User talk:JimWae/Archives/2006/
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Contents |
RPJ
You may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Request for comment/RPJ. Gamaliel 15:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a notice that I have filed a request for arbitration concerning RPJ. Feel free to add any comments you feel are necessary. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Life and work have intervened. I may have time for this again in about 2 weeks --JimWae 22:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Zeno's paradoxes#Questions raised
THANK YOU for placing "Questions raised" in the Discussion page.
One might also raise some questions about Aristotle's neutrality on the subject of Zeno and his paradox. An Aristotle, not the one born 384 BC, was mentioned in Plato's Parmenides who was quizzed by Parmenides and not Socrates. It is possible that the Aristotle of the Academy was a relative or named after the Aristotle questioned since both are linked to the philosophers of Athens. It could be the other way around and the Aristotle here is a fictional character named after Plato's pupil. There probably was some rivalry between the mainland Greeks and the Italian Greeks. The mainland Greeks were somewhat behind the Ionians and the Pythagoreans and trying to better themselves. The Pythagorean code of silence might have generated some resentment.
The Greeks were not good at giving proper credit for the sources of their ideas. They included the work of others in their work without qualm. Euclid's elements certainly predate him. Aristotle appears to have included some of Parmenides' work in his Physics if Plato's dialogue is correct. We could give him the credit of the doubt and say that he was ignorant about who to attribute the ideas to. Socrates and Plato claim that ideas are universals. Are they saying that they belong to everyone?
What are the contexts of Zeno's paradoxes? Is it POV to assume that they are serious statements? He might have been facetious when he raised the argument. In Plato's Parmenides he seems to have been easily amused; he may have had a sense of humor.
There is probably more to Zeno's paradoxes than is in the article. What their context was has been lost in time with the people and works of the era.
As for the article itself, we could follow Einstein's suggestion and "keep it simple." I think that there would be something missing though. Time has a way of editing the record for good or ill. --67.181.210.179 06:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
"Series" wording
JiimWae, kindly seek consesus to change the series wording on Template:Christianity. Thanks. Netscott 07:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- What's wrong with set? It is not an ordered collection of articles, it is a disordered collection. Set covers both, series does not. --JimWae 07:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- did we ever discuss using "set" instead - it certainly is a more accurate term--JimWae 07:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- because I mistype it otherwise. You are aware of what the X means, no? --JimWae 07:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Why did you revert so quickly? One way to assess "consensus" is to see if anyone else would have reverted it besides you --JimWae 07:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- JimWae, do you not recall my explanation vis-a-vis a publisher publishing a "series" of books:
| Series (set of books) noun [C] plural series |
: | a set of books published by the same company which deal with the same subject |
-
-
- Wikipedia the publisher has a set of articles which deal with the same subject... ergo they have a series of articles. Netscott 07:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Did I not reply that that could never be a complete definition of "set"? "Set" is accurate for the template, "series" is a fantasy trading on ambiguity at best --JimWae 07:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- If you are offended by my use of "Xty", you are misinformed. If you are not offended, your request seems either petty or manipulative--JimWae 07:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm anything but offended, but it is difficult to take your points seriously when you use an abbreviation that tends to incline one to view your usage of that abbreviation as demonstrative of contempt for the subject matter. Everyone mistypes... that seems like a poor excuse to not be scholarly and properly utilize the terminology that corresponds to this field of scholarly study. Netscott 08:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I mistype it 95% of the time - and get annoyed when I must correct it. Do you want me to become any further annoyed by Xns & Xty? Does God? --JimWae 08:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- God? I see the irony but really does "God" matter here? Netscott 08:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- If thine eye offend thee & thou seest "contempt" in an abbreviation that originated with Xns, then what is the recommendation for thine eye? --JimWae 08:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I recommendeth that thou refraineth from utilization of the rather unscholarly abbreviation Xty and thou forthwith typeth "Christianity". :-) Netscott 09:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Don't hold your breath. The X was widely used by early Xns and was the basis for the usage of the
--JimWae 14:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
