User talk:^^James^^/archive1

Added...
You arenwo on my Yahoo list. Lets be civil.

As of December 26th.

Not interested. I don't have yahoo, and have no inclination to discuss Acharya's wiki page with you privately.

{But yo will s,mear me publiclaly. You will ioe, distort, and harrass.

DOnt you think it woudl be best to end this nonsence?You foudn out I administered a Christain forum and tried ot use that agaisnt me. EVen thouhg it contians nohtign of this debaucle. You even tried ot make me out tobe a Creaitonist. You arnet intereste dint he truth, and ar ea Hypocrite. You say I smmear Acharya, and you defend the truth. You use the sametactics you acucse me of, and the whole CHristain rleigion of. You lie to defend your hero as she advocates beelifs you wish to promote. THus, it wudl be better to olve this as Genglemen, and not as the coarldy attacksyou have made. }-Zarove

Teh Point.
Zarove, I don't have yahoo, and I see no reason why you feel the need to discuss this with me privately. Everything you've brought up below can be discussed on the talk page. As I've said, I may drop by the Christian Forum once this is resolved.

SHorter vewrsion.

1: After this si resolved whats the point? No one theireven knows of this fiasco.

2: You used my administration their ito show Im biased. I am a Zealoted Christain. This was a shameful tactic. Its absicllay "Guilt by association." It sbad enough Im labled one of Holdigns followers.Yopu even tried ot prove I was a fidny by linkign me with creationism.

At the same tiem you decree any attmeot to examine Dorothy as " Smearing her." I didnt msmear her to dicredit her. But you smear me to discredit me.

Nothign in my own past reveals any bias, and Im toelrnt of all views, but nto all condict.

3: As you refuse to bother to listen to reason, I want ot see if I can one on one discuss the matte with you. No other reason.

I edited my own apst message to make it more tot he point to what I itnended.

The last one, thogh not written so, cna be seen as Harsh.

I will add yo this weekend. Please allow contact. Ithinky uo will fin ditfruitful.

Re: ''"I didnt msmear her to dicredit her." ''

If not to discredit her, then why? ^^James^^ 06:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Now.
As I said. Letsbe civil and discuss thematter in a live chat. I think you will fidn that mroe ocndusive.

Given your current artilc eis a whitewashofher, I do think a better option for you, before yourbanned as a troll, is to tlak to me.

Ill be waiitng. Unless you alloew me to add you.

Sorry, not interested. I don't see what the point would be. ^^James^^ 02:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

No rellay working.
The difficulty onthe talk page is yor blatant willignness to decieve others abotu me usign the same tactic you claim I use againt Acharya. You claim that I am a covert Zelous Christain wantign to defame her, and you merley wish to defend the truth. We both know this isnt true James. You want peopel to beelive her ideas and are willignto do anyhtign to make her seem as imprsive as possibl an rmeove all oposiiton to her vies.

My Chrisytaintiy is sued asa blundgeoon. You make it osund as if I oppose Acharya base don my faiht, hate her, and vehemntly opose her, and htus want ot attakc her. You then claim the aritlce is written in sch a way that it attakcs her. No spacific exampels of attakc are shown gowever.

I can assure you, nothign ithe article that is the current ocncensus among the general posters ( As oppsoed ot the Acharyans) is derogatory towards her.

But yo wish to rmeove the links ot CHrisyain rebuttals and all critisms.

If Dorothy wants to attack Chrisgaunity, why has she then no supply of courage to stand up to their rebuttals?

Midn you, Im not th eon makign suh a rebuttal. THis is WIkipedia, and I am ever midnful fo the need tobe Unbiased. Thoughyou will nto accept hat form me.

This is why I think talkigto me on Yahoo woudl be mor eocnductive. Uou would not only getot know me,but also ge tot have liv interaction.

this wya, we can easily discuss, in real time, any and very issue.

The baords you wher invited ot to demonstrae you rown abyslam lack of undertanidng baout both Christendom, and myself. My invovlement on that baord shos how open midned I can be,a s itsamonght emost inclusive baords you can go. THe invitaitonstands alays, butthe raon I want you their now is to demonstrate how little bias their is.

I have fairly rtepresented Mromons, Catholcis, and Jehovahs witnesses. I haveeeven defended Elpidio and MyMindCore when they are misrepresented.

