Talk:Acharya S/Archive 8

==el Lobo. Try to show why the aritlce is bad, and dotn attakc rleigion. Its getitgn old.

Zarove.

63.17.201.202 20:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And there it is... censorship. There is a deafening silence where belief rules...

69.19.14.18 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo

More fallacies
Passing along common myths, like "All the great atrocities where religiously motivated" doesn't really address any problems. The article is not intended to attack her ideas, in any of its forms. As it stands now it's an advert for her ideas. As the other editors, myself included, want it to read it would fairy present her actual beliefs ( Not suger coated) and would allow for proper inspection of all sides. You want to remove critics of her work and present it in the most plausible sounding way possible.

Hardy speak of bais on our part.

63.17.201.202 21:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

-


 * You condemn myths to then use them to justify yourself? Then you totally misquote in a manner that is illustrative of your past discretionary and intrepretive skills. Religion has a history like a thousand years plus of ignorance which includes the crusades and the inquisition. The article not only is intended to discredit her ideas but it does so openly. I doubt you have any idea of what her beliefs are... I challenge you to present them. I have consistenly rebutted your so called critics and showed them to be either wrong, unsubstantiated or shallow and did so without removing a one of them. That said, where I have done this, they were summarily removed demonstrating that your "proper inspection of all sides" to be a red herring.

66.82.9.58 02:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)-el Lobo

You condemn myths to then use them to justify yourself?

I didnt use myhts to justufy anyhting.I simply pointed out that not all the great atrocitied in Human Hisoty are based on religion.

Then you totally misquote in a manner that is illustrative of your past discretionary and intrepretive skills.

Actlaly its not a direct quote of you. Its a Paraphrase of a common sentement you are echoing.

Religion has a history like a thousand years plus of ignorance which includes the crusades and the inquisition.

WHich is uttelry irrelevant here. And is likewise nto historiclaly accurate.

''The article not only is intended to discredit her ideas but it does so openly. I doubt you have any idea of what her beliefs are...''

If this where so you owoudl demonstrate it rather than make attacks on editors.

I challenge you to present them.

I have tried reepatdly, and yet they are deleted.

1: She advocates limited govenrnace, and is akin to Anarchist thinking. 2: She advocated legilisaito of Engheogens and oher such substances. 3: She beleives all rleigion shodl be abolished. 4: She teaches all rleigions stem form a signel civilisaiton, Atlanist perhaos, and common myths abount due to the sun god. 5: SHe teaches that Christainity is a COnspriacy created to controle and unify the ORman sttae, orchstrated by Jews and Freemasons. 6: She htinks that Religion is automaticllay a sing fo mentla illness. ( It sin oen fo her essays.)

Need I rellay go on?

I have consistenly rebutted your so called critics and showed them to be either wrong, unsubstantiated or shallow and did so without removing a one of them.

Just as you have "Proven" my bias. SImply proclaiming it doesnt mak it so, nor does showign a website that says "Tekton ministies is a fraud" make it so.Wikipedia is not here ot settle such disputes at any rate to begin with.

That said, where I have done this, they were summarily removed demonstrating that your "proper inspection of all sides" to be a red herring.

In other words, only hr side is proper infrmaiton.

Agauin, you simply want ocntorle of the aitlce so you can slant it in her favour.

ZAROVE 04:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

People, sign in
Aren't you all tired of seeing red digits everywhere on this page? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

-


 * Oleg... Not any more so than blue ones.


 * Zarove...


 * There is no difference in you calling a thing a myth and anyone else calling religion a myth. Again, you can't get past yourself... you misinterpret and then believe it. What I said was... "the great atrocities of mankind have been committed by one belief or another"... your paraphrasing has a way of reading what you want to hear. That religion has a track record and it is far worse than the pitance I offered was in answer to your claims. The statement was not irrelavant... if you don't want to go somewhere don't walk the path that takes you there.


 * The article itself is proof of its intent. Name one belief that Acahrya holds... you have never mentioned a single belief of hers. You don't know her and unless she has made a written statement declaring her belief you can't know what she believe in.


