User talk:Antireconciler/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Thanks for your message about ACIM on Wikisource 2 Hi! 2.1 What should we do sketchy claims in ACIM articles? 3 By the way, somebody struck your vote in that AfD 4 Thanks for your note about "cult" 5 you wrote 6 The Course in Miracles diplomacy award 7 lol, oh me oh my. 2 stars in one day. 8 opinion requested 9 Reshaping Course-related articles 10 Charles Buell Anderson 11 ACIM 12 ACIM (con't) 13 Thank you 14 Well Deserved 15 ACIM 2 16 ACIM 3 17 EA 18 Your Main Page 19 What is A Course in Miracles? 20 A little help 21 Smile 22 Prometheanism

[edit] Thanks for your message about ACIM on Wikisource

Thanks for your recent comment regarding ACIM on Wikisource. A followup comment/ reply to your comment has been posted at my discussion page.

-Scott P. 12:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent comment regarding the recent editorial effort regarding the ACIM article group. A followup comment/ reply to your comment has been posted at my talk page.

-Scott P. 23:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

I appreciate the comments you had regarding the "AfD" and the articles A Course in Miracles and A Course in Miracles (book). My particular interest in the latter, is to present the facts that are available from reputible secondary resources about the book, rather than it's content. This was one of the reasons for using the (book) suffix in the title. Having any information from the content itself, or in regards to formulating any ideas from the content would be considered original research. The earlier idea in this regard, i.e. seperating the "book" from it's content, was suggested to me by JzG (talk · contribs). The article (book) isn't really finished yet, and I am still working on the research about how/where/why Endeavor Academy came into the picture in the first place. The only available online documentation, the court case, is not completely available, and I am still digging through it in a time line fashion. Hope this helps explain any missing information. Ste4k 20:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What should we do sketchy claims in ACIM articles?

Hi, Ste4k. I appriciate your efforts to bring the ACIM collection of pages into alignment with WP policy. You seem to be doing a really good job with A Course in Miracles (book). I understand your motive to keep the encyclopedia credible and fair, and I share your concern. Since the book is moderately popular according to amazon.com sales ranks, yet evades critical review and analysis as a serious philosophical or theological work, perhaps an {{OR}} tag at the top of some ACIM related articles (such as the main one) will allow editors to make a set of uncited objective claims pending more scholarly examination from which to reference. I suggest this from a pragmatic perspective, for I think that if I were to type in "A Course in Miracles" into the searchbox, I should recieve some information about what it is about, and I would find this useful, under the condition that an {{OR}} tag was explicit. Where Wikipedia can't provide a fair distilation of a small library of texts written on a topic, I think it should still strive to make itself useful. Where there are claims that are somewhat sketchy or doubtful, perhaps it is better to qualify our claims and state that they are sketchy before being rid of the information outright by deleting it. Please consider what I've said, and I would love to hear your own comments and suggestions in turn. I think it would be great if we could come to agreement while accomodating each other's concerns for the integrity of the encyclopedia. Again, I appriciate your contributions,

—Antireconciler 02:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Antireconciler. I am at a loss here, so please forgive my "newbie"ness. I have pretty much given up having anything to do with that other article. I put an {{OR}} on it before only to find four anon-ip's come out of nowhere to edit war, harrass, change the words on my talk page, change the words in my AfD nominations, etc. etc. I don't want anything to do with that other article. Please feel free, but I have given up messing with it and am trying to find out what this is all about. I think that a week or so ago when I heard about this title for the very first time, had someone bothered to answer a simple question instead of going nuts at me, I wouldn't have ever even wanted to start writing the (book) article. I wrote you the whole story just now, but it was so long, I spared you. :) I have it here in a text file though. About the (book) article, thanks for the compliments. I just learned how to do the footnotes according to the docs, but I am still thinking that the notes section is in the incorrect place. I am currently trying to find a reliable source that says that the lady died. We have an article online here about her, but it doesn't references about where they found anything. :( I just read your comments again here. If people type in "A Course in Miracles" they will end up on the page that is completely filled with editorial comments. If the book or even this issue were actually popular/notable/important, etc., then it wouldn't be very hard to find a review of it published somewhere. The problem is though, there aren't any. All of the various editorials I have found so far lead back to the several publishers that have written the various forms of this book. The only reputible publisher that I have found to date is the Publishers Weekly article and I found that while researching Gary Renard's book. Ste4k 04:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

my conclusion. Ste4k 14:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] By the way, somebody struck your vote in that AfD

was this you? 128.138.114.26 --- Ste4k 05:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I thought I had voted prematurely, with little understanding of the situation. I support your efforts to write and maintain A Course in Miracles (book). —Antireconciler 15:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

just click the e-mail this user link on the left while on my user page. I use IRC. If you do as well that would be fine. If you want to remove your address from my talk page, I would highly advise it. Thanks. Ste4k 05:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your note about "cult"

I appreciate your note on my user page about this dispute. I also respect and admire your explanation and defense of Ste4k's actions and motives. I would agree with you up until about 24 hours ago. My edit apparently pushed her over some edge; she opened up with a screed on my talk page that included this type of stuff:

"In our country, we beat liars, and if one wants to eat, they work." and "You should be ashamed to have your familiy member's name on this medium."