Alternate beelifs that disagree with me are discussed, not shunned. But what I have low tolerationfo is misleadignpeopel.

DOrothy is not a Historian, rleigiosuscholar, linguist,or archeologist. NEither is she anyhtign of particular note in academia. This si a fact, not a disparagy.

Her primary claim to fame is her wbsite and correlated books.

This makes ehr as I am. A proffesional writter, not an acadmic. (thoughIm enerign Acadmia.)

Likewise, As noted,and as you cansee for yorselfif you rmeove the filter, nothgin ibthe articl condmens her.

It is nto my way to condemn beelifs. But her acitosn, and yors, are condmend. You attemot to coerce Wikipedia into complaince to present an image that she desires presetned. This cannot stand.

And htus, my invovlement. After all, it is my article.

Zarove/

67.213.51.6 15:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

James reply

 * forgid me for a minor edit. Wan tot keepthis orderly so moved yor reply.**

Zarove,

I think our differences are best discussed on Acharya's talk page. Perhaps I will drop by the Christian forum when we're done here. J

Invitation.
It is perhaps best to direclty spak. If you have Yahoo messenger, Id be glad to discuss our diffrnces.

I think that, once tou becoem better aquainted with me, you will see that your objecitosn rent as solid as you owudl beleive.

Again, also, theiris a standing invitaiton to The Christain FOrum.

You may psot their. We have Ahtist, Christain Yahwists, andnayhtign elseyou may like. Its open to all.

But I will extned an invitation to Yahoo messenger. If you have htis device on your PC.

My address is Zaroff3.

TO JAMES
It is clear that you and Acharyas other disiples ar eliek her in many ways. Willign to lie, manipualte,and distort to get your way, and quiet willign ti exagerate, and use Ad Hominim attack, while at the same time projectign this on others.

You omit ( Forno reason) the life informaiton, whichis acutlaly the most impotant and yet underdeveloped, aspect of the aritlce, and remove the Critissms. The Critisms are because you want her views presente dunopposed. Ihave no idea why you dont liek the life informaiton, excpe thtat itsirrelevant for the soread of your beleifs.

And htis is the core of it. You want her to look as brilliant as possible. An accredited schoalr, a Historian, linguist, religiosu shcilar, and archeologist.

You want others ot mock me for my claims ( WHich I have acutal accredition for) abotu beign a Physics major once, a Journalist, and other thigns. Yet, I didnt even brign these up, you sdid. I acutlaly do hodl a Masters in Jorunalism. I rellay did work at a paper. I rlelay do now work as a researchder. I did take a year and a ahlf of Physics courses because Im interested. But neither is relevant here.

Now, rather than smear me, which is only a ruse to silenc me so you can gain contorle over the aile and thus write it to your mistress's satisfaction, it pwiudl be more hoenst if you left is alone. I asusre you Im nto a covert Christain operative, and the aricle was nto wrtittn to smear her. As evidence, read the aritcle withotuthe Acharya FIlter. No part of it condmensany of herviews, and hasbeen subjected to numeous peerr reviews here at Wikipedia.

I didnt concemn her for her advicationfo Entheofgens for instance. ( DIspite hr own misrepresentaiton that the artilce did.)

Liekwise, my own Christainbeelifs arent as fundamentalist as you present. Look athte baord soemtimes. We have Elpidio. Hes a Christyain Yahwist. Thusfar he's denied the Virign Birth, claiemd Jesus is not God, and removed books form th cannon fo the Bible, whole adding soem other books. He's an administrator, just liek me.

We have MyMindCore. An athiest. And a Moderator.

The beelifs are varied their and we tolerate all views. This of corusedoesnt serve your ends. So just clal me a Christain fundy out to desotry Acharya. Lie for your mistress. COmmit the same crimes those evil Christains did to desotry Paganism in "The CHrist COnspiracy".

Hypocracy runs rampent, and I grow tired of it.

If you want the truth, then why not create an EZ Account and post on the CHristain FOrum. If you are respectful and kind, you will find a wlcomed plac to post.Otherwise, yo iwll not.The only faovur I ask isthat you do not mention Wikipeidas edit war. I have dileberatley doen the pposit of you. I did not clal in reinforcements, and do notneed the others here to assist me.

I am tryignto avoid Bias and cannot trust evryone theor tobe impartial.

