User talk:COGDEN/Archive 2

The following material was archived September 8, 2005:

Testimony
I need your opinion. Should we add the religious definition of testimony to that page? It seems like a fairly important concept to me (it's not limited to Mormonism either; Muslims claim to have a similar personal revelation, and I'm sure other faiths do also), but I'm not sure how to do this "the right way." Bccomm 03:09, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * IMO, there is only one definition for testimony, and that is the statement of what one has experienced. I don't think it is smart to encourage divergence of meanings with a separate encyclopedia section.  However, I suppose reality is that testimony is used in churches to establish truth for the uninitiated.  What I find problematic is the dilution of meaning of testimony into something that is not in harmony with the spirit of the word.  I can bear testimony of my experiences praying in faith and the results.  But I can't bear testimony of putting my hands into the side of the Son of God.  Either way, my testimony is valid and related to the religious purpose of life, in that it builds faith IF it is shared humbly and unembellished.  "I did this.  This happened.  Glory be to God." Tom 17:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * OK. That seems to be what I was looking for. I've added a brief statement under the main testimony article, but feel free to muck about with it. Thanks again. Bruce 19:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tom that there aren't really two meanings to the word testimony, but I think the word is used in two distinctly different ways--a religious way and a legal way. I don't think a testimony is limited to what one has experienced. It also extends to what one knows or believes, even if there is no associated experience. I'm making a few changes to the article. COGDEN 20:19, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Again, I don't know if this is too literalist, but I think we should stick to the etymologically supported and dictionarily supported meaning, as below. Testimony essentially equals witness, which implies experience or sight.

tes·ti·mo·ny n. pl. tes·ti·mo·nies

1.        1. A declaration by a witness under oath, as that given before a court or deliberative body. 2. All such declarations, spoken or written, offered in a legal case or deliberative hearing. 2. Evidence in support of a fact or assertion; proof. 3. A public declaration regarding a religious experience. 4.        1. The stone tablets inscribed with the Law of Moses. 2. The ark containing these tablets.

[Middle English, from Old French testimonie, from Latin testimnium, from testis, witness. See testify.]

Tom 20:31, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It's just that I've heard countless testimonies in Sacrament Meeting and even General Conference that have nothing to do with specific experiences or revelations, and are simply professions of knowledge or belief. Also, in the legal realm, testimony requires personal knowledge, but (at least in the U.S.), it doesn't matter whether that knowledge was obtained through observation, or in some other way. For example, experts can testify as to things they have deduced, or as to hypothetical facts. COGDEN 21:44, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Or in other words, my interpretation is just too literal for a sloppy world. :-D Tom 23:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

LOL. I must say, though, that quite a few articles around WikiPedia could benefit from more literalism. Personally, however, I think that COGDEN's first sentance in the article is sufficient in terms of generalization. I'd also have to agree that only one pure definition of the word really exists. Thanks for all the input/insight/changes! Being a fifteen-year-old convert-at-heart forced me to build my own testimony quickly and strongly on my own (I've only been able to go to one meeting before and I've never borne my testimony to a real person; my parents aren't believers). This really started me thinking about what it means&mdash;and how special it is&mdash;to have one. This is further magnified when I look at my anti-Mormon past. Thanks again, guys. Bruce 01:31, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good Work
Very nice work on the Mormonism and Christianity page. I know I don't give a lot of compliments - and we don't see eye to eye on certain research methods/authors/theories, but you'd done an excellent job on this page so far with the re-write. -Visorstuff 00:01, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * ThanksCOGDEN 03:56, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. Your final efforts seem to have been the straw that broke the dispute's back (to torture a tired phrase). Good job. We all seem to be sleeping better now. Tom 03:17, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Human
Hey, COGDEN. Have you seen the human page? Wow! It is funny. Species status: secure  ROTFL  Any ideas? I think it can be fixed, but I don't know how. Tom 23:47, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes. That's pretty strange. I'm going to have to take a look to see if there are any comparable pages in commercial encyclopedias.COGDEN 16:26, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. That's the kind of research I have in mind, as well as some Googling and comparison with other Wikipedia articles. Tom 17:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have a short favor to ask of you. The Human discussion is getting strong, and I think it would help to lay our cards on the talbe so the "secularists" can see just how different is our point of view on just what is a human. But at the same time, I want to be able to get a "generic" (ha ha) religious view. In any case, would you take some time to drop by my user talk and add your personally believed factual definition of what is a human. I appreciate it. Tom - Talk 22:30, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure. I'll take a look. COGDEN 21:06, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Tom - Talk 19:37, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mormonism and Christianity
Hi. I notice you reverted my addition at Mormonism and Christianity about the LDS church accepting mainstream Trinitarian believers for baptism. I'm not saying you're wrong, but given the amount of time that the last Mormon missionaries who visited me spent arguing against the Trinity I'd like to know more. Do you have more info? I've asked the questions at Talk:Mormonism and Christianity. DJ Clayworth 21:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