 * She advocates limited government? That's one of the definitions of a Republican, not an anarchist. What's wrong with the decriminalization of drugs? Alcohol is a drug and it's legal. Besides, she gave warning as to the improper use of drugs. No where has she ever stated that "all religion should be abolished"... education would do that on its own. There is nothing religion does that cannot be done without it. All things stem from a beginning of some sort... logic dictates it. Our ability to know is predicated on defining itself. What we don't know, we put a name and face on it even if but to realy the thought to another of us. That's how gods and demons are created. She does not teach that Christianity is a conspiracy... she shows how Christianity came to be by the manipulations of the powers that existed in order to unify the Roman state using legend, myth and morality stories in its consolidation efforts. This was accomplished by hundreds of church and political leaders over a period of hundreds of years. After all, Christianity did not just suddenly appear one day... even today it is an ever evolving blief system. The rational of any religion that condones mass murder by its people or its gods is a case study of the mentally ill itself.


 * I have not proven your bias... your bias stands by virtue of its own merit. All I had to do was point it out. I never mentioned Tekon ministries was a fraud, but now that you mention it, just what would you consider a fraud to be? Thank you for admitting that opposing views to your own are removed... but then by that admission, do you not demonstrate that your information is the only proper information which slants the article in your favor?

66.82.9.91 06:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC) el Lobo

-


 * Charles, it appears that your time stamp is way off. At the time I wrote the above, it was 01:+ AM EST. Right now it is 1:53 AM EST

66.82.9.91 06:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC) el Lobo


 * It would be on Coordinated Universal Time, i.e. London in practice. I guess the 'My preferences' page can give you the option to display it accriding to time zone. Charles Matthews 12:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

-


 * Yes... why is posting London time of importance when the posters time is different? It tells nothing of value except to those living in that time zone. I checked the preferences page but it doesn't say how to alter what is posted to comply with the time zone you are in... at least, if it did say, I couldn't find it. It would be of far greater significance even if more cumbersome, to just type in my own time. As for the printing of the address... that is a useless waste of time because with the use of broadband cell phones, cable and telephone conglomerates, WIFI etc... the address shown could be a relay to some place half the planet away. Perhaps getting people to comply to this is just some kind of a control device to show who is in charge? I can't see it being of any more benefit than that.

69.19.14.28 12:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC) 7:40 AM CST -el Lobo


 * Have a word with the developers, why don't you? Charles Matthews 16:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This is ht elast time I engage El Lobo by showing poitn for poitn his diatribesfor at leats the time being.

I do tis to show one last illustration.

Zarove... There is no difference in you calling a thing a myth and anyone else calling religion a myth.

I call it a myth because its not true. I am using a coloquial definition. Regretabely, the wrlds elading formost Religiosu Scholar Acharya S confuses the coloquial term "Myth", as in, somethign nto true. with the academic definition, which can be a true event. IE, Modern Mythology includes Adolph Hitler, who was a real man, becaus ofhis impact on our collective psyche. However, not all or even nost Human attrocities are attributable to rleigion solely, and most arent attributable to it at all. Most where commited for political reasons. And the most severe ones int he 20th century by COmmunists, who, dispite the protest, where nto religious at all.

but htis is a sueless debate since it doesnt addressthe article at hand. And I will mak no furhe r comment on it as it is pointless.

''Again, you can't get past yourself... you misinterpret and then believe it. What I said was... "the great atrocities of mankind have been committed by one belief or another"... your paraphrasing has a way of reading what you want to hear.''

Actulaly I was avoiding ghe tipic altogather, so the parpahrasing dsidnt need ot be ovelry accurate. ALso, recall that I paraphrased a general sentement, not you personally.

''That religion has a track record and it is far worse than the pitance I offered was in answer to your claims. The statement was not irrelavant... if you don't want to go somewhere don't walk the path that takes you there.''

I didnt walk the path. I aovided it. I am tryign to stick pincipley to the Acharya S article. Yoru the one trying to discredit rleigiosu beleifs and slander me.

''The article itself is proof of its intent. Name one belief that Acahrya holds...''

I have dpen so above, ignoring this does not alterthe fact that this requeast was fulfilled.

you have never mentioned a single belief of hers.

I mentioend 6 or 7.

You don't know her and unless she has made a written statement declaring her belief you can't know what she believe in.

Fortunalty she has a website and two books out. I haent readthe second book, btu have the firts. And this is where I garner my informaiton.

''She advocates limited government? That's one of the definitions of a Republican, not an anarchist.''

