User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive Oktober 2004 4

ye gods

Hey, Sam, what's you reasoning for the proposed merge of the God and deity articles? In my mind, these are two completely separate concepts. I'm aware that, to other people, they are much less distinct, so I'm not sure what the best solution in. I certainly agree that the current titles are not ideal. Something like God (monotheism) and Gods might be better. - Nat Kraus e 05:47, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Maybe, my thought was that the definition of "deity" and God is pretty much equivelant, and that the Deity article is short and fairly pointless, seeming in need of alot more content (which God has). What are the important differences in your eyes? My opinion on the subject isn't exactly written in stone ;) Sam Spade 11:12, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The way I use it, a god (what Wikipedia currently calls a deity) is a type of samsaric being operating within the limits of natural law, although its capacities might be enormously greater than those of a human; God is by definition absolute, eternal, unique, unlimited, and more-or-less omnipotent (if the concept of power can even be applied to It). It seems to me that most religions create a gray area between these two extremes -- not Christianity so much, at least not explicitly, but I think you see this for instance in some places in the Old Testament : the henotheistic idea that God is a god among gods but is the only god you should worship. I doubt that you could have a religion at all if you only believed in gods without at least in an implicit Godhead. The Greek mythology article indicates that the Greeks, later on anyway, came to associate Zeus with God (if Greek paganry were the basis of the dominant Western religion, we might well be discussing conflicting definitions of "zeus"). So, having this gray area is certain a given religion's prerogative, but it makes it trickier to decide how to lay out the article or articles. - Nat Kraus e 14:50, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) PS - (I'll watch your page, to save you the trouble of notifying me of responses)

Hi Guys. From my POV (I'll admit it!) there is a distinction to be made between God and god. The capital G version can be a proper name in English of the god of a monotheistic system, Yahweh, Allah, etc. The same upper/lower case distinction will usually hold for deity. A deity is a god, while Deity can be a latinate synonym for our Anglo-Saxon name God. Cheers, Fire Star 22:02, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But please do not forget that some Hindus sects are monotheistic too. They do have a supreme God and hence this Deity should be capitalized when writing about this sect. E.g the supreme God is Vishnu or Krishna in Vaishnavism sects, and is Shiva in Saivism sects. In other sects these deities are not the supreme God and hence when mentioning them should not be capitalized. Andries 14:40, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am of course not forgetting this for a moment, please see User talk:Sam Spade#God :D Sam Spade 16:30, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That is a perfect summary of my position, that the word deity is less distinct than the capitalisation. The G vrs. g debate I had so long ago made it entirely clear that there is a very important distinction to be made, and that we must be fully aware of what we are talking about when we say "God" and "god", as with "Deity" and deity". Sam Spade 12:34, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Admin

Greetings Sam. I want to thank you for your support during my RfA process. Cheers, Fire Star 13:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:D Sam Spade 22:40, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

God is not a god?

I am just curious, can you please explain this note you left as a edit comment: see God, God is not a god. A god is anything that is a divine being. God (YHWH) is a divine being. Therefore God is a god. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 18:18, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't necesarilly talking about YHWH. Also, I recomended that you read God. Read the intro at least, and get back to me. Sam Spade 18:26, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, you've obviously more than read it, you've edited it. Excellent. Now do you see what I was trying to get at w the G vrs. g? If not, have a look @ User talk:Sam Spade#ye gods. The point is God is the absolute infinite, All, beyond all measure. Other gods are petty, anthropomorphic demi-gods, with all the failings and intricacies of humans, w super powers. Sam Spade 19:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

God/Deity

I definitely understand what you're saying about the words God and Deity being synonomous. Perhaps we can make them both redirect to the same "general god" page that discusses, in broad terms, the concept of godhood, and from there create seperate monotheistic and polytheistic god pages?