Now.

Rather than smear and attackem whole defendign Acharya, please lt th aritcle as it is nwo stand.

It doesnt defame her, it only temlls all availabel informaitonon who she is.

Except her sons kidnapping and the exact years of her study, which shall be added later. Also, not insultign her.

Smear
To address the "Smear tactics" you reference...

''I've got several other problems with the page. For example, the constant insinuations that the author may be lying about her credentials:''

No, as it stands now it lists her fill known credentials.

...who bills herself as a "historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist, and archaeologist".

This is true, she does bill herself as this. Soitisnot a smear tacgic. Espeiclaly since no evidence exists to prove she is any of these thigns.

''She is an historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist, and archaeologist. If you have information suggesting otherwise, please provide it. Otherwise you are not-so-subtly suggesting she is a lier. A smear tactic.''

The Irony is that Acharya woudl make this demand. " It snot up to the Unbeeliver ot prove God or Jesus Existed, its up to the beleiver." Shes acutlaly said htis. And is soemwhat right.

You see, its up to the cliamant ot prove the claim, not the sceptic. IE, if I claimed to be a PH.D holder in Nuclear Physics, it snot up to yu to prove me wrong. its up to me to present my credentials and prove it.

Acharya is not a Historian, Linguist, rleigious schoalr, or an archeologist. At leats no real record verifies her as such.

If you wan tot prove she is, then by all means please show us her records that prve such.

''She claims to be a member of an institute for the study of Ancient Greek civilization, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece, Though they haveno record of her as a member. She is a member of the American School of Classical Studies. If you have information suggesting otherwise, please provide it. More smear tactics to cast doubt on the authors character and credibility.''

Again, see above. The Claimant must provide the evidence. Until evidence is provided, then the above is 100% accurate.

Her primary sources for her Premise Are the works of Kersey GRaves... and BArbara Walker... That is blatantly false, and easily checked.

I did check, she cites these tso more often than anyone else... and defended the use of Graves till itbecame a lost cause.

(Oh yeah, nobody arguing with me on this has even read her books, so how can they check?!)

Ive read the CHrist Conspiracy and parts of Suns of God, the free bits online...

''She does reference these works, among many. 'The Christ Conspiracy' contains hundreds of quotes and 1200 footnotes, for example. These so-called critics (so-called because this smells like a deliberate smear) pick out a couple sources they feel confident attacking, then try to characterize them as her "primary sources".''

Most of her other soruces ar equelly dubious. IE, Godfrey Higgins, Jospeh Wheeles, G.A.Wells, need I list all her osurces and tell why eahc is considered queasitonable?

Let's not gforget her selective use of Biblical citaitons...

And her misrepsentaiton fo CHruch Fathers...

And her many uncited claims...

''Her research is one-sided, and uses biased, innaccurate, and outdated soruces to prove her point. Ummm, how exactly are we to rebut this sweeping claim??? Sheesh.''

By showign relevant quites. Also, this is not a debate forum, this is an encyclopidia, so sayign ehr critics say this is not exaclty a bad idea.

Again, this arilce telsl what peoepl say about her, and doesnt take sides.

'' Seriously, how about some specific, attributed crticisms that we can sink our teeth into, instead of broad sweeping unattributed statements... that suggest, once again, that wikipedia is being used to smear an author.''

No, it suggests that this article is abotu HER, nto her works, and ives what others are sayign abotu her. Anyoen curiosu enough can check the links for further study...

''I also note that nobody has challenged the quality of scholarship of the RisenJesus.com article in the links section. It is quite plainly abhorrent. Why not?''

Because its not Wikipedias policy to challenge nayoensscholarship. Wikipedia reports what others are saying, but formulates no opinion of its own.

Again, this is an Encyclopidia, not a debate.

''As to the accusation of self-promotion, delete the page (as was offered by an 'admin' above, and agreed to by me) and the whole issue (wikipedia being used to smear and disseminate personal information about an author) would disappear. Since I am not yet familiar with the procedures on wikipedia, please forgive my ineptness in dealing with the issue.''

So either show unilateral unabashed support for her and nto allow critism ofher, or else delete her. ISnt this childish?

