, but that is a compromise proposal, since Gospel of the Hebrews is the term used in English-language scholarship. --Peter Kirby 07:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have posted a proposal for discussion on Talk:Authentic Matthew. --Peter Kirby 09:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a wikimiracle! Consensus at last. Please keep the momentum going and critically review my draft when I finish it. Will notify again at that time. --Peter Kirby 00:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews (about the page here) and offer your comments. --Peter Kirby 20:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

VFD

Thanks for your note. I've created the appropriate entry now. - Jakew 16:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Good Faith

We read what you wrote. Poorman and I also have written things in haste of which we repent. You have set the good example which we intend to follow!--Poorman and Melissadolbeer 08:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


Authentic Matthew

Sheesh, sorry to clog your talk page with this. So, got your message from two days ago, I've been away for a few days. Just wondering, what is the current status of the thing? Have any more Rils shown up, and how are the Melissas? Mainly, is there progress? Dmcdevit·t 06:20, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well that's impressive. A good job all around. Dmcdevit·t 15:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Halfhide

My bad, fixed now. Please see Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion for details. Radiant_>|< 14:00, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Scimitar's RfA

A friend of Zaphod's is a friend of mine. . . and thanks for supporting my RfA.--Scimitar parley 15:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Gender roles in Islam

I wonder, if it would not be too much trouble, if you might point out what parts of Gender roles in Islam need sources and to be cleaned-up? I would have thought that it was one of the most thoroughly sourced articles in Wikipedia and I have opinions about the level of English too. It would be very nice, in my opinion and it is nothing more than that, if you would reconsider the tags you have added. Lao Wai 20:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Amarna Letters EA 19(Tushratta)

I'm processing this VfD. I came across a suggestion from you that the article should be deleted because, you thought, it would still be visible to admins. Well that's partially true. Deleted articles go to an archive table where they're visible to us from the article history, but this table's contents are periodically scrubbed, so it isn't to be regarded as secure storage of any kind. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

  • "periodically" in this context meaning less than once per year. Given the fast pace of a wiki it is safe to assume that deleted articles can be read in the forseeable future, or restored if need be. Radiant_>|< 09:59, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • If the material doesn't belong here, (which seem to be the consensus) normally it should be deleted. But there seemed a possibility thst the author hadn't saved his considerable work elsewhere. Since userfy wasn't an option for an anon, I simply was pointing out that the work wouldn't be totally lost if deleted. I didn't know about scrubbing but, if the anon hasn't made contact in a year, it would seem likely that he did have a copy elsewhere, or that it wasn't important to him. I'd want to be sensitive to someone's hard work, but frankly there are limits for non-responsive anons. In the end, this isn't my field, and I've not got any strong feelings here. I'll leve you guys to fight it out. --Doc (?) 12:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I won't fight with Radiant, but he has his facts wrong. There are other ways of handling deletion and I think I will take the option here. Thanks for clarification. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute: spiritual abuse

Hi, Doc. Can you explain your reasons for disputing the neutrality of the Spiritual abuse article? Simply reporting a point-of-view does not make an article non-neutral. Cheers. David L Rattigan 0848 30 August 2005 GMT

When you report a point-of-view as a fact, and don't attribute it to anyone, or give alternative points of view, then that is not neutral, particularly on an issue which is contraversial and full of accusations. --Doc (?) 08:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

(I've explained on the talk page - which granted I should have done at the time.)

HRG's cat

I posted a keep vote, that may or may not interest you in seeing. I essentially gave online references in different forums(3 or 4) and then compared it to other articles. Falphin 01:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

More Christian mythology

Your comments on the current discussion in Category talk:Christian mythology/Proposed compromises#A_new_suggestion would be much appreciated. Thanks. JHCC (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Laodicea on the Lycus

I moved it thinking the odds were that the move would be uncontroversial. I have discussed the matter, possibly at excessive length on its talk page. Briefly, I think that the Phrygian Laodicea should be disambiguated from Laodicea; and I have argued that, if it is, the standard English way to do so is the present name. Anything else will involve unnecessary piping, although they will be useful redirects.