ClockworkTroll 22:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

the problem with that is adressed pretty clearly above @ User talk:Sam Spade#ye gods and User talk:Sam Spade#God is not a god?. God is not a god. God is all, gods are aspects of God, or angels, minor spirits, demons, giants, jinn, etc... Sam Spade 22:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Understandable. I also see that you moved the pagan stuff over to Deity, which works well. Perhaps we can put a small disclaimer and soft redirect on the top of both Deity and God along the lines of "This article is about X. If you are looking for Y, see Z?" ClockworkTroll 22:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. There is already a link to deity, gods, and goddess on God, but maybe it could be moved to a more prominant position? Perhaps a template? Sam Spade 22:43, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I like the template idea very much - excellent idea. Religion is more your area than mine by far - would you like to author it? I doubt I could do an adequate job on it. ClockworkTroll 22:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, I don't know how to make a template, and I am extremely controversial / opinionated on the subject of religion. See User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases. If you find someone else to do it, I'd be willing to help. It would have to be extremely broad and vague to be all inclusive. Maybe ask User:Tuf-Kat, he has done an amazing job w music. Sam Spade 22:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have to give credit where credit is due: somebody who is biased and willingly admits that he is biased is a person to be respected. I'll put some though into it, and also contact TUF-KAT about it. Many thanks! ClockworkTroll 22:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I see where you are going with this; it is correct in all ways of course. I just don't like it. However, my feelings have little to do with the truth of the matter. We might also have to link Providence into this too, most Deists and some Christians refer to God by that. I could do the template you are asking. However, it would take me some time as I am a full time nuclear engineering student and I am already working on several lists and religious topics. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 14:52, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, what don't you like? And if were going to link to providence, it will have to be greatly expanded, because currently it only refers to the cities of that name. I understand that your time and whatnot are limited, but like all of us your a volunteer here, and that is in no way held against you. Rather the hard work and time you do put in is greatly appreciated (if not by all here, at least by myself :) Cheers, Sam Spade 16:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

At the time I was thinking I would rather a separate article between God and god, I can't even remember why right now. We might even want to keep them separate because of the 32KB "limit", not that I find that important much, I recently saw an anon who was limited by the 32KB boundry. Something we should consider if we intend to merge large articles. ---The Sunborn

Oh, I strongly agree w you actually. In fact, there is alread [[gods]]. Eventually Deity will probably have to link to God, because they both go back to the same latin word, Theos, and have pretty much the same definition. That said, the wiki community isn't up for this yet. I had a huge fuss about this when I first came to the wiki, which settled into an uneasy compromise. The situation frankly is that atheists don't want God capitalized, and, perhaps even worse, don't want to accept that a concept of God as the infinite, all-powerful, omnipresent, omnipotent, omnicient, etc... is a completely different subject from say.. a magical invisible pink unicorn goddess. Their desire to insult and denegrate the spirituality of the majority of the earths population cuases them to behave in what I see as an unencyclopdic manner. That said, fighting them is not the answer, partly because of the extremely unusual demographics here (huge numbers of atheists / agnostics / liberal believers, precious few motivated theists), and partly because of the concensus expected by M:Foundation issues. The answer seems to be slow progress, of which making deity the temporary place holder for content which IMO will eventually end up on [[gods]] or god. Thanks for your interest, Sam Spade 17:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Don't be too hasty, I myself am an agnostic, and sometimes I call myself an atheist just for the sake of arguemnt. However, there are many, many atheists that are just as faith bound as Christians, they are just in denial. For instance I wanted to add the symbol of American Atheists, so I contacted them by email and asked them to use their logo (even though I can anyway) I also asked them what they thought of me calling their Atheist group a church/religion. While athiesm is no more a religion than theism, their group could be considered a chruch at least, if not a whole religion. The president responded so with so much anger, I was taken aback. It was as if I had called her a Nazi or something. Is there any proof God or gods don't exist? No, therefore you can't say concretely that there is no higher power. May they have some sense knocked into them by the IPU, bbhh. I personally think the American "free" thinkers have inherited too much faith from their Christian brothers. ---The Sunborn

Hmm, that’s an interesting story. Were pretty much on the same page from the sounds of it theologically, since I am of the opinion that those who have not received personal revelation of God are reasonable to be agnostic, altho I agree with Pascal that some minor reverence is recommended. That said, I have received personal revelation, and prior to that I understood God thru science, reason and logic, via Pantheism / Panentheism / (I don't find the distinction useful), and the Absolute infinite. Ergo, there isn't the faintest doubt in my mind as to Gods existence, indeed, its obvious to me that if God didn't exist, nothing else would either, being that God's immanence is a prerequisite of existence. Anyhow, that’s why I label being pro-God as a Bias, since he is everything to me. Cheers, Sam Spade 20:21, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Interesting, I too have recieved "word" from God or gods, and am still agnostic. Actually, two different higher beings. YHWH (the being actually said "yup, I am Yahweh") told me in a dream that he was neither omnipotent nor omniscient. I don't really consider a dream a big enough piece of evidence, incredible claims require incredible proof. However, I have been contacted by the south wind while conscious. So if I have the need to pray to any being the south wind gets my prayers. I don't take it all serious though. All this could be explained scientifically through neurotheology.--The Sunborn