I still don't know what to make of the first one -- is she making a hollow threat? Calling me a liar? Who knows.

Ste4k went on to spend what appears to have been hours pouring over my edit history and user pages for inconsistencies, hypocrisy and mistakes, then bringing them out for deconstructive criticism. There's plenty of grist for her mill in my history in the way of minutiae, mistakes on my part and misinterpretations on hers, so she could be at it a while. She can keep beavering away at my many petty sins as long as she wants; it's probably a useful if annoying source of feedback on my edits.

Some of Ste4k's other actions during this time have been downright weird, especially her systematic, sarcastic destruction of all her own work on the A Course in Miracles (book) article followed by its replacement with some sort of a parody. This all adds up to form a strange picture; for now, she's lost the respect that I had for her when I first looked at her work last night.

I did notice that Ste4k had just been on a 24 hour editing binge producing about 100 edits without any breaks longer than 4 hours. Since I knew she respected you, I actually started to write you an e-mail earlier today suggesting you leave her a message of support and encouraging her to take care of herself. As I was doing this, however, I received more sniping on my talk page; I'm afraid renewed annoyance overtook my fleeting moment of compassion and I deleted my e-mail to you without sending it. You might still consider this as her friend; as for me, at this point I've pretty much had it with this person.

Again, thank you for your kindness and advice to the various players in this odd drama, including myself ... and perhaps even Ste4k. --A. B. 05:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] you wrote

Hello, A. B. I appriciate your comments, and think it was good of you to go ahead and change the relevant wording at A Course in Miracles (book). I believe the discussion surrounding the word "cult" is more of a duplication of the very serious edit war that occured at Wikipedia:Verifiability and the the ongoing debate both there and at Wikipedia:No original research. Most editors agree that verifiability of articles (citation of only reputable secondary sources) and that no original research in articles are two crutial factors in keeping the encyclopedia credible. A minority of editors want occasional exceptions (see the policy talk pages), and this approaches sacrilegious heresy to many others. It is because A Course in Miracles goes against this code in many places that there is such heated discussion about it. I think Ste4k's intention was to correct this glaring omission in policy to the best of her ability, and the discussion concerning this single word should be seen as a microcosm of the greater debate concerning Wikipedia's verifiability policies. —Antireconciler 03:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You are a very wise person indeed. Ste4k 06:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that no one could write an article and have no motive and no conception about which viewpoint was the more truthful. Still, I think there is a difference between having a point of view while understanding and respecting the dissenting perspectives, and having a point of view antagonistic to dissenting perspectives. I can understand and respect your viewpoint and yet disagree, but for respect of it, want to talk about it. Discussion would surely be pointless otherwise. Similarly, there are a lot of things I've commited to print that I've later disagreed with, but for respect of it (and really myself), continue forward, willing to continue making mistakes for the sake of learning from them. Surely your viewpoint is not so antagonistic or despicable, else what would leave me here talking with you, totally unconvinced? —Antireconciler 21:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Course_in_Miracles_%28book%29"

You can send me e-mail, my account is set up for that. I will install the messenger app, but since it is a security hazard, will only do so for a temporary amount of time. 17:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Course in Miracles diplomacy award

Thank you, A. B. —Antireconciler 23:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lol, oh me oh my. 2 stars in one day.

But did you vote on Charles Anderson yet? hmmmm... time to go look. By the way, I have set up a permanent channel called #nodezero on freenet. Ste4k 00:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, alright! I'll give you all my lunch money! Please don't beat me up? —Antireconciler 01:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Fork it over runt! And sort out the pennies first. About your revert on Charles Anderson, it is a direct quote from the source. The source is a primary source, however, so, I agree with it's removal, however, if you are going to remove that part, then you should finish the job and remove the rest of the paragraph that is equally unsourced. :) thanks. Ste4k 17:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. The passage wasn't in quotations and appeared unlikely ... Anyway, I'm going to try to have these pages merged. The remaining information on Charles Anderson is insufficient for it's own page, and from the lack of sources apperantly even possible, calling the page a stub and requesting expansion is not practical. The remaining material is in no way harmful once qualified with an {{OR}} tag, and since obscure content isn't harmful, I can't agree with it's destruction. When it comes the the material that ends up published on Wikipedia, I don't care how articles were misused in the past, or what they mean on a personal level to any editor. The past is past. Although I can respect and appriciate any editor's feelings about the matter, the published content of the encyclopedia cannot accomodate special requests. Since the destruction of the Endeavor Academy page does not advance the state of the encyclopedia, such an action can serve no function. Material that is qualified as unreliable is better than none at all. If you wish to bring light and knowledge to this page, I suggest focusing your efforts on adding what can be known with verification instead of deleting what cannot. If there are no reliable secondary sources to be had, then this page has reached the end of it's potential, and is no longer worth our concern, much less our concern to delete it. —Antireconciler 18:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] opinion requested

Could we get your opinion on the article "Dissident Voice"? thanks. Ste4k 16:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No further action seems required. —Antireconciler 20:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reshaping Course-related articles