Perhaps I shoudl rephrase. She beleives in h disolution fo the current govenrmental system, to be replaced by personal autonomy and an extremely limited monitoring autority. This is nto liek a republican, sine she woul have the entire currnt world political machine cease to exist and replaced by individual autonomy, And, before you ask whats wrogn with this notion, I dotn need to answert hat, I do nto brogn it up to critiise her veiws. I brogn it up because the aritlce is about her.

''What's wrong with the decriminalization of drugs? Alcohol is a drug and it's legal.''

Why shoudl I give you a reasonagaisnt Decriminalisaiton of Drigs? As noted several times, and dispite you not beleivign it, I did not include this beleive to smear ger. Itronicllay. you beleive int he same as she, and yet will nto lalow it in the artilce. The aritlce has never said she was wrogn to hold this beleif, and as a Wikipeidan actign ans aneditor, neither can I. I merly report that she holds this beleif.

Besides, she gave warning as to the improper use of drugs.

Whihx can be added in the article along with her wish to decriminalise it.

''No where has she ever stated that "all religion should be abolished"... education would do that on its own.''

This is not true atall. In addition to being unsubstantiated opinon ( that educaiton automaticlly destorys rleigious beleif) but it is actlaly stated on her website.

In the rligion and psirituality section, she reepatldy states that roginised rleigion must be abiolished, and tells of how terirble it is. The only concession is a vauge form of spirituality which is undefined by her that she advocates.

 There is nothing religion does that cannot be done without it.

This is unsubstantiated opinion, an dnot germane to the article.

''All things stem from a beginning of some sort... logic dictates it. Our ability to know is predicated on defining itself. What we don't know, we put a name and face on it even if but to realy the thought to another of us. That's how gods and demons are created.''

At leats according to some. However, the actual study of rleigion is muhc more complexe, and, of ocure, completley ignroed by you, just as any differign views will be ignroed in yoru attempt to impose yoru views here. However, I remind you, this is not the topic of the artilce.

''She does not teach that Christianity is a conspiracy... she shows how Christianity came to be by the manipulations of the powers that existed in order to unify the Roman state using legend, myth and morality stories in its consolidation efforts.''

This makes it a conspiracy.A COnspiracy is a hidden planimplemented by a coalition. She claims Christainity was a covert attemtp to contorle the masses and unify the ROman Sttae, thismakes it a conspriacy.

And in her book, "The CHrist Conspriacy", bsides just the title, she makes two or three refences to it begn a Conspriac and refers frequntly to "Conspirators."

Must I find page numbers?

''This was accomplished by hundreds of church and political leaders over a period of hundreds of years. After all, Christianity did not just suddenly appear one day...''

Yet this is her theory, and, it is a conspriacy, thus it is a conspriacy theory.

''even today it is an ever evolving blief system. The rational of any religion that condones mass murder by its people or its gods is a case study of the mentally ill itself.''

Yet the Christain worldview doesntadvocate Mas Murder, and sayign it does sems to be a statement made in oblivion as tothe acutla theologicla underpinnings.

''I have not proven your bias... your bias stands by virtue of its own merit. All I had to do was point it out.''

You didnt even poitn it out. You just poitned a finger at me and sa id "J'accuse!" Thusfar you have preented hollow posturing and claiemd that beleivers just cant help themselves. You have stated how teriblea persona I am. Your confederates team up and besmear me and anyoen else who comes here.

But yo havent shwon any acutal problems, neither have you addressed the arule directly.

I never mentioned Tekon ministries was a fraud, but now that you mention it, just what would you consider a fraud to be?

Actually Lobo you have, in early posts. Need I dig them up int he archives? And again, it matters little as htis si an ENcyclopedia.

Thank you for admitting that opposing views to your own are removed...

I did no such thing. In fact when Earl doughtery's sitr was added in upport of her, I did nohtign to rmeove it. This stands in stark contrast to how you and your confederates removed the E-Mail exchange betwen Acharay S and "King David". In other words, shodl it support her, ti is appropriate matieral for the article. Shoudl it shwo her in a less-thsn-steller performance, it must be removed. THis is relaly bocmign like 1984, just as my guilt is beign proven by repeated accusation.

but then by that admission, do you not demonstrate that your information is the only proper information which slants the article in your favor?

No, since I made n such claim.