God

Good edits on God, especially Vaishnavites and Shaivism. As a practical point, practically all Hindus are either Vaishnavas or Shaivates. For a good intro to Hinduism, please see the following web sites, http://www.hinduism-today.com/archives/2004/4-6/37-52_ten_questions.shtml

http://www.hinduism-today.com/archives/2003/10-12/44-49_four_sects.shtml Also see wikpedia articles on Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman. The Upanishads are from the Vedas and are hence revealed scripture or smrti. Thus all Hindus are monotheists and see all forms of God such as Vishnu or Shiva stem from Brahman.(except hardcore Shaivaites and hardcore Vaishnvaites which are a very small part of the population. also see the wikpedia article on devas.

Devas, in Hinduism, are celestial beings that control forces of nature such as fire, air, etc. They are not to be confused with God or his personal form, Saguna Brahman which is visualized as Vishnu or Shiva. God or Brahman is the ultimate controller. A famous verse from the Taitrya Upanishad states: “From fear of Him the wind blows; from fear of Him the sun rises; from fear of Him Agni and Indra and Death, the fifth, run."

They are commonly equated with gods in Western media. They are functionally equivalent of angels who serve God in Judaeo-Christian tradition. There are also many other lesser celestial beings in Hinduism such as Gandharavas or celestial musicians.

Thanks for your revisions. Together we can wikpedia more accurate.

User:Raj2004(sig added after by Sam Spade 17:40, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Thanks! I've actually read as much of the vedas as I can find (a good part of the ramayana, all of the bhagavad gita, various other exceprts, etc...), and while I am not a Hindu exactly (I'm Indo-European, but not from India) I do consider myself a part of Sanatana Dharma (eternal righteousness with no beginning and no end), and my God is All, everything which is, was, or ever shall be (even imagined), the absolute infinite. Thanks for the links, BTW. On a seperate note, Would you like to form a user account? I'd love to have you aboard! Cheers, Sam Spade 21:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

your comments on Shaivism

Thanks for your comments. I prefer to remain anonymous at this time and do not wish to have an user account at this time. I did comment on your edits to God, however, and have sent some of my comments

Religion

Sam, I have made several revisions to discussions of Shaivism, Hinduism, Vaishnavism, and section on Alexander the Great. For example, most people in the West don't know that after Alexander died, one of his successors was defeated by the first recorded emperor of much of modern India, Chandragupta Maurya. User:Raj2004(sig added after by Sam Spade 17:40, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Saints

Also, Sam I have revised the saints discussion to include Raghavendra Swami. Please read the article for reference.

Very interesting! I look forward to reading more of your excellent edits! Read my comments above, cheers, Sam Spade 21:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have opened an account in response to your praise for my revisions to Shaivism.

Thanks

User:Raj2004(sig added after by Sam Spade 17:40, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Dvaita and Visatadvaita

Hi, Sam I have made more changes to Vaishnavism and added discussions of Dvaita and Vishwadvita. They were taken from Swami Sivananda's excellent book, "All about Hinduism" available on the web at http://www.dlshq.org/download/hinduismbk.htm

User:Raj2004(sig added after by Sam Spade 17:40, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Dvaita and Visatadvaita revised

Sam, I do not have permission from them to copy citations of the excerpt from the book and to post them on the web. So I posted their links. Perhaps wikpedia can ask permission. User:Raj2004(sig added after by Sam Spade 17:40, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Copyright permission

I assume that wikpedia wants to post such articles on Dvaita and other Vaishnavite philosophies, they should contact, pannir@dlhsq.org. That e-mail is posted on the web site. User:Raj2004(sig added after by Sam Spade 17:40, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC))

O.K. I'll look into that. Sam Spade 17:40, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I left notes on @ Wikipedia:Help desk, Wikipedia talk:Fair use#request for help, and Wikipedia talk:Boilerplate request for permission#Request for help. Have a look at those pages,. I'm sorry I couldn't help more, but I don't know much about copyright. Cheers, Sam Spade 18:17, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have

That's very generous, thanks.