Dear James
You maye have some devotion to Acharya,a nd you certianly are damagign my cridibity here, btu my current article is NPOV. The Critisism, for insytance, are vlaid. Because this is what peopel ar saying abotu her. Wikipedia dpesnt take sides. Just because you show her rebuttle tot he critiissm, doesnt meanthat other peopel arent makign them. Nor does it make her rebuttles stand withotu queasiton.

Just because you dotn find Tekton a credibel soruce doesnt mean it doesnt have a comprehensive examination fo Acharya S, oen fo the best onlien as few bother with her.

Just because you think the "Chruch is Boring" line doesnt help any arugments, doesn tmean its not right. Face reality, this article is abotu Acharya S, not the Arguemtns she makes. So Biogrpahical data is valid.

Please grow up and relaise that these articles arent pet promosiosn to Acharya S and must allow all sides ot be presented. I have not stated that Ahcarya was flatly wrong, I do hwoever present her detractors poitns of veiw.

One als tthing, the list of credentials are acutlaly ovocation. A credential is " Master of Hisotry, University of Toronto." Not " Historian." Thats a vocation. The reaosn I removed her list of Vocations is becase shes nnone of those thigns. She claism to be, but shes not.

Bare in mind
This isnot blackmail. The Article is abou her, not her work. All her information is public if you knwo where to look, and I do. S this sitn stalkign either.

The Article is about Acharya S. Not the Christ Conspiracy and hr other works. Its abotu her, persoanlly, so it is germane to discuss her life, as it is available. And all I need do is send what I knwo to a colleuge of mine, get it published, and have it placed on their website. Out of respect for Acharya's wishes to lead a private lifethat is private, I have limited my article to her claims that make her noteworthy,a nd in addiiton to this critiissm.

Thus peopel get the general idea of what peopel are saying about her, and do not learn of her dirty laundry.

But, if yuoui want soruces and verificaiton, which I present int he new article, I will gladly provide.

I'm sorry it came tothis, relaly. I wanted a fun, nice little article abotu an obscure conspriacy theorist so I coudl test my wikipedia postign abilities, and you had to turn it into a demonstraton of force to get Acharya her way.

She and you may not liek it, but Critisism exists as to the validity of her claims, form both "the Psycho Punks for Jesus" and Skeptics.

Both sides need to be represented fairly, not just hers, and not just the Christ Myther side in general. CHristains need to have a say, and if Freemasons object they will be given a say.

This is, after all, a Neutral forum. Not one that takes sides.

Now, if you will, I bid thee Godspeed in other enterprises.

I suggest you find better thigns to xdo with your time than to try to destory someoen elses religious beleifs and defend an Iconoclastic rebel whose distortions are her only claim to fame.

A Message To Acharya.
Tell Acharya and her otherdisiples this.

If she continues to lead otehrs in a Wikiedit war, mor einformaion will be foudn on her, as furtherresearhc will be doen to validate her claims.

I have recently looke dover my old notes, then did a absic web search of university websites. I was wrong, she did not earn a full masters degree, though she did take a few master credits. Shde hodls only a Bachelors degree.

I also learned of her past lover who attemtoed to expose her past criminal record.

I also learend of her Court huistory.

I also learned of her poor grades in school, and how much a joke the "TRench master" allegation is. She was a trench master, btu she hardly gave orders to a team of persons. She took notes at a student dig,. It wasnt even a proffesisonal dig, it was a student dig.

Do you rlelay want me to look furthe rinto Dorothy and her past? If so, then by all means ocntinue this Wikiwar and Ill write a full scale Biogrpahy, compelte with Annotaitons and links to relevant websites, includingthe ASOGS and Frnaklin and MArshal.

I am not trying to threaten here. But I do insist on truth and accuracy. Acharya is not turthful nor is she accurate.

She wants ot present herself as soemtgin othe rhtna she is.This is lying.

If you persist in your useless harrassment and stupid claism that the "Status Quo" ar eht only oens htat need to present evidence, I ll present mroe than she woudl hope for.

If ytour Clay footed Idol woudl step out of th shadows and be forthright with her credentials and biases, fine, if not, and if you decide to once again rmeove all critisisms of her work, and insted only show praise and sypport, and list her as " A Historian, linguist, Religiosu Schilar, Mythologyst, and Archeologist", then Ill show how each and every claim is as fraudulent as she claism Christainity is.

Because unlike CHristainity, their are TONS of documents abotu her life.