LDS STUBS
Hi COGDEN,

I just wanted to drop in to let you know that I've just finished the template Template:LDS-stub. It should make it easier to find topics on Mormonism that need to be expanded. You can use the template in your editing by entering. I hope you will. Pass it on if you see anybody I've missed. ;) Thanks. Cookiecaper 03:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Admin nomination
G'day mate, thanks for your support for my nomination for admin! I'll try to remain gung-ho :P - Ta bu shi da yu 03:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to make a Mormonism WikiProject
I'd like to discover if there would be community support for a Mormonism WikiProject. I think it would offer several advantages to our current decentralized approach. Please comment.

See Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. &mdash; Cool Hand Luke  18:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I Responded on the Joseph Smith, Jr. page. CO GDEN  01:35, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the WikiProject under WikiProject Latter Day Saint. Feel free to move it to a less clumsy title. To provide initial content for the project, I used perl scripts to identify certain sorts of potential work. Of particular note to you, I think, is a list of red links from the pages related to Mormonism.

I know it's hard to keep projects moving, but it seems we have enough interested editors at the moment. Cool Hand Luke 08:21, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I think identifying work like missing links is important. At best red links are holes, and at worst&mdash;as Visorstuff articulates&mdash;they're invites to POV content. I may write another script to identify most-requested stubs (links from non-stub articles). We have too many of them, I think. Theres so much work to be done... Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!)  05:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your recent comments on Wikipedia
I feel deeply in agreement with your comments about Wikipedia. Good thoughts. Tom - Talk 18:18, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

God and Gender
Hi, Sam and COGDEN, Cogden is partially correct. Hindus believe that nature of the Ultimate Reality, i.e., God or Shiva has really no form. But form is needed for humans to concentrate as Saguna Brahman. One of the form symbolzing that God is everything, is Ardhanarishvara, half-male and half-female, representing all genders of all living things. See source, http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/M04.html additionally, see, http://www.dlshq.org/download/lordsiva.htm As for Ganesh, Ganesh is never presented in that manner. As a practical point, Hinduism is too broad a term and is really four divisions. 1) Vaishnvaism 2) Shaivism 3) Shaktism and 4) Smarta see below web site. Ganesh, by 99% of Hindus is not the Supreme God, who is typically in Hinduism is Vishnu or Shiva. Ganesh is worshipped for material success just as Christians veneraate saints. Even most Smartas pray to either Vishnu or Shiva. As a practical point, Hindus are mostly liberal in theology. However, if pressed to identity, 75-80% of Hindus are Vaishnvaites. So this theme about being a polytheistic religion is garbage. See http://www.gitamrta.org/, misconceptions about Hinduism In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna, avatar of Vishnu states that He alone is God. Those who worship Devas, commonly potrayed as gods in Western media are of limited understanding. http://www.harekrishna.com/~ara/col/books/BG/tsem1.html; The Gita itself preaches strong Vaishnavite monotheism.

And for Cogden to understand the nature of what Hinduism is, and not the proproganda what is presented, please see http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/M02.html. I believe that you are Mormon and many do not consider Mormonism to be part of Christianity. I withold judgment on that as I am not familiar with Mormonism, as you are not familiar with Hinduism. Also see the commentary on wikpedia's Vishnu sahasranama; it shows that Vishnu and Shiva are one and the same. Thank you.

Smarta Advaita believes that the Ultimate Reality is an Impersonal Divinity, devoid of form or attributes but expresses Itself through attributes such as Vishnu or Shiva or whatever form a devotee conceives. We all can't be worshiping different Gods as different aspects of God belong to this Nirguna Brahman or God without form as there must be one God. Sankara wrote a brilliant commentary on the Bhagavad Gita where he states such feelings. As the Vedas state, Truth is one, the wise call by different names.