There's a lot of stuff I can contribute on video editing hardware/software/products/skills, and on some related technology issues like storage and computing. I do have several sites and linking to content I have there would be appropriate in some instances. How do I avoid spamming wikipedia? This issue may have come up before so if you can point me in the right direction it would be much appreciated. :)

Thanks, User:Poweroid (sig added by Sam Spade 21:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Wow, thats way out of my league, try wikipedia:help desk, wikipedia:Town Pump, and Wikipedia:Spam. Cheers, Sam Spade 21:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, thanks Sam. ...User:Poweroid

Question

Okay I have question... is it within wikipedia rules for one user to create several different accounts to edit the same page, because people started disliking his other edits(created a request for comments with about 15+ signature) and to get a fair shake he kept making new accounts, because he kept messing up?

Yep, but it can be misused if he tries to make it seem like they are different suers all agree3ing with each other, or uses more than one of them to vote in a particular poll. That is against the srules, and is called wikipedia:sockpuppet. Sam Spade 16:04, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

IP block

I feel the block was justified. That user was malicious in his edits and deceptive in way s/he carried out vandalism. I really don't feel the block was excessive. However, out of respect for you and your concerns, I'll unblock the IP. Warmest regards, [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:53, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

racism talk -- professional or personal?

I am confused by your recent message to me. I commented on the talk page of the racism article because you commented on that page. If my response to what you wrote is personal and belongs on your talk page, why wasn't your initial comment on your own talk page? I want to honor your request but I need to know the difference between a personal and work-related discussion. Since you wrote on the talk page of the article, I assumed it was a work-related comment and treated it as such. I didn't think it was personal. Slrubenstein

Bible and reincarnation

Sam, I didn't post this comment on "Jesus and the thief" in the Bible and reincarnation but my point can rebut the argument against reincarnation with respect to that story. One alternative view by Hindus, God's grace can overcome past karma. So the notion of Jesus as God giving grace to a thief is not necessarily inconsistent with reincarnation to face punishment. There is a famous story in the Bhagavata Purana, a sinful man named Ajamila, who done a lot of bad deeds during his life such as stealing, abandoning his wife and children, and marrying a prostitute, at the moment of death, involuntarily chanted the name of Naryana, the Hindu term for God, and attained moksha or union with God. When I mean involuntarily, he actually was thinking the name of his youngest son. But the name of God has powerful effects and he was forgiven for his great sins. Please see http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/1148/k8.html for the story. user:Raj20004

I'm not big on chanting, nor the idea of instant moksha (nor the idea of forgiveness without righteousness for that matter) myself, but I do think this viewpoint would be valuable in Bible and reincarnation. Please bring it up in talk:Bible and reincarnation at least, if you don't yet feel ready to merge the concept into the article. Cheers, Sam Spade 09:14, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good point, Sam But that appears to be the only way to reconcile the inconsistenticies. Thanksm user:Raj20004

OK I have question

Okay I have question... is it within wikipedia rules for one user with multiple IPs to do the following:

revert without explanation
make frequent semi-literate spelling mistakes that arise from long absence from civilization
delete large tracts of relevant material, esp about political causes he/she is affiliated with, eg he persistently deleted the apparently racist comments of a Congressman he likes from a bio where it seemed especially relevant
accuse people of "vandazling"
throw insults around in comments
look up articles written by authors he's in dispute with and make massive changes to them

What are the remedies available? IP blocking is unlikely to work with him as he has multiple IP numbers in Japan, one at work and one at home. Plus he goes to internet cafes.

Ã”ã¿ç®± 23:56, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sam FYI, this comment is coming from a user who is harassing User:Chuck F with multiple sockpuppet accounts. I'm listing him on VIP. Rhobite 04:37, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

I recommend Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Following the process, and staying w/in the lines of policy maintains the high ground, always an advantage. Sam Spade 09:24, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

14-Words

Please refer to my talk page for the response to the comment you recently made there regarding the issue of how to present the 14-Words. Thanks. El_C

172 arbit

I'd just like to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/172/Proposed decision. Since neither you nor Sam Spade have participated much in the case, I expect it to be wildly inaccurate. I hope you both with help rectify that. Martin 00:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cool?