Need I also check her credit hisotry?

Its posisble online.

And Im sorry to have to make it this way. Byt as a reporter, I know th eimorotance of what appears in a public venue. If I simply write how much a wonderful person she is nd list all the thigns she cliasm to be as fact, people will beleive this. This article needs to be about proven facts, nt a support of her premise andnot just her own propoganda.

This Aritlce is nbout her and her life, so a Biogrpahy is not a bad idea. I limited it to this information fornow, but will not hesitate to post facts about Dorothy Milne Murdock if she insists on fair representaiton. Ill post every libnk to every soruce as well.

What she means by fair rpresentaiton, thought, is unabashed support with no critisism.

Now, she can be content with her claism beign refuted and challenged, her rela name onscured ot D. Murdock, and her illustrious list of talents removed, or else she can allow a full examination of her life.

tEKTONICS
''Re: "Tekton doesnt mean 'Fremason'... I checked."

You checked? Are you sure? Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions, based on such scant research. Get to know your subject a little deeper before forming set opinions. A little rigour and extra care never hurts. I've fact-checked this in the past, but did so again today. Here's what I came up with:

"the Modern Greek word for mason, or free mason, is Tektonas. And the word for "Masonic" is tektonikos (Reference: "Oxford Greek Mini-dictionary"; Watts, Niki; Oxford University Press, 1997)"''

It means Masonas in Builder. Not Mason asin "Freemason."

I checked an online Greek Lexicon. It is not rlelay the same as Freemasonry.

Tekton only means builder. Its nto a proof of any conspiracy theory you may adhere to. Even if it where, this is Wikipedia, not Acharya S's personal commercial. Freemasons have a right to an opinion as well. TEkton Ministires is a vlaid refutaiton of Acharya simply because they make valid points. Acharya herself is not considered a vlaid soruc eby many, even athiests, so I odn't see why you insist on harping.

THis aside, the term "Tekton" even f taken to mean Mason relaly isnt relevant here.

''Hey, by the way, did you know that the masons are rumoured to be in the religion crafting business? For example, I've read articles suggesting that prominent freemasons were involved in the creation of the Jehovas Witnesses and the Mormons. Interesting, no?''

Not really. We are discussing your useless editign of Acharya S's article, not where religiosn came form.

As to your claims about ASCSA, if you can post information to suggest that Acharya S is a lier, then be my guest.

Let me spell the logic out again, slowly.

You and she and others make the claim he is part of the American Shcool of GReek Studies. This is a posiitve. I cannot prove a negative.

Thus, those advancign the claimmust make the evidence knwon. As it stands nw, there is no real evidence. The ASOGS has no reord of her. I stated int he aritlce that the claim could not be substantiated. I origionally tried to edit the claim out, completley. Now I have to make due with "it is not substantated." As I cannot fidn any evidence that she is in the ASOGS, aside form her own self proffessed membership and evidence that she recievs a newsletter I coudl recieve if I asked for one, as a Non-Member, this doesnt bode well.

The Burden of proof is on you to show that she is,in fact, a member of the Society. If you cannot, then what can I say other than " this claim is not substantiated." SHiftign 100% of the repsoincobility tome, especiially when I am not the claimant, is absurd.

''I'm all ears. Personally, I could care less about guarantees. I don't take things on 'faith', and I don't take things on 'trust'.''

Yes tyou do. You have faith in and trust whatever Acharya says. Otherwise you woudl understand why I dont beelive that shes part of the ASOGS since I lack any and every evidence linkign her to this.

You took that, alone, on faith. I also take it you trusted her researhc implicitely.

 I require solid evidence and an intelligent argument.

OK, here goes.

I see no evidence that she is in the ASOGS, and she is not mentioend on the rosters of members.

I see no verificaiton for her claim. Thus her clim is unsubstantated.

See, how what can you do to rectify this?

''And even then I'm open to new information. Otherwise, people would be able to manipulate me just by telling me lies.''

Kinda liek Acharya, no?

Also, I need some clarification: please explain (with examples) as to what you mean when you say 'primary sources'.

As in, sources that ar primary, or first. IE, when discussing the story of Krishna, it is best to go tot he Vida's. Not "The Worlds 16 Crucified Saviours." I knwo Acharya sauys she didnt rley on Graves, btu last year she defended her use of Graves. And indeed, her writtigns note him often in th edition of "The CHirst Conpsiracy" that I wopwn. Shoudl I count the number of references?

