User talk:Lundse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

/Zeus69962 Dune discrepancy discussion A testament to my overblown confidence in logic and its ability to sway anyone if applied in large enough doses.

/Dune quotes A sample of quotes I have collected to prove my points about Dune.

/AH RfC

Contents

[edit] Mentat

Hey, thanks for the message. It's no problem. Semiprotection is really only for significant vandalism problems, but I decided to go ahead and use it for this article hoping that maybe a day or so of semiprotection would make them forget about it. Obviously that's not the case. Instead, I'm going to try blocking folks that keep adding the link. If that doesn't work, I may go back to semiprotection, but let's try this for a while. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A more personal message

Hello Lundse. I have taken the liberty of putting an "add new topic" link at the top of the page. With my rudimentary knowledge of wikicode that's the best I can do. You may prefer to delete it. Wikipedia can be rather bruising. I have had too many experiences of discussing things on a talk page, yielding on the main page to avoid an edit war and then finding that once the other editor has got his or her way he or she simply refuses to discuss further. Hence I prefer to avoid talk edits altogether and try to make my edit summaries do the job. This does make them elliptical. Pretending that I thought you hadn't read the Dune novels was a jest too far.--Stroika 15:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Accepted, I consider the matter worked out peacefully - for which I am of course glad. Have a good one. Lundse 06:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Aquirata

I am considering filing an WP:RfC against this user and wondered if you would participate. RfCs can be sort of a headache, but nothing is taming him. Beyond the obvious single-issue editing, POV-pushing, and talk page tie-ups (see WP:NPOV talk), what finally got to me was that today he placed a citation request beside the statement "astronomy is accepted as a science" on Astrology and astronomy. This struck me as stupid to the point of disruption. Marskell 11:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I requested a summary of your views as the matter is quite confusing to me right now. In general, I sympathize with trying to clean up a lot of the new age POV that litters this place, but I am (notoriously) willing to give anyone a chance to defend themself just that one more time... Lundse 12:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I have heard enough - I am in full support of an RfC after one last warning (I am giving mine now). Lundse 13:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dune discrepancies

I have responded, but maybe not in the way you would have preferred. Sorry, I'm a bit overwhelmed with work at the moment. Maybe can be more helpful in the future, but not in the present! RJCraig 21:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added a long comment to the talk page about how Herbert's themes in his other works regarding machine intelligence support our interpretation of the Butlerian Jihad. Justin Johnson 00:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, me again. It does look like I am going to have to issue a "reverse PJ Farmer call" to my Dune collection ("From Your Scattered Bookshelves Come!") and start looking these things up myself. Re the "Terminator scenario": isn't there something in God Emperor about Leto seeing (in a vision) killer machines closing in on the last humans, huddled in a cave? Or am I just imagining it. I will try to drag out the books and look for this myself, but I thought one of you might have better recall... RJCraig 01:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You did not dream it brother... I couldn't find that quote specifically but I did find an after-thought of it which is just as good... If you could find the actual vision that would be great.

  • However, this quote should suffice ;)

"You could have saved my friends in the forest," she accused. "You, too, could have saved them." She clenched her fists and pressed them against her temples while she glared at him. "But you know everything!" "Siona!" "Did I have to learn it that way?" she whispered. He remained silent, forcing her to answer the question for herself. She had to be made to recognize that his primary consciousness worked in a Fremen way and that, like the terrible machines of that apocalyptic vision, the predator could follow any creature who left tracks. "The Golden Path," she whispered. "I can feel it." Then, glaring at him. "It's so cruel!" "Survival has always been cruel." "They couldn't hide," she whispered."


Zeus69962 06:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this is the quote... Correct me if I am wrong... Either way, this quote should serve as the 'coup de grace'. You've all been worthy debating partners and although you were misguided (Partially, because that fan.alt.dune site I think), Your hearts were in the right place; devoted to Frank Herbert's memory. Kudos' all around!

and now, without further adieu, the quote:

  • "He saw the milky distances enter her eyes. Without asking permission, she tapped his front segment, demanding that he prepare the warm hammock of his flesh. He obeyed. She fitted herself to the gentle curve. By peering sharply downward, he could see her. Siona's eyes remained opened, but they no longer saw this place. She jerked abruptly and began to tremble like a small creature dying. He knew this experience, but could not change the smallest part of it. No ancestral presences would remain in her consciousness, but she would carry with her forever afterward the clear sights and sounds and smells. The seeking machines would be there, the smell of blood and entrails, the cowering humans in their burrows aware only that they could not escape . . . while all the time the mechanical movement approached, nearer and nearer and nearer ...louder...louder! Everywhere she searched, it would be the same. No escape anywhere."

