User talk:Eaglizard/Archive 1

Brother Maynard
I'm curious about the 'Brother Maynard' reference you used in Merge/Bible_verses. I think I've heard it before, but can't remember where it's from... Also, is this the appropriate way to ask a question like this? I'm new to Wikipedia, and I didn't see an email address for you... Eaglizard 03:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a reference to "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." And yes, this is how you send a message to another Wikipedian.  Welcome to the project!  Smerdis of Tlön 05:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks (Re: Freemasonry (disc))
I was shocked to see your gross name-calling in Talk:Freemasonry recently, and having now seen the excellence of your User page, esp. your point #4, I am completely flabbergasted. Referring to his edits as "affronts and pointless drivel". describing in detail his "narrow mind", and calling him directly a "cowardly dim-wit" lacking "bollocks" ... what exactly do you consider that, if not personal attack??

And please bear in mind that, after reading that whole talk page, I agree almost completely with your asessment. Surely you can see that even in this case personal attacks have no place on Wikipedia. Consider that Lightbringer is bloody unlikely to be at all moved by your insults, thus the only thing you've damaged is your own reputation. Eaglizard 05:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * First up, new posts on talk or discussion pages should always go on the bottom of the page in question. As for your allegations that personal attacks were made, there was no person involved therefore the attacks cannot be considered 'personal'.  An anonymous person was making frivelous abusive posts on the discussion page.  If you feel my words were harsh, so be it.  I'm not losing any sleep over it, so for your sake I hope you don't.


 * I probably did get a bit too emotive, but taking into account the large amounts of vandalism, defacement and abuse we get on the article in question, not to mention the fact that every vandal quotes the same trivial evidence and has the same mentality and attitude that the facts are just 'a masonic conspiracy to silence the truth', you must come to understand that one does get quite frustrated, especially when we have no custodians or admins amongst those who maintain the article, which I might add is one of Wikipedia's finest. Jachin 06:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the corrective; I'll remember to add to the bottom (it's the opposite of my own inclinations, but convention is important, isn't it :).
 * On the other hand, I disagree with your assesment on two grounds: a) unless 'contributor' is defined as 'logged-in registered user', your insults violated No personal attacks, and b) clearly, a person posted those comments; claiming that their anonymity robs them of their personhood is .. well.. disingenous, maybe? Anyways, I won't lose sleep either, I promise. I meant the word 'flabbergasted' literaly -- not 'offended', or 'upset' -- just surprised, b/c you're clearly a reasonable and smart kinda person yourself. Sorry if I seemed emotive; I just find the relative lack of personal attack one of the finer points of the Wikipedia community, and now I've started contributing, perhaps I jump too quick on this particular point.Eaglizard 07:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You're definately correct, I did write too harshly and get too shat off by what was going on. In a way I'm tempted to recommend you go back through the edits of the article and see how much annoying vandalism we get, but realistically for your sanities sake it's not worth the effort.  But yeah, we get a LOT of rubbish piled up.  It's always the same stuff by the same type of people.  Most born-again Christian cults lambaste Freemasonry and Roman Catholicism as they see them as 'the system'.  All zealous revolutionary organisations target on appealing to mass audiences by 'sticking it to the man' in some way, so when it comes to philosophy or theology, you'll find these daily invented cults will attack FM and the RC church.


 * The most frustrating thing is, it's always based on the same circumstantial evidence, same misquoted texts and same hoaxs which have been time and time again scientifically debunked as nothing but propaganda. Yet, that being said, the second you attempt to educate these misguided fools you're instantly abused as being a masonic sock puppet, or just too uneducated or too lowly to 'see the truth'.  After a while you can't help but take it personally and get annoyed by it to some degree.


 * Thus, I think it's time I take a back seat in dealing with vandals. I've had a gutfull and I can't see things getting any better from here on in.  Again, I appreciate your feedback.  :) Jachin 21:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC) (Syndicated to your talk page for ease of access.)

Cosmic, dude
Hi, I just wanted to stop by and let you know that I appreciate you coming back to Cosmic ray deflection society AfD and clearing up what you meant. I apologise for telling you to get a life, but at the same time I think I was being moderately refrained, given the type of passion you had shown. I certainly do understand that you were just frustrated -- I should have recognised it considering how often I feel the same way. I'm putting this here instead of the page in the interests of keeping it from getting ridiculously cluttered (if it isn't already). Anyway, you contribute heaps to the site, so I also wanted to let you know that I appreciate that, too. --Qirex 06:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Rainbows
I was wondering what your thoughts were regarding the practical difference between "rainbows in mythology" and "rainbow mythology"? The more I think about it, the only difference I can think of is the former might include references to rainbows as rainbows in mythological stories while the latter arguably would be limited to stories attempting to explain something about the nature of rainbows (e.g. "there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow," "the rainbow is a bridge or stairway to heaven," "the rainbow is a sign that God will not destroy the earth by flooding," etc.) Crypticfirefly 07:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

trying for neutrality
The anti freemasonry page is ment to be like the anti semitism page.

However since some people think it's ok to attack Masons as this and that since they are not per say a religious or ethnic group I decided it would best to limmit the amount of things added to the page which refer to events which (as far as can be proven) started after 1960.

grazon 00:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad
Just listed the article for deletion; check it out.--csloat 07:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

RfArb\Lightbringer
As you entered the information on the talk page for Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer, I'm directing this at you: I was very confused trying to follow that, especially the talk page -- apparently there was a previous (malformed?) RfArb that's been transferred to the talk page? In any case,
 * Numerous dated comments on both the project and talk pages are in no apparent date order, and many comments are dated several days before the RfAr was filed. Would it be possible to insert some commentary to clarify this? - Eaglizard 14:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That was the state of the Request. The rendition on the talk page is meant to be a copy and stay a copy. The arbitrators may edit Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer and those who made statements can modify them. As to dates, it is ok to bring material from a Request for comment which had been previously been dated. Fred Bauder 15:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

ROSTA
Done. See Image:Rostaposter mayakowski.jpg. mikka (t) 16:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: No offense (I hope)
No offense taken, I hope you saw the comments I left at Talk:Freemasonry. As I said, I'm mainly there to revert, so not editing it is quite okay with me, despite the fact I doubt Lightbringer will follow that. -- Spinboy 01:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

one good turn..
deserves another.. thanks for innaugurating my discusison page. i got a pleasant surprise to see i interested someone. cheers! Tiksustoo 00:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Lightbringer
He's back and POV pushing on Anti-Freemasonry. -- Spinboy 03:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * He's extremely vexatious. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 03:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Aladin
Hi, you're invited to comment on Articles_for_deletion/Aladin. Cheers! Peter S. 17:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?
Given your comments elsewhere, I though you might find this interesting. --Centauri 00:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

New type of spam
Thanks - per the general rule on Wikipedia (and elsewhere) that the reward for noticing something is a request to do somethign about it, I'm going to ask you to do some follow-up steps; there are a number of methods of dealing with this new type of spam that we should get working. That's what I can think of off the top of my head - if I think of more things to do, I'll let you know. Thanks again for noticing that. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Add a mention of it to the WikiProject Spam page; that's the central place for anti-spam fighters at Wikipedia, and it should be mentioned there. You might also add it to the entry on Vandalism about spam.
 * 2) Tell User:Tawker to add the inclusion of "div style="display:none"" to the list of things his anti-vandalism bot User:Tawkerbot2, reverts on sight.
 * 3) Tell the CVU folks (contact User:Essjay) to add the display:none trick to their list of watchwords, for their bots that pick out likely vandalism.
 * 4) Add display:none to User:Lupin/badwords, Lupin's list of words flagged by his anti-vandalism tool.
 * 5) File a bug in Mediazilla (sorry, I'm not sure where the best link is for that, google for it) asking that external links in hidden div's be automatically un-linked. I'm not sure if this is technically feasible, but if it is, it would be good to do.

Hello
Hey eaglizard how are you? And were did ya come from? I appreciate your opinion but why leave the occult links and take away the "greek" pagan philosophy ones? Hey if you could reply on the monad talk page. Thanks LoveMonkey 18:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

hi friend
thank you very much for your contribution to the Spiritism article. --Sgodth 22:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello
As someone who's had a hand in the Entropia Universe article, I'd like to converse with you about an Anonymous user who is continually editting any sort of negativity out of the article. I'm concerned that this might degenerate into an edit war as they deleted a hefty section of the talk page too.

As someone with more experience than I, could I enlist your help?