Firts Century soruces actually wrtten in the firts century are prmary. Firts century soruces written int he 19th century are clealry not.

And feel free to "list as many errors as you like, although I think you should focus on her major tenets, as wikipedia probably is not the place to get bogged down in minor details.

I tried that. Thats why I focused on her current claim that Buddha and Krishna share the same life sotry as CHirst. Thy dont. Any reader of Wikipedia will learn swiflty the differences between Buddha and Krishna, much less either of them and CHrist.

Read the Hisotry section.

''And make sure that the 'errors' are based on what she actually wrote, not what some religious website claims she wrote. You do have access to her books, correct?"''

I own her book "The Christ Conspiracy." I read it. I knwo whats in it.I know its fukll of hot air. What moe can I say?

Tektonas
Re: "Tekton doesnt mean 'Fremason'... I checked."

You checked? Are you sure? Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions, based on such scant research. Get to know your subject a little deeper before forming set opinions. A little rigour and extra care never hurts. I've fact-checked this in the past, but did so again today. Here's what I came up with:

"the Modern Greek word for mason, or free mason, is Tektonas. And the word for "Masonic" is tektonikos (Reference: "Oxford Greek Mini-dictionary"; Watts, Niki; Oxford University Press, 1997)"

Hey, by the way, did you know that the masons are rumoured to be in the religion crafting business? For example, I've read articles suggesting that prominent freemasons were involved in the creation of the Jehovas Witnesses and the Mormons. Interesting, no?

As to your claims about ASCSA, if you can post information to suggest that Acharya S is a lier, then be my guest. I'm all ears. Personally, I could care less about guarantees. I don't take things on 'faith', and I don't take things on 'trust'. I require solid evidence and an intelligent argument. And even then I'm open to new information. Otherwise, people would be able to manipulate me just by telling me lies.

Also, I need some clarification: please explain (with examples) as to what you mean when you say 'primary sources'.

And feel free to "list as many errors as you like, although I think you should focus on her major tenets, as wikipedia probably is not the place to get bogged down in minor details. And make sure that the 'errors' are based on what she actually wrote, not what some religious website claims she wrote. You do have access to her books, correct?"

^^James^^ 23:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Tekton and other neusances
I don't care what Tekton means in Greek. It was presented ot show another poitn fo veiw besides Acharya's. Robert Price's peice stands because he's a fellow Mytheisst.So even if Acharya is Discredited peopel still beleive what she says, basiclaly.

I know you on the mailign list have Tekton with a passion, just as much as you hate actual fair and baalnced articles on wikipedia. You rpefer the glowong "Isn't Acharya so wonderful" Variety.That's not fair and balanced.Her critics need an equel voice to her.

Again, I cna post a link to ASOGS and you can browse the list, opnline, of Alumni and mmbers past and preasent. I gurentee you that Dorothy Murdock isnt one of them.

But what you rlelay want is a document hat says "She is nto a mebmber." Thats not posisble, a sporving a negative is seldom acheivable. Can you prove that she's a member, other than form her own soruces?

Show me evidence she is,in fact, a member. Any evidence.So far I have none. I'd gladly retract my claim that she's not if I had evidence. That's wat makes me different form you.

No, the only place you find this is on her website.

Let's not forget, the critis=ms to her book ar ealso freley available pnline. IE, herlakc of prrimary source use, her use of discredited soruces, her fallacy in word origins. I can go ona nd on lisitn lots more erros than just "The Buddha and Krishna wheren't Crucified."

Again, do you rlelay want me to go that far?

I'm not lookign to just out and out discredit Acharya. But you are looking to promote her.

This is an encyclopidia, so her critics must be allowed, as wlel as all available evidence.

Also, a small addition. Tekton doesnt mean "Fremason", it means builder, or craftsman. It cna be taken to mean Freemason, in the sence of oen who builds things, but ha no Messianic attatchment as far as the secret society goes. I checked.


 * I don't consider Tecktonics to be a reputable source. I doubt anybody else would, either. If you can back up your assertions, please do. I'm all ears. Otherwise, your tossing around baseless accusations.