I said only that showign a website that claism Tekton Ministires is a fraud doesnt prove that it ought not be included in the artilce. Just as I poited out that no one has found a fvalid reaosn why the Email Exchange between Dorothy and Daivd ought be removed. Other, of ocruse, than it doesnt go well for her.

I have poitne dout that the only atilces allowd to stand are those in support of her or at leats her views.

This reveals the Bias of her disiples, not my biases.

ZAROVE 17:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

-


 * Charles...


 * Ah... I see, well, it is a law of nature that, of that which does not evolve to its changing nature is left behind. Your insistence and enforcement of following the antiquated and useless is another matter. We had been getting along quite nicely for many months when all of a sudden this has become an issue... what's changed? The introduction of Oleg perhaps? Is it an effort to put me in my place? Is it the exercise of authority to bolster the illusion that all is under control? I don't know, but I do know that this article cannot and will not recieve fair treatment due to its emotionally charged premise and the controversial involvement of the admins, from its inception, that has had a deliterious effect in its production. Maybe dropping it should again be considered and let it go as a lost cause.

69.19.14.24 10:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 05:12 PM EST

-


 * Zarove...

Myth... "A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society; A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal; A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology; A fictitious story, person, or thing." There is no colloquial as opposed to academic definition of the word. Where do you dream this stuff up from? Culture is the "totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought" and it includes politics, religion, economics and all things idiologically driven. I stated that the "great atrocities have been committed in the name of one belief or another... that is all inclusive of politics, economics and religion because they are interwoven into the fabric of society.

Thank you for clarifing that what this article acomplishes is the debate. You have made it this way by your presentation. What it is really about is whether religion is founded in previous legend, myth and morality stories or not.

You say you have listed 6 or 7 of Acharya's beliefs... I challenge that. Quote her where she has so stated that any of them were her beliefs. A belief that requires faith to exist does not rest on logical proof or material evidence...

She never said that. Do provide a reference for this. She has many complaints of how th ewoorld is conducting itself and questions what it is doing but she never has called for anarchy.

It's not a belief to subscribe to the legalization of drugs... after all, we already do it through our laws. There are hundreds of thousands of legalized drugs. All that is being said is that all drugs should be included in them. Banning certain drugs just drives it underground and creates an industry out of it. The last thing the crooks of the world want is to legalize their industry because that means a million competitiors, price drops making the bottom drop out it rendering their part in it as unprofitable.

You say... "Whihx can be added in the article along with her wish to decriminalise it." Which I posted and was removed.

Do provide references where Acahrya states that "all religion should be aboished". You said she makes this assertion in her Religion and Spirituality section but I found no such quote.

As regards... "There is nothing religion does that cannot be done without it." You say "This is unsubstantiated opinion, an dnot germane to the article." I would challenge you to show one single thing that religion actually does that cannot be accomplished without it.

OK, I'll concede and agree with you... Christianity is a conspiracy. As for conspiracy theory... nah, there is far to much evidence to substantiate that it was conspired by a plethora of individuals who acted with deliberation intent.

You say... "Yet the Christain worldview doesntadvocate Mas Murder, and sayign it does sems to be a statement made in oblivion as tothe acutla theologicla underpinnings." But, if you believe in the bible as literal truth... then this is not so.

I never mentioned Tekon ministries was a fraud, but now that you mention it, just what would you consider a fraud to be?

You state... "Actually Lobo you have, in early posts. Need I dig them up int he archives?" Yes, do dig them up. You are wrong.

66.82.9.53 11:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 06:29 AM EST

--That was me that called Tekton ministries a fraud--What is tekton BTW? Why not call itself by a "godspell" name, instead of something quite meaningless to a Christian? Again, the Christian "New Testament does not appear to advocate mass murder, but the Old Testament (ie. Torah) does. However, admonitions to violience are present in the New Testament also. Why should this be surprising if the latter is but the outgrowth of the former--is Jesus Father not the Jealous, vengeful, destructive Yaweh/Jehovah of the Old Testament (a real estate agent no less!  Deeding a particular peice of real estate in perpetuity to a "special people"!)  Sounds more like the "Messiah's" father has tried to dress himself in a "garment of Light" to hide his true nature--which in Christian jargon would be no other that Satan (the adversary) or Lucifer(the light-bringer! ha ha!), who was cast down to earth to become Satan and "Lord of this World" as acknowledged by the character of Jesus in the gospels.  Very contradictory and misleading. Seem to me the god of Babel has a split personaity disorder!--Skull 16:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