Hi Ste4k. I'm not sure how you read anything on this talk page the way you have it set up, but I want to suggest that if you want to improve A Course in Miracles, Endeavor Academy, and other articles related to the Course, you will probably save yourself considerable time and energy by simply taking out a notepad, doing some research, and then simply replace the entire artcile with a more reliable one when you're done, keeping anything that meets WP's standards from the original. No one can contest replacing unverifiable articles with verifiable ones. It looked like this was what you wanted to do (largely) with A Course in Miracles (book), and I think you were on the right track doing that. If the articles are not the way you want them, this is a much better method than posting numerous tags on pages and slowly reshaping them 1 edit at a time. If they aren't quality pages, it's better to either nominate them for deletion and let them go or write your own article. —Antireconciler 18:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, that sounds like a rather selfish idea, actually. Scott Perry should have a large say (imho) about the articles that he wrote. He himself should actually be the person that realizes that we are trying to help him with these articles. I get the impression from him that he hasn't actually read the standards that are expected of articles. I have pointed these out to him several times, but it hasn't helped and continuing to do so would probably only generate bad faith on his part. There are a number of other editors that seem to be interested in Endeavor Academy and Charles Anderson that have on several occassions desired to link that group of thought with the ACIM group of thought. To me, that is only creating ambiguity rather than getting to the truth of the matter in a simple way. I don't think that the subject should "go away", but only as an appeasement to the other editors who believe that these matters are somehow notable. I hadn't ever heard of any of this before perhaps a couple weeks ago. The material on Anderson is close to ten years old now and I seriously doubt that his organization is going to become another Ruby Ridge or Waco. Maybe you can come up with a topic name that fits all of this material together. I realize that you are an inclusionist, and there isn't anything wrong with that philosophy. I just happen to believe that "actual information" cannot ever be deleted, and don't have any concerns about such things. I am not a deletionist, nor an inclusionist. If anything, I would consider myself to be a clarificationist. :) Ste4k 18:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That's quite lucid. Yes, I understand. If there is a difference in the way be approach articles, it may be because I think Wikipedia should supply that "actual information" accessably, even if I can get it elsewhere. Perhaps it's just a different way we use encyclopedias. Wikipedia is the first place I go when all I want is to understand something better. It's like an introduction for me. It's the best resource for allowing a lay person who knows nothing about a subject to gain enough knowledge about a subject that they can begin reading and enjoying the actual literature on a subject. To me, it's nothing more then that. A little like Sparknotes for every category of knowledge. At the level where I can read and enjoy the real stuff, Wikipedia has served it's function for me, and so that's why clarity is extremely important as I see it, but reliable secondary sources are only helpful. When I look at it, it just doesn't look like reliable secondary sources can take the encyclopedia much further if an article is already useful and clear. I understand other people use encyclopedias differently, and are much more concerned that an editor's opinion or original research in an article might lead them into total confusion. I'm confident I can see through it, and I think everyone knows a good article when they read it even if it has no sources whatsoever. I know your intention is creative and that you've been quite successfully creative when it comes to quality articles, so there's nothing for me to presuade you of. Anyway, take care, —Antireconciler 21:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see Talk:A_Course_in_Miracles#Request_for_comment_suggestion I hope that I correctly voiced your earlier concerns. Ste4k 21:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure it will all work out. Again, I've said everything that was on my mind, and there would be nothing to for me to do anymore unless someone had questions or had some business with me or even just wanted to talk with me. I always welcome any of this, but I think everything is done concerning the ACIM-articles, no matter how the lawfully-aligned work them from here. I'd rather leave it to them. They do a good job, and if all is well, I'll turn to other matters that interest me more. Again, please take care, —Antireconciler 03:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Ste4k 05:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• "I want to suggest that if you want to improve A Course in Miracles, Endeavor Academy, and other articles related to the Course, you will probably save yourself considerable time and energy by simply taking out a notepad, doing some research, and then simply replace the entire artcile with a more reliable one when you're done, keeping anything that meets WP's standards from the original. No one can contest replacing unverifiable articles with verifiable ones." (see above)

I do contest this sort of thinking and suggested action. Those who have spent years studying ACIM and related issues do not deserve to have their material deleted by someone new to the material. As has been noted there are few (if any) unbiased secondary sources. Primary sources are encouraged under WP policy. I suggest placing an OC tag is sufficient. I think it is preferable for those new to the material to work with those familiar with it if they wish.--Who123 22:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Buell Anderson

Hi, you voted recently to delete this article. The final outcome of that AfD was no consensus. There were several mentions of merging the two articles together and I originally placed a merge tag on the article as disputed (due to several people voting to delete it). In the discussion of that article recently, an editor has shown the desire to merge the two articles. I am letting you know because the status of the merge tag is no longer disputed, and I am advising all of the editors who voted against that. Thanks. Ste4k 01:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

When I voted to delete Charles Buell Anderson, I first duplicated all unique content from Charles Buell Anderson on Endeavor Academy. The articles ARE practically merged at EA, and everything on CBA, unless something has changed since, is redundant. I clearly support the merge you mention. Thank you for notifying me. —Antireconciler 20:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a question at talk:Endeavor Academy#Original Research about why you merged the articles. Apparently Ste4k doubts that there is any connection between the two topics. If the topics are, in fact, unrelated then we should undo the merge. -Will Beback 21:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't take an admin to do a revert. None of us may make more than three reverts in a day, and I've alredy made two. Why don't you do it? Wikipedia rules prevent involved editors from protecting pages, but I have also requested protection from other admins. -Will Beback 06:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ACIM

I appreciate your attempt at reversion but it must be reverted to "16:19, July 18, 2006 Who123" before the user destroyed the article.