Zeus69962 07:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's ado, fer Shai Hulud's sake: without further ado. Sheesh. RJCraig 17:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I must admit to having forgot that one - seems we do have definity proof that machines (and therefore also very possibly cyborgs) were used against humanity in the Butlerian Jihad.

This, however, does not change a single thing about my point, and makes me wonder if you ever understood what I eas trying to establish. My point has been all along about how and why the Butlerian Jihad started. In FH's universe, it was started by humans wanting to rid themselves of machines which were degrading their souls. That evil cyborgs started it against humanity is simply not a compatible explanation. I cannot for the life of me understand why they did not just stuff in all the cyborgs and supercomputers as a desperate countermeasure by the parts of humanity wanting to keep humanity, and then let it run amock - they could get all the torturous-computer-milage they wanted and it would not contradict FH's statements, points and themes.

I am of course still willing to hear any arguments talking about the start of the war, including some responses to my quotes about FH's view of it. Regards, Lundse 10:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Lundse, I don't agree with that (definite proof that machines were used against humanity in the BJ) at all. I really will pull out the books tonight when I get home and verify this, but I seem to remember that the quote refers to something Leto sees as still a possibility for the future if he does not achieve his goal (because the Ixians could very easily recreate the thinking machines and once again set the cycle in motion), not as something related to the historical Butlerian Jihad. Zeus thundereth too soon, methinks. RJCraig 11:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I found it, on page 374 (of 454), and it is a passage about looking both forwards and back. I think one could interpret it either way. Nevertheless, the point is not what kinds of weapons were used or whether autonomous robots did fight humans (which this does not actually prove), but how and why the Jihad started. Lundse 12:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If any good has come from this, it is that I once again have my Dune collection (at least on this side of the Big Water) all together in one place again! (Cheers, "Brother" Zeus!) I just spent a good half hour reading and rereading the preceding and following sections. I agree with your interpretation, Lundse; "ancestral presences" indicates awakened memories, to be sure, but the "terrible machines of the apocalyptic vision" (earlier quote above) must refer to a glimpse of the future.
This reminds me of a bit of old silliness on the (now defunct?) Genetic Memory page, something about people being afraid of heights because an ancestor had fallen to their death. Which is rather a no-brainer since dead people usually do not procreate after their demise. My point: No one in the no-escape situation Siona experiences is going to be passing on ancestral memories to anyone.
Actually, there is also a quote a little before the one above "which should suffice" that bears on your point about the reason for the Jihad. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader (at least until morning, after I check whether you have used it already). RJCraig 17:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Brother RJ... Have you read the Legends series? Our problem here is that Lundese and friends haven't... They think that what KJA & BH wrote was just a straight-forward battle - Humans against machines - but it wasn't that way... It was a group of humans who originally created Omnius... Initially, Omnius was enslaving the people only because of The Titans will... Thus, it was the Titans who were enslaving the people. As i've said before, the Titans were human so technically it was humans (with machines) enslaving humans... As Lundese likes to think, which is slightly correct... Then Omnius took control, yet he could not harm the Titans (due to programing slightly similar to Asimovs laws), although he could ignore them or keep them locked up if they rebelled. After he gained control, then and only then, did it become a machine VS human battle. After that, during the Battle of Corrin (but still during the BJ saga - The BJ is not only the first book but all three - The sections are little wars in the giant war - akin to The 100 year war), The Cult of Serena went around smashing remnants of anything that simulated machines. Some other humans disagreed with this and kept using computers in secret - The BG are a prime example - Frank himself alludes to this in the Original Saga. This was the philosophical part which you are arguing is the entire BJ.