-


 * Violence in the New testament? Check these out... thse are Matthew alone, there is a list for each of the chapters.
 * Matthew
 * 5:29-30
 * 3:10, 12
 * 8:32
 * 10:14-15
 * 10:21
 * 10:28
 * 10:34-36
 * 11:20-24
 * 13:41-42, 50
 * 18:8-9
 * 25:41
 * 25:46

69.19.14.22 17:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 12:26 PM EST

-

Obfusion
Perhaos youthink your obfusion renders points. It does not. This article is not on Violence int eh new Testament, the name of any apologetics minisry, or yoru peorsonal veiw on rleiigon. It is only about Acharya S. Therefore, attacking and debating the topic iwll not be germane. Nor iwll objectign to any bit of informaiton hat is not promotional or approved by the articles subject.

ZAROVE 21:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

-


 * Speaking of obfuscation... have you tried to read and decipher what you write? Facts are points on their own... it has nothing to do with the presenter. This article is about religion... were it not so it wouldn't exist. You made the comment of "Yet the Christain worldview doesntadvocate Mas Murder, and sayign it does sems to be a statement made in oblivion as tothe acutla theologicla underpinnings." If you don't want to go somewhere, don't walk the path.

69.19.14.15 23:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 06:56 PM EST

-

Artilce
No, the ticle is not on religion. It also is mos certianly in existance to discuss your opinin that rleigion is somehow evil. It exists to tlel the reader who Acharya S is. This is what you seem not to undrstand. As to my writting, I am dyslexic. Deal with it.

ZAROVE 00:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Forgot I had promsiednto to go poitn for point. Sorry.

OK< Here are the thigns you ask. My degree is form UTK. I am a full dyslexic, accusign me of laziness wont rellay work and is useless. Themain problem of the aricle is that the Didiples, yourslf inclided, of Ms.Murdock insist that it present her int he best light.

Now, as for sayign I only seek to refute her claims, as they challenge my faiht, I direct you to the first verison fo the artilce. No refutaion is made. N donly oen link, to her own website. it was an attmeot to use her to tes t my wikipeida article skills. Nthing more.

Neither is it a challenge to debunk her, anyoen who reads anyhtign abotu Hisotry or rleiion has debunked her already. However, I make no efort here to, sicne this is not the purpose f the article.Reather or not you beleiv this is not my concern, btu rlelay I just anted ot tell others of her in a neutral way, and did nto even endeavour to refute her work. Ir discuss it in detail.

ZAROVE 03:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I resent that remark "disciple"--more religious terminology. I am my own teacher/thinker. If it is someone's view to present "Acharya" in the best light--then it must be your desire to present her in the worst light. All that some of us in here have been asking is to present a neutral "biography"--not a slithering attempt to create a fraudulent depracatory assault on the subject of her thesis. Her thesis, the books, her web-site and whatever "biographical" information that you can glean in good taste---by all means. If you want a page on her thesis--well that can be another page; then we can really have an edit "war" on what appears to be your real motivation.

You can't deny this is your objective cause as you say and have said in other ways: "anyoen who reads anyhtign abotu Hisotry or rleiion has debunked her already." This is a personal opinion of yours--not a fact and betrays the exact opposite of what you say in the very same breath: "I just anted ot tell others of her in a neutral way, and did nto even endeavour to refute her work."---How is your personal opinion about her work, or the so-called refutations/debunking a neutral position about HER? You have repeated over and over, that it is about her, not her work or her views--but time after time, you or someone else wants to discuss her work or her views on the page.

Really, anyone who wants to do that can go to the posted links to her website and discuss them there! Mr. "Tekton" can, Mr. Liecona, Mr. Price, Mr. Zarove, Mr. and Ms. whoever! Haven't seen a debunker anywhere in sight---least not where they can face the target of their debunking efforts. As an independent thinker, the debunkers/detractors that have been posted under the guise of a "biography" fail the test miserably---that is what you don't get! It's easy to claim you have "debunked" or refuted someone you haven't faced-off with in an open forum, where you can not control the context and scope of facts, opinions, and statements made. Oops...forgot, you keep saying this is not about her workit't about HER.