Let me know what you think. Septentrionalis 15:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that, as I said, I'm not neccessarily disagreeing with you. --Doc (?) 16:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

VfDs

Oh sorry about that, I often clear out entire days of VfD and sometimes I miss something. Thanks for the heads up :) Redwolf24 (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

"Gag on my Cock" and alexa

It looks to me like that article will be deleted, and no huge loss I suppose. However I do think your Alexa argument is spurious. I searched painstakingly through the Alexa Global Top 500, and while I did find some (very few) porn sites, the vast majority of the sites I found were search engines and portals with no pornographic function at all. Although your argument sounds plausible, it just doesn't seem to have the facts on its side. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm not going to fight you over this one - you may well be right. I'm afraid I don't have the stomach to do the research, so I'll take your word for it. However, the site certainly isn't going to be in the top 10's, or perhaps even top 100's of its kind - and that's nn enough for me. Because 'Google is God' so much around here, I think there is an inherent danger that notability is ascribed to internet stuff that would be denied to others (would we allow a plumbing firm with the same financial turnover as this porn site?). Websites come and go, and most will almost certainly be forgotton soon. Little more could be said than 'is a porn site of x type and has y amount of hits' - who cares? And who'd search WP for info - when you can just google 100 porn sites? I abstain on schools, but I'm more convinced by the notability of even the smallest school - it's there for a while, it has a distinctive history and community impact. If it were up to be, I'd have one article for porn sites - with perhaps others for the 10 most influential. Anyway, as I say, I'm not going to dispute this with you. --Doc (?) 14:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Queenstown Baptist Church

If you re-write this entry it will be a good job. However, I feel the initial author of an article should stand up for it when it comes up for VfD, and I'm just not sure about the relative importance of this church. According to the article on Singapore, Christianity is practiced by 15 % of the population, most of those are of Chinese extraction - that's why it's not that surprising that services are held in Mandarin and Cantonese. And a Baptist church founded in the 1950s is not quite like the Ahmadiyya Mosque in Berlin. Pilatus 17:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

You are, of course, quite correct. Although a church in a nation which has 15% Christianity is more notable than on in the west. I guess my response was frustration with a system that keep elementary schools, and porn-sites and deletes Churches. The article is awful POV anyway. --Doc (?) 21:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Standards for inclusion in Wikipedia are strange. Personally, I'd say that metro systems are major feats of civil engineering, and in that context even Cockfosters tube station has its legit place. Now schools (and churches) are important to those that belong to them, and by default they should be out. It doesn't help that some editors push the enclusion of every trite school schub. A particularly charming diff is this: [2] Pilatus 20:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not arguing 'keep every church', far from it. But I think that any reasonable bar that might be set for churches would be met by Christian City Church, Oxford Falls although perhaps not Queenstown Baptist Church. If this is deleted then we are close to saying 'delete all churches'. I've given more detailed arguments on your talk page. (And I do think that it is possible to have this debate without the nastiness of the schools one) --Doc (?) 20:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Punch Records

You removed the 'vfd' tag from Punch Records., saying removing VFD, since not completed - if anyone wants to Vfd this, please follow proceedure. Please explain - I thought I had already followed the procedure correctly. Andy Mabbett 19:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

You didn't list it on AFD/VFD - I've replied on your talk page--Doc (?) 22:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Strategiance VfD

You added "completing VfD" to the Strategiance VfD, but the article is still there, complete with VfD tag. Aren't you forgetting something? Note that the vote to delete is unanimous. (And why can't I find you on Wikipedia:List of administrators?) --IByte 11:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a bad choice of wording on my part - by completing I meant 'completing the nomination process' so folk can vote. The nominator had not listed the nomination on the afd page. You can't find me because I'm not an admin – I don’t think you don't have to be to complete nominations. Sorry if I've caused confusion. --Doc (?) 11:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Then I suppose you don't mind if I change your message to something less confusing. Perhaps it's a good idea to use a style like this for further 'completions'? --IByte 11:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
No that's much better - again sorry for the confusion - I'll use something like that from now on --Doc (?) 14:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Serbian culture