Zeus69962 21:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Adelphos Zeus, no, I have not. I managed to get through all of The Butlerian Jihad and parts of The Battle of Corrin (both were spur of the moment, hope-springeth-eternal, pre-flight purchases, thus the The Machine Crusade gap), but I would that I still remained as unsullied as "Lundse [sic] and friends". I do not regard the scribblings of BH & KJA as canon, whatever arguments you may muster to the contrary, and thus see no need to read more.
(By the way, I'd like a citation for the use of computers by the BG, if you don't mind.)
Lundse, I don't know if you've cited this, but on p.371(/454) of my copy of GEoD I find this (Leto to Siona, re his journals and the Ixian machines that record them):
"...What do such machines really do? They increase the number of things we can do without thinking. Things we do without thinking--there's the real danger. ..."
To me, this supports your interpretation of the real reason or cause behind the BJ. RJCraig 01:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Greek! Hetairos, you should really finish the series... How can you hate someones work which you haven't finished. I concur that FH's work is better but that's not the issue... The issue is the claim about the "inconsistancies" - which do not exist.

Zeus69962 02:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Xene, have you never heard the saying, "Fool me once..."? The issue here may be inconsistancies, but the consideration for me is not wasting valuable time on less than acceptable writing, especially when there is no proof that the ideas contained are truly FH's.
(I am off work today, observance of the anniversary of our university's founding. What do you do in the real world [besides BH sycophancy] that you have such time for this?) RJCraig 03:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what Xene means but the question, mon frere, is how you have time for this... What I have proposed is correct and I will make the time that is needed in order to prove that point. I am the master of my own schedual and I have the good fortune to be in a position where I can change it on the drop of a dime... Back to the subject at hand, You say that it is less than acceptable then why make this encylopedia into a forum...? I implore you to remove the "inconsistancies" section because you are entering ininformed information as fact... As (good, honorable, or ___________) <-[fill in the blank with whatever your intentions are, if other... lol] as you may think your intentions are, it is actually hurting Frank's legacy and I will do whatever I can to correct that. In addition, BH & KJA do not deserve this, they have made a tremendous effort not to err and they have done a remarkable job at it. Yes, the story is not as great as Frank's but it is better than most of the crap that's out now... That though, is irrelivent, just like your initial remark about the quality... That's not the discussion, I allowed Lundese to keep that part on the Frank Herbert page... Although, even that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia... It's opinion not fact. My only qualm is with the "inconsistancies" which are not there and those who think so are only under that impression due to the fact that they are unable or unwilling to look into the books for the answers.

  • Je ne suis pas sûr si vous parlez le français, mais depuis que vous avez répondu à mon "coup de grâce" dans le français j'imagine que vous pouvez. J'ai cru que vous étiez sur mon côté... Vous ne pouvez pas voir la vérité? Cette citation devrait avoir prouvé que le BJ était comment BH, KJA et moi-même a dit cela soit. Pourquoi sont vous persistant dans la bagarre contre eux? Brian est le fils de Frank... Vous ne pensez pas qu'il n'ait pas dit "quel était le jihad de, mon pere?" ou "Papa, y avait-il des robots?" à la table de dîner... Plus, si vous regardez dans le glossaire à l'arrière du livre (Butlerian Jihad) vous pouvez voir des robots là. J'espère que ce shads un peu de lumière sur notre sujet mon copain. :) Souvenez-vous, Zeus fait le Tonnerre... Temps bons

Ha, ha, ha! Temps bons!!

Zeus69962 04:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Were it not out of place here and not my day off I would rail against the demise of classical education. Suffice it to say that I find it decidedly odd that you can wield hetairos yet not recognize the vocative of xenos. But at least you knew enough of the old father of the gods to usurp his name, and the Greek wasn't completely Greek to you!
I believe that thus far I have left the editing of articles to Lundse (Why do you persist in misspelling his user name?) and others and limited my edits to the talk pages; if these are not for discussion of article content, then what?
Until such time as Brian Herbert (or one of his heirs) publishes the original notes and other documents upon which the prequels and sequels are supposedly based, I for one will not accept these attempted extensions of the canon. As for the inconsistencies not being there, "none so blind", eh?
  • My French is only minimally productive, though I read it well enough. Why you should ever have believed me to be on your side is a mystery. BH, KJA and you agree on the BJ; that must be a comfort. I'm interested only in what FH thought. Yes, yes, and Jesus was the Son of God. What of it? In neither case is the son the father. (Ignoring all that Trinity nonsense, of course.) Is there perhaps some reference to some such touching dinner scene in Dreamer? Citing TBJ at me is rather pointless.
(Sorry, but I thought "shads" were wee fishies. A typo for sheds perhaps? GIGO. And thunder from a clear blue sky? Beware the Babelfish, mon vieux! The jabs that bite, the clause that catches!) RJCraig 11:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The principle of that was that Brian is Frank's son... Don't you think that he would have said "father, why did the BJ happen?" or "who were involved?" over dinner sometime or whatever... This isn't some Joe Blow off of the street... Moreover, Frank has done some work with him aside from that and had openly asked Brian to continue Dune... With or without the notes... The lost notes are not needed to see that this was Frank's intention... Any thought otherwise is just really speculative and unsubstanciated. On the subject about Xeno - are you talking about aliens. Zeus69962 21:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see my response on the disc. talk page - and Zeus, please stop misrepresenting me. What you write about my views is wrong, are you deliberately lying or have you still not understood what I am saying? Lundse 20:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you think that I misrepresented you. Obviously, you haven't made your opinion clear enough or i have misinterpreted you, which I doubt... I have not insulted you.. Still, you insult my views which are substanciated and insist upon "inconsistancies" that are not there as well as denying to see the truth even when I showed the proof... Your main point was that 'Frank would not have written about conscious robots' yet i brought the proof - past or future... Either way, it's all the future from the present time... He refered to the conscious robots as thinking machines, thus, why wouldn't the ones from the past be similar. You are just denying it because it doesn't fit in with what you think should happen... That's not fair to Frank, Brian, Kevin or any of the other fans... It's your opinion, and one that is really biased... Don't be biased... Open your eyes wide... The answers are there.

