User talk:Johnathon777

The Shack
Hi Johnathon- you seem to be repeatedly adding content to The Shack which I'm repeatedly deleting. Instead of going back and forth reverting the article, it would be better for you to register your opinion on the discussion page (at the bottom) at Talk:The Shack. You can see that I and another editor don't regard the Langemann book as being notable. If you disagree (I assume you do), tell us why. Thanks- Staecker (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Staeker, I think the Langemann book is more pertinent and thorough with its theological examination of the Young book than any other published critique. It is also selling more than the articles and booklets of the other people you mention under the section: "Criticism". It has every legitimate right to be there among the other critics. No attempt has been made to interfere with the splurb promoting the book in the other sections, but if you want to play games and play censor against critiques, anything could happen. Johnathon777


 * As suggested by Staecker, please discuss inclusion of the book on the article's talk page before re-adding the book. Please also see Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view.  Your last edit was not a neutral point of view.  Thank you.


 * As suggested by Staecker, don't keep re-adding the content. Please discuss it first on the talk page.
 * This theologian: It might be useful for you to give us some background about why you think this critic (amongst the many other others) is notable. That he has written an apparently large book doesn't make it notable. It may also be useful for you to consider why this book is notable - what does it say that other critics haven't? What else has this theologian written? Why is he notable? (That he is a theologian does not, in itself, make him notable).
 * This book: You say that the book is 'selling more' than the other critiques. What evidence do you have of that? As I noted, the forum had zero entries when I visited, suggesting that the book is not widely read. It is also interesting to note that this publisher (Rock Solid Publishing) does not appear to carry any other titles. Is there something that makes this book notable? You say that you consider it more pertinent and thorough - what make you say that?
 * peterl (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, And nor is your is your promotion of The Shack a neutral point of view. Do Tim Challies, Chuck Colsen, Norman Geisler,Albert Mohler,Randal Rauser have neutral views? I'm prepared to put a neutral, unprovocative, sentence listing Langemann and his book under criticism.

If you want a war on this issue, It is possible to ensure that you spend all of your days rewriting your articles hour after hour, day after day. Grow up and realize that such a provocative book is going to invite criticism. No amount of censorship on your part of moderate criticism, within a supposed democracy, is going to stop, or blunt opposition to the book. Maybe you should employ Paul Young's philosophy toward criticism, if you know anything about him at all. - - Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've copied Gogo's comment and responded at Talk:The Shack, since really this discussion should be happening there. Please let's move all the talking to that page. Staecker (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)