AvanniaRayzor 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up
I saw your changes to Nazareth article and made some minor edits to the wording on the missiles that hit Nazareth. Will check out the Mary's Well article now, but I just wanted to say thanks for alerting me. Way to go avoid in practing what you preach. Conflict does suck. Tiamut 12:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Belated thanks ...
I just wanted to say thank you personally for the edits you did to Nazareth and Mary's Well. You didn't muck things up at all. I took a little hiatus from Wikipedia after some heated editing battles at Operation Summer Rain. But I'm back for now and thankful for your help and welcome. See you around! Tiamut 18:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Dallas
Hi! I've noticed you've made significant edits to Dallas-related articles. If you are interested in joining, WikiProject Dallas would love to have you! Just add your name to the list at the project page to join. Happy editing.. drumguy8800  C   T  07:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments I posted to you on my talk in reponse to your comments (at the time I was still blocked :)
Hey there Eaglizard. Long time, no see. It is true that many Arabs have excellent language skills, partially becase Arabic is so damn hard - it makes other languages seem like a piece of cake. But I have to admit that English is right up there, almost a mother tongue, since it was spoken at home alongside Arabic (both my parents are Palestinian, but they thought English was important to learn). I did all my university studies in English (got my MA in New York, a BA in Montreal, started my PhD but never finished it:) I now work as an editor (paid editor and consultant that is) for Israeli academics. Thanks by the way, for you general words of support, though I have to say I don't think I did violate 3RR. I will definitely be more careful in the future and refrain from making edits that are close to previous ones I have made if I am approaching 3 edits that could be interpreted as reverts in 24hrs. I think that's prudent, not only because of the policy, but because I find edit warring so counterproductive. I'll try to spend more time building consensus for changes on the talk. I already do that a lot, but I guess I just have to try harder and not get frustrated when my my thorough, well-researched and logical presentations of fact and just thrown down the trash bin but those whose POV is offended. Anyway, nice to hear from you after all this time and see that you're still around and kicking. Cheers. Tiamut 10:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Comment on wallpaper image gallery bot
I replied on my talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Celebrity Skin (band)
Technically, the article meets criterion #6 of WP:BAND, so the band is technically notable (although both that guideline page and I suggest a redirect if at all possible). You are free to remove the speedy delete tag because notability is (again, technically) met =). A deletionist may put it up for deletion later on, but a few AfD voters will probably cite the criteria I cited (and you can argue from that as well). So ultimately I think it's up to you, what to do with the article. Is a redirect possible? You could merge any related information into The Germs or something. Are you planning to keep adding on to this article or desert it as a stub (i.e., is there any more information that could go into that article?) I'm sure WikiProject Music has some tips for these kinds of articles. → Ed Gl  02:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Anderson Talk
I got your message on the preacher article. Thanks for your support. I am glad to say at this point I have come to realize that "There is no spoon." (I hope you caught that metaphor, Morpheus.)

Thanks also for cleaning up that excessive intro paragraph. Your substitutionary sentence at the end simply and elegantly solves the problem the former content was intended to remedy without having to introduce that laborious bullwark of sources and text. I re-added the references to the cult site and the two ex-follower sites in order to affirm its "troof" lest another editor gets trigger happy with the delete key.

The only reason the removed content was there was because a while back, someone deleted the two cult catagory links, saying that the article did not refer to Woroniecki as a cult. (I guess I thought people would be smart enough to realize that's why those links were there--to indicate that he is, but common sense can't always be relied on as a substitute for Wiki-sense, rules that are obviously there for a reason.) I felt that unless I -quoted- the content from an unbiased source like apologeticsindex.org, the cult reference wouldn't stick. I'm not a professional writer, so the evolution of this article has been an eye opening experience for me.

Also, I see your point to including the video in the intro to explain the preacher's association, but it wasn't his only impact. Now that I have the reference to ABC Primetime, I was able to encapsulate his total influence by saying "mostly known for his negative ministerial influence on Andrea Yates" without editorializing or being POV.

The video was only one facet of a multidimensional influence the preacher had on her. Over a period of 9 years, there were other media sent to her--tracts, newsletters, audio tapes, demeaning introspective letters, all which ordered a lifestyle intended to make her family compliant with his will--quit NASA and quit playing hypocrites with Rusty's compromised version of his teachings, then emulate their radical lifestyle of preaching on the streets--or else loose their children to hell because the only way to train them properly was to live such a sacrificial life.

Was there any personal interest in the article? I see you are in Dallas, TX. Several of my contacts concerning the article are in Houston, including the P.I. hired by the Yates defense team.Thomas Anderson 02:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey
Thanks for your input on the AAB biography. There's been a lot of "water under the bridge" since your first post in the discussion area. Might be nice if you revived your idea about summarizing her ideas. Take a look a where we are now.James 23:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a reply to your statement on AAB, and am putting that reply on here on your user talk page also because I do not know if you will return to the AAB article any time soon. Kwork 14:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Eaglizard, in recent years I have had quite a few discussions on AAB e-forums over this issue, and have often been told that I do not understand Bailey's teaching. Particularly I have heard this from Phillip Lindsay, the Esoteric Astrologer. (When I discovered Phillip was going to be in NYC, I tried to arrange a meeting with him, but he refused.) The fact is that I studied with Roberto Assagioli (AAB's most advanced and important co-worker) for about six years while living in Italy. I was also a member of The School for Esoteric Studies for many years, and at a time when all the teachers of the SES had been directly trained by Alice Bailey as staff of the Arcane School. I think I have grounds to claim that I understand the Alice Bailey teaching at least as well as anyone participating in this discussion. With that in mind, if you have not read it already, you can read a rough version on my thoughts on AAB's antisemitism above (on this talk page) under 'anti-Judaism'. Namaskar Kwork 14:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)"

Christopher Columbus (whaleback)
Do you have a cite for the City of Everett (whaleback) stuff? It seems nifty... I do see it is in the Whaleback article too. If you have a cite it may be a good thing to add... 65.210.129.209 21:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, anon. No, citation is not my fortè; I just copied that sentence from the whaleback article. I think City of Everett deserves her own article, but I'm not a big fan of ships, so I wouldn't even know where to look for info on her. I will mention this on a talk page, tho. Eaglizard 21:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I found a cite for it after all. :) Eaglizard 21:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Woroniecki
I made edits to "Woroniecki" that weren't reverts. I added important content to fix a paragragh you reversed because it didn't have enough examples to make sense in its order. I added citations and content. But user:Skywalker came in and reverted these 6 edits wihtout explaining why and ruined my work, which I am discussing with you on the discussion page. I reverted it so as not to lose the work. Please stop Skywalker from making this revert again. He's dumping my valid content. Please reply, Tom 72.64.57.21 15:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Thomas Anderson 15:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Never mind. Skywalker apologized Please feel free to examine the changes. If you examine some of the sources, you will see that some of the statements aren't actually POV, but are directly from Woroniecki's own media--his own admissions. You will notice that there are many changes of yours I recognize as sensibly valid. Even some of the changes that I reversed were sensible, but I figured out why you thought they needed changing and I reinforced the content to remove the need for at least one of those changes. Thomas Anderson 15:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Weird endorsements
Hi, Eaglizard. I see you endorsed both Dashakat's Outside view and mine, on the DreamGuy RFC. I hope you don't mind my saying so, but the combination is really weird. I have to ask, did you read my Outside view, beyond the first sentence, before signing to it? See, my last paragraph is an analysis of Dashakat's view, and expresses how depressing I find it that anybody at all endorsed that one. "What's to endorse," I ask rhetorically. I don't mean to offend you, but it really doesn't please or flatter me to be agreed with, when the agreement doesn't make sense. You hate to see misspelling, I hate to see self-contradiction. I'd really appreciate it if you removed your sig under my view. Mightn't it work better if you wrote a brief view of your own, rather than trying to fit your opinions into the ill-fitting straightjacket of three endorsements? And surely your sentiments can be expressed without so much namecalling. An RfC isn't some kind of rule-free zone outside the purview of WP:NPA, where you get to relieve your feelings by calling people dicks and assholes. Bishonen | talk 23:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC).
 * That was a completely unacceptable 'endorsement'; had I seen it, I'd have reverted it on sight. Please observe civility from now on. Thx. El_C 13:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

???
I don't Know what you were trying to achieve by putting that racist tripe back on the antisemitism page but methinks you made a serious faux pas in doing so. Any consensus that you may have had on on the Alice Bailey page is likely to disappear. What were you thinking ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albion moonlight (talk • contribs) 15:56, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

