Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alastair Haines (talk | contribs) at 03:21, 23 September 2008 (→1RR (Singular they): reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Most excellent

I agree with your comments on Early Christianity and again the Early Christian Fathers article is excellent. Thank you for your kind words and intervention. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah haha but you forgot Father Diodore of Tarsus . The Chaldocean will appreciate this am sure. God Bless, Alistair. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems a fair conclusion.

LoveMonkey (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A Question Alastair

Hello Alastair, I have a question for you. What is the meaning (to you) of the word heresy? LoveMonkey (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
In EO it is to choose your own opinion over that of the community (the phenomena of Phronema).LoveMonkey (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Very interesting, that makes Christians heretics from the world community. :)

In Protestantism, heresy is anything contrary to the Bible. Sola scriptura is a common phrase associated with staying clear of heresy. Protestants don't trust themselves to get things right! ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

During the time of Westernization in Russia, the pro Westernizers pushed that heresy is to mean, one who opposes "Orthodoxy". This by extention meant that people did not have a "right" to their own interruption and or opinion. But to the Orthodox clergy this is not what Orthodoxy means and this is not what heresy means. The idea of heresy as this became so pervasive that the conservative elements in Russia (called now in hindsight Slavophiles) created a philosophy (yes Russian Philosophy) to address philosophical dialect with philosophical dialect- their response was called sobornost or organic, spontanious ordering. If you would like I can post the apology here on your talk page, it is to RC and Protestanism. The problem is this too, is wrong. But lets start there with sobornost. Respond if you would like to read the apology it is not long. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me but it would be better to post. You see it would be for brother Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. For old times in his honor. I think he is a saint you see. Maybe it would help people understand the old man better and why Tolstoy was wrong.

(talk) 14:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Let me say, that Orthodox is organic and opposes the "mechanization" of things. Philosophy is (by definition) a set of analytical tools (called dialects) to deconstruct reality. God is not a machine, man is not a machine, reality is not a machine. Orthodoxy is to maintain all of the community's traditions. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Monkey -- if I may butt in here... the designation of "heresy" is dependent upon the group, and attempts to identify with the group. For instance, to Jewish Orthodoxy, Paul is a heretic. To Christian Orthodoxy, Paul is (by definition) Orthodox. To Buddhist Orthodoxy (if there were such a thing), Paul is neither... because no one is trying to identify Paul with that group. The designation, then, is only a response to a person or group claiming to be either a subset of the larger group, or a replacement to that group. Jehovah's Witnesses do not claim to be members of the larger group of Orthodox (i.e. Nicene) Christians. Instead, they claim to be "Christians" instead of Orthodox Christians. It is the attempted use of the identity of the mainstream group that calls into question whether one is truly representative of that group (Orthodox) or not (heretical). No one accuses Barack Obama of Democratic heresy, because he's very much in line with other Democrats. However, if Barack Obama were a Republican, he would very much be accused of "heresy" by that party, even more so than John McCain already is. My point is this: "heresy" does not mean that you are wrong; it simply means that you are not mainstream. Martin Luther was a "heretic" to Catholicism, but one of the principle founders of Protestant "orthodoxy." In terms of the politics you mention, Russian political orthodoxy, Abraham Lincoln is neither orthodox nor heretical, because no one is trying to identify him with that group, and therefore that group has no need to exclude him.Tim (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahh why I wanted to post the comments. So be it. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to post, brother, especially now we are three. :)) Alastair Haines (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Monkey, sorry for some confusion. I'm not sure why I read Russian Soviet political "Orthodoxy" in there. I see now you are an Eastern Christian. In the broadest terms, I think that both Eastern and Western Christians will agree that the Nicene Creed (with or without the filioque clause) marks the acceptable boundary of Christian Orthodoxy. Groups that are in opposition to it would be heretical. Subsets beyond that have their own definitions. A paedobaptist is non-Baptist, but that doesn't make him heretical. As Alastair mentioned, Evangelicals or many Protestants would cite sola scriptura... but that doesn't mark any definitive limit, because scripture is claimed by many groups.Tim (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As it is written so let it be done. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sobornost

