User:Andrevan/Archive3

This is my talk page. Leave a message. Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 i

Contents 1 It's not me 2 Wikifun 3 deleted 4 Alarm master plus? 5 wikifun 6 Star Control images 7 dispute 8 Re: {{pokeimage}} 9 IPU 10 White Tantrism 11 About Jesus 12 Thanks 13 Talk:atheism 13.1 amalek 13.1.1 correct meaning etymologically 13.1.2 Theology and logic 13.1.2.1 So that you know... 14 Thanks! 15 Atheism DR Closure 16 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SWAdair 17 moot court / mock trial 18 moot/mock 19 Infinite monkey theorem 20 Reply

[edit] It's not me

I'm not leaving Arlam Master Plus. So don't blame me.

[edit] Wikifun

hey there, do have any ideas for getting more exposure for this project? also any ideas concerning expansion? i would appreciate to have your input and help. wikipedia:Wikifun. --Larsie 21:18, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] deleted

I just deleted an old comment of mine that's irrelevant. --Hersch 00:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alarm master plus?

Heya,

I got a message from you about the subject, but I have nothing to do with it? I am on a dynamic IP though.

[edit] wikifun

forgive my ignorance but i didn't quite understand your message. how would i go about doing that? i've only been a wikipedian since september.--Larsie 18:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

thanks for the help i appreciate it --Larsie 21:21, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Star Control images

Are you sure that you've correctly noted the copyright status of all those images from The Ur-Quan Masters? My understanding is that it's only the code that's GPL, and that the artwork is still protected by copyright. --Paul A 05:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] dispute

there may be someone disputing your answer on Wikifun for the sun tzu question. do you want to check you answer? --Larsie 18:18, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: {{pokeimage}}

Can you please tell me how to? Thanks Andrevan from DBZPokeman

[edit] IPU

please read my recent version of the opening paragraph, I'm not trying to have a revert war, just trying to cover the Satirical Goddess issue, ie, a Satirical goddess is a goddess who uses satire (in one sense) as opposed to a '"goddess" invented as a satire', if you follow me... anyway, please, rather than reverting it, edit it to suit your view of the relevant issues, ok? thanks for your efforts.Pedant 19:30, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

[edit] White Tantrism

I am curious, why would you consider White tantrism a candidate for deletion? We haven't had time to write any meaningful article... AugustinMa 16:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] About Jesus

I think Jesus Christ is not primary for Jesus. I think it's primary for ONLY Christians. Added to this, this article is NOT neutrality. It must be changed. See Talk:JesusRantaro 16:38, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you very much for your vote for my adminship. I greatly appreciate your support. ffirehorse 23:38, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:atheism

Hey, sorry you got so stressed, that was not my intent. I'm not sure exactly why you felt I was being insulting, but that wasn't my purpose in saying what I did. I ment to express my position. IMO people like User:Adraeus are the problem, since they focus on ad hominem attacks rather than expressing either themselves, or generally respected sources.

You are right that I am militantly anti-atheist, but I don't mean to be rude or hurtful here, I want to make good encyclopedia entries. I'd appreciate if you explained what was so upsetting to you so that I might learn from the experience, but if you'd prefer not I can respect that, and again apologize for any distress I may have caused you. Sam [Spade] 19:46, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Certainly. Actually with feelings there is never any need for justification, only understanding (sorry, I'm a shrink ;). Anyhow, I was sincere in those accusations, I see a meta-issue here (bigger than the wiki) of atheists attempting to gobble up non-religious folks (like me), agnostics, the confused, etc... under their label, a label which I (and many others) find equivalent to Amalek or Satanist. I hope you can see how this might be worrisome. Sam [Spade] 20:02, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Its interesting that we agree on the central issue, that all views should be present in the article (presented neutrally I hope?). However we disagree about what a weak atheist is, as well as what "non-religious" means. I am a fundamentalist theist, with a close, personal relationship to God. But I am not religious, as I do not go to church, and am not easilly labeled by denomination (I like to call myself "interdenominational"). A conversation regarding my theology can be found under "God and gender" in my talk. Anyhow, are we (the two of us) agreed that all verifiable views should be presented neutrally on Atheism, and clarified as far as who agrees with them and why? Sam [Spade] 20:24, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I also don't agree w removing weak atheism, but it must be clarified that this term is not widely used outside of the community of those who call themselves "atheists", and that the term normally used is "agnostic", "non-religious", secular, etc... Oh, and I'm no deist, they think God is dead or absent, rather than immanent, omnipresent, imminent, etc...Sam [Spade] 20:34, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] amalek

Just to give you a hint of how many theists feel about the term "atheist", see Amalek#Rejection_of_God. i will also point out that the final battle lead by Christ in revelations is often described as being against Atheists by contemporary (and I assume historical) Christian preachers. Atheist is a very strong term, which (to me and many others) is synonymous with denying or rejecting God, Blaspheme of the holy spirit. I feel very strongly (hope at least) that very few people are accurately refered to by this term. Sam [Spade] 20:28, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well sure, the rejection of dogma and ritual is great, I may not go so far as iconoclasm myself, but that’s not the issue here. Atheism is not the rejection of the Church and its various ills, its nihilism, the rejection of God, existence, all that is good, etc... But back to the task at hand, are we agreed about the inclusion of all verifiable POV's in the atheism article? Sam [Spade] 20:40, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] correct meaning etymologically

IMO this goes too far towards taking a POV stand. I would say that etymologically, my definition would be more correct (esp. if were going by historical usage).