Zeus69962 21:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have written time and again my views - if you are unable to follow them, say so and let me explain again. Do not just make wild assumptions. You say:

"Your main point was that 'Frank would not have written about conscious robots' yet i brought the proof"

My main point (as I have stated) is that in FH's universe, the Jihad is started by humans in order to rid humanity of machines which they see as degrading their souls. How you get that to be 'Frank would not have written about conscious robots' is simply beyond me, how can this be a mistake? How are you ever going to convince anyone this was not done with malice?

I have never denied anything about conscious robots - I have asked you why they must of necesity also be murderous psychopaths, which you have never answered. I have no clue why you bring this up and I will not follow this line of discussion unless you show it to be relevant. What I will follow is your responses to the last paragraphs of my last comment on the disc. dune talk page - please start out with telling us what you think me view is, then what your is and then your arguments. That way, we can find out quickly if you do not get my point (here it is again: in FH's universe, the Jihad is started by humans in order to rid humanity of machines which they see as degrading their souls - this is incompatible with B&K's ideas where Titans start the events of the Jihad). Lundse 22:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Someone said that writing about robots was second rate or something and Frank would not write about that... If it wasn't you then I applogize.

What does this have to do with what my point was about the Jihad? Yes, I think the torturing robots are a horrible idea and obviously out of sync with the themes and feel of the originals - but I am arguing something else here (let me give you a hint: I mentioned it two times in my last asnwer and it has to do with the start of something). Lundse

As I've said before... Agamemnon and the Titans were all human and to some extent, still are. Thus, humans did create the machines... Moreover, the controling of humanity was the Titans plan initially, ergo, humans were enslaving humans... At the begining they weren't cyborg beings but enhanced (superhumans - for lack of a better word). Therefore, it is not incompatable, right?

Wrong. I get all this, you say it constantly, it does not matter. Please understand that you cannot keep arguing as if I have not told you this. What I am telling you is this: the enslavement FH talked about was not slavepens and torture, it was of the soul, an eating away of humanity's spirit. This is obvious from the quote and I have asked you to tell me how on earth you can find anything else in it.
Secondly, my point is that humans started the war against machines. This is blatantly incompatible with cyborgs starting it against humans - I cannot for the life of me see why you can keep up this absurd idea that as long as it was titans, that makes it all right. In FH's universe, it was humans, for humanity's sake doing it against the computers, ridding themselves of them. This was the motivation, the reason, how it started. Is this not getting through?
(I would put it, "against machines and their supporters/users" RJCraig 03:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

Forget the fact that you do not like the story; that's your opinion, others enjoy it and they have won several awards and accolades. Zeus69962 01:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, in your own words, explain what you think my interpretation is. I am not sure you understand it. Later on, we can move on to you telling me how you can possibly take the quotes I have found to mean anything else, but please, just tell me you have finally understood it. And please read my last comments at the disc. dune talk page. Lundse 02:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but you think that the BJ was a human (without technology) VS humans (with technology) and those without banished all forms of technology due to dependance... Is this your view? Zeus69962 04:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If by "due to dependence" you mean "because they saw the growing dependence of humanity upon mechanical devices and thinking as dangerous and ethically untenable", then yes. Now see my disc. dune talk page interpretations of the Leto II memory and tell me how you can see anything else in it, how FH could have meant anything else. Lundse 04:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not the way to do it... You're basing this around that your version is correct... I'm basing it around that BH & KJA's version is correct... The point here is to prove them wrong which you haven't done... Not me proving you wrong because if you can't prove KJA & BH wrong then you are wrong by default considering they have prima facie authority. My goal is not to prove you wrong... As I've said, your ideas can be incorporated into their additions. Your problem is that you are unwilling to accept their story, proven or not. That's ignorance my friend and it's not a good way to think :)

-Reach for the stars Zeus69962 18:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What? I simply do not understand what you are saying here.
What is "this" which I am basing on "my version being correct"? What is it you are basing on B&K's version being correct?
Not the way to do it? What do you think I am trying to do? What is wrong with my method?
I suspect you are trying to confuse the issue to get out of explaining/arguing against my point.
I am trying to establish what happened in FH universe and I maintain that it is that humans (not cyborgs or machines) started the war against the machine/machine users/possibly cyborgs. This is not compatible with cyborgs starting the war against humanity. Do you understand the difference between the war being a war of aggresion against humans (for power or other personal gain) and against machines (for ideological ends)?
See Talk:Discrepancies (Dune)#Request for Comment - discrepancy, at the end. I present there my viewpoint a quote with interpretatoin which you have yet to try to respond to. Lundse 18:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to do but you have to understand that Frank made those quotes about the "thinking machines" extremely vague... Yes you can see it with your philosophical points but the machines had to have been an intrigal part of the saga... In responce to your comments on the discussion page, I would like the answer them but they are sporatically around in different places and there are some by RJ and others... I can't find them all and I think you'll be angry if I miss any. Thus, can you move them or point out the specific ones which you want answered.

All the best Zeus69962 18:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Its here; Talk:Discrepancies (Dune)#My last explanation of my view

All the best -J...??? J(upiter), perhaps? Hmmm... RJCraig 00:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's another example of looking into something that's not there to begin with... lol... jokes... I pushed the wrong button... Or did I... (Insert Twilight Zone music--- doo, doo, doo, doo... doo, doo, doo, doo... dooodooodooodooodoodoodododododod... haha! ;)

Zeus69962 06:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sigh

This is one reason I was loathe to get into this in the first place; there's no reasoning with him, as his response to the radiated Earth evidence shows. RJCraig 05:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you file an RfC in these cases or should we just try "going ahead without him", reverting if necesarry? I did finally get him to repeat my view, so maybe he will be able to follow it now - I am looking forward to his responses to my Leto II memory quote in a sick, maschocistic way. Lundse 06:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the comment at the end of the preceding section is any indication, we've at least unhinged him enough to start him babbling. I guess that's something. RJCraig 08:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think he's trying to wear us down. And he seems now to have kicked into highgear "Defender of Truth" Knight-Errant mode.

Is there some way to contact you off-wiki? RJCraig 21:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you get my mail (otherwise, try mailing me through wiki as I did you). Lundse 02:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Yes, just drafting a reply now, as a matter of fact. RJCraig 02:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astrol intro.

Do you want to actually move the sentence something close to this? It's better as it has sources. Unfortunately, I let mr. anon take me to three reverts last night. Marskell 10:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


ShadowZach---Europa

Hey lundse its the guy who made that Europa article you critisized. Your message is understandable.. Its my first article and you talked about it in less then 30 minutes after I made it... I'm gonna try to update it, but you pretty much critisized a newborn article... but your comment is acceptable and less then an hour after I made an account but whatever. Tell me if you got this message.

[edit] Dune(but not Godfather)-related

Lundse, was there once a Dune timeline on Wikipedia, or am I thinking of another site?

Might one be a good addition?