Repeatedly, you use circular arguments and self-contradiction, not to mention "personal opinion", wether about her work or about Acharya---she is not this or not that etc. How the heck do you know? Where is your proof? Document your "journalistic" effort with facts, not hearsay, opinion. or self-denial. You clearly want what "Acharya" claims to be--not to be true. Why is that--because you dislike or disagree with her published views? Wether you do or you don't is not the purpose of an "unbiased" encyclopedic article (wiki or otherwise), whether on Acharya herself, or her views. Your belief or my belief is of no concern to a "biography" or an article on the views---just that it is documented fact, reliably sourced challenges, fair discussion on opinions thereby and NEUTRAL (Newspapers/journalists are not automatically considered to be reliable sources either--need I explain why?!).

So Zarove--keep your personal opinions to yourself, keep off the topic of religon, and restrain yourself from trying to do violence to the personal character of Acharya S--heed your own advice. I doubt you can do it, but as long as you do I will be there to retort in kind. Otherwise, we might get somewhere with this "bio"--or not.--Skull 20:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I see
So you rant and rave and create more Ad Hominim attakc son me. You do not want a fair treatment of her, if you did you owdl allow the email exchange she had with "King David" to stand. Instead its rmeoved because it presents her in a poor light. SPeakign fo which, it is logiclaly untenable to rpesume that just ebcause others want to cast her in a good light, tjat I automaticllay wan tot cast ehr in a bad light. Her books are self refutign to anyoen who knows the real materials. This is not opinion, btu fact. Solomon, fo rinstance, is not an amalgom of three words. Horus was not Crucified. Ect...

Now rather than make more chep assertion againt my CHarecter, can you actulaly give legitimate reaosn hy yor acutlaly here? All you do is make ure the reader is directed ot her page and all that queasiton her are silnced.

This is not neutrlaity.

ZAROVE 00:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

-


 * Zarove, you do indeed exhibit the symptoms of sever dyslexia... i.e. "A learning disorder marked by impairment of the ability to recognize and comprehend written words." While challenging the credentials of others, you claimed a degree in journalism, (to convince readers of the worthiness of your words?) in light of those words you have thus far presented, it behooves a questioning mind to ask you to show those readers your degree. I am not unfamiliar with journalism and I can honestly state that the level of professionalism such a degree would bear is absolutely missing in your work. The who, what, when, where, how and why of journalism is not only absent but is deliberately avoided. What year did you recieve your degree?

66.82.9.91 21:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo  04:17 PM EST

Actually I mentioend my degree as an attemot to showhow her fluffery was useless. I hold a Masters in Journalism from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 2001. My point in bringing it up hwoever was to illustrate that Dorothy's Bachelors degree is harldy sufficient to name her as a world renown scholar, mucg less a "Historian, Linguist, religious scholar,and Archeologist."

Now lets not waste mroe time on these threadsabotu me and tlak baout the article shall we?

ZAROVE 21:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

---it is logiclaly untenable to rpesume that just ebcause others want to cast her in a bad light, tjat I automaticllay wan tot cast ehr in a good light! I just reversed your idea of logic. You illogically presume that I want to cast her in a good light---when I keep saying NEUTRAL and FAIR.

I read "King David's" email---started out ok...and he has the right to ask the question about Horus--its a good question? (He could ask it in a forum where there are witnesses to the accuracy of everything he has claimed was said on either side of the question---that is why I deleted it. Nor does it addresse the entire thesis. I can only guess why Acharya simply tired of answering him. (Are you familiar enough with Acharya to addresse her as Dorothy? I suggest you refer to her as someone you have not communicated with on a first name basis and have some respect.)

I wouldn't waste much time with him either, except to say for your edification and his, that neither Horus, nor Jesus were "crucified" because they did not exist, they are fictions---Myths! Jesus' myth was not made out of whole cloth anymore than Horus' tale was and many stories exist apart from the "officially" sanctioned myths. Solomon (no matter how you define the etymology of the Hebrew/aramiac vs.) was a fiction as was "King David" also and neither name is exclusive to "Hebrews", Israelites, or Semites. I am not going to go further into your "facts", because this is a case of nitpicking that would require a chapter in a book all to itself! MYTH/Fiction/made up fairy tales with various purposes in mind, created by innumerable contributors borrowing from different cultures and languages, nor anywhere near in history when said characters were alleged to have literally existed.