Link
The message of Sobornost
Sobornost as an apology for Caesaropapism.
Sobornost against spiritual elitism or extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Sobornost as an apology against Western Christianity.
Sobornost as an apology specific to sola scriptura. Sobornost to Western Christianity as a call for unity
Sobornost in contrast to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.
Khomiakov describes the difference between the three Christian denominations as follows: Three voices are heard more distinctly than others in Europe: "Obey and believe my decrees," says Rome.
"Be free and try to create some sort of faith for yourself," says Protestantism.
And the Church calls to the faithful:
"Let us love one another that we may with one accord confess the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost."
Sobornost as love and freedom. Sobornost and the mir
Sobornost from other slavophils. Sobornost as democratic
Aleksey Khomyakov pg87 from the History of Russian Philosophy by N.O. Lossky.

1. Orthodoxy has a method of cure. It appears among other things in the subtitle of the Philokalia. It says: "Philokalia of the holy neptics in which through practice and the vision of God the nous is purified, illuminated and perfected".
2. Theologically speaking the Fellowship's impact was also felt. The introduction to the English-speaking Christian world of theologians like Bulgakov, Lossky, Florovsky, Meyendorff and Schmemann often came via the Fellowship and has had an impact which can still not be adequately assessed. Symposia of studies on various theological themes involving both eastern and western theologians were published. These tackled issues such as ecclesiology and the place of Mary. Above all, the Fellowship's journal Sobornost provided (and continues to provide) a forum for serious theological debate and discussion between Christian East and West. Unity as Christians is intrinsically bound up with the peace of the whole world, the 'peace which passeth all understanding', for which we are bound, as Christians, to pray. The work of the Fellowship is rooted in common prayer and fellowship between separated Christians. It is honest enough to be able to acknowledge differences, both positive and negative. It realises that unity in Christ need not mean uniformity in Christ. The Christian Church existed for centuries without division, but with numerous variations in local church life and practice The one constant factor was a common faith which was firmly rooted in the Gospels and the church tradition, that whole body of teaching, faith and life handed down from the apostles. 'Unofficial' ecumenism seeks to regain something of the bond of self-sacrificial love which existed between Christians in the infancy of the Church. It welcomes our unity in diversity as brothers and sisters in Christ with different traditions.
3. The Russian Emperor has no rights of priesthood, he has no claims to infallibility or "to any authority in matters of faith or even of church discipline." He signs the decisions of the Holy Synod, but this right of proclaiming laws and putting them into execution is not the same as the right to formulate ecclesiastical laws. The Tsar has influence with regard to the appointment of bishops and members of the Synod, but it should be observed that such dependence upon secular power is frequently met with in many Catholic countries as well. In some of the Protestant states it is even greater (II, 36-38, 208).
4. Although Khomiakov regarded Orthodoxy as the one true Church he was in no sense a fanatic. He did not believe that extra ecclesiam nulla salus (there is no salvation outside the church) in the sense that every Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Buddhist, etc., is doomed to perdition. "The mysterious bonds that unite the earthly Church with the rest of mankind are not revealed to us; therefore we have neither the right nor the inclination to suppose that all who remain outside the visible Church will be severely condemned, especially as such a supposition would contradict the Divine mercy" (II, 220). "In confessing one baptism, as the beginning of all the sacraments we do not reject the other six;" but in addition to the seven, "there are many other sacra¬ments; for every work done in faith, hope and love is inspired by the spirit of God and evokes God's invisible grace" (II, 14). '"He who loved truth and righteousness and defended the weak against the strong, who fought against corruption, tortures and slavery, is a Christian, if only to some extent; he who did his best to improve the life of the workers and to brighten the wretched lot of the classes oppressed by poverty whom we cannot as yet make quite happy, is a Christian, if only in part." "Apart from Christ and without love for Christ man cannot be saved, but what is meant here is not the historical appearance of Christ, as Our Lord Himself tells us (II, 160, 220): Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come" (Matt. XII. 32). "Christ is not only a fact, He is a law, He is the realized idea; and therefore a man who, by the dispensation of Providence has never heard about the Righteous One who was crucified in Judea, may yet be worshipping the essence of Our Saviour though he cannot name Him or bless His Divine name. He who loves righteousness loves Christ; he whose heart is open to love and compassion is His disciple though he does not him¬self know it. All Christian sects contain men who in spite of their mistaken beliefs (for the most part inherited) honor with their whole life, with their thoughts, words and deeds Him who died for the sake of His criminal brethren. All of them, from the idolater to the sec¬tarian, are more or less in darkness; but all see in the gloom some glimmering rays of the eternal light which reaches them in various ways" (II, 221).