 * Acharya S either is a member of ASCSA or isn't. It's something that can be checked, unlike proving the existence of God. Please provide some evidence of inpropriety regarding her credentials, else you come off as attempting to smear her character. Why are you holding back on this? Because your claim is baseless and you're lying??


 * List as many errors as you like, although I think you should focus on her major tenets, as wikipedia probably is not the place to get bogged down in minor details. And make sure that the 'errors' are based on what she actually wrote, not what some religious website claims she wrote. You do have access to her books, correct?

From Zarove.
James, you wrote this.

''You have to back up your assertions. For example, if you want to claim that she has lied about being a member of the American School of Classical Studies, provide some evidence and documentation, else your claim should be considered baseless.''


 * I have evidence. I was a reporter. Idid a story on her. Trust me, I could have posted a lot mor personal informaiton, but only posted what was alreayd made known. IE, her real name. Dr.Price made that available in publications.


 * I called the American Society for Greek Studies, and they have no record of her as a member. I am not placing this evidnece in because it is superfluous to the artilce, it is sufficient for me to tell others that the society has no record of her as a member. And perhaps post a link to their website, so others cna confirm. WOudl this be better for you?


 * If you have evidence, please provide it. Wikipedia does not operate from 'trust'. The guidlines require that claims be backed up with verifiable sources. So please provide them. And it's not my job to back up your claims. Back them up yourself.


 * Dr. Price made 'D. Murdock' available. Please provide verifiable documentation, as per wiki guidelines, that shows your full version of her name is correct. Otherwise your claim (regardless of it's truth) is not based on any provided evidence.

''The 'Theme of Books' section is no place for criticism. Criticism must be balanced and present a fair representation of what she actually writes. Provide direct quotes to illustrate the claims she makes so that we can see for ourselves what she actually says first, then criticise her position. Otherwise it might look as though you were misrepresenting her position, then attacking your own misrepresentation. The well known straw-man fallacy. ^^James^^ 18:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)''


 * My crititisms where fair and baalnced. By Fair and Balanced you relaly eman in support of her claims. You woudl not allow any critisism. You won't even allow TEkton's link to stand. Your sole agenda seems to be promotion of Acharya S, not in offering any vlaid informaitom abotu her outside of her sales pitch. You want to make her appear reputable, as if her book and ideas are taken seriosuly in academia. They arent. SHe's a conspiracy theorist.


 * I do allow criticism. Consider that I haven't argued against allowing Robert Prices criticism to stand. I don't consider Tekton (which means "freemason" in modern greek by the way) a reputable source. And please lets not cast vague aspersions as to my motives. I don't mind a fair and balanced assesment of AS's work or credentials. Some in academia DO take her work seriously. Academia is far too broad a term to be tossing around, as though it were some homogenous entity. It's not. Science is based on disputes and debate. That's how it grows. If nobody were offering controversial, challenging perspectives, it would become stagnant and unthinking. And 'conspiracy' simply means that people secretly cooperated to commit a crime. It happens all the time, and so is not much of a criticism. Consider the Churches efforts to cover up child abuse by its priests. That should be rightly labeled a conspriacy, IMO.


 * As to direct quotes, thats a bit hefty. This artilce is a breif summation of Acharya S and her work, not a detialed ananlysis of the acual books in queasiton. They may get future Wikipedia articles on them. But for this aritlce it is sufficient to post a few basic facts she getswrong, so peopel get the general gist.


 * The problem is, presenting the 'gist' of her work is one thing, but basing criticisms solely on that 'gist', which is only a general idea of what her work is about, is another. If you want to accurately criticise, you have to get into some detail about what she actually says in her work. The devil is in the details, as they say.


 * In the History secion, a "Critisisms" area use to exist. I did not compose this. Noentheless, it served to balance out Acharya's claism of herself. You remove critisism, not to make the article fair and ba;anced, but yo mae it biased in faovur of her.


 * See the talk page under 'Smear Tactics'. Discuss it there.


 * I have sent the administrator warnings.I have shown him the Christ COnsoiracy mailign list and how you discyss the edits.


 * You dont weant fair or balanced, you want propoganda.


 * Please, lets not get personal. I am most capable of being fair and playing by the rules. If you want to make edits, discuss and debate them first on their merits instead of going ahead and simply changing things.