Krishna said in the Gita: Men worship Me in different ways, I accept them all. That is why Hinduism historically has been tolerant of other faiths. India was one of the few places in ancient times (perhaps Persia under Cyrus) not to persecute Jews. Parsis fled Iran from Arab invasion to escape persecution from Islam and took refuge in India. Here is another excellent book available on the web: http://www.kamakoti.org/newlayout/template/hindudharma.html/2/1/hindu/The+Vedic+Religion%3A+Introductory;

God is One: http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part14/chap9.htm http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part14/chap10.htm http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/gita/gita_sara/gs-007.html

Thank you. so before having a wrong view of Hinduism, please read the information. I can't critique Mormonism as I have no knowledge of it.

Reply to Paganism
No problem. Yes, perhaps pagan has a negative connotation. Hindus have also a term for people who they considered to not to follow the Vedic order, mleechas or yavanas. Perhaps it is similar to calling someone a Gentile.(Judaism) It may have offensive connotations but perhaps it means someone who followed non-Jewish traditions. As I see it, pagan meant non-Abrhamanic religions and non-other recognized religions of the world, such as Hinduism and Buddhism. To call half the population pagan seems odd. I conceived of pagan as meaning to be animistic traditions or spirit worship or Hellenic worship. But some interpret paganism to be any non-Christian religion as well. Under that definition, Jews and Muslims would be pagans. Some extreme Christians would consider pagans to include even Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses (they deny the Holy Trinity)(see wikpedia article on paganism) So I think pagan, as seen in the wikpedia article has a very broad definition. So thus, I would avoid using that term as pagan has a broad definition (from my interpretation to mean Greek and animism) to your interpretation(non-Abrahmanic) to yet another definition(non-Christian) So thus, I would avoid using that term as pagan has a broad definition (from my interpretation to mean Greek and animism) to your interpretation(non-Abrahmanic) to yet another definition(non-Christian) User: 67.106.157.231

Admin
I'd like to nominate you for admin if you agree. You may be able to more easily help revert vandals and block any that you happen to catch early on. You have worked hard and I've never heard a spiteful word from you (maybe I'm just deaf.) Tom - Talk 22:50, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure, if you think I can make it. Thanks. My only worry is that I don't have 2000 edits yet (I think it's just under 1500 right now), and my contributions are very predominantly in the religion area. But I guess you were in about the same boat. And I am coming up on about my year-mark here. CO GDEN  01:19, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

I guess you are supposed to go over to RfA now and accept the nomination. Tom - Talk 05:01, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Politics
I think your recent politics additions to your user page are spot on. It's easy to have conservative tendencies as a member of the Church, but that's just a social thing. Scriptures supporting anti-war sentiments and civil libertarianism are abundant, it's true, but are too often overlooked or ignored in the name of tradition. This really applies to all forms of Chrisitanity, not just overwhelmingly "Heartland Warrior" populations like Latter-day Saints. Bruce 23:44, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments! CO GDEN  01:34, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Nice comments, CO. I still vote generally Republican. But I am not partisan anymore. It was hard choosing a candidate in this election. I ended up figuring Arizona was going for Bush, and I voted Libertarian for President. I am on the whole pleased Bush won, though I am saddened and troubled that we can't live the higher law and exemplify peace. I deplore the war (though I suppose it can be called a "justified war"), and here is another good quote for you from Benjamin Franklin, "There never was a good war or a bad peace." It is sad that people are so partisan in their politics. There is much that is good and bad in all sectors. I believe (and I think it is common among conservatives who truly believe in sacrificial love) that welfare by taxation is spiritually crippling to the nation, both to the payer and to the receiver. But God loveth the cheerful giver, and both giver and receiver are sanctified. So our stance on welfare we take to be morally the highest position (as long as we personally sacrifice for the poor, giving time and money to humanitarian causes). So here's what I say about Bush. Not much of a strong case either way :-( My wife didn't even vote for president, she thought it was so bad: Happy editing!  Tom - Talk 03:24, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * War bad
 * Deficit spending bad
 * Medicare expansion bad
 * Social security preservation bad
 * Abortion funding freeze good
 * Marriage defense good
 * Stem cell moratorium good
 * Happy First Marriage good

