User talk:Court1

Thank you for experimenting with the page Jan Cox (philosopher) on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. The Fox Man of Fire 12:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Jan Cox article
Hi, I agree with you completely that this article is very questionable in content; however, the way to fix that is to delete out the irrelevant or inappropriate parts, not to add your own commentary. Comments about an article should go on the talk page (Talk:Jan Cox (philosopher)), not on the article itself. --Russ (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this how the 'talk page' works? Please forgive my ignorance and slow uptake on Wikipedian usage. I hope these following remarks have been added correctly.

Thank you for your advice. I'm not trying to be a vandelize to the Wikipedia but I think it important to adjust in a timely way this particular article and reclassify it if possible; or remove it from publication altogether as inappropriate. I'd be willing to bet the supporters at Jan Cox. com are sending potential acolytes to this article at Wikipedia to reinforce the authenticity of their cult aside, from selling his books and audio/visual material.

Citation was requested in two of my statements. One regarded saying Jan Cox was a petty crimial. That is a true statement, but proving it might be difficult barring any convictions or arrests -- though some arrests may indeed be on record that I am unaware of.

I don't know what the cult has morphed into since I was there, so I'm not at present willing to use my name or offer confirmable personal testimony as to his misdeeds: fanatics and cult members have been know to be dangerous. His unlawful practices might be inferred from his involvement in giving legal aid to his followers over the years who often got into trouble at his directions; such as the case The People vs Moser in 1972/73, Dekalb county, GA, possibly 1974. He basicly had his followers obtain building materials without much regard to who owned such materials or where they came from -- recieving stolen property. Cases like the People vs Hardison, Fulton county or the People vs, Flannagan, Fulton county -- and many others belonging to his cult, regarding possession do reflect somewhat on the attitudes of his followers with regard to lawfulness.

Perhaps some evidence is still in the mainframe at GA Tech wherein Jan Cox unlawfully used computer time to word process his book, The Dialogues with Gurfjeiff, in 1978/79 and 1981.

His worst crimes, involved the deception and defrauding of his followers. As all cult leaders, he took from them what he could get, and charged them a weekly 'tuition' that I doubt he accuratly accounted with the IRS. But, it is the damage he did to these people's lives and their relationships that he shouldn't get away with. It would be a rather lenghthy argument to do here, but I think it's valid to point it out.

My claim that I say he doesn't deserve being rated a philosopher is likely the easiest to confirm. None of his writings have any critical backing from those of philosophy, nor are his ideas original or even innovative, as they are patterned on other cult leaders like Gurdjeiff.

Thank you, Court1

=
==== Court1, you're doing a good thing. I'm awfully curious about the Flannagan and Hardison cases you mentioned. (New User): So, anyhow, what I was starting to say in the previous edit(-test), was that the original article, to which everyone was referring, doesn't appear anywhere on wikipedia that I can find. Shouldn't there be a place where readers and researchers can look through deleted articles, and so on? I'm not sure what the wiki grounds for deletion are, but, it would seem that mere disagreement with an article's content would not be grounds for deleting an article; rather, those with differing points of view, including opposing points of view, should be given space to post their own views of the matter, person, or subject. I should also mention that court1, whoever he or she was, had personal grounds for libeling and slandering Prof. Cox the way that he did, but was otherwise not very intelligent, and very far from enllightened (yes, there is such a thing); that is, he was apparently just making ad hominen attacks on someone he was afraid of or jealous of. Perhaps, he applied to be in one of Dr. Cox's courses and was rejected; or perhaps he lost in some personal involvement with him, say, over women or money, since these are typical issues that bring out the worst in some men. At all events, Dr. Cox was certainly a University teacher and lecturer, Dean of a Law School, author, and researcher, who's posthumous materials are in the Permanent Collection of the University Of Georgia at Athens. Yes, he did have an audience for his series of talks which later aired on public access TV, but, not all of them were followers or even students. Certainly, he would allow no "cult following" of any kind; and his teachings were about practicing mysticism, in the contexts of psychology, sociology, law, and history, that is, in the areas in which he was qualified. Clearly, then, "Court1" doesn't know enough about cults and Unviersity Professors to tell the difference between them, and so on. Jan Cox was no more a cult leader than Gurdjieff was. It is to be noted that Gurdjieff students, 50 years and more before the time of Jan Cox, were usually the very best of society, what is often called "the cream of the crop", and that some of them have written some rather objective critiques of him, most notably John G. Bennett. So, I'm sharing this information not just for the public to know, but also for the wikipedia personnel and contributors to read and know. "Court1" contributed nothing actually about Jan Cox at all, only about himself, and to date, I've not been able to find any article on Wikipedia that actually is about Cox and his work, and am considering writing one. I'm Henry Koehler, and have nothing to hide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.35.150 (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)