5. In his criticism of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism Khomia¬kov takes for his starting point the principle of sobornost or commonalty; namely, the combination of unity and freedom based upon the love of God and His truth and the mutual love of all who love God. In Catholicism he finds unity without freedom and in Protestantism freedom without unity. In these denominations only an external unity and an external freedom are realized. The legal formalism and logical rationalism of the Roman Catholic Church have their roots in the Roman State. These features developed in it more strongly than ever when the Western Church without consent of the Eastern introduced into the Nicean Creed the filioque clause. Such arbitrary change of the creed is an expression of pride and lack of love for one's brethren in the faith. "In order not to be regarded as a schism by the Church, Romanism was forced to ascribe to the bishop of Rome absolute infallibility." In this way Catholicism broke away from the Church as a whole and became an organization based upon external authority. Its unity is similar to the unity of the state: it is not super¬rational but rationalistic and legally formal. Rationalism has led to the doctrine of the works of superarogation, established a balance of duties and merits between God and man, weighing in the scales sins and prayers, trespasses and deeds of expiation; it adopted the idea of trans¬ferring one person's debts or credits to another and legalized the exchange of assumed merits; in short, it introduced into the sanctuary of faith the mechanism of a banking house. Roman Catholicism rationalizes even the sacrament of the Eucharist: it interprets spiritual action as purely material and debases the sacrament to such an extent that it becomes in its view a kind of atomistic miracle. The Orthodox Church has no metaphysical theory of Transsubstantiation, and there is no need of such a theory. Christ is the Lord of the elements and it is in His power to do so that "every thing, without in the least changing its physical substance" could become His Body. "Christ's Body in the Eucharist is not physical flesh."
6. 
   The rationalism of Catholicism which established unity without freedom gave rise, as a reaction against it, to another form of rationalism -Protestantism which realizes freedom without unity. The Bible, in itself a lifeless book, subjectively interpreted by every individual be¬liever, is the basis of the Protestants' religious life. This is the reason why "Protestants have not that serenity, that perfect certainty of posessing the word of God which is given by faith alone." It attaches too much importance to the historical study of the Scriptures. It is a matter of vital importance to them whether the Epistle to the Romans was written by Paul or not. This means that Protestantism regards the Scriptures as an infallible authority, and at the same time as an authority external to man.
   The attitude of the Orthodox Church to the Scriptures is different. "It regards the Scriptures as its own testimony and looks upon them as an inward fact in its own life." "Suppose it were proved today that the Epistle to the Romans was not written by Paul; the Church would say 'it is from me' and the very next day the epistle would be read aloud in all the churches as before, and the Christians would listen to it with the joyful attention of faith; for we know whose testimony alone is incontrovertible." Khomiakov regards the Protestants' rejection of prayers for the dead, of the worship of the Saints and of the value of good works as the expression of utilitarian rationalism which fails to see the organic wholeness of the visible and the invisible Church.
7. The defects of Roman Catholicism and of Protestantism spring, he thinks, from the same psychological source: fear, the fear of one to lose the unity of the Church and the fear of the others to lose their freedom. Both think of heavenly things in earthly terms: "`There is bound to be schism if there is no central power to decide on questions of dogma,' says the Roman Catholic; 'there is bound to be intellectual slavery if everyone considers himself bound to remain in agreement with others,' says the protestant."
8. What is particularly valuable in Khomiakov's religious and philosophical writings is his emphasis upon the indissoluble union between love and freedom: Christianity is the religion of love and therefore it presupposes freedom. The dogmas of the Church are inviolable, as is clear to everyone who understands the conditions of the Church's life, but in matters of "opinion" Khomiakov freely seeks for new ways. "I often permit myself," he says in a letter to Aksakov, "to disagree with so-called opinions of the Church." It is not surprising that soon after Khomiakov's death the reactionary paper Moscow News called him a teacher of heresy. Khomiakov's views on the historical development of mankind and on social life are closely connected with his religious philosophy. In his Notes on Universal History ("Semiramis") he reduces the whole histori¬cal process to the struggle of two principles-the Aryan and the Cushite. The Aryan principle is spiritual worship of the "freely creating spirit," the Cushite principle (the home of which is Ethiopia) is subjection to matter, "to the organic necessity determining its products through inevitable logical laws." The Aryan principle in religion is lofty mono¬theism, the highest expression of which is Christianity. The Cushite principle in religion is pantheism without a morally determined deity. The struggle of these two principles in history is the struggle between freedom and necessity. The realization of Christian ideals in the historical development of Western Europe is hindered by their rationalistic distortion and by the proud conceit of her peoples. Russia received Christianity from Byzantium in its "purity and wholeness," free from one-sided rationalism. The Russian people's humility, their piety and love of the ideal of holiness, their liking for communal organization in the form of the village commune and the artel, based upon the duty of mutual help, give grounds to hope that Russia will go further than Europe in realizing social justice and, in particular, will find ways of reconciling the interests of capital and labor.
9. Khomiakov attached the greatest value to the Russian village commune, the mir with its meetings that passed unanimous decisions and its traditional justice in accordance with custom, conscience, and inner truth. In Russian industrial life the artel was the parallel of the commune. In the Law Code an artel was defined as a company formed for carrying on certain work or trade by the personal labor of its members, at com¬mon expense and on joint responsibility (X, 1).
10. Khomiakov's follower, Samarin, thought that the ancient Russian social and communal life was an embodiment of the principle of sobornost. The aristocratic regime of warlike nations was foreign to the Slavs, an agricultural people, says Khomiakov.
11. "We shall always remain demo¬crats, standing for purely human ideals and blessing every tribe to live and develop in peace in its own way." Most of all Khomiakov hated slavery: "Demoralization is one of the chief punishments of slavery. Speaking relatively, the slaveowner is always more demoralized than the slave: a Christian may be a slave but must not be a slaveowner."