This article has been stable for a long time with excellent sourcing considering the nature of the material. The original author was driven off WP by the user in question. Scott (who was familar with the material) has stopped editing. I seem to be the only one left that knows the material and I no longer wish to interact with that user.

I suggest that the page be "locked" at version "16:19, July 18, 2006" Who123--Who123 16:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Enjoyed the prophecy. LOL I needed that! Thanks--Who123 03:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to resume the discussion at the straw poll?--Who123 22:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of this signature?--Who123 01:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Like your new sig. Thanks for the feedback on mine. I think I will keep this one for now. :) --Who123 04:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ACIM (con't)

• The ACIM article is no longer protected. I have done some basic housekeeping that was, IMHO, logical and well documented. I would appreciate your help.--Who123 22:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I've tried to help out a little, but my time is limited here. Consider the argument I've made against the claim of original research in ACIM's discussion. I think it is right, but if you find it unhelpful, let me know. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 00:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

My time is limited too. I had no intention of becoming this involved in the article. I do think the material is of great importance and should have a good set of articles. I understand your argument about OR but it is a foundational element of WP. People have claimed that the article is not sourced. I disagree with this. The problem is that it is not cited properly. I have recently ordered a few books so that I can help in the citing (and re-writing if necessary).--Who123 17:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Simultaneously, I'm not especially concerned if ACIM ends up as a short stub-like article. The principles of ACIM are easy enough to derive, no one in their right mind could miss it if they looked. It's somewhat like insisting that Wikipedia carry a multiplication table. Just because some editors wouldn't understand that 5 * 6 = 30 need not be sourced because it is evident, if it were not at Wikipedia, five times six would still equal thirty and it would still be evident. Whatever wisdom ACIM has catalyzed for me, it is primarily useless. It cannot be used in any way, for any end. It just is. I can't use it as if it were a tool. I can't bring light to anyone. What an empty gesture to suppose they didn't have light beforehand. So much time I've spent on this thinking I could spend time, and that spending time would help me, but I look at all I've given and spent and all of it is nothing. I have gained the obvious for nothing and for nothing. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 02:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I added your page to my watchlist so I should be alerted to your responses here. I believe that ACIM should be more than a stub. The problem is that none of us are in our right mind. It is like the fish saying, "Where is the water?". I do not understand your comment about the wisdom that you have realized with the help of ACIM being useless. What is the old story about us not being able to see the moon for someone but we can point to it.--Who123 18:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Boiled down, my argument is that logic is not OR, and that ACIM is logic. WP:OR is important, it's that ACIM couldn't violate it. Note that this is why it's no problem if ACIM ends up stub-like. ACIM is like a book of right-thinking ... but right-thinking to the right-thinking is not rare or difficult, for wrong-thinking to the right-thinking is harmless misunderstanding. And it is harmless. People can get obsessed with crusading against their wrong-thinking as if it was their bitter enemy, but what are these people fighting? Is misunderstanding something anyone can fight against? Surely understanding is good, but right-understanding is for the sake of curiosity, and is so natural you instead think "what is this I see that I wish to destroy and silence?" and what will you see except yourself? They look in mirrors and fight with their images, not recognizing that they are the same thing as what they are fighting. Notice that something cannot both apply and not apply to the same thing in the same respect at the same time, unless contradictions are true. If I can fight with myself (be wrong-thinking, or, not in my right mind) then I can only fight myself in so far as contradictions are true, because fighting myself is the same as fighting against something that I think applies to mirror-me, and that I think does not apply to me, and yet mirror-me is me. Do you understand? If mirror-me is not me (if I am in my wrong-mind), then contradiction follows. This is why I can't be in my wrong-mind, and why you can be either.

Also notice that if the fish asks "Where is the water?" and that this is wrong-mindedness, then, by analogy, as I take it, our asking "where is the truth?" is similarly wrong-minded. It follows that truth is obvious and that it can't matter if ACIM ends up stub-like if what it explains is truth. It also follows from what I said before (that I can't be in my wrong-mind), that if I ask "where is the truth?" I can't actually be asking this question. If I say these words, I am not asking this question, but making a nonsensical assertion. But nonsensical assertions are harmless because harm can't come from nonsense. If harm could come from nonsense, then something could come from nothing, which is what nonsense is, or don't you agree? Since something cannot come from nothing, nothing could cause me to be in my wrong-mind, since causes are things. Again we must conclude that I am in my right mind, and so must you be too. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 21:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that logic is not OR and that ACIM is logical. Pure logic has its own beauty. Problems arise when logic is applied to the world of form. I do not know if you like Sci-Fi. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country comes to mind. The segment where Spock speaks of logic as the beginning of wisdom. I see ACIM as a path to lead us from wrong-thinking to right-thinking. You are correct that we need not crusade against wrong-thinking but should focus instead on right-thinking. We do look in mirrors and fight with ourselves. A problem is that we are insane and create worlds where wrong-thinking seems true. The images we fight are our own images that we create. It is the dissolution of the insanity of separation that will return oneness to our awareness.