RJCraig 08:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The one from the Dune Encyclopedia is online somewhere, I know. Other than that, I don't know. In the Dune Universe article, it might be alright, yeah. But should we have one or two (for the different universes) or should events only taking place in one or contradicting be noted as such? Lundse 11:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ideally one, with notes indicating the source of each entry, and leave the ferreting out of contradictions to the reader? Would emending the timeline from the Dune Encyclopedia constitute original research? RJCraig 11:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. It shouldn't - summarising something should be allowed (otherwise, we'd be in trouble). But maybe one should stick to the glossary in the back of Dune (at least as a start)? Lundse 12:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll have a look for the timeline from the encyclopedia and go through the glossary for events. RJCraig 08:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, me again. I've started the page and invited Zeus to help contribute re events in the BH & KJA books. RJCraig 13:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Use the Timeline created by Dr. Atila Torkos who is the Hungarian Translator for Dune and he is extremely knowledgable about the Dune Universe. It is pretty accurate.

http://sslx.orl.szote.u-szeged.hu/timelines/duchro.html

Bless the maker and his water Zeus69962 19:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Aquirata RfC

I have started the RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aquirata. What finally got to me was his refusal, after all our work, to track down sources of his own. Note, you may sign under "Users certifying the basis of this dispute" as you are one of the people cited as attempting to resolve it. Also feel free to add an "Outside comment". Don't give up on this ;). Marskell 08:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aquirata RfC

Well, on an RfC you may post what you think on the main page. I know his comment is fairly attackish, but it is allowed on the RfC page itself. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 23:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If he wishes to discuss with you, then yes, the talk page is where it happens. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 23:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: RFC request on Andrew Homer

I'm guessing you sent me that as I've just given a npa warning. I'm not sure how much I can help with the RFC, as I haven't really been following this case. However, if blatant personal attacks continue from that user I don't think I'll have a problem issuing a block. Petros471 10:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I did. Looking at the User talk:Lundse/AH RfC as it stands now, what do you think (my first time, I am nervous about screwing this up). Lundse 10:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess it's ok (I say guess, because I've never taken anything to RFC myself, although I've read plenty of them, and contributed to some), except you need to provide some diffs for evidence of having tried and failed to solve the dispute. If you want me to comment further please could you let me know on my talk (so I can see new messages note!). Cheers, Petros471 19:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Where are you at with this Lundse? Your case is not an isolated incident, so I hope that you follow through on this RFC. --Chris Brennan 04:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I will finish it, although I am without my own internet right now - sorry for the wait. Lundse 09:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Onwards and upwards

I have taken the rather bold step of simply nominating Objective validity for deletion. See here if you'd like to comment. There is a good chance people will opt for keep but if it is deleted the bloody headache will be done with in a swoop. Marskell 16:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where have you been?

:) Marskell 14:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Long story, my absence is in no way an acceptance of changes made at watched pages (I'm looking at you, Dune Universe). Long story, really, lets call it 'personal reasons'. The Andrew Homer affair got a small update, I'll check now if he is still keeping the personal attacks under control...

Hi. There finally came a point when I had to ask myself if it was really worth the time and effort to keep fighting over the Dune pages. I decided it wasn't. Sorry. RJCraig 14:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Same here, although I might be back someday - and might call on you for a short comment along the lines of "we tried this before, lundse is not the only one with this view, etc." But I understand perfectly, meatspace gets in the way... Lundse 13:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Paranormal Collaboration

Hi, I'm leaving you this message because I noticed you are interested in Wikipedia:Wikiproject Paranormal. We're currently starting a new project which we need the help of our members in, the WikiProject Paranormal Collaboration of the Month. This is an initiative where we can identify articles that need work (especially high-traffic pages), and get the whole project involved with their improvement. Currently, we are in the process of voting for our first collaboration. We'd appreciate it if you'd stop by, vote, and add any articles you may think may be appropriate for the project. Also, you may wish to add the Collaboration page to your watchlist to observe future collaborations. If you'd like, we've also created a category to collect articles covered by our project as a reference, if it helps. So, thank you for your interest, and happy editing! --InShaneee 16:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Homer discussion per Jan. 2006