The mother of all Western Conspiracy Theories?

It seems that the Constantinian shift is yet another historically incorrect made up and made to play on people ignorants, conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories have no place being paraded on wiki as fact. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Could he even do a shift without a klutch?Tim (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Alastair thank you for taking an interest most people don't even consider us. I have tried like the dickens to clarify all of this in the work I did in the article theoria. God Bless you and thank you for at least listening.

"He prays with his body alone, and not yet with spiritual knowledge. But when the man once blind received his sight and saw the Lord, he acknowledged Him no longer as the Son of David but as the Son of God, and worshipped Him' (cf. John 9 38)." St Symeon the New Theologian Philokalia Vol.4

LoveMonkey (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Monkey, just so you know -- there are plenty of us out there who appreciate the spirituality of Eastern Christianity. Just a few days ago I was defending a misrepresentation of it being made by someone attempting to make the Eastern Fathers sound like Latter Day Saints (Mormons). I have very dear friends in the Eastern Clergy, and find your form of worship to be beautiful, balanced, and humble before God. Just keep on being yourselves. You're a good part of this kosmos.Tim (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

References

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Slight misreading

Hey Alastair,

Thanks for the kind words, but you misread me.

I can hardly walk into a room without Tim jumping me and bludgeoning me. He goes around telling everyone how everything up to and including racism, pollution and the high price of gasoline is ultimately my fault. And yes, I'm exaggerating a little there, but not a lot. If people accuse Alastair of improper behavior, it's my fault. That's on this very page.

My point was that as far as Tim is concerned, everything is my fault. Even the criticisms against you -- many of which are well founded, well documented, but still unacknowledged by you -- are my fault, as far as Tim is concerned. The words "That's on this very page" referred to the fact that Tim's claim that accusations against you are my fault was on that very page.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you misread what I was saying. So that's what I'm going to do. I'll be able to do so as long as you don't suggest to anyone that I was actually taking the blame for accusations against you.

In all honesty, I have no opinion on the conflict between you and Ilkali. I haven't read the evidence, and it revolved around issues that don't interest me. The fact remains, however, that on the day of that edit war, you reverted my edit without any discussion. Everyone who looks at the diffs can see that this is the case. What boggles my mind, really, is that you refuse to even acknowledge a solid fact like that. Possibly even to yourself. And it's that sort of denial that's going to mess you up big-time in this arbitration. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Danvers Statement

An article that you have been involved in editing, Danvers Statement, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Danvers Statement. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Wronkiew (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Virginity

Hi:

You reverted a change I made in the virginity article. I corrected the quote where is said that "homosexual intercourse and prostitution are all explicitly forbidden by name." in 1st corninthians, and it is given as the citation. I changed that to say that sodomy, not homosexual intercourse was explicitly forbidden by name, as that is correct. I realize that the term sodomy is a very general term. Indeed, some Christians interpret sodomy to mean homosexual intercourse, but that is widely disputed. The term Sodomy is also widely held to have originated as forbidding idolatry and bestiality.

The original Greek reads: "η ουκ οιδατε οτι αδικοι θεου βασιλειαν ου κληρονομησουσιν μη πλανασθε ουτε πορνοι ουτε ειδωλολατραι ουτε μοιχοι ουτε μαλακοι ουτε αρσενοκοιται"

The King James version reads "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind";

Here is the Worlwide English version of that: "Do you not know that bad people will have no part in the kingdom where God rules? Do not be fooled. There are some people who will not have part in that place. They are those who commit adultery of any kind, those who have idols, or steal, or are always wanting more, or talk wrong things about people, or drink plenty of strong drink, or take things by force, or curse."

Whycliffe (one of the older translations) "Whether ye know not, that wicked men shall not wield the kingdom of God? Do not ye err; neither lechers, neither men that serve maumets , neither adulterers, neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men"

Young literal translation (closest to the original greek) "have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,"

It takes Broad interpretation to get from the original greek (effeminate) to fundamentalist versions that say "homosexual intercourse". Consider that although sodomy has been legally interpreted in the past 100 years or so to mean oral sex, bestiality and anal sex, at the time of the writing of 1st Corinthians, sodomy primarily meant a form of idol worship and bestiality, and had nothing to do with homosexuality.

Regardless of my opinion or other opinions of Misplaced Pages editors, if one wishes to quote first corinthians, the correct interpetation would be "sodomy" not "homsexual intercourse". The reader can then, depending on their personal religious convictions, interpret the original words (sodomy) as they please. It is not our job to mis-interpret that for them. Atom (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

don't forget

Alastair...another incident of Ilkari's intantaneous disregard for Civility and propriety is his appearance at Unencyclopedia and his immediate scolding of my improper (in his view) request for an arbitrator. When I explained my logic, there was no apology or response of any kind. Very rude and unthoughtful behavior toward a newbie, which I still am--Buster7 (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you comfortable giving links to changes in the text of articles? Click on the "history" tab at the top of a page (like even your own talk page here). There are two columns of "radio buttons" you can select one in each column, then press the "compare" button--it shows the differences between the article at those two points. There is a link in your browser that can be copied and pasted into any posts you make. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Buster7"

I get it up to the "link in your browser"...do you mean upper left side.... File-------Edit--------View--------Favorites-------Tools--------Help,------and then copy and paste under Edit? How do I create the link?...Duh...Where is an eight year old when you need one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BTW...nice upper-cut!--Buster7 (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not ask you to mentor me "out of the blue"...I forget when or where I first ran across you, but I was impressed. I remember that I would let my mouse more or less wander the back rooms of wikipedia. I would read article discussions and User talk pages and look at editors User pages. It was a valuable learning time. I wasn't necessarily searching for a mentor, consciously, but, whenever I pursued a "thread" that included you, it was your clarity that stood out. Somewhere along the line you commented to some other editor about "my door is always open". So. I walked in. But, I wasn't just passing by. You were Under Surviellence, LOL!!! I don't regret it.

(The thread that led to our wiki-friendship may have started at Belgium thru Miguel-mateo...he had just added his wonderful Euro-coin, which caused me to look at his User/talk and see mention of you and remembered that I had seen your "mind" (so to speak) before.)--Buster7 (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Buster, you are very good at saying nice things. :)

Thank you.

I value your honesty and humour.

Misplaced Pages is, among other things, quite a social environment.

In my experience disputes are the exception, not the rule.

You are a great asset in either circumstance. Thanks for finding and befriending me. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

30NOV07

]...bottom--Buster7 (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

31DEC07..]

Masculinity

Apologies Haines, I seem to have stumbled across another topic area that you own. Abtract (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Show preview

Just a helpful hint ... if you use the "show preview" tab at the bottom of an edit before pressing "save page", it avoids swamping the edit history with 20 or more edits in a short time as you have done on masculinity. Abtract (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Abtract, in reply to both uncivil comments above, consider yourself warned for attempting to provoke ongoing disharmony.

Ironically, had you actually used the edit history, you would see that you inadvertantly made two edits that I had previously made, but had agreed for others to change.

So, in fact, I thank you for making two edits that we both agree are genuine improvements. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if you found my comments "uncivil" - I would appreciate knowing what was uncivil about them so that I can avoid doing it again? I never "inadvertantly" make edits (quite a difficult thing to do I would have thought), I edit to improve the article regardless of whether it is an edit of which you approve or not, so there is no irony in it. Abtract (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Nothing new, just your usual slanderous and demonstrably false suggestions like that I think I "own" articles. Some time in the next month I'll also document the history of your malicious and rude disruption at Gender of God. Showing up at Masculine and Feminine is also blatant stalking and provocation. Additionally, I would suggest there's a plausible case that you were attempting to influence things with ArbCom, which shows contempt in trying to deceive them even further.

Your credibility is no higher than the tone of your language at the ArbCom evidence page, as noted by two independent editors. You've also drawn Cailil into two errors, the misjugement of failing to see and address your rudeness, and then an unretracted demonstrably false personal attack on me. That's a lot of incivility, in fact, it's probably just plain trolling, exploiting the nature of the medium and processes to cause harm.

And to think I tried to give you a break and attribute some good faith to you. Silly me, eh?

Don't try to give the impression you're willing to apologize, I've spelled out clearly more than once where apologies are owing. The evidence page at ArbCom alone requires plenty. Address that first, then we can talk. Otherwise, conversation is over. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And I guess that wasn't uncivil? I really do wish you would "document the history of your rude and malicious disruption at Gender of God". You believe you are cleverer than most (possibly true) and that that gives you the right to dictate the content of articles you have adopted. In the end this god complex will be your undoing. You are a very sad person Haines and the sooner you are gone from here the better for Misplaced Pages and its editors.Abtract (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Later, Gator

Alastair -- I'm done. I might add some diffs on the arbcom, but I'm done. I can't keep fighting Ilkali, and while I understand HGs good faith attempt to keep the talk page from being cluttered, it wasn't the right subject to do it in. I might see you around some time, but SkyWriter is outta here.Tim (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A discussion that might be of your interest ...

A discussion that might be of interest is here ... but I know you are very busy with your case, up to you if you want to ship in. I am handling it OK so far, the outcome of the discussion may be a huge learning experience for a lot of editors, not only us.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

List of New Testament uncials

I want to write more about classification of uncials, i.e. history of classification (Wettstein, Gregory). How to title this section? "History of classification"? "Classification of uncials"?

Perhaps we also need to write more about role of uncials for Textual Criticism. Maybe it will better to create another article — "Uncial codex" (or "Uncial codex of New Testament"). In this article we can write about differences between early uncials and late uncials, evolution of uncial text of the New Testament (Codex Boernerianus sometimes used minuscule letters — α, κ, ρ with the same size like uncials). I think we need this article, because in List of New Testament uncials we can not write everything. I afraid it will not comprehensive article for a long of time.

After few days I will depart to Zakopane (1-14 September). Thanks for everything. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

For pleasure of course. Zakopane is one of very few places in Poland which is atrractive even for Americans.

Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You have Mount Kosciuszko, named in honour of the Polish national hero General Tadeusz Kościuszko. Kościuszko was important person in history of Poland, and United States. In fact he was Belarussian.

In last time i wrote articles about manuscripts used by Erasmus: 1, 2, 2815, 2814. He used also minuscules 4, 7, and 817. Some other minuscules like: 13, 33, 61 are important. They also need articles. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, I am partly Belarussian, partly Ukrainian, although I was born in Poland. I love russian literature (f.e. Fyodor Dostoevsky). Polish literature is not interesting for me (in spite some exceptions). I have problem with identity. My ancestors were Russian Orthodox, one of my ancestors was murdered by Poles in 1920 (he did not spoke Polish - in that time it was enough), my grandfathers were persecuted by Poles, and by communists after World War II, but in Soviet Union persecuted was evebody, every people. In 1944-1950 about 500 russians orthodoxes were killed in Poland, and several tousand exiled to Soviet Union, to Joseph Stalin. Yes, it was communism in that time, I tell about unofficial, undergroud Polish army existed in that time. For us it was worse than German occupation, and of course in Soviet Union was several times worse. After all I participated in Polish ecumenical translation of Bible. (New Testament - pl:Biblia Ekumeniczna). In fact we are not Poles, Russians, Belarussians, or Ukrainians, we are with God or with Satan, and not other possibility. Wy we are fighting? Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Main Page nomination for Anekantavada

I am trying to nominate Anekantavada on the main page here. Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/requests#Help_to_nominate_Anekantavada. Need your help.--Anish (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, thanks for your kind words. You will be interested to read this essay – Misplaced Pages policy should follow the spirit of ahimsa (from meta). I know all religions have something good to offer to this world. But Jainism is quite under represented and unknown…so I am trying my bit in my own small way. Even if Anekantavada does not make it to the main page this time….no problem. FA was my target. I will still have faith in wikipedia as a fountain of knowledge to be shared. And in bargain, I am also making good friends.:-)) --Anish (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Anekantavada is scheduled to appear on 19th on Main page!--Anish (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Misplaced Pages:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Why Men Rule

I have nominated Why Men Rule, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Why Men Rule. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Suntag (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit request for Mangalorean Catholics

Hi Alastair Haines!!!. I saw your name listed at WP:PRV as a general copyeditor. I was wondering if you can copyedit Mangalorean Catholics, which is about a small Christian group, since I have noticed you are interested in Christianity. You can take your own time and copyedit the article whenever you are free. Also, if you have any suggestions, please do put it up. Thanks in anticipation, Kensplanet (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a very strong memory Alastair I must say. I thought you'll forget me or the article after so long since you are a very famous copyeditor and you receive so many copyediting requests. That's why I had to post the first sentence. Even if you could copyedit just the lead, it's more than enough. If you would like me to do anything on any article, then please inform me but please no copyedits. :) Kensplanet (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please help a peer review!

Hi there, I also have quite an interest in TESOL & Australia, I thought you might share my interest in the peer review, Misplaced Pages:Peer_review/United_Nations_list_of_Non-Self-Governing_Territories/archive1. If you're like a lizard drinking, then no wucking furries; to drunken violence against furries, Australia says no. :)--Thecurran (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ogre

The Ogre does what ogres can,

Deeds quite impossible for Man,

But one prize is beyond his reach,

The Ogre cannot master Speech.

About a subjacated plain,

Among its desperate and slain,

The Ogre stalks with hands on hips,

While drivel gushes from his lips.

by W.H.Auden................--Buster7 (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

See; Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive330...whenever you get a few hours, LOL, an over-zealous (and dangerous) admin only gets a spanking, an interesting "underworld" is revealed.--Buster7 (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A Bahai Prayer

Is there any Remover Of Difficulties But God? Say....

Praise be God! He is God! All are His servants and all abide by His bidding.

Peace......--Buster7 (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What?

		Civility Award
		I think it was Oscar Wilde that said, "Damn the Critics"...no, wait...it was Oscar the Grouch. O well...its the thought that counts. Your steed awaits, good Sir! --Buster7 (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

LoL. Thank you Buster!

You are an absolutely fantastic man.

I've had an idea. I'm very busy in real life at the moment, however, when I'm done, I wonder if you'd be so kind as to work on a Wiki article with me. We both appreciate chivalry, how about we gather sources and other editors and get that article up to featured status?

In fact, even though I'm busy, I might feed off your energy and "good vibes" and chip in more than I can dare to plan.

How about you look at the existing article and suggest some improvements?

Godspeed good Sir! :D Alastair Haines (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank You, my friend! Your offer fits my needs to the Max. I will check them out for sure. I've come to the realization that I may in fact be a troll. I like a good fight and I seek them out. Not with malicious intentions but for the intellectual energy they provide. I need to re-align myself within WikiWorld....SO..... We are both busy...in real life and (I) at the asst. Sarah Palin articles and discussions. Why don't we both take a WikiBreak, of sorts, and get back together after the U.S. elections. I'm working for the Obama campaign (canvasing, voter reg., phone bank, wikiediting). I'm not a politico but I like to get involved and provide services instead of $$$$ to the candidate we (wife & I) like...See you when Obama is THE MAN! ..feel free to stay in touch--I'll never be to busy to not check my talk.--Buster7 (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Kai Ego

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your diligence in promoting and defending Misplaced Pages principles both in public and in private. You have continually promoted faith in Misplaced Pages to get things right. You have publically defended Misplaced Pages in Newsweek. You have promoted faith in Misplaced Pages even when things turn upside down. Even when an attack on yourself had so discouraged me that I wanted to quit the task of editing, you continued to defend the very process that had been twisted against you. Thank you. Tim (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh I love you guys! :)

Misplaced Pages is a great place.

It provides an outstanding opportunity for collective and co-operative sharing of knowledge and building of friendships based on the adventure and pleasure of such sharing.

The policies are generally spot on, and more profoundly excellent than meets the eye of the casual observer.

The only problem with Wiki is the problem shared by anything humanity produces, no matter how great and noble--humanity is it's own unique problem. People are people and such is our glory and our shame.

I've found some recent matters deeply personally distressing. But that is actually a good thing! It makes me feel the joy of good friends more sweetly.

Whoever said it, I love it, "a true patriot defends his country, even against it's own government." But such patriots rarely exist in isolation. Even Elijah was but one of seven thousand! Those with ears let them hear!

Long live Wiki, and civilized defence of reliable text--in service to readers.

Thanks Tim, Buster and others on this page (as well as anonymous email encouragers). I'm neither disappearing, nor changing my principles. What we have is too good for that.

PS Although some have sworn at me in Latin, it is heartwarming to receive praise in Greek. God bless you Tim. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, my friend. Keep up the great work!Tim (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You have blurb mail...Tim (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Lectionary 150

I have started articles about lectionaries of New Testament. Infobox is not ready.

| form =

en:Template:New Testament manuscript infobox

Several days ago I was on Rysy, the highest point of Poland (2499,6 m above level of sea). It is one of three peaks of Rysy. The highest has 2503 and belongs to Slovakia. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

1RR (Singular they)

Alastair, you've reverted Singular they three times recently (), violating the 1RR (one revert per article per week) ArbCom placed on you. I don't think a first offense would lead to anything, but you should be careful in future. Ilkali (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In particular, and are two reverts on the same day. Please consider this your official warning/reminder and be careful. — Coren  14:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I only just noticed these posts.

Some comments.

The problem at singular they is a rude editor, Abtract, who knows better and should be dealt with.

If others do something about him, then I don't need to do I? So step in and sort him out, otherwise I'll do it for us, whenever I happen to log in to this account.

It is precisely the same issue and editor as at Gender of God. I mentioned it at ArbCom and nothing has been done.

Regarding reverts, if anyone thinks I'm going to keep track of reverts I make from this account over the course of a week, they are much mistaken. I'll make reverts like anyone else when they are called for, and whenever I happen to review the watchlist here. If this is ever more than one a week, it will mean someone is trying to force an unhelpful change at an article I watch. Talk to them, not me.

Finally, ArbCom was closed before my evidence was complete. I cannot endorse or support any ArbCom decision that was made without my participation. Hence, I do not feel in anyway bound by whatever conclusions it may have come to.

Abtract's actions at singular they prove the incompleteness of the ArbCom, however it finished up (I was too busy in RL to catch up with what happened at the end). Someone should be alerting people to what Abtract is doing and reopening the case.

Until the case is reopened or reviewed I have no further comment to make regarding it. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Uncials

I think about small corrections in our list.

Or in this way:

It will easier to find any uncial codex. Are you agreed. In last time Categories of New Testament manuscripts were translated into Arabian. It is nice. That is why I prefer to edit on en-wiki, although sometimes I translate too. With kind regards.

Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)