I am progressively improving this article from the stub when it was nominated on Sunday. Thus far, I have added sections on literature, music, visual arts, theatre and cinema with more to come in coming days. I may or may not have this completed by the end of the week but I am telling you now in case I don't. Anyway, I would be grateful if you could have a look at progress this far. Capitalistroadster 06:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't actually voted on this - but in light of your excellent re-write, happy to vote keep. --Doc (?) 07:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hanging chads AfDs

I noticed that you're doing a great job linking hanging AfDs to the AfD page. How are you going about this? Are you simply looking at the category and then checking manually, or do you have some sooper sekret method? --GraemeL (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, no, I've just been going through Category:Pages on votes for deletion - since new nominations are now afd's and not in this category, most of those in this category had a problem (or else they'd have been processed and de-categorised). I generally removed tags where no nomination page had been created, and listed nomination pages (where the nomination was sensible - or some debate had already occured). The only thing I wasn't sure about was what to do with seemingly pointless incomplete nominations which had pages. I didn't want to de-tab as that would leave an orphan nomination page - but I was reluctant to list what would have resulted in a 'speedy keep'. I suppose an admin might just delete the unlisted nomination - but I have just left them. Any ideas? --Doc (?) 22:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, to ansswer the question, if 'what links here' does not lead to a VfD/Afd log page - you know it has not been listed. Although in practice many incomplete nomination pages have no linkable header - so that's a giveaway. --Doc (?) 22:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the rollback, Doc

It's much appreciated. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

70.27.200.35

No problem, I'm glad to help. With a vandal like that please feel free to contact one of us admins on our talk page or add it to WP:AIV. You should get help relatively quickly. --Canderson7 23:51, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Trackster

Looks like you correct that I missed this when processing Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mytrackster. I have corrected my mistake. --Allen3 talk 01:11, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Myths and Yourths

I'm not really disputing a point, you know. I am trying to clarify a fact. I'm saying that there cannot really be two views on the issue I was trying to address - a point that seemed at many points to get lost in the dictionary flim-flamry. If anyone argued that "mythology" sometimes means "literal history", they would not be using words correctly. What we have said is that "myth can be used without prejudice to historicity" - that is, it considers narratives without regard to historicity. I'm sorry to have gotten your goat - perhaps I miscalculated the importance of the observation, or made my point badly - but it seemed to me that certain things were made very confusing in the course of that long discussion. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, but I think you are setting up a straw man - no-one as far as I can see was arguing myth means literal history - if the were they'd patently be wrong. As to the rest, there are two views on myth. Anyway, I posted at 2am here (always a bad idea) and was tired and irritable, so sorry if I was hard on you. But I simply want us to 'move on', agree to differ, without anyone needing to have the last word. I sense a compromise is possible, so let's go for it - and leave the other issue marked as 'contentious and to be avoided'. --Doc (?) 09:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't hit me - I'm not arguing ;-)
I thought that Codex was being beat up for trying to point out the negative aspect of choosing this word to describe the narratives of the Bible. He wasn't quite putting his finger on it, but each time he tried to point out that mythology was not the right word for expressing what Christianity has taught about the Transfiguration, or the Resurrection (etc.), he was slammed with direct attacks ridiculing him for not knowing how to read the dictionary - or alternatingly, abused for pretending that beliefs have anything to do with a dictionary (only unbeliefs are neutral, it seems). I just wanted to clean up after all that confusion. Codex was repeatedly pointing out that "myth" never means "literal history" (but he was saying "myth always means 'false'" - an imprecision for which he was repeatedly being slammed).
At any rate, I do think that we're close to a settlement, and that we have left behind a very substantial discussion, which will be a useful historical reference as we move ahead. I'm grateful that you have been part of it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I don't hit, I try not to bite, and I don't like to see anyone getting slammed. Fortunately, most of the debate has actualy been constructive. --Doc (?) 16:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/o/c/User_talk%7EDoc_glasgow_Aug-Sep05_4cd2.html"