RfC, reply
I had replied to you on the project page of the RfC, but since Sethie moved it, and I am not sure if you read my reply, I am copying it here. Kwork 19:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly object to the out-of-context use of my statement here in this fashion. I completely disagree with Kwork's contention that it supports his assertion that Sethie has "vandalized" the talk page. While a section of my comments were indeed blanked from the talk page, those comments were in fact blatant soap-boxing on my part and were inappropriate. I felt my failure to re-instate my comments implied my approval. In any case, I'm not at all sure it was Sethie in the first place -- I din't care enough to look. Eaglizard 13:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this was not intended to offend you. But the fact remains that Sethie has deleted a LOT of material from the article, and all of it is from the two editors he opposes. He is accusing me of not knowing Wikipedia rules (which he seems to consider a crime), while he is vandalizing the Alice Bailey article to the point it is very difficult and time consuming to find material I need to refer to. If you think that is alright for him to do, or a fair fair way for him to conduct an argument, please explain why. Once again, I am sorry if I offended you, but the information (which you have removed) should to be here in some form. Kwork 14:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that one more apology is in order, because you moved, not removed, that material. So sorry. If you feel it should be removed, I can certainly live with that, but I would like some recognition, in some form, that Sethie has removed a lot of material from the Alice Bailey talk page. Kwork 14:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The Bailey quotes that Sethie deleted.
If this wasn't about Bailey then why use the Bailey quotes ? A lot of us consider Anti-Zionism to be a form of antisemitism. Albion moonlight 21:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It all makes sense now.
I may wind up giving Kwork a hand. I do think the sourcing is iffy but I am going to look around for some better ones. I don't know how all that happened. There seems to be some problem in discerning who said and or said signed what. Anyway I apologize for the miscues on my part. Albion moonlight 23:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Dear Eaglizard,

Thanks for your message on my page. Can I endorse other sections too (like outside views)?

Also, I fear that with the invite of the antisemitism page that this will balloon out of proportion to everything else about Bailey. Don't get me wrong; I was the one who first clearly acknowledged that some passages can be seen as racist or anti-semitic and don't mind having a small paragraph to that effect. But to me the discussion board has just turned into a crusade now, with little acknowledgement or acceptance of Wiki policies. Any advice would be appreciated. You can email me privately too (go to toolbox on the left of my talk page and click on email). I'm really sick of the bickering over small details and think AnonEMouse is right on there.

Thanks, Renee --Renee 14:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The Rfc on Kwork
I read what you said in defense of Kwork and I have also read the latest version of the Bailey article. I am impressed by your defense of Kwork. I am going to strongly suggest to Kwork that he or she should desist from attacking suspected sock or meat puppets on the Bailey Talk page. I had to learn the hard way about that sort of thing. I wasn't blocked but I was warned after confronting a suspected sock.

As for the latest version of the Bailey article I cannot help but wonder what your reaction to it is. Too me it seems fine but I do realize that it may ruffle some feathers amongst Bailey supporters. Just as Jews have a tendency to stick together I suspect the same is true amongst those who admire Ms Bailey and her work. I am generally very skeptical of such things. I apologize for calling her a crackpot on the antisemitism page. I was under the false impression that you were trying to quote and defend that stuff about Jews being residue, as being something other than racist drivel. I am even open to the idea that she never said it. But I tend to believe she did. Either way calling her a Crackpot served no real purpose.

So anyway, please let me know what you think of the latest version of that article. I am a rather curious fellow ...... Albion moonlight 11:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to be more specific and put my question in another way. Do you contest the validity of the quotes that are being used against her or is it mostly a case of balancing all the quotes in order to create proper perspective ?? I think that is what you mean and if it is I agree with you. Perhaps the Bailey article should include quotes that give the reader a stark picture of this ambiguity, What do you think ? Albion moonlight 14:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the OR tag. Yes I realize the tag is out of place but just as you guessed, I did it to be funny and perhaps thought provoking. Albion moonlight 14:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I am confused again but let me try and answer your question by saying that I think that most Jewish people would suspect that Ms Bailey was in denial when and if she said the things you said she said. As a Jew I tend to agree with them. I think Nameless Time Stamps proposal to include a rebuttal in that section is a sign of good faith. That way both sides can be be heard and hopefully the bickering will stop. I don't think that either Kquork or Time Stamp are interested in turning that article into a diatribe of Ms Bailey. They have said they aren't and I think we should take them at their word.Albion moonlight 09:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what Kwork and Time Stamp will say but I think it speaks volumes as to your willingness to listen and work with them. I have not been following the particulars of what either one of them is asking for. I hope I don't have to. LOL. I am staying out of it as much as I can. I have agreed to help NTS with his or her other project but that is mostly for the sake of learning how use http as it relates to wikipedia. Thanks for you efforts thus far. I will save further comment until NTS weighs in but I am crossing my fingers that they will find this to be acceptable. Albion moonlight 22:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

City of Everett
Regarding your comments about the redirect with that name...if you're willing to write an article about the ship, you are welcome to write it. The name of the article would properly be, though, "SS City of Everett" with the possible addition of the year of launch in parenteses. If this is written, the redirect page can become a dab page. Please note, though, that it is somewhat bad form to come out and say, in an irritated sort of way, that there "should be an article" and expect someone else to write it. Don't complain about the output of a volunteer project if you're not willing to pitch in and volunteer yourself. The 747 was built in Everett, which is why it was named that, the plane had no connection to the ship. As for "significance", the first 747, a kind of airplane which launched major changes in air travel and became iconic, is quite a bit more significant than a steamship from the distant past, which few have ever heard of.  AK Radecki Speaketh  00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

FSU
It may well stand for the Former Soviet Union. Albion moonlight 10:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Current Events at the Bailey Article
I searched for "Nameless Date Stamp" in the discussion and reviewed all that he has said and reflected on it. I think his mission and immovable stance is clear from the history of his posts. I wish it were possible to talk heart to heart and reason to reason with individuals like him, but I think there is no way, so I've stopped responding.James 14:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Summary
I'm adding this here because it is apt to get lost in the avalanche of Jewish theme posts in the Bailey discussion section.

You wrote:


 * ...I wish there were a scholarly source that had made a decent overview, but I don't know of one. So, I'm just trying to decide how to approach it. "Themes that are stressed often throughout the books include yada yada yada" I guess; but defining a (small) list for the yada yadas is rather non-trivial, I think. But I'm working on it; perhaps I'll make a project page. Eaglizard 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a scholarly source in the academic sense, but the author was a scholar of the Bailey works and reduces them to a single 494 page book: "Bridges" by Jurriaanse. It is out of print but you can get it here.  James 22:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Get some sleep and then read this
I do understand what you are saying but I was responding to that threat by voidocore. I am glad you stood up to him or her, With that said I would like to remind you that quoting wiki policy is all too often Used as a pretext for getting ones way. I only chirped in because I thought that he or she might be motivated by making Kwork feel uncomfortable or threatened. I did this after you said Kwork may be right. He may be wrong to.

I don't like it when people resort to wikilawvering the way that Sethie has done in the past. The spirit of wiki is more important than wiki rules. Your behavior thus far has shown me that you believe that too. Albion moonlight 14:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There are two editors who are making major changes to the, much disputed, Controversies section of the article. Is there not some process by which this can be stopped? It is destroying any possible claim of interest in compromise (not to mention goodwill). My addressing this issue to you, although you are on the opposing side in the disputed issues, is in a last hope that there is sincerity of purpose to be found among the opposing editors.


 * I understand the difficulty sleeping that you have mentioned. There is an approaching solar eclipse (always on a new moon), and depending on aspects, and on the configuration of circumstances; this can be exceedingly stressful, and sometimes convulsive, event. I certainly feel the effects of this myself. My view is that this is the worst possible moment for the current edit war, and I will wait as long as is possible to see how things develop.


 * Try to stay emotionally detached from these events; and remember that, if you can succeed in doing that, there is nothing in this process that can harm you. If you know Assagioli's dis-identification and self-identification exercise, that might be helpful (or I could send it to you).


 * Salve Kwork 15:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Note to Eaglizard on my latest Edits
Just to give you a heads up. I've just made a series of edits to the controversy section. I removed non-neutral language and unsupported claims and conclusions that were not supported by references to Bailey or to other sources. Basically, what the pro-Jewish faction is doing is putting words in AAB's mouth and and using phrases that are personal conclusions of the editor. Phrases were used in the section that attributed motives to AAB for this or that position, the motive assigned being a perception or conclusion of the editor. Our Jewish editor friends, God love them, are not doing themselves no service by their bias and the edits are not following Wiki guidelines for neutrality and objectivity. They are mixing their personal selves into the edits in order to build a case that she was anti-Jewish.James 19:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the new "Compromose" being Proposed in AAB Discussion
Weigh in. James 20:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Heya
Thanks for your note.

You know I don't consider myself the best wiki editor in the world... just someone really committed to wiki policies. I really don't have an ax to grind here anymore, let's roast AAB if we have the sources for it, let's not if we don't is my attitude, for any subject.