The Babble is myth-tifying religon, myth-taken belief--not history and that's a fact belonging in the realm of fantasy. That is why I am here Zarove...to see that flat-earthers stay on the ground. At least secularists, agnostics, atheists etc. may argue points of genuine literal facts about the origins of the "mythose" of mankind instead of points of "belief" that have no basis in fact or proof as literal history.

As an amateur laymen with an interest in word origins, I have my own ideas that may differ or supplement what can only yet be educated guesses--but no one is going to condemn me for being off base on occasion and I am not too proud to admit when I am wrong. I am not a linguist--Acharya is. I have an interest in ancient history---but I have not made it my career. Most journalists in the old days never had "degrees", but were considered journalists. Of course being degreed does not make a journalist competent, ethical, unbiased or exceptional! Now in truth, if you are a working journalist (I care less what degree), than who am I to say you are not?! Your msischaracterisation of Acharya in the same vein is as you say "ad hominem". You like dishing it out, but can't take it yourself. I am not letting you get away with that.

Rant and rave...repetitive circular arguements...are these ad hominems? You question mine and others motivations all the time...doesn't bother me a bit.--Skull 01:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Zarove, I thought you were majoring in Physics in 2001. ^^James^^ 02:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually James, I merley took a few coruses in Physics in a sumemr session. My Degree in Joruanlism as doen while I was a reporter already, thus allowing me to bypass Bachelors. THough it was only even sought for the extra money it provided.

Not that this matters, as its a smokescreen. Amazing how you prefer to attakc me and demean my cfedibility as a mean to forceign your colelcitve will onto the article.

Skull, you say that you are here to "Make surt ehte flat earthers stay on the gorund." By so oding, you admit that you ar eher to impose your own worldview on WIkipedia. Althoguh you claim I am biased, and indeed you r enture current post is nohtign btu a protracted rant on me, all you have doen is show the flaws to your ownthinking. You want to cnesor anyone whose beleifs differ from your own, all th whoel bemoaning if soemone censors you, no mater why they cesor you.

Dorothy doesnt desrve my respect. Her pages are filled with hateful evehenom agaisnt any who cross her. I myself am called a Psychopath. All this because I will nto allow Wikipedia to be distorted.

She is not a Linguist, either. SHe is incompetant, as she uses poorly founded sorucs for her owrd origins and shows no real knoldge of words and language, much less hteir hisotry and usage acorss time.

Horus and Jeuss you say are "Myths, ficitons", and htus obviosuly not crucified. THis is irrelvant to my point. No actual Ancient Egyptian paparys, rock surfacer, engraving, ect, has ever depicted the god as Crucified. Their ar eno knon extant Crucificitosn of Horus. Rather real or ficitonal, the body of texts about Horus we have lacks such an acocunt.

Indeed, their is only oen knwon vaint in which he even dies. And this is not via Crucificiton.

Solomon comes form SHolom, menaing peaceful.

Now, rathe than attack my person, why not acutlaly admit that you ar eher eto force your worldview onto others. THat is not neutral and fair, that is imposiitonal and tyranical.

ZAROVE 02:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

ZAROVE 02:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

-


 * Zarove... So, you were a reporter which allowed you to skip the educational process to directly obtain a Masters Degree in Journalism? You were a reporter where, with what company?

69.19.14.31 11:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo  06:05 AM EST

-

cOMPANY
I worked for a small paper no longer extant. But rather than digress and make htis about me, I will no longer answer such queasitosn about myself. You will, of coruse, take this to mean that I am avoidign the issue. Im not. But this is not about me and my degrees, and will solve nothing in the artilce itsself. Again, focus on the artlce and Achaya S, not Wikpeida editors.

ZAROVE 17:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

-


 * Truth is, I didn't expect anything else. I was wondering how you would get around that one. What else could you say? I would point out that the last thing you want is to discuss this article... what you want is an acceptance of your judgment of it which is not going to happen. I would class you as a contributor... not an editor. You state that Acharya is not a linguist... and yet she speaks and writes several languages fluently... which is the definition of a linguist. You state that she is incompetant but do so with no more evidence than your say so. To be incompetant means showing lack of skill or aptitude... and yet has produced two predgious books, hardly indicative of incompetancy. You state that she uses poorly founded sources and yet she quotes over 1500 source in her bools leading one to think that you prefer to think of them that way because they do not agree with your prejudices.

69.19.14.18 18:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo