|
User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/3
โฌ ๏ธ Previous Archive Page (#-1) โ ๐๏ธ โ Next Archive Page (#1) โก๏ธ
It's not meI'm not leaving Arlam Master Plus. So don't blame me. Wikifunhey there, do have any ideas for getting more exposure for this project? also any ideas concerning expansion? i would appreciate to have your input and help. wikipedia:Wikifun. --Larsie 21:18, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) deletedI just deleted an old comment of mine that's irrelevant. --Hersch 00:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Alarm master plus?Heya, I got a message from you about the subject, but I have nothing to do with it? I am on a dynamic IP though. wikifunforgive my ignorance but i didn't quite understand your message. how would i go about doing that? i've only been a wikipedian since september.--Larsie 18:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) thanks for the help i appreciate it --Larsie 21:21, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) Star Control imagesAre you sure that you've correctly noted the copyright status of all those images from The Ur-Quan Masters? My understanding is that it's only the code that's GPL, and that the artwork is still protected by copyright. --Paul A 05:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) disputethere may be someone disputing your answer on Wikifun for the sun tzu question. do you want to check you answer? --Larsie 18:18, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) Re: {{pokeimage}}Can you please tell me how to? Thanks Andrevan from DBZPokeman IPUplease read my recent version of the opening paragraph, I'm not trying to have a revert war, just trying to cover the Satirical Goddess issue, ie, a Satirical goddess is a goddess who uses satire (in one sense) as opposed to a '"goddess" invented as a satire', if you follow me... anyway, please, rather than reverting it, edit it to suit your view of the relevant issues, ok? thanks for your efforts.Pedant 19:30, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC) White TantrismI am curious, why would you consider White tantrism a candidate for deletion? We haven't had time to write any meaningful article... AugustinMa 16:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) About JesusI think Jesus Christ is not primary for Jesus. I think it's primary for ONLY Christians. Added to this, this article is NOT neutrality. It must be changed. See Talk:JesusRantaro 16:38, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) ThanksThank you very much for your vote for my adminship. I greatly appreciate your support. ffirehorse 23:38, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) Hey, sorry you got so stressed, that was not my intent. I'm not sure exactly why you felt I was being insulting, but that wasn't my purpose in saying what I did. I ment to express my position. IMO people like User:Adraeus are the problem, since they focus on ad hominem attacks rather than expressing either themselves, or generally respected sources. You are right that I am militantly anti-atheist, but I don't mean to be rude or hurtful here, I want to make good encyclopedia entries. I'd appreciate if you explained what was so upsetting to you so that I might learn from the experience, but if you'd prefer not I can respect that, and again apologize for any distress I may have caused you. Sam [Spade] 19:46, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Its interesting that we agree on the central issue, that all views should be present in the article (presented neutrally I hope?). However we disagree about what a weak atheist is, as well as what "non-religious" means. I am a fundamentalist theist, with a close, personal relationship to God. But I am not religious, as I do not go to church, and am not easilly labeled by denomination (I like to call myself "interdenominational"). A conversation regarding my theology can be found under "God and gender" in my talk. Anyhow, are we (the two of us) agreed that all verifiable views should be presented neutrally on Atheism, and clarified as far as who agrees with them and why? Sam [Spade] 20:24, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
amalekJust to give you a hint of how many theists feel about the term "atheist", see Amalek#Rejection_of_God. i will also point out that the final battle lead by Christ in revelations is often described as being against Atheists by contemporary (and I assume historical) Christian preachers. Atheist is a very strong term, which (to me and many others) is synonymous with denying or rejecting God, Blaspheme of the holy spirit. I feel very strongly (hope at least) that very few people are accurately refered to by this term. Sam [Spade] 20:28, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
correct meaning etymologicallyIMO this goes too far towards taking a POV stand. I would say that etymologically, my definition would be more correct (esp. if were going by historical usage). Oh, and thanks for the help w labeling me! Trying to label myself is actually a hobby of mine, Belief-O-Matic says I'm a Jain, Sikh or Hinduย ;) Sam [Spade] 20:49, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
For me, "without theism" translates directly to "apart from God". Being apart from God is a decision, it cannot be done accidentally. God is always here; we must choose not to accept him. have you ever wondered why every culture on earth has God and/or gods? The concept is omnipresent, a Jungian symbol, inherent and instinctual to the human animal. 21:59, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Theology and logicPremises:
So that you know...I enjoyed our communication so much that I preserved a copy of it on my talk, I hope you don't mind. Thanks much for your thoughtful and polite nature, it is indeed refreshing. Sam [Spade] 18:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) Thanks!Thanks a lot for the Barnstar! That was really nice of you. Jason One 22:01, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) Atheism DR ClosureI have posted a closing comment for the dispute resolution attempt on Talk:Atheism. I also posted a lengthy response to a comment left on my talk page by Adraeus on a sub-page located here: User talk:Skyler1534/DR. Since both involve you, I thought I would alert you to this so that you could take a look. Thank you for your participation in this dispute resolution. I am sorry it did not work out better. Skyler1534 13:35, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC) I've changed my vote, and as yours referenced mine, I thought you might want to refactor it. BLANKFAZE | (ััะพ??) 03:20, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) moot court / mock trialIn United States law schools there are two distinct extracurricular programs. Mock trial refers exclusively to trial advocacy competitions, that is, trying a case to a judge and/or jury. Moot court refers exclusively to appellate advocacy, that is prosecuting an appeal to an appellate court (composed only of judges), and never has a jury. Both programs require different skills, and they usually have different participants. While I donโt disagree with you that moot and mock are synonyms (and ignoring the minor difference between trial and court), there is a significant difference between the two types of programs, at least at the law school level. As I have never been involved in high school programs, I donโt know how they operate those. Perhaps they should be addressed in a different section within one of the two entries moot/mockFor practical purposes I don't much care if they are put together, as long as the distinction is clear. While probably irrelevant for non-lawyers/non-law students, the difference is quite important in law school; I got into some trouble after signing up for the wrong one. I would like to prevent that for others. If combined, Mock trial is a better heading since practicing attorneys use mock trials, and moot court is pretty much reserved for educational settings (although I wouldn't put it past the legal support industry to offer it). Infinite monkey theoremThe term "infinite monkey theorem" is a misnomer; the statement itself is not a misnomer. That's why the phrase "the infinite monkey theorem" was in italics: it was to conform to the Style Manual's convention that when writing about a word or phrase, rather than using the word or phrase to write about what it refers to, one italicizes it. I've put the italics back. Michael Hardy 19:52, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It is not italicized when one is writing about the proposition itself. But when one writes about the phrase, rather than using the phrase to write about the proposition, then one should italicize. So this would be italicized even if it were not in bold, because saying it's a misnomer is a statement about the phrase rather than about the thing that the phrase refers to. Michael Hardy 20:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) ReplyI replied @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Theology_and_logic. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 19:59, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Reply @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Theology_and_logic, and I fixed up monism a bit. Sam [Spade] 20:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)