I was about to apologize for never noticing the politics section before, but it's a new addition? I agree with you, especially about civil libertarianism. Although I've not yet gone to law school, I'm led to believe Reynolds v United States poorly initiated the free exercise clause. More broadly, I believe that systematically striping groups of substantive privileges is wrong. It was wrong then, and it's still wrong today. Cool Hand Luke  08:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. the Reynolds case was absurd. The Court compared polygamy to human sacrifice, and stated that Congress could legislate against it because it was not the traditional form of marriage, and it disturbed the social order. While I understand the need for laws against human sacrifice, polygamy wasn't human sacrifice. It was just something consenting adults did in the privacy of their own home. If it disturbed the social order, that was only because people didn't agree with it on religious grounds, which was no fault of the polygamists. Essentially, the Court allowed Congress to punish Mormons for non-Mormons' intolerance. CO GDEN  03:49, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * So are you planning to go to law school? Any interest in patent law (my field)? CO GDEN  03:49, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to apply right now. In fact, I should really be working on applications instead of getting even more involved with wikipedia. I am a chemistry major, so most people assume patent law's my agenda, but I have a strong interest in philosophy and law and hope to do very well in law school, get a good clerkship, and try to get into academia. If not, I could do much worse than patent law. Incidentally, did you graduate from George Washington before or after Michael Young was there? He's our (Utah's) new president, and they say that he greatly improved the law school there. Washington D.C. scares me, and it's not one of the handful of schools that produce most law professors, but I am considering it because of its patent law reputation. Cool Hand Luke  09:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Allow me to ask a few personal questions that I hope won't offend (I ask these questions to myself and other left-of-center LDS often):
 * How have your political views affected your respect for church leaders, if at all?
 * Do they in any way affect the amount of respect you recieve while serving in the church?
 * Have you ever felt as if you needed to make accomodations/changes to your viewpoint on specific issues because of our theology?
 * And lastly ---the most personal question of all; you don't have to answer if you don't want---
 * How much difficulty did you have in finding an eternal companion, because of your views?
 * Does she hold the same views or is she just open-minded?

Bruce 11:59, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad to answer:
 * I have great respect for church leaders, and wish I could be like them. Though I don't necessarily agree with everything ever said by any general authority, I try to do what I'm commanded. When church leaders offer advice or scriptural exegesis, as opposed to commandment, I try to understand what they are saying, what moved them to say it, and how I can apply it to my life. But in the end, on matters of conscience, I recognize that I must follow the Holy Spirit. I don't believe that there is one right way to run the church: if God wanted to micromanage the church, he'd do it himself. So I believe that church leaders are allowed to make mistakes, and to have differences of opinion. The fact that they aren't perfect, or that there are often many acceptable answers to any given question, doesn't bother me. Thus, for example, I don't agree that the church was wise in supporting Prohibition or not allowing Blacks to hold the priesthood. But I respect the leaders who made that decision, and their right to make it. Church history is full of learning experiences.
 * Generally, I keep my political views to myself at church, especially when I lived in Utah. But I'm in California now, and I know a few active LDS Democrats, and we agree on a number of issues.
 * Membership in the church makes me less of an ideologue, as I recognize that other people whom I respect have different opinions.
 * I never expected that my wife would share my political views. She's a pretty traditional Republican, but she has become much more moderate over the years, and in the last election she voted for Kerry. She knew I was a Democrat when we met, but it's never really been an issue for us. We are both pretty pragmatic on political issues. CO GDEN  03:49, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * I read an interesting view of church leaders' opinions on secular matters in Reflections of a Scientist by Henry Eyring, edited (heavily&mdash;as Ed Eyring of the current Utah chemistry department tells me), by Henry B. Eyring. On revelation, Eyring acknowledged his unwavering dedication to the prophet as God's worker on earth. On evolution, Eyring took the prophet's opinion as an opinion. Cool Hand Luke  09:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:21, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Adam-God
Can you revisit my recent edits to Adam-God theory and clean it up. I've doubled the size of the article with more recent primary and secondary research I've done. Also, see talk page about previous issue we had on the topic - I've found the answer. -Visorstuff 23:39, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think the article looks great. CO GDEN  23:49, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.
Hello. I'm not sure if you've seen this discussion, but it's been going on for a while. I wondered if you have an opinion on it. Currently, the issue has been distilled to whether we should list Smith as President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in a box at the bottom of the article. I'd like to know if my sanity is in order. Cool Hand Luke  21:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. CO GDEN  21:18, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Nephilim
Nice work on Nephilim! The article looks much better. – Quadell (talk) (help)  01:23, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. CO GDEN  04:52, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)
 * Done. CO GDEN (talk) 21:05, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Unverfied Image
Thanks for uploading Image:Elijah Abel drawing.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if the original drawing is old enough to be public domain, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Dsmdgold 00:09, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Done. CO GDEN (talk) 21:05, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Cogden
Nice "disclaimer" on your userpage - I assume it's a reference to the Cobb County morons. :) Neutralitytalk 06:22, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * That's right. Thanks. CO GDEN (talk) 21:05, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Equal Protection Clause
Thanks for your support. It means something more when it comes from a lawyer. Hydriotaphia 04:53, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Rename of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Can you please support the rename and requested move to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter=day Saints Requested moves Thanks --Trodel 06:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) (by the way I graduated JD from J. Rueben Clark Law School?)


 * Done. Actually, I went to BYU as an undergrad. I went to law school at The George Washington University (which like the Church, by the way, also officialy begins with a The). CO GDEN  18:49, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thx - I gave up on the IP lawyer to work for a software firm - I love it. Trodel 20:26, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi again - I was wondering what the policy is on the move of a page. The move above was voted 17-10 and yet Netoholic moved the discussion to the talk page of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (boy wikifying that name is going to be a hassle). and said there is no clear concensus - but a nearly 2/3 vote in favor seems to justify the move IMHO -I know your support was reserved, so I thought you would be a good arbitrator for this decision. Any advice you can give me before I start making the links all refer correctly to the name of the Church. i.e. must I use a link like above (without the Talk of course) or can I link to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and rely on the redirect to get the correct page? TIA, Trödel 20:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sticking my nose in here. I too, was a bit reserved about the move.  I know it is a hassle to do the wikifying, but the community is pretty picky about its customs.  I just checked and there is indeed already a redirect page.  Also, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints works just fine and seems to be handled by the Wikimedia software as one request instead of two, so that the delivery is as fast as a direct reference. (We might want to put this on the project page).  I say do it the easy way and rely on the redirect.  Tom H. 23:27, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't even think of that option and I love it. Let's rely on the redirect. -Visorstuff 18:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Then, if we want to revisit the name change issue later, no links would have to change. CO GDEN  19:05, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

I did add this standard to the style guide and started making the updates. Wikipedia is working really slowly but most of the times my changes are accepted. Hopefully, we can get this up and running - wish George Soros would give The Foundation a generous donation so wikipedia could get the servers it obviously needs (and maybe some load balancing consulting from IBM or Reuters or someone that deals with massive amounts of data downlaoding). Will try to do some more tonight Trödel 20:49, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Family values
Some time ago I came across the family values article. I was concerned that it didn't have enough hard facts and was approaching an essay (it didn't even mention Dan Quayle's role in popularizing the phrase). I started a rewrite and put the page on "Pages needing attention," but there haven't been any takers. I wonder if you could take a stab at it. It's fine if you want to pull in what was there before, I would just prefer more detail about who said what and when. Gazpacho 07:57, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure. I take a look. CO GDEN  06:29, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

WP:LDS
Please opine at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement. Thanks. Tom Haws 17:15, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I need to follow the project page better. CO GDEN  19:35, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Fashionable Nonsense
I've left this message because I noticed you engaging in a discussion with users who are attempting to spread popularization of the viewpoint stated in Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont's book Fashionable Nonsense and related events. I've begun an attempt to create a repository that will attempt to, ultimately, remove this misinformed position from an ideally-neutral Wikipedia, except to acknowledge the viewpoint in its own context.

This attempt isn't going so well, so I'm contacting people like you whom I've seen discussing the topic earlier than I've intended. See both the intended meta-article and its discussion page for details.

Fashionable Nonsense is not a scholarly work

If you're interested in contributing in any way, please feel free to do so. If not, thank you for your other contributions to Wikipedia.

VermillionBird 00:22, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback. One of the primary motivations of this project was to provide an "authoritative" summary so people who haven't/won't read the book don't have to do so to be able to have an informed response when the subject comes up.  VermillionBird 17:23, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

Wikiholiday
I'm currently having a Wikiholiday so I can focus on a busier-than-normal work schedule, and so that I can work on my novel. I'm monitoring my watch list, and making edits from time to time, but for the near term, I'm not participating nearly as much as I have in the past. This could change, however, at any time. CO GDEN  18:59, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

I'm back from my Wikiholiday. See notice on User page. CO GDEN  20:22, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back and have a nice day! Good to see you. Working lately on Kolob Archaeology and the Book of Mormon Exmormon and Anti-Mormonism. Tom Haws 20:53, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm interested in Kolob, so maybe I'll take a look. CO GDEN  21:03, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Its so good to have you back. Hope you enjoy reading the thread at Talk:Kolob - it is a piece of work. :^) The article should be half the size it is. Oh well. -Visorstuff 22:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, did you get your book done? -Visorstuff 22:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Nope. It's a long-term project. CO GDEN  22:49, May 6, 2005 (UTC)