I agree that nonsense comes from nothing. We have created nonsense from nothing and it is there it will return. Nothing external to ourselves can cause us to be in our wrong-mind. We have seemingly done it to ourselves. We are in our right-mind but alas, we do not realize it. ACIM is a path to guide us to that realization.—Who123 15:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's rare enough for someone to engage comments like this, so I won't be like those who glance over it and shake it off. At the same time, we're only talking and I talk about it because I find it enjoyable to think and talk about. You mention that "a problem is that we are insane and create worlds where wrong-thinking seems true." Then, you would agree that insane thinking is creating worlds where wrong-thinking seems true? And also that it is insane to even think that what is made from wrong-thinking is true? Let's also agree that insanity is wrong-thinking, and that wrong-thinking is insanity. So, we are insane because we create worlds were insanity seems true, and we are insane to even think that what is made from insanity is true. If it is insane to think that what is made from insanity is true, then we are right in thinking that what is made from insanity is false. This means that we are right in thinking that insanity makes nothing. Now, if nothing comes of something, then that something may as well not exist, because it is behaving as if it did not, and we would have no reason to say that it actually did existed because we couldn't distinguish it from non-existence. So, we are right in saying that insanity does not exist because there is nothing that it is. When we say "a problem is that we are insane..." we must then be saying that "a problem is that nothing" because nothing follows from insanity. If a problem is that nothing, then a problem is not that something, which is the same as saying there are no problems! What a relief! —Antireconciler ◊ talk 15:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is rare enough to even think along these lines. I do find it enjoyable to think and talk about as well. I agree with the first half above. When you say, "This means that we are right in thinking that insanity makes nothing.", I think we get into the contradiction you were discussing earlier. Logically, insanity makes what is false. Is what is false nothing? I think it is. However, it may seem like something in time. It may exist in time but not in reality. I do get lost in long streams of thought. There remains one problem as long as the mind is insane: the appearance of separation.—Who123 16:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

←

I apologize for writing in long strings. There is little I enjoy more than when two understand each other completely. You are right that we are continuing our thought about the contradiction I mentioned earlier. Again, I want to draw from your words toward conclusion. You state, "Logically, insanity makes what is false. Is what is false nothing? I think it is." You agree then that the false is nothing? Since you say "insanity makes what is false", then if the false is nothing, then perhaps you agree that insanity makes nothing (this will be our first point).

I probably skipped steps last time at this point, so let me be more careful. The question now is "is insanity something?" and either insanity is something or it is nothing. If it is something, then this means simply that this something is making nothing. I will want to say that it is impossible for something to create nothing. If this is true, it would mean that insanity would have to be nothing, and not something. If insanity is nothing, then something, like the mind, could not be insane, or have that characteristic, or else something (the mind) would be nothing (insane) and something cannot be nothing.

Furthermore, since insanity is nothing, it can't be a problem. Being a problem means something is problem (nothing can't be a problem for the same reason it can't be anything else). If all this is true, then we cannot say that "there remains one problem as long as the mind is insane: the appearance of separation." For if the mind cannot be insane, then the necessary condition for there being a problem does not obtain, which means that the appearance of separation is just that, an appearance, and not actually a problem. Can an appearance after all be a problem? If appearances are false, as we agreed, and the false is nothing, then this question is the same as "Can nothing be a problem?" Surely not.

So what I've said has relied on the impossibility of something being able to create nothing, which we should return to if you were not at first convinced that this must be true. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 06:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You do not need to apologize. Sometimes I find I am exhausted. If what ACIM says is true, and I believe that it is, we are making our own world from moment to moment in opposition to God. This includes making time and space. ACIM and other spiritual books and paths teach that reality is in the present moment, "Be Here Now". In order to communicate verbally we need to distort the present moment into the appearance of time. The longer the train of thought, the more we have to distort. If we did not do this distortion then words would have no meaning, sentences and longer discourse would not hold together. The more we distort the moment the less peace we have. This is a long digression but this is my experience at times. I get tired. :~)

The first question you bring up is, Does false=nothing? From a pure logic standpoint I do not think we can say this. In time false seems like something. The reason I think that it is true is based on my study of ACIM. The reason why I tend to believe the material in ACIM is that I have had many "paranormal" experiences. ACIM is the only work that I have studied that puts them all in a logical framework. If I completely believed in ACIM I would not be here in physical form to be typing on this keyboard. As I have more belief in ACIM than doubt then I can say a part of me thinks false is nothing and insanity makes nothing.

It seems part of the problem here is level confusion (ACIM talk). There is reality and there is the distortion of reality where we make our worlds of space and time. In this distortion what is not real seems real, what is nothing seems like something. So here we have our contradiction. In time, insanity seems like something as it seems part of our mind is insane. At time's end, which is now, insanity is nothing and the mind is not insane. The problem is that we seem caught in this distortion and so what is nothing seems like something. So, part of me thinks insanity is nothing and the mind cannot be insane. Part of me perceives the insanity.

In time there is a problem. The problem ends when we collapse time and return our awareness to the present moment.