The green tea looks cool. The black background less so :-( Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 21:22, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I like it now or not, the purple is a bit feminine, and things in general look a bit jombled and messy, but I crammed everything I wanted in there, so... Sam Spade 21:30, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The purple does look a bit camp. But it's better than the black- more readable. I quite like the crammed in look. Makes you look busy. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 21:34, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding a bigger background. You also might want to consider putting the whole page inside a table. A bit like the main page in fact. That way the various sections can be laid out neatly, in the way you want rather than in the way that the browsers decide. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 21:46, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wow, this page formatting stuff is definitely not my talent! Feel free to do whatever you like, but I think I'll let it be for awhile. Thanks for the help, and constructive criticism, that’s just the kind of wikipedia:wikilove we need more of around here! I think I'm off to edit reptilian humanoid, or some equally obscure, yet controversial subject, where I can have the joy of potentially debating w nutters ;) Cheers, Sam Spade 21:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nice chat w user:El C

I'm sorry, say what? I hadn't noticed us having a conflict at all, just a minor disagreement. I understand the subject matter is potentially distressing, but I hadn't seen you to be rude or anything, and I should hope that is a mutual sentiment. While I never approve of a "I don't see myself changing my mind" demeanor in regards to article content on the wiki, IMO we've hardly discussed things. In any case I appologise if I have said or done anything which has disturbed you, and am very open to advice, criticism, commentary, requesting more editors to join the discussion, or whatever you might like. I've article related comments on the Talk:White pride. Nice cats, BTW. Sam Spade 23:35, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, he is clawing at the door to go outside as we speak. No apology necessary, I see no personal friction, and if there is distress, thus far it remains only in potentia. It is indeed -I- (not you) who is rather inflexible about the 14-Words issue — both due to format conventions as well as POV considerations. I am, of course, open to discuss any portion the article. What I attempted to get across (perhaps too forcefuly, so point taken) was that I am very doubtful you could persuade me that it requieres any additional textual prominance in the article. Either way, I am confident civility will triumph. Incidentally, the 14-Words certainly could assume such emphasis in the stub article on David Lane (where it is wholly unmentioned), or an article about Fourteen Word Press, etc. El_C

Hm, it seems like you might well know more on this subject than I do! While I have an intense interest in gangs, clubs, and secret societies (mainly the mystical kind) etc.., I am frankly only mildly interested in these "white power" guys. I actually find the term "white" offensive in its suggestion that there is so little diversity amongst those catagorized by it, and the tendancy of those using the term to ignore their unique geneology and ethnicity. I think pride is ok, but I prefer to be proud of other things, rather than my hue (some "white" guys w a deep tan are darker than some "black" guys of mixed anscestry!). Besides, I'm not white, I'm some sort of light pink / peach ;) Cheers, Sam Spade 15:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know that I do and I think you give me more credit than is due (if only other editors were as generous as you when it comes to subjects I actually have vast familiarity with!). It just that these articles (Racialism, White Pride, White Power) all seemed to me POV, flawed and incomplete. I do not know, for example, why the 14-Words are considered key for White Pride. I would be interested to learn why this is. Of course, a 'valuation' of human beings according to racial categories is both absurd and insidious — I took it as a given throughout that you also adhere to this position (otherwise, trust me, I would not be having this conversation, or any conversation for that matter, with you). I hope you did not feel I somehow implied the contrary. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Regards,