Oh, and thanks for the help w labeling me! Trying to label myself is actually a hobby of mine, Belief-O-Matic says I'm a Jain, Sikh or Hindu ;) Sam [Spade] 20:49, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

can you perhaps explain why you feel it is correct etymologically? I guess its a bit hard for me to understand. Sam [Spade] 20:59, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For me, "without theism" translates directly to "apart from God". Being apart from God is a decision, it cannot be done accidentally. God is always here; we must choose not to accept him. have you ever wondered why every culture on earth has God and/or gods? The concept is omnipresent, a Jungian symbol, inherent and instinctual to the human animal. 21:59, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Absoloutely not, I am an inclusionist, and insist that all verifiable POV be presented as such. Keep in mind that all of those asian systems of thought, while not requiring theism, were integrated with it. The more you learn about eastern philosophy, the more you discover how neatly it mixes w other ideas. Its very efficient. So is theism, Pascal listed many handy uses of theism (esp. organized religion). But I don't know God simply because it is useful, I deduced him as an obvious fact, the absolute infinite.

[edit] Theology and logic

Premises:

• I exist.
• I am conscious.
• There are things other than me, which are conscious.
• God = All.

I also happen to know God is conscious, since I have a personal relationship w him (this is an extra bonus not everybody has, or so I hear).

Since God is all, and imminent within all things, all things are alive and conscious to me. Its called Pantheism, Monism, Panentheism, Sanatana Dharma, lots of things, but it is in no way illogical or disprovable. Science is simply one way of reading Gods law. Anyhow, your right, this is off topic, but I wanted you to know that there are options, if you find "atheism" disatisfying (I thought I was an atheist once too ;) Sam [Spade] 23:29, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] So that you know...

I enjoyed our communication so much that I preserved a copy of it on my talk, I hope you don't mind. Thanks much for your thoughtful and polite nature, it is indeed refreshing. Sam [Spade] 18:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks a lot for the Barnstar! That was really nice of you. Jason One 22:01, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism DR Closure

I have posted a closing comment for the dispute resolution attempt on Talk:Atheism. I also posted a lengthy response to a comment left on my talk page by Adraeus on a sub-page located here: User talk:Skyler1534/DR. Since both involve you, I thought I would alert you to this so that you could take a look. Thank you for your participation in this dispute resolution. I am sorry it did not work out better. Skyler1534 13:35, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SWAdair

I've changed my vote, and as yours referenced mine, I thought you might want to refactor it. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:20, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] moot court / mock trial

In United States law schools there are two distinct extracurricular programs. Mock trial refers exclusively to trial advocacy competitions, that is, trying a case to a judge and/or jury. Moot court refers exclusively to appellate advocacy, that is prosecuting an appeal to an appellate court (composed only of judges), and never has a jury. Both programs require different skills, and they usually have different participants.

While I don’t disagree with you that moot and mock are synonyms (and ignoring the minor difference between trial and court), there is a significant difference between the two types of programs, at least at the law school level. As I have never been involved in high school programs, I don’t know how they operate those. Perhaps they should be addressed in a different section within one of the two entries

[edit] moot/mock

For practical purposes I don't much care if they are put together, as long as the distinction is clear. While probably irrelevant for non-lawyers/non-law students, the difference is quite important in law school; I got into some trouble after signing up for the wrong one. I would like to prevent that for others.

If combined, Mock trial is a better heading since practicing attorneys use mock trials, and moot court is pretty much reserved for educational settings (although I wouldn't put it past the legal support industry to offer it).

[edit] Infinite monkey theorem

The term "infinite monkey theorem" is a misnomer; the statement itself is not a misnomer. That's why the phrase "the infinite monkey theorem" was in italics: it was to conform to the Style Manual's convention that when writing about a word or phrase, rather than using the word or phrase to write about what it refers to, one italicizes it. I've put the italics back. Michael Hardy 19:52, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. To quote the Manual of Style, "Use bold italics in the first sentence only for terms that would be italicized even if they were not set in bold, for example, book titles (this does not mean only terms that are always italicized; whether a word or phrase is italicized or not depends on context)." Infinite monkey theorem is not normally italicized. Regardless, the word "The" should not be capitalized at all. Andre (talk) 19:56, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

It is not italicized when one is writing about the proposition itself. But when one writes about the phrase, rather than using the phrase to write about the proposition, then one should italicize. So this would be italicized even if it were not in bold, because saying it's a misnomer is a statement about the phrase rather than about the thing that the phrase refers to. Michael Hardy 20:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I replied @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Theology_and_logic. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 19:59, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Again, @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Theology_and_logic. Oh, and thanks for your vote on RfC/IZAK, I think incivility, flamming, etc... are a big problem here, and its nice to see the community take a stand on those issues. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 20:30, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reply @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Theology_and_logic, and I fixed up monism a bit. Sam [Spade] 20:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)