As for your response at the Rfc.... I am disapointed that you, squeakbox and anonemous didn't comment on any of the diffs I provided.

I honor that you all shared what you saw going on, and, and I believe I very throughly documented a pattern of behavior... but none of you made a single comment about a single diff! :(

I'd be curious to see if you changed your comments on the rfc if you spent 5-10 minutes going through the diffs that I collected.

I didn't leave wiki because of anything you said, just needed a break!

peace, Sethie 04:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Sethie. What "diffs" are you referring to?  Link and directions please.  I may have been more occupied with non-digital life at the time to see.  James 15:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am a scrapper.
I can be very polite when it is appropriate to do so. If you do not want an edit war you should encourage your friends to cease and desist from doing so. I backed off from backing Kwork on another issue and I did it as an act of kindness toward James, Renee and the others. Unfortunately they took it and the fact that Catherine had been out of the picture for a week as a sign of weakness. They were mistaken.

I do not drink or do drugs. I do not back down from antisemitic's such as Phillip Lindsay either. If you think that that is out of character for me then you are failing to get a clear picture of me. I do not want another edit war but I have been in them before and I actually get a huge rush out of them. I also think that Jp Gordon and AnonEmouse will help resolve this matter once again. I can live with that. The question seem to be can Phillip Lindsay and his devotees ? That is what this fight has been about all along. I just kept my mouth shut about it up until now. Do I still seem drunk to you amigo ? You need to be encouraging the others to stop provoking an edit war. Albion moonlight 11:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

With all that said I do appreciate your attempt to keep a lid on things, I was under the influence of my grandchildren this afternoon. Albion moonlight 11:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Alice Bailey
Hi Eaglizard,

I noticed that you had this on another user's page:

Hi Vassyana, I noticed you commented on Talk: Alice Bailey a bit recently, and I'd like to comment briefly. One editor in particular seems to be constantly attempting to create the chance to repeatedly defend himself with florid displays of pseudo-erudition and name-dropping; I recommend non-engagement, instead. The few times I write him directly, my arguments are mostly terminal instead of open-ended, and written for others' sake, with no hope of convincing him. Notice in the section "BS Excuse" that he does not respond to my actual semi-scholarly analysis of channeling vis-a-vis Bailey -- no real interest in the article, merely in himself, I believe. Anyways, this sort of personal opinionizing about other editors is very rare for me, so I'll stop it already. I do want to say thanks for your input, so "thanks for your input". :) Eaglizard 10:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to hear that you are so sure of your own scholarly accomplishments, and so sure of my ignorance. The trouble is that the argument about channeling is just words, and many writers do call Bailey's writing channeled. It might as well be called channeling, but what is the point of someone as ignorant as me arguing with a scholar? Kwork 18:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just want to add a little more.

A major problem for me is that you are so sure of the correctness of your position on the AAB teaching, that you feel no hesitation in backing Jamesd1 even when you can clearly see how objectionable (and contrary to the spirit of the teaching) his methods are. Because you follow with that, there is no cause to be surprised when you get caught up in externals and loose your own direction. Nevertheless, although you always oppose my editing, I have never considered you (or even Jamesd1) an enemy, and when you were distressed before the eclipse I did try to help you.

You might find this film of Assagioli interesting:. It seems done to have been after his throat operation (his voice is weak), and at the time I studied with him. He was probably the greatest person I ever meet, but we did disagree on points regarding the Alice Bailey teaching. Kwork 19:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Kwork, for making my point for me. Especially the part about name-dropping. Please stop talking about yourself. Eaglizard 21:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Eaglizard's complaint
You wrote:

"Kwork, I don't mind so much that you seem to follow me all around to other's talk pages, injecting yourself at will. For instance, the comments I made to Vassyana could certainly be expected to draw a response from you. But this -- this is entirely between Albion and myself, and has nothing to do with you. And I suspect, from the biting graciousness of Albion's reply to me, that he's quite capable of defending himself. Would you butt out, please? Thank you. Eaglizard 22:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)"

I will do as I choose. If you think it will do you any good make a complaint about me.

In the South of the United States, a person (such as you) who will act friendly to someone's face but is vicious behind their back, or a person who is friendly to someone in one circumstance but vicious to them when with their clique; those people are called 'two-faced'. Believe me when I tell you it is not a compliment. If you choose to, you may consider my behavior a sign of my disrespect for you. Kwork 00:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey guy
I must admit that my first reading of your comments had me thinking that you were being facetious but when I read it closer I understood it as it was meant to be understood. The biting graciousness you may be referring to may have come partly from my first reading. Its hard to say. But it needed to be said.

Allow me to suggest that you contact me via email if you want to speak to me in private. I like every one to feel welcome on my talk page. I don't always check it so perhaps just leave me a message here and ask me to check my email and I will get back to you asap. Meanwhile I will thank Kwork for trying to stick up for me and ask him to assume good faith when it comes to your comments on my talk page. It is part of our culture to stick up for each other or at least it seems to be. Do as you like of course but it seems like a way of avoiding potential conflict between the 2 of you. And thanks for your comments and have a happy.... Albion moonlight 01:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight 06:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I will consider that
Eaglizard, you wrote on my talk page:

Kworkie, even though it's something I really really try hard to avoid doing, I decided I'd talk personally to you, person to person, and about your person and mine. That is, I'm gonna discuss you, and me, and nothing much about editing or articles. Which is not what we are here for, but occasionally we all do it. So here is what I wrote to you, as a personal message. After this, you will find I again try to only discuss your actual edits and suggestions on their own merits, and not speculate on what kind of person you are, ok? Cool.

I will consider the fact that you dropped by my talk page by your own admission with the sole purpose of directly insulting me (as you say, that is not a compliment) ... and I will consider that you are officially creeping me out. I will also consider it a simple and clear violation of core Wikipedia policy; if you find yourself in an arbitration or request for comments again, you should expect to see that edit used against you. The next time you want to insult me, I recommend you don't. It's against the rules here.

Yes Kwork, I realize that you will do exactly as you please. I see in your edits absolutely no sign of any ability to compromise, understand others, or follow Jimbo's 3 Simple Rules at all. And, as I have said, I think you display pseudo-erudition, name-dropping, and a desire to fight with the intention of focussing attention on yourself, instead of on the article. That's my honest opinion; I didn't share it with you because -- what would be the point? However, notice it's not an actual insult. Not like, say, calling someone "two-faced" (especially when you then point out that it's meant to be insulting). The difference between valid statement and simple insult is a matter of focus, I guess. If you think my comments about Bailey are, say, too self-assured, asinine, or just plain wrong, please feel free to tell me so. But simply telling me I'm "vicious" and you "disrespect" me serves no purpose at all other than to (attempt) to inflame emotions. Notice how I reacted completely differently to the two types of behavior? (This is exactly the reason personal attacks are not allowed, btw. They serve no function; they're just noise on the wire.)

You should also realize that you are beginning to look like a Wiki-stalker here. Is that really what you want to become? Well, it's your choice, of course, but you should realize, if you're going to skulk around eavesdropping, you're going to hear crap that wasn't meant for your ears. If you can't be an adult about other people's honest opinions, then you're going act like a child. I reckon that's why most people learn not to eavesdrop or butt in to other people's conversations, it just sets you up for negative feelings.

Just FYI, I feel I am not particularly two-faced, for a Scorpio at least. When you have done or said things I felt deserved praise, I have praised those things. When you have done things with which I disagree, I have said so. My opinion of your behavior as an editor is completely unrelated to any personal opinion I might have of you as a human being. In fact, near as I can tell, you are likely to be a person with unique and special gifts, but also with a great and tragic character flaw (or two) -- just like all of us humans being. I really don't think about personalities, if I can help it. They're like opinions, which are like another thing we all have, and which all stink.

And I have made my complaint, to the most important person on Wikipedia (in this matter, at least). And now that he's read it, I'm convinced he won't do a thing about it. Or will you? (I will say, thank you for responding to my complaint in one way: at least you are discussing me on my talk page, as is more appropriate.) Eaglizard 08:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Every thing you wrote above is a distortion of the truth. But, rather threaten arbitration, why not take it there now if you think you have cause? Why wait? If you did get me blocked permanently from editing in Wikipedia, it would be the best thing that happened to me in the last six months. I don't like the company I find myself in here, but simply find myself disinclined to give up on a project (the Bailey article) that I have started. The other articles I am editing, although more interesting, will also get along without me. Kwork 12:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * One more thing.