El_C

While I don't agree w a "silent treatment" towards racists / racialists, I can of course understand why you might find them disturbing. The problem w this is that it maintains the source of their opinions: isolation from diversity. Perhaps its the psyche major in me, but I feel that those of distressing politics (like communists and anarchists for example) are best reformed thru logical dialogue. Your position makes me curious if you have any idea how many racialists there really are. IMO they are in the majority, esp. outside of the USA (again, I don't know where you live). They don't all go to meetings or whatever, but their pretty free with informing me of their opinions. Of course people are especially open with me, that is why I have chosen to go into psychology in the first place. In any case, they are not necessarilly evil people, they simply have been either misinformed, or had unfortunate circumstances. Sometimes all it takes is growing up in a homgeneous community, and watching TV. Sometimes grandpa teaches bad lessons, sometimes the whole community. To be honest, life would be easier if all bad people were of one race, all good people of another, etc.. It makes a certain kind of horse sense. Unfortunately, it simply doesn't work that way, in my experience skin tone / ethnicity are a poor indicator of morality. But I have had a diverse life, w diverse experiences. I try to educate those of different backgrounds (like by editing the encyclopedia here ;), rather than isolating them. It always seem to fall on deaf ears, but those of distressing POV's are people too, and it's not necessarilly a good thing to persecute them (this often confirms their suspicions). Cheers, Sam Spade 19:54, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, choosing to engage and trying to reason with them is certainly your prerogative. Admittedly, I do not have the patience of a psychologist. I wager that we differ on which political world views we find distressing, but I caution you against juxtaposing the Left with the same distress simply because your disposition is from the Right. The Left (Revolutionary Socialists), the Moderate Left (Social Democrates), the Moderate Right (Reform Liberals), and the Right (Liberals, aka Neoliberals/Conservatives) — and the entire Left (Socialism) and the entire Right (Liberalism) — in general, are overwhelmingly anti-racist. Of course, this varies highly per given x, but the point I am trying to get across is that I view those individuals who follow race-centred doctrines differently. I have zero tolerance for people who condemn others and/or self-aggrandize themseleves based on arbitrary physical traits which the 'victim' (both the racist, and more so, the 'inferior races') has no control over. This is not the case with the non-racist Left-Right whereby any person (belonging to any concievable racial category) can join based only on their political sympathies. I view this as a pivotal distinction. El_C

That would strike me as very egalitarian, if not for the "everybody but bigots" aspect ;). I suppose this is the exception that makes the rule? I myself reject the very concept of equality on its face, seeing it as a false doctrine leading to inefficiency. While you revile the racist for his bigotry, I sympathize with his error. As I said above, it would be handy if all people were clearly marked as good or ill, because their are bad people, and good. I simply find the racists method of determining character inaccurate, and unchristian. God asks us to love our neighbor, not persecute him based on his ancestry. Quite distinct from either a racist or an egalitarian, I am a firm believer in hierarchical meritocracy. Those of obvious skill, merit and honor should be promoted, and those who are incompetent, treacherous, and malignant should be demoted. I prefer a careful, kindly janitor who gets the job done to a malpracticing brain surgeon anyway ;) Little could be worse in my eyes than the slow death by inefficiency which the attempts at equality (an unachievable goal) in communism create. That is why it is so very easy for me to present anarcho-communism as an example of a distressing ideology. Oh, and we mustn’t forget their attempts to enforce atheism, the single greatest crime (in my worldview). Perhaps racism is the greatest crime in your worldview, but I will tell you, the best cure (indeed the only cure I have ever seen to work) for racism, is God. Cheers, Sam Spade 12:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This then, as I suspected, is where are our worldviews differ. I tend to follow Marx in approaching religion as an opiate, though I would not wish to enforce my views (or lack thereof) with respect to God and religion upon others. Incidentally, Marxist-Leninists believe that incentive is central to efficiency and that only in the final phase of Communism (as opposed to the stage of the Dictatorship of the Prolatriat) can Marx's 'work according to abilities - pay according to need' become tenable (an example close to our own fields: a university professor in the USSR was paid 6,000 rubals p/m whereas an unskilled workers was paid the minimum wage of 200 rubals). But this is all an aside, and perhaps it is futile to elaborate beyond this without entering into predictable polemics. At any rate, I staunchly support a meriotocratic system, I think where we part ways is with which antecedents are most suited to actualize the inherent potential of individuals meritocratically and how this can be best facilitated (what you title equality in a negative, monolithic sense). Having said all that, I think you nailed it quite pointedly when you comment that, when it comes to intellectual disocurse, my egalitarinism ommits bigots (incidentally, not just them: religious fundamentalists, also) — indeed it does, for precisely the reasons stated in my prior response. Lastly, I neither view racism nor religious persecution (both theistic and atheistic), etc., as the worse crime. The worse crime is when innocent people are harmed en mass, most acutely seen in a (any) genocide(s) — regadless who the perpetrators are and what they stand (or claim to stand) for. Regards