Warning
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! --Ragib 03:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you're talking about. ^^James^^ 03:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Does this diff ring a bell? You blanked out comments from several users. Don't blank comments. --Ragib 03:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * oh, I removed the section I had added before because geni had modified it.


 * Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acharya_S&oldid=23425311 (my original post)
 * to genis mods here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acharya_S&oldid=23428140


 * and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acharya_S&oldid=23428757


 * Isn't what geni did considered vandalism? If so, I was only trying to correct it. (I have a user account now.)


 * I called it vandalism. Of course, the rules are rather unclear regarding talk pages, so many people might disagree. In any case, James, I think your removal of the voting section was rather magnanimous, and a reasonable way to avoid an edit war. I must say that, although I agree with most of Geni's points, I disagree greatly with his methods, and I consider his removal of the voting section (twice!) to be extremely impolite. By the way, regardless of whether there is a vote, I'd like to know what exactly you wanted us to vote on: the short name (initial + last name) or the full name. If the latter, then I would say don't worry about it. It's been days since any edit of the article included it, and I think the consensus on leaving it out is pretty clear. Reply here if you want; I'll watch this page for a while. &mdash; Nowhither 20:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I was going to ask for a vote on having her name at all. I realized of course that the name is available on google... still I thought I had a compelling case for its removal, but perhaps was a little overzealous in its pursuit. No biggy. Interesting culture here on wikipedia. I will learn more about it, will add more content to AS's page, and am thinking of setting up a wiki-based site of my own (as I heard that could be done.)


 * It certainly can. Plenty of Wiki software is available under an open-source/free-software license. I imagine the MediaWiki software (which is what Wikipedia runs) is available under such a license. &mdash; Nowhither 18:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

3RR warning
Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. --Ragib 18:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Even when reverting vandalism? But thanks for the 3RR tip. ^^James^^ 18:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. In this case, it is an edit dispute. I've given the warning to both the parties involved. --Ragib 18:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Acharya S
<>

You may always count on me for these small things. Of course, that was for Zarove's consumption. Since this post is for your consumption, then I would like to place more emphasis on the "what we can get away with" bit. By "what we can get away with", I mean what we can get consensus approval for. Which is where you come in.

I'm planning on working, on a subpage of my userpage at first, on a compromise draft. Since you seem to be the ringleader of the opposition, the pro-Acharyans (i.e., the people who want the article to say "Acharya is the best thing since sliced bread, and is possibly a holy woman of some sort"), you'll be the first person I'll go to for comments. After all, the thing I want most is an end to the dispute, and a high quality consensus-backed article. Yes, I would like the overall message of said article to be "Acharya is a nut", but that is only because I believe that statement to be close to objective reality. I understand you have a different view of things, and you are welcome to disabuse me of my no-doubt ill-conceived notions. At worst, you'll provide valuable grist for the article, and at best, you may even convince me. After all, judging by my professed religious stance (proudly advertised on my user page), if I'm a covert Christian zealot, then I must be one that is under deep cover indeed. I'm more annoyed by Acharya's alledged misrepresentation of the Buddha then I am by her alledgedly amateurish biblical hatchet-job.

At any rate, attempting to convince me of your position is optional - making sure that I don't bias the article too far in the direction of my position is not, and is your responsibility.

On a different note, I must say I really don't care about Zarove's motivations or who started what, aside from the possibility that they might be the key to getting him to calm down and start typing grammatically - or at least remembering to use a spell checker. The other editors involved probably don't care either. If you can't say something nice - or at least referring to the actual article content rather than the nature of the contributor's parentage - then it would be best not to say anything at all. (Otherwise you'll look like a total git who would rather fillibuster than get any actual work done.) For example, you could take a vacation from the article until say, December 18, which is probably the earliest I can start on this compromise draft. crazyeddie 16:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked for 48 hours for attacking User:ZAROVE on Talk:Acharya S. Charles Matthews 20:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration
I believe they try to deal with cases in the order they appear, so since there are still several older cases there is probably still a little time to add evidence. I haven't seen a set timetable. If his history on other websites is relevant, it can be mentioned, though of course there's the issue of showing that it is in fact the same person. As to his claims about himself, I'm not sure how they're relevant to the problem at hand. I'd like to keep the arbitration focused on ZAROVE's threats to publish personal information that amounts to an invasion of privacy. --Michael Snow 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)