Eaglizard, you wrote:

"I see in your edits absolutely no sign of any ability to compromise, understand others, or follow Jimbo's 3 Simple Rules at all. And, as I have said, I think you display pseudo-erudition, name-dropping, and a desire to fight with the intention of focussing attention on yourself, instead of on the article."

From the beginning you, and your allied editors, have worked hard to make my personality (or rather your negative depiction of my personality) the topic of discussion rather than focusing on the article. As thought my personality makes an excuse for your continued efforts - after six long months of discussion - to block, or remove, anything in the Alice Bailey article that indicates she was not perfect. If you guys would settle the problems with the article, instead of breaking compromise agreements, there would be nothing more to talk about, and I would disappear out of your Wikipedia lives and bother you no more. Kwork 14:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a note to myself and anyone else who bothers to read this: as far as I can recall, this is the first and only time I have ever mentioned this editor's personality. I have mentioned my perception of his motives, perhaps twice. Eaglizard 20:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Eaglizard, on this very page you wrote "Thank you Kwork, for making my point for me. Especially the part about name-dropping. Please stop talking about yourself. Eaglizard 21:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)"

Was that personal. I think so. Was it nice? I think not. There is a lot more of that, if I wanted to collect it.

For instance, this

"Hi Vassyana, I noticed you commented on Talk: Alice Bailey a bit recently, and I'd like to comment briefly. One editor in particular seems to be constantly attempting to create the chance to repeatedly defend himself with florid displays of pseudo-erudition and name-dropping; I recommend non-engagement, instead. The few times I write him directly, my arguments are mostly terminal instead of open-ended, and written for others' sake, with no hope of convincing him. Notice in the section 'BS Excuse' that he does not respond to my actual semi-scholarly analysis of channeling vis-a-vis Bailey -- no real interest in the article, merely in himself, I believe. Anyways, this sort of personal opinionizing about other editors is very rare for me, so I'll stop it already. I do want to say thanks for your input, so 'thanks for your input'. :) Eaglizard 10:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)"

That was not such a nice thing to say, was it? And, is it personal? Sure. Do I care what you think about me? No. Have you done this sort of thing a lot? Sure.

If it will make you feel better, take Sethie's advice and add more to his RfC against me. Actually, Assagioli recommended, for catharsis, writing a letter telling off the person you are angry at...but not to mail it. If you are all that P.O.ed, it might be good for you to try that. Or add it all right to the RfC. Kwork 00:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, this explains a lot to me. Kwork apparently believes that saying things that aren't "nice things to say" is a personal attack. It is not. A personal attack is when you attach the not-nice thing to the person. As in, instead of saying "that is a dumb comment", you say instead "that is typical of your dumb comments". See the difference? Probably not. Eaglizard 06:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks are, in my understanding, the use of personal failings to undermine someone's arguments and positions. It is a form of psychological warfare directed against an individual; and also applying the logical fallacy of ad homini because it says "how could you believe this information? the guy who say it is a real jerk, so what he says must be wrong". Kwork 11:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)''


 * Of course, there is a lot more to the subject than just that. Since the friction has resulted from differences over Alice Bailey's view of Jews, perhaps I can interest you just briefly in the traditional Jewish view of speech:


 * "The gravest of these sins of tale-bearing is lashon ha-ra (literally, 'the evil tongue'), which involves discrediting a person or saying negative things about a person, even if those negative things are true. Indeed, true statements are even more damaging than false ones, because you can't defend yourself by disproving the negative statement! Some sources indicate that lashon ha-ra is equal in seriousness to murder, idol worship, and incest and adultery (the only three sins that you may not violate even to save a life)."


 * On the other hand there is an obligation also to rebuke:


 * "Jewish law commands us to hold up the mirror of truth to a person who is doing something wrong or disturbing to us—or our simmering resentment could lead to a variety of harmful actions we might later deeply and fully regret."


 * If you actually read some of this, and have thoughts on the subject of, what Jews call, the Laws of Speech; then perhaps we can discuss it further. Otherwise, it might be best to leave it as is. Kwork 12:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Kwork
Now maybe you begin to see what we're dealing with, extreme inciviliy + lack of understanding of wikipedia policies = well, I documented it well in my RfC.

Would you be willing to review the diffs (the links inside the Rfc) in which I have documented Kwork's behavior very throughly and revise your opinion on the Rfc?

Also feel free to add any of your own links that document the user's violation of wiki policies. Sethie 22:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You are a wise person
Kworks actions thus far are very minor in comparison to some others I have read about. I think that some of the others have pushed him to the point that he doesn't know who his friends are. Thanks for your humanity thus far. : Albion moonlight 23:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a stronger case to be made against Sethie than there against Kwork. I will not make that case because both cases are extremely minor and a waste of everybodys time, You do know that Wikilawyering and its ilk can be seen as disruption do you not. Please do not let your judgment be skewed by people who are much less tolerant than you are. : Albion moonlight 00:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Caps in headings
Hello Eaglizard

Its in the Manual of Style (or is it Manual of style?): MOS:CAPS. Hope this helps; please don't hesitate to get back to me if I can be of any further help. Itsmejudith 14:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Tanks.
You managed to get James to discuss things first. Thanks for that. And Kudos to both of you. : Albion moonlight 07:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My message to AnonEmouse
''== Can you please help me create an article ==

An article on Phillip Lindsay.: If you were there to guide my words and make suggestions as how to keep it from becoming an attack article, it would help me remain objective. I will ask James to help us but since James is essentially a one purpose editor who may find himself being scrutinized by the arbitration committee, I doubt that he will be interested. ---Albion moonlight

THE LINDSAY ARTICLE


If I start it anyway I intend to expose Lindsay for his attempt to cause meat puppetry. I also intend to find a way of including that information in the Bailey article itsself. I can no longer assume good faith when it comes to those who constantly go back on their agreements.

Matthew (My Grandson) says Hi Eaglizard. I let him type it himself, He types with one finger.

I think that there is a good chance for peace om the Bailey article. : Albion moonlight 00:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Cats humour
I think you may have missed Cats point altogether. We have had to endure the mild antisemitism of some of the Bailey editors for quite some time now. They have called us the Jewish Defense League and generally treated us as if we were on a mission to destroy Ms Baileys reputation.

Mild antisemitism is very seldom understood to be antisemitism by the people who make the antisemitic remarks. The so called Jewish problem was and is only in the hearts and minds of people who feel that we are a problem. More often than not people who make mildly antisemitic statements are very good hearted people who simply do not understand us. I assume that everyone of the non Jewish Editors of the Bailey page are good people. I always have. I also assume that there remarks were never intended to be hurtful. : Albion moonlight 08:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

For Eaglizard
Hi,

I certainly did not mean anything personal by my sarcasm (which you called a "diatribe" -- the eleventh lost one, no doubt).

You said you didn't know what davening is. You'll find it under Jewish services in the fourth paragraph.

And Albion moonlight said it very well above. Between being called an article-hijacking member of the Jewish Defense League on the one hand and fielding private messages in which people tell me all about their Jewish ex-girlfriends on the other hand, laughter just seems like the most natural response.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 08:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Prejudice or Antisemitic.
I prefer to use the word prejudice because antisemitism is a less understood term. My memory tells me that you have not been guilty of the behavior that provoked Cats sarcasm. The word antisemitism needs to be used in the case of Alice Bailey because the mildly antisemitic statements that she is being accused of making fit in with the way that the phenomena of prejudice against the Jews throughout history is being dealt with in the other Wiki articles including the article on antisemitism.