The power of our mind is so great that it seems to be able to create the appearance of nothing and then become entangled in what it has made. Does any of this make any sense to you?—Who 14:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm very grateful for your full response. It shows that you have clearly given this much thought, and that the matter is important to you. Please excuse my slow response in turn. I'd simply like some time to rethink my actions before continuing. While before I thought it was good to examine situations with others on a logical and theoretical level alone, I now think there is something to this that I'm missing. There's an important element of actually living consistent with theory, and I'm not so sure that I do. I'd like to give this more thought, so please excuse me from our conversation as we've been proceeding until now. Again, I'm all too grateful for your company. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 05:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I have had our discussion in mind. It seems that we live in worlds where nothing seems like something. As ACIM would say, it is insane and upside-down. Take the logical argument A=B,B=C,A<=>C. A<=>C is false but is it nothing? It does help to illustrate a logical argument. Look at the story of Edison and the light bulb. After 99 experiments that failed or were false he had done nothing. But, he had found 99 ways it would not work. For me to accept something it must be logical. For me, logic alone has not led me to Truth. I find it must be experiential in a way that a fundamental way in which I think occurs. Call it a paradigm shift. Imagine what it took for people to begin to accept as "real" that the Earth is not flat and that even we seem to be still, we are moving at very high speed (I have not even internalized even that yet). :~) —Who123 21:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks for helping with the ACIM article. I made a slight change to your recent changes. The Introduction is part of the book. It is therefore the Introduction of the book. Hope this makes sense.--Who123 17:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Good call —Antireconciler ◊ talk 21:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a problem with the duplication of the references. It seems the first set of references need to be merged with the notes section using the WP referencing system. Do you know how to do this?--Who123 18:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks!—Who123 13:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well Deserved

Thank you, Who123. ^_^ —Antireconciler ◊ talk 14:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ACIM 2

I have re-written the Terminology section. Please let me know what you think.—Who123 18:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It probably needed it. I think in general it is better to use direct quotes only where you can't say something better yourself, because we will want to know when we read it, "why has the author used a quote here?", and you've used quite a few. It definitely does it's job though. I can tinker with it if you welcome this. Take care, —Antireconciler ◊ talk 23:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I could not think of a better way to say what I quoted. I think it is much better than what was there before, do you agree? Yes, please tinker with it. I decided to do this section because I had the book. The others are ordered.—Who 00:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you revised this part. If I hesitate to embrace the section fully, it is not because it is not an important edit, but that I think the author of your book is not as clear as he could be. I think it is important not to break WP:NOR, but I find myself wanting to modify the quotations to make the content clearer. I'm probably somewhat of a perfectionist. I think our most important task then is to find and use information from these sources that is most clear, and best catalyzes the reader's understanding. In many ways, the section already does this, but my fear is that the section has grown beyond its original boundaries, and is spilling into other sections. This is not a fault of yours, but of the holistic nature of the material. It is difficult to present single aspects and topics where they really all collapse into each other. Still, I think we should have a very clear message we want to communicate in this section, and we will want that message to be an important element of the reader's understanding of the whole when (s)he completes a read of the article for the first time. When I read the section, my thought is "how will this help?" but it seems almost obvious that the Course is going to use a modified vocabulary, that's what learning is after all. Is it important for the reader to understand that the vocabulary is a little different? It seems not. So what can we communicate in this section that will give the reader a stronger grasp of what they are reading about? I believe there is something important to communicate concerning vocabulary, but I think we've shot our arrow with only a general idea of the target. I think we likely only need alter our aim little, but, first, let's be specific about our target. Are you understanding? I write a lot for a very subtle thought, but being subtle, it is difficult for me to pin down. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 05:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ACIM 3

Thanks for the note. That's nice of you. In truth, it's probably not justified for me to say that Ste4k chased me away. I left because it seems like I come across editors like her every other month or so, and it gets very stressful. I'm not accustomed to having to argue with others about what I write. Plus, I have other things I have to work on, and Wikipedia was keeping me from them. I will most likely always read Wikipedia, but contributing to articles is too stressful and difficult for me. Thanks, though. :) Andrew Parodi 08:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not like conflict or arguing either. I am hoping that Ste4k was an anomaly. It seems that a general concern for many articles at WP is that they are either not sourced or cited. Ste4k seemed to carry these policies beyond reason. If I run into someone like Ste4k every month I probably will leave as well. Hopefully things will be better here and you will change your mind.—Who 12:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Antireconciler, thanks for the edit at the ACIM article. It reads much better. I am going to hold on that article for now until the books that I ordered arrive and I have a chance to read through them. Will work on the EA article. I also need to learn to use the WP reference system. Is it difficult?—Who 12:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I don't know how to use WP's reference style that well either. I more or less duplicated what I saw at other articles, and briefly referenced the style guides. The notes at ACIM are probably wanting, but we have enough to polish them later at some point. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 17:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

My WP project list is to work on the EA article and then begin to study the WP citation system until the ACIM books arrive. For now I will use the Harvard referencing system. I think the references can all be fine tuned when the article is in better shape. It is a pleasure working with you on this.

BTW, how about the new sig?—Who 17:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks ^_^. Likewise. I might think you are User:Who123 masquerading as User:Who with a your current sig, so I think I like the one you used just before this one best. As for your plan: fair enough. I'll help where I can, although I won't be around very often. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 19:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, will revert sig although I doubt I will cross paths with "Who". I have cleaned up the EA article the best that I can. Can you copy the ACIM Litigation references to the section in the EA article?—Who 20:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EA

Thanks for looking at the EA article. From what I have read here the numbered references go in the Notes section. This leaves the Reference section open for Harvard referencing system. There seem to be perhaps two important references that have been left off. Let me put what you have done in Notes and put the missing references back in References. Let me know and we can discuss it. Thanks!—Who123 03:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you are working on it. Thanks!—Who123 03:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I'd forgotten that you had a referencing system picked out. If you're going to use the Harvard style, it might be best to revert my changes. I was beginning to work off the Footnotes style. Let me know what you'd prefer. I'll need to read up on your citation style ... —Antireconciler ◊ talk 03:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I am only using the Harvard system for now because I have not learned WP's yet. How about if I just put all the work you did under notes and then that leaves the references open? I am still pretty lost when it comes to referencing (as i am sure you have noticed).—Who123 03:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure but I think the Footnotes style is supposed to go under notes. See the article itself and how they put the references under "Notes" not "References". :~) —Who123 03:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Near the end of Endeavor Academy you mention ref 4 and ref 6. I'm having trouble making sense of it ... —Antireconciler ◊ talk 03:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

ref 4 and ref 6 are from the ACIM article for the litigation section. Also, both of the CBS transcripts plus a couple of other references perhaps should be added to the ? Cult section.—Who123 03:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help with the references! What do you think of the article now? I knew little about EA except for the ACIM lawsuit. I am glad that ACIM was made public domain as FACIM/FIP was ruling with an iron fist. I spent most of the day trying to find more sources and source the article. I sourced everything I could but some I just could not source. Most of what was left was not worth much so I removed it. The group sounds fairly cultish to me but some seem to be happy there. CBS would not call it a cult and I do not think we should either. They just raised the question. The sources are not that great but there is not much out there that I could find. Anyway, let me know what you think.—Who123 04:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome ^_^. I think the article is looking much better then when Ste4k nominated it for deletion. It seems much more professional now, and it looks and sounds like you really spent some time with it. You've done good work. I think I will give it another good close look and see how it reads, and I'm also trying to secure an image we can use. Ste4k was right to flag the previous image since there is no real content at endeavoracademy.org, which is where the image is supposed to have come from. I'll keep looking, though. It would also be very good if we could find an acceptable image for A Course in Miracles. I'll also look into this. Take care as always, —Antireconciler ◊ talk 05:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A problem with images is copyright. I cannot think at the moment of a useful public domain image for either article. Thanks for your words. Is is proving to be a useful article for me not only for the content but learning more about how WP works. I think I will continue to work on it esp. the one section and the references. You are correct that there is little useful content at endeavoracademy.org. Too much flowery language and too few facts or even useful writing.—Who123 20:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've left a message with Glad at Endeavor Academy who appearantly has the authority to grant us permission to use one of Endeavor Academy's images. I've asked if we can use EA's logo. An image should really help, so it will be nice if it works out. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 00:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

An image does set off an article. After reading "Boddi's" website and the other accounts, I do not know how EA will react to the article. I would like to see more factual information on their website. It would also be nice to find more positive reviews written by former students.—Who123 04:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I studied the citing system today. You are right, it is not that hard. I thought there was some program to download but the article was referring to the program that runs WP. There were a few references in the article that were just embedded web links. I converted these so they now conform and are displayed in the Notes section. You may wish to look it over. It seems complete to me. My last suggestions in Talk are removing 2 tags and archiving most of the notes. Any other thoughts?—Who123 22:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Is there an article on "God Bobby Boulders"? Did you ever hear back from EA?—Who123 16:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Main Page

A little help. Where can I find the boxes to the right that explain a bit about yourself? I have seen others use them. Thanks—Who123 04:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes has everything you need. I prefer to make my own using the code they provide at the bottom of the article, but I had to upload my own images to wikicommons first. They're pretty fun ^_^. BTW, apparently "grey" isn't a color according to Internet Explorer, so I didn't realize half my page that was grey in Firefox, which is what I use most of the time (mostly for the built in spellchecker), was actually white and unreadable to 80% of the rest of the world. Not good. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 05:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much. I will check it out. I use an add-on free spell-checker with IE 6. If interested, let me know. I think IE 7 is due out soon and is available now in beta. I do not know if it has a spell-check or not. It would be great if it included the one that is in Office.—Who123 13:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sugoi! I'm using IE 7 beta 3, and it's very nice. Adding a spell checker probably makes it nicer than Firefox ... which I never thought I'd say about IE. The tabbed browsing is very well done. Still, I can't make this one underline misspelled words live like in a word processor ... —Antireconciler ◊ talk 15:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of just copying your message box and then playing with it. There was a lot of stuff at the bottom that I did not understand and so removed it. I then added some boxes. I did keep two of yours as they apply to me as well. If you mind let me know. Thanks so much for helping me with this! If you do not mind, take a look at my page. I would appreciate any help, suggestions, and ideas because I really do not know what I am doing. I have not looked at IE 7, just knew it was there.—Who123 16:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol, of course that's okay, and I'm glad it helped. I figure userpages can look however you want. I treat mine like a sandbox where I just experiment with different things. It has a lot of stuff commented out so I can keep playing with it without it appearing on my page. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 22:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is A Course in Miracles?

I have been working on a new section for the ACIM article. I am still working on it. Much of it is/are quotes. Would you mind taking a look at it? I just received the book and highlighted parts of chapter 2. Then I found that Robert has chapter 2 on the net, so you can look at the entire chapter if you want.

User:Who123/What Is ACIM?—Who123 23:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's very detailed, and it looks good. I'm not sure whether you mean to replace a section of A Course in Miracles or add an entirely new one, removing redundant material. Your section covers a lot of ground. Well done. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 23:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned that it may be too detailed but perhaps not. I am not certain what the purpose of an article of this nature is on WP. It seems to me that it should include a basic introduction and I think this does that well. What do you think? If I had just heard of ACIM, my first thought would be, What is ACIM? I think this could be added as a new section with other redundant material removed. This is mainly quotes from Perry. I tried to distill his chapter down to what seemed most critical to make it as small as possible. As I have said, I am not a writer. If you think this is a good way to go, would you like to re-write it?—Who123 00:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a significant part of A Course in Miracles could duplicate this structure. Since the subsections very neatly wrap up important aspects of the Course, and the current article is somewhat disorganized, I think it might be best to incorporate the current article into the section you've built, with additional subsections for obvious things like litigation history, external links, history, and so on. If it weren't that a lot of editors would protest, any editor could wipe out half the current ACIM article and be justified according to Policy. I think you already understand my stance that more content is better, and that an article that grows too big should simply be cut into sub-articles. More information (presented in an strictly organized fashion & minding Policy) never hurt anyone. Still, the article needs the template your "section" provides, with what can't be sourced left behind.

I wouldn't worry about your writing skill. Why should anyone? More experienced writers will simply make the appropriate revisions. Remember that articles cannot be personally owned on WP, so your efforts will always be thrown into this collaborative melting pot. What is good will remain, and what isn't will boil away, but would anyone have it any other way? As if anyone was the sum of what remained after they threw it in? WP is for learning, wouldn't you agree? What means skill where it is learning that is of value? I'd be more likely to say skill gets in people's way.

I won't re-write your section. When you/if you incorporate this section and A Course in Miracles, I will of course help organize the material, clean up the debris, and offer other suggestions. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 15:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This was not meant to provide the organization for the article but simply to give the reader an initial idea what ACIM is. I think the current article is very disorganized and I have some ideas on that. If I understand you correctly, you suggest adding it and then seeing where it goes. I will do so. Thanks.—Who123 17:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least it would be good for providing organization for the article ... I do remember your other plans though. You see, I get the impression that you already have a rather detailed blueprint for a future A Course in Miracles article in your head and that intervention on my part will just be hit and miss with the plan you already have, simply because I only have a vague idea of what that blueprint actually looks like. It gives me little choice except to wait until you actualize your plan to say much about it. Trust me when I say that if you are drawing from sources in building your article then it will be a better article by default. If it's a matter of not wanting to impose such a radical change to an article by yourself, there's no reason for that. You won't step on anyone's toes exactly because it isn't anyone's article. Good luck! —Antireconciler ◊ talk 17:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not have a detailed blueprint in my mind. I did recognize that the article was a mess in terms of organization. In addition to it being a mess, it was plodding and did not mirror ACIM. It presented ACIM as scripture rather than a book on radical transformation of our mind in terms of how we perceive ourselves and the world. Part of my mind has been working on this 24/7. You have seen glimpses of the thoughts of re-organization that were being formulated. The "blueprint" was almost as vague to me as it was to you. You are correct that I was hesitant to introduce a large change to the article particularly in view of the recent "war" there. I had not yet read your note above but after reading your previous note, posting the new section, and looking at what was there; the new organization crystallized in my mind. It seemed "right" and so I went ahead with the bold step and rapidly re-organized the article. I have tried to add each new step to the talk page for discussion. I suspect the structure will continue to change as the article is more fully developed. I hope it meets with your approval. If not, I suspect you will let me know. ;~) —Who123

[edit] A little help

How can I mark something on a page and not have it displayed when viewed? I notice you use special commands. Where can I find these? Thanks —Who123 20:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean comments? Use

<!-- (your comments) -->

to make comments which won't appear, but come in handy when you have to review old code. On my page I've commented out sections of code I don't want to appear. A comment beginning with <!-- will continue over line breaks until it is closed with --> The code:

The quick brown <!--fox -->jumped ...

for example, produces:

The quick brown jumped ...

It's just standard HTML, so you might not find it mentioned at WP. If you mean something different, let me know. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 06:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That was it. Thanks. How about another one? I think I have created a number of pages under my user name for projects I was working on. Now I do not recall what they were. Is there any way to locate all pages that I have created? If so, can I delete them? Thanks again.—Who123 13:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

Æon ^{Insane Ward} 20:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prometheanism

I've put this article up for deletion. As someone who has worked with this article before, you may wish to weigh in.--Rosicrucian 14:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)