Since serious Astrologers study psychology, our psychologist hero, Carl Jung (whose research validated the synastry of couples) used the term "synchronicity." If you bothered to study the history of science, you'd know that each major discovery in physics or astronomy gets CLOSER to an explanation as to how Astrology works. If you bother to read about "hyper dimensional space," (aka hyperspace) you would not have a problem with the term "correlation." We cannot have a "clearly defined theory of the connection between celestial movements and everything else" until the research equipment used by physicists improves. Fortunately, the U.S. Patent Office is still open for business. Andrew Homer 11:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, my curiosity got the better of me: Andrew, could you give me an example of a "major discovery in physics or astronomy" which explains how astrology works and how it does this? A reference to an article or previous post would be equally appreciated, but bear in mind its the how I am interested in. Thanks. Lundse 20:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I love folk repeating their lame debunking that they already used before. You lost your arguemnts before - it was only your power of relentless censorship that had you delude yourself that your arguements before were of consequence. I know Wikipedia moderators aren't required to have a working knowledge on the topics they're monitoring, but in your science courses in Scandinavia you never learned that "attraction" replaced "gravity"? So, that the celestial influences of the outer planets of the solar system upon Earth are better explained by "the law of attraction" rather than by "the law of gravity"? You flatter yourself pretending that it's just because of your "curiosity" which justifies your ceaseless pseudo-sceptic attacks. You've proved that you aren't any better informed now than you were a year ago. After this post I'm not wasting any more responses upon you. Just re-read my posts from months ago. Unless you've censored them. Andrew Homer 05:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Andrew, I will ask you to stop making personal attacks. Calling me lame, etc. will not result in anyway believing your claims that I censored you, that you already explained, etc. - if anything, it will make people believe you do not have the info I asked for.
About attraction, then no, I have not heard that it has superceded gravity. How is it different from gravity? Is there an article you could point me to? Does it work within Newtonian physics, Einsteinian spacetime or something different? Is it anyone of those mentioned in the gravity article here Gravity#Alternative_theories?
And more importantly, how does it help validate astrology? As before, I would be more than happy with a pointer to an article on any of these matters, or to a previous post of yours which addresses these points.
Also, I'd like to know how my questions are attacks... Lundse 00:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to pursue the somewhat tangential discussion with Andrew Homer on the Talk:Astrology page. It is increasingly to be suspected that Mr. Homer either does not know of what he speaks or that he is refusing outright to speak or work with other editors. Either way it is to be lamented, but it does offer some hope at least as far as reducing his credibility limits his potential to cause harm, and provides evidence of his, ah, intractability in the event (as seems likely) that further measures will need to be taken to correct his behavior. Tenebrous 10:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It is beginning to feel a bit futile, I must admit. Homer makes a lot of, well, huge claims (averting nuclear war was one) and I just wanted to see if he was willing to defend one of them - and I find the belief in astrology, et al interesting. I do suspect, however, that he will not go into his actual arguments, but let's see...
But I'll try to keep it short, it is really more than somewhat tangential :-) Lundse 11:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Tangential this. Why do you take marching orders from Tenebrous? Why does he want you to do his dirty work for him? Are you on his payroll? You 2 need to get a life. Since I have a life, I'm too busy to humor you. Curious that you 2 don't bother to actually study the topic of Astrology, but you have plenty of time to harrass those of us who do. I added more books onto http://www.AndrewHomer.Com/Zox.html regarding hyperdimensional space since you claim you have such difficulty finding material on the issue. Andrew Homer 12:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't quite follow you - why do you think I "take marching orders" from T. because we agree? And why is it that we cannot have a life while agreeing (and not agreeing with you)?
Before I will start studying astrology, I would have to see just one single argument that there is something to it. But since you are unwilling to actually argue your claims I don't think you will be the one to convince me.
I am more than willing to be proven wrong, though. Please let me know when you formulate your arguments for why hyperdimensional space helps astrology and why "normal" science cannot explain it. Until you have such arguments or a link to them, I don't think we have anything to discuss... Lundse 13:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hej då!

Are you back, then? --SandChigger 11:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really, I don't have the time - just got curious, I guess. But if there is something you'd like a pair of extra eyes on, a comment or something to that effect then I'll gladly do what I have time for. The problem is that if I start working on the Dune articles, I will get too frustrated - there is simply too many people editing who seem to think that the prequels are canon by default and who did not understand enough of the originals to see the discrepancies. Maybe someday... Lundse 14:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh well. I'll keep that offer in mind, if you don't mind! :) The current crop of "Prequelites" are much more reasonable IMO. I'm not happy with all the changes, but until The Notes or something else is published, there's a limit to what can be done under Wikipedia standards. I prefer to believe that the truth—whatever it is—will come out in the end...whether I'm still around to see it or not!
At the very least, Zeus appears to have left the field. A wee critter, I have learned to be content with small things. ;) --SandChigger 21:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
OH MY EYES, MY EYES!
(Sorry...kibitzing on someone else's conversation ^^^, as usual.) --SandChigger 19:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/u/n/User_talk%7ELundse_a20d.html"