I think that Cats comments were made out of a heart felt sense of frustration with some of the others. I think she understands their frustration with us as well. But Unfortunately finding the right words in any situation is often a crap shoot. The Bailey article is a testimony to that. It is just a bunch of editors having a conflict over words and the perceived motives of those who disagree with them : Albion moonlight 23:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum to my previous post I think that you do have a point when it comes to civility, some things are likely best left unsaid. This goes for everybody. I do not know if what Cat said qualify s as Jewish humor, But you may find the article both educational and humorous. Anyway, if it counts for anything I think that your behavior and civility have been exemplary : Albion moonlight 07:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it. Matthew will be here Saturday. But this time so will his cousins. : Albion moonlight 23:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

about your neutrality
In this you say you are neutral in the AAB arguments, which you are not; although I suppose you think you are. However you do have a sense of fairness which I respect in you, and which quality the others have lacked. Kwork 18:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes Kwork, I am aware of your position; you've stated it far too many times for me to have missed the point. However, despite my requests, you have never answered with a specific instance where you think my neutrality is lacking. Therefore, you have failed to convince me your position is correct. Without specific evidence to defend, argue (or accept), I would be forced to defend myself in vague, general terms &mdash; which I will not do. Eaglizard 21:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You want me to document your own positions and history? Amazing! Kwork 22:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your pretended inability to understand simple English begins to annoy me, Kwork. I want you supply evidence for your libelous accusations. Are you really so stupid as this comment makes you seem? I know you are not. Please. If you can't supply examples for your charges, you just need to STFU about it. Eaglizard 22:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe that's the problem: my lack of education and blue collar bad attitude. When did I ever tell you that I am educated, or that I am intelligent? (However, one thing I have not done is subject you to mindless obscenities.) Kwork 00:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, you utterly ignore the content of my statement. I reiterate: supply specific examples of your complaints, if you can. I take your continued failure to do so to mean that you simply cannot. Oh, and I'm the one being "blue-collar" here, dumbass, and there's nothing "mindless" about it. There's certainly no rule at WP against using the word fuck, my friend. (If you want to argue I'm not WP:CIVIL, please feel free to try to get the community to agree, ok?) You are being facile, disingenuous: dancing around the issue while I remain bluntly on-point. Put up, or shut up, I say. Or, continue posting non-comments like the preceding two, if you like. It's Wikipedia, and welcome to it. But if you want to pick a fight on my talk page, I might just argue into a million pre-colons. Unless, of course, you utterly surprise me by the simple expedient of showing me where I'm wrong. Other editors could tell you that I've been known to acknowledge my mistakes, and even say "thanks". But you don't seem interested in finding that out, to say the least. Eaglizard 00:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

←Kwork, there is so much you have to offer to improve articles, why are you making trouble with Eaglizard, who's been more helpful to keep the Bailey article on a balanced track than anyone else? Eaglizard may not be aligned with your views, and might not be neutral as you understand that word, but it's not our job as editors to prove our neutrality to anyone. That will be shown by the way we edit.

The section of the Bailey article regarding her philosophies needs a lot more work, and you are one of the most qualified editors to do it. I've been thinking it would be good to split it up into separate sections on spiritual and political philosophies, as there is plenty of material in both areas to explore. The criticism section is for reporting writers who have criticized her work, but that's different than the "ideas" or Philosophy" section, which is where what she wrote can be reported. There is much she wrote on sociological relationships that is not clear in the current version of the article that may be of interest to you to help elucidate.

Or if you specificially want to work more on adding anti-semitism sections to articles, I believe Madame Blavatsky could use some attention --Parsifal Hello 03:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Parsifal, we see things differently on Eaglizard's contributions to the article. But that is okay, I can live easily with disagreements as long as things are done with a sense of fairness, and he has been fair. As I have said, I do not intend to involve myself further with the Bailey article, as long as the criticisms are not removed. Since I will not be working on the article, I will not be working with Eaglizard either.


 * In fact, it is not my intention to do much future editing in Wikipedia. I stayed with the Bailey article this long only because I was unwilling to give up on something I had started: making sure that a mention of her problematic antisemetic statements was noted in the article about her. I did not stay with editing the article because I enjoyed the company of the editors. Kwork 11:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Kwork, please take a look at this new version of the article. I modified the structure and headings in the section about Bailey's teachings.  The sub-sections need expansion, including her writings on the social / political topics as well as the spiritual / esoteric material.  I set up the headings based on the info already in the article plus my initial reading of her texts, but there are so many topics she covers, I'm not sure I chose the most important ones. Your knowledge of her teachings would be very helpful in filling out those sections with accurate and referenced content.


 * I included a historical link above because I don't know if my changes will be reverted or modified by the time you read this. Please check it out and see if you want to help with this or not.  If you do decide to help with further improvements, make sure to check the current Alice Bailey page first and make your improvements there rather than editing the historical one that I linked.  The new headings might still be in the current version when you read this, I'm just not sure, so I provided that link for convenience.


 * Eaglizard, I was responding to Kwork's comment in particular, but of course your help with any or all of those new sections is most welcome as well. --Parsifal Hello 18:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

the neutrality issue
Eaglizard, I have decided to waste some time and give you examples of what I mean when I say that you have been partisan in the discussions. Below you will see a statement written by (at that time) Nameless user, and to which you immediately responded (and you will notice that she also also placed your name as allied with Jamesd1):

Okay. So James decided --  again without any consensus or prior discussion  to revert the Controversies section. James ought to know, from long past experience, that over-writing a carefully crafted attempt to accomodate the "bipartisan" concerns of all parties with yet one more iteration of his unacceptably POV material is incivil James ought to know from long past experience that this autocratic move is counter to common sence (and to Wiki guidelines) because an edit/revert war has been ongoing for many weeks and people are trying to work out mutually satisfactory details on the Talk page prior to changing the article. I am very diasappointed in James' behaviour. It appears childish, petulant, biased, petty, and uncooperaive in the extreme. And yes, that is a PERSONAL evaluation. It is personal because this latest salvo in the edit war was not started by Sethie, Renee, Eaglizard, Sparkleplenty, or any others of Bailey's devotees.

* These statements are, to be rather obvious (to the point of condescension) a personal attack. And Nameless ought to know better. S/he claims to. S/he writes copiously in legalistic detail of policy and guidelines, in fact. S/he does not appear to connect hir understanding with hir own behavior, unfortunately. Eaglizard 04:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So here you have just defended Jamesd1 for making changes in the article a way that continued the edit war. Then, below, you will see a statement from Jamesd1. You made no reply to what amounted to an antisemetic attack on the Jewish editors by Jamesd1. But Renee did reply, and defended Jamesd1:

==This Biographical Article Has been Hijacked==

I mean this in the sense of "To seize control of (a moving vehicle) by use of force, especially in order to reach an alternate destination."

The Jewish defense league is here and aggressively taking over this biography. They have little or no scholarly interest in AAB's biography or teachings as such, but are prosecuting an agenda with a spirit of Wikipedia rules be damned. No amount of logic or appeals to scholarship meets with response, because it is an emotional and "faith based" initiative. I admire those who actively defend the Jewish people against actual anti-Jewish types but this is the wrong place for it. I'm sorry to say that a spirit of religious fanaticism is active in some of the editors here and it is a corrupting influence on the accuracy, objectivity and neutrality of this article. For the present, and for this article, the Wikipedia system for producing good quality content has failed. James 02:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"I have to say I totally agree with James. The two editors promoting an anti-semitism POV are Nameless Date Stamp/Catherineyronwode and Kwork. There is heavy WP:Soap (see Cat's posts as well as the RFC/User on Kwork).  Further, there is canvassing, starting with a post to the antisemitism talk board here and then a lot of back-room talk (e.g., here and here) about how to position antisemitism on the page and how non-Jewish editors are all meatpuppets (when really, isn't the reverse true? e.g., )"

"I would like to point out that many editors, James, Sethie, Voidocore, Sparklecplenty, Squeakbox, Eaglizard have all been trying to get the focus on Bailey and on following Wiki policy for sources. I don't think any of us object to having sentences in the controversies section on Bailey and anti-semitism -- we just want a balanced and neutral article with good sources. Eaglizard in particular has been a positive saint for trying to get some sort of consensus from Cat and Kwork but we just keep getting the same data dump responses and reverts."

"For example, everyone but Cat and Kwork agreed that Gershom was a poor source, full of errors, etc., and it was deleted but then repeatedly put back in today. If you read through the talk page you'll see this (maybe starting here: )."

"Since I've started on this page, I have found many people trying in good faith to build a balanced and neutral article (e.g., James, Sethie, Voidocore, Sparklecplenty, Squeakbox, Bksimonb, Itsmejudith, AnonEMouse and Eaglizard). It's difficult when the focus keeps getting diverted to anti-semitism and the disregard for Wiki source policies."

"Help!!! --Renee 05:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)"

You will notice, Eaglizard, that Renee has included your name among allied editors ("I would like to point out that many editors, James, Sethie, Voidocore, Sparklecplenty, Squeakbox, Eaglizard have all been trying to get the focus on Bailey..."), together with herself. These are exactly the editors I consider that are your editorial allies. You did not protest either your name being included in Renee's list, nor did you protest the content of what Jamesd1 said. Considering this, does it still surprise you that I do not consider you neutral in the discussions? Do you still say you have been neutral? Kwork 17:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Kwork. Thank you very much, I dont think it was a waste of time, because now I have a much better understanding of the disagreement between us, and, true to my word, I will respond in detail to your detailed comment. To proleptipicate my argument, we differ because you misunderstand me. I don't claim to be neutral about you, or Wikipedia, or about anything in general. I only claim to make neutral editing decisions, in this and every other article I edit. When I say "be neutral", that's all I mean by it.


 * For my response to cat's comment: I agree with myself here, calling an editor's behavior "childish", "petulant" and "uncooperative in the extreme" is a personal attack. Had she even said "Your comment is childish and petulant," my response would have been different. But not much. Because, as I also implied, I think cat's comment here itself was childish, petulant, and uncooperative in the extreme. Hence my statement that she doesn't listen to her own advice. But please notice that I'm talking about this specific comment, and that I don't just accuse cat of being childish, or anything else. I try to be very specific, and discuss only the comments I'm responding to.


 * As far as Renee's comment, I don't consider being grouped into a list in a single sentence very problematic, no. Renee named a group of editors (including me) and said they've "... all been trying to get the focus on Bailey ...." In fact, I was proud to be recognized for precisely what I have been trying to do the whole time. If Renee had said "James, Sethie, ... Eaglizard and I are in this together", in some "cabalistic" way, I would have said "No we're not". (I am a Scorpio; I am not a joiner.) I will consider every issue on it's on merits (have I used that phrase before?) &mdash; to the best of my ability, at least.


 * All I can say is, of course I am not neutral about cat, yourself, James, Renee, Sethie, or any of the other editors. Just like you, I have a personal opinion about everybody else. I also have a personal opinion on Alice Bailey and her writings. None of which has anything to do with my claim that I am neutral regarding the article Alice Bailey. And that, along with civility, and couple others, is about all Wikipedia requires of me. The only reason I prefer to avoid comments regarding editors, and focus on individual edits, is because it makes it much easier for me to keep my personal opinions regarding other editors to myself. It reduces conflict, and thus reduces warring.


 * So, yes. I do still claim to be neutral. About the article. And that's all. If you expect me to treat you with neutrality, I'm afraid I cannot. What I can do, what I try to do, is treat you and every editor even-handedly and fairly. You don't like that told you (and cat) that your comments were inappropriate, but you also don't seem to notice I've told James the same thing, and (implicitly) told Sethie his RfC was wrong, by not supporting it. I hope to be fair, if unable to be truly neutral about others. Eaglizard 21:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You objected to my saying that you edited as an ally with Jamesd1, Renee, Sethie, and Sparklecplenty. But that is exactly what you were doing. I never said that you did not have a right to do that, just you did do that. I also said that, in my view you acted (for the most part) fairly - which the others did not. Of course, editing allied with Jamesd1, Renee, Sethie, and Sparklecplenty means that you were not neutral in regard to the article. As for Catatherine, what she said can not possibly be considered even a fraction as problematic as what Jamesd1 said; but you stayed silent about the statement from Jamesd1 which was antisemitic in tone. I am not going to discuss this more. It is a waste of time. I don't think that you, or your allies, are worth the trouble. Kwork 22:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * When you say "allies", I think of a "political" alliance; that is, a group that bands together for strength and says "we're in this together, and we'll stick together". I am part of no such group. Apparently, your use of "ally" means, much more simply, "coincidentally in agreement with at some particular time" &mdash; which makes me "allied with" nearly every editor on Wikipedia, I'm proud to note. But you're right, I'm not worth this kind of trouble. It's a lost cause. Eaglizard 22:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * see, (n) ally, friend (an associate who provides cooperation or assistance) "he's a good ally in fight". See also Duck test. (By the way, to this day you still have not said a single critical word about Jamesd1's claim that the article has been "hijacked" by the "Jewish Defence League". If you do not recall his words, it is copied in the material above.) Kwork 12:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't normally consider myself responsible for answering everything I disagree with; I'd be damned busy if I did. That was a terrible thing for James to have said, wasn't it? (Would it make you feel better to hear that I know the difference between the JDL and the ADL? I doubt it. Did you really need my help castigating him for it? I guess not!) On the other hand, you and I both have said some pretty awful things in the past, too. Do you want someone to drag yours mockingly behind you forever? I sure as hell don't. (I'll read duck test while you read forgiveness, ok?) He did effectively retract the statement, as I recall; if he hadn't, that would have been different. Negativity is like a zit -- if you pick at, it never heals. Eaglizard 20:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that that much of the problem is just communication difficulties resulting from my not being good at explaining myself in words (I told you that I am uneducated). My point is that you had a conniption over what Catherine said to Jamesd1, but you were silent about what Jamesd1 said to the Jewish editors who were frustrating him. That was the point: you would naturally be disinclined to criticize an ally, but very ready to criticize an opponent. If you were neutral, as you think you are, you would have criticized both, not just one. It is part of the Duck Test.

As for forgiveness: our being opponents in editing the Alice Bailey article was fate, and (in my view) not the result of, on either side, an intention to harm.

"42. When any person harms you, or speaks badly of you, remember that he acts or speaks from a supposition of its being his duty. Now, it is not possible that he should follow what appears right to you, but what appears so to himself. Therefore, if he judges from a wrong appearance, he is the person hurt, since he too is the person deceived. For if anyone should suppose a true proposition to be false, the proposition is not hurt, but he who is deceived about it. Setting out, then, from these principles, you will meekly bear a person who reviles you, for you will say upon every occasion, 'It seemed so to him.'"

"43. Everything has two handles, the one by which it may be carried, the other by which it cannot. If your brother acts unjustly, don't lay hold on the action by the handle of his injustice, for by that it cannot be carried; but by the opposite, that he is your brother, that he was brought up with you; and thus you will lay hold on it, as it is to be carried. Epitetus, The Handbook Ch. 42 & 43"

According to the philosophers, understanding is superior to forgiveness....and works better in human relations. Kwork 21:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit Away!
Hi Eaglizard,

Thanks for your nice note. I didn't take offense at all at your edits. For me, there's an entirely different feel or tone to edits or talk page text for those who are making good faith edits in line with Wiki principles versus those who want to push a specific POV. The former engenders absolutely no reaction in me at all and I see your edits in this class. Thanks again for the note -- that was nice of you.

Renee  Renee 02:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Major new update to the Bailey Biography
I've posted a major update to the biography. It contains new sections and a reorganizing of headings and subheadings in way that more closely approximates AAB's life and work. It is throughly referenced and with some new references throughout, together with quotes and paraphrases that closely matches the citations. It includes many new details and documentation on her life and conflict with the Theosophical. Kind Regards to all. James 16:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Bailey article degrading rapidly
I figured the article would degrade over time, but I'm a little surprised at the speed of it. The Jewish theme continues to obsess the editors to the virtual exclusion of all else and conditions the editorial direction. The whole thing is a mind-boggling example of the failure of the Wiki system. There does not appear to be anyone with the time and interest to enforce Wikipedia rules. James 16:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Bailey article about to be gutted
They've now come up with a reinterpretation of Wiki rules to support the hypothesis that AAB can not be cited at all. Imagine that... James 21:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Categories
The guideline on categories is WP:CAT. The general idea is that articles should be placed in the narrowest applicable categories but NOT in parents of that category. For example, Bailey clearly belongs in Category:Esotericists, a category for people. Therefore, she should not also be in the parent Category:Esotericism. She would certainly not be placed in parent categories of Esotericism, like Spirituality. In general, people should go in associated people categories, like Category:Spiritual teachers or Category:Spiritual writers. Another thing we do is narrow by nationality. If a person is in Category:English occult writers, they don't also go in Category:Occult writers. The categories would get too full to be useful if that were done. Hope this helps.... GlassFET 14:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey problem escalation
Hi Eaglizard

James has taken to outright edit-warring now, including wholesale reverting of material I added that has new and specific references from books. He's doing this without discussion, even though I invited discussion on several of the topics, and, he's reverting large numbers of edits all at once, making it hard to go back and address the particular issues.

My desire is for the article to be correct and NPOV, and my edits are in that spirit. His edits are clearly based in conflict-of-interest bias.

Would you please review the article history to see if you agree that the reverting James has been doing is inappropriate? If you do agree, please help maintain the balance by reverting some of his major changes (especially the ones where he blanket reverts many edits, causing loss of references).

I can't do this on my own. If others care about the neutrality of the article, this will take a community effort to stop the conflict-of-interest biased editing.

I don't want to do a formal COI report yet, though now with his recent blasting of referenced changes, I am getting closer to feeling that may be needed. First though, it would be best if the community of wide-topic editors would help with the reversions. That way it will become more clear what's really going on. I might post this request on a couple other editor's pages, I haven't decided yet.

If you don't agree with my changes, then don't undo his reversions. I'm not trying to influence or convince you, but I am looking for support from policy-based editors to help stop the disruptions and the attempts to bias the article. --Parsifal Hello 20:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye, and Thanks
The situation in the AAB article is analogous to that of a case where two atheists descide to write a Wiki article on Christianity. Parsifal and Kwork tend to be anti-Bailey editors and their personal bias conditions their edits. They make nice little format fixes, but where anything significant is concerned, their bias is likely to control. I have fought their selective-misquotations and distortions and lack of perspective for a long time, and struggled in the face of it to create a biography that is accurate and that contains a just amount of reasonable criticism. It is no use, unless others with knowledge, interest, and authority show up to change the situation.

I am done with editing this article. Without administrative intervention or other knowledgeable editors with a scholarily interest in the subject, it is like writing in Beach sand and there is insufficient support to warrant continued painstaking efforts. There have been a few people who have given mostly moral support and discussion contributions, and for that thanks. But there is no real community of active editors willing to join me in shaping the article.

My friends in this karma, those identified with the Jewish issues, will now control a subject they are averse to and which they have limited knowledge of. The pro-Jewish editors, those I've called anti-anti-Jewish folks, have won and I predict the result will be apparent in the near future. What progress I have contributed will be dismantled. The order and relative sanity I've sought to foster will be undermined. Sections will be cut away until the article bears little resemblance to AAB's life and thought or the contrasting thoughts of a community of reasonable critics. How could it be otherwise when people work on a subject they do not know and are averse to identifying with, even on a temporary scholarily basis.

Yes, the situation in the AAB article is analogous to that of a case where two atheists descide to write a Wiki article on Christianity. It is absurd, and no amount of Wiki rule quoting will avail. For any complex and controversial subject, and in the absence of knowledgeable and clear-headed editors, the Wikipedia process breaks down.

I will not be coming back to the article unless word reaches me by email that the situation has changed. It will likely be some time before I sign on to Wiki again and I will not be checking for response to this, my last post--there is a direct non-Wikipedia email link on my personal page. If anyone should need to contact me, use that, because after I click "Save" on this message, I'm out of here and will not look back. James 02:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

p.s. "Omit the negative propositions.  Don't waste yourself in rejection, nor bark against the bad, but chant the beauty of the good.  (R. W. Emerson)

my crummy edits
Hi Eaglizard, you wrote on Parsifal's talk page:

"There are other, equally questionable edits. For example, I wonder that you don't notice what appears to be non-consensual removal of, I think it was, 4 or 5 'pre-summary' paragraphs on the grounds that paraphrases are 'OR' — even tho friend Kwork also added two quotes, including his own paraphrasing pre-summaries. I don't expect you to be Kwork's conscience, but are you sure you're examining everyone's edits equally?"

If those are the edits of mine I think you are referring to, I thought I was right (and rather still do) in removing OR. However, I asked AnonEMouse for an opinion. She said I was wrong, so I stopped. Parsifal may not have said anything because the problem was over in a day, and he was busy elsewhere, and had done no editing of the article during the period of time involved. I had, in fact, requested his opinion also, but after AnonEMouse had replied there was little point to saying more on the subject. Kwork 12:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you can still see my request for Parsifal's opinion about that on his talk page, under the heading "Original research?" My request to AnonEMouse is, likewise, on her talk page. I would not have listened to you opinion because I do not trust you. Kwork 14:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Eaglizard, I left you a parting note on my page. Sparklecplenty 23:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey there. Thanks for your comments re: Gimli Glider - very kind. No problem at all with your excellent edits. --FactotEm 08:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again. Just to let you know that I changed some of your copyedits to Omaha Beach, specifically those made to the Engineer Landings section. They just didn't read as well to me, but if I'm so far off beam that you want to change things back I'm not going to press the matter. It's largely semantics really, but the one that really did stand out as wrong was the use of the word "undaunted" - strays a little too close to POV in my view (at one stage the narrative reported that the engineers suffered "grievous" casualties, but this was identified as POV during the FAC - hence my thinking on this one). Cheers. --FactotEm 11:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It looked as if you were having fun. I agree - I chose this article precisely because it is an awe-inspiring event, but the downside is that does tend to lead one into POV traps, which I did quite a lot of in the early edits (forgot to add anything from the German perspective at all). I'm afraid my other edits pretty much put things back the way they were, but like I say, it's not so important to get into a fight over. Have fun. --FactotEm 12:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No offence taken at all. --FactotEm 13:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey
I've not looked back at the article and don't plan to, but a friend informed me that you were still working on it, so here is something that might provide some perspective:

J.J. Dewey, Answers For The Critics Of Alice A. Bailey, 2007 Answers For The Critics Of Alice A. Bailey The above is in eight sections; click links at bottom of each section to read all. James 20:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Eaglizard, a response to your note on my page. And a note to Renee that you might or not be interested in. Sparklecplenty 00:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Eaglizard, I don't live here anymore and flagged my personal page for deletion. You seem to have some mysterious unresolved issue with me that I'm suppose to know about.  I've no clue what that might be.  If there's something you need, feel free contact me directly: James  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesd1 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making nice with Parsifal.
I think that you and Parsifal are the key to holding the article together from both perspectives. Please hang in there. Wiki is social experiment more so than it is an Encyclopedia. The more I remind myself of that less important the actual content becomes. This is not to say that I do not get angry or frustrated. I do.

I also realize that in terms of civility you and Parsifal are exemplary. I just thought that you may need a pat on the back, You deserve one. Danny Weintraub: Albion moonlight 06:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Matthew is doing well thanks I will show him that you asked about him. He is a preschooler but he was taught to read as soon as he showed an interest. He doesn't do it very well yet mind you but he is very fascinated by computers and their uses. : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 07:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Humour.
I am glad your edits still stand. I am not sure wheter you were responding to me or Kwork pursuant to your comments about Jewish Humour. I assume it was Kwork. If you were makeing a belated reference to something I said then I missed your point. Please feel free to explain. I hope I didn't say anything that was in the least bit insular.

As for wiki being a group meditation I tend to agree but I also see it as a great big dysfunctional family. It all depends on the circumstances Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 08:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

??
I am not sure I understand. People can in fact be Jews just as they can be snobs or snobbish. I think you may be referring to the fact that we are such a diverse ethnic group and therefor very puzzling. I am an Atheist but I am none the less a closet Zionist who is also critical of Israeli foreign policy. I still do things that make me seem as if I am religious but I only do them out of respect for my family. Christian are very similar to us but most Atheist who were raised as Christians do not call themselves Christians. I am not sure I understand. People can in fact be Jews just as they can be snobs or snobbish. Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 10:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand your usage now. I had never thought of it that way. I love Woody Allen too. One of my twin brothers sons married a Southern Baptist. I think all cultures use guilt as a tool. It can be very abusive when it is over done. I come from a dysfunctional family as well. I hope my kids do not feel the same way but I am afraid to ask. LOL.: Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 18:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Dear Eaglizard,

Thanks for the comments and thoughts on my talk page. I appreciate the advice. I didn't know that editors involved in a dispute with one other editor (i.e., where Kwork was reverting my edits only, and in my perception to antogonize because it was such a simple template) should discuss these things on a talk page before filing a report. (and apparently I did put it in the wrong place -- I just followed the post "leave a message at the bottom" and thought that was the wrong place)

I see that Jossi and Vassyana are now on the page and I respect them greatly. I hope they can help, along with you, to get the article into good shape. I don't mind criticism of Bailey at all; what I object to is giving extremist sources front page status (it's ethically wrong in my view). If a scholarly source or mainstream publication says anything negative, great, include it. Also, it's hard to assume any good faith with Kwork since he has gone on record that he will not let anything positive about Bailey appear on the page and that he has no respect for me. How much more hostile can one be?

Thanks again, Renee Renee 14:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick request
Hi El C, I needed an admin's opinion, and you were the first to come to mind. A user I know of has placed a speedy delete on his User Talk page. It's my understanding that this is incorrect, but for personal reasons I prefer not to remove it myself. Would you have a quick look and take that action (if it is, indeed, appropriate)? Thanks for considering. Eaglizard 09:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, Eaglizard. No problem, I'll look into it. Regards, El_C 21:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. For the previous matter. Btw, can you explain the chipoll? It baffles me. Eaglizard 10:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Think of it as woodland interpretive dance of chiprotest! El_C 11:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Double, Triple, Quadruple Thanks!
Dear Eaglizard,

I just read your very kind note on my talk page and wanted to tell you I really appreciate the information and advice. (By the way, I did respond to your notes of the previous day, right here -- wanted to make sure you knew I appreciated them too.) I can tell you're speaking the truth from the heart.

I read today's post several times and contemplated it and I think you're right on. I need to not overdo or overstate things built up from several months of frustration and will follow that advice. What really sent me over the edge yesterday was the name-calling to Vassyana and the incivility to Jossi (by Kwork and Cat respectively). It's wrong. But, I guess I can only control myself, huh?

Thanks again, it's really nice to feel heard and I feel like you heard me.

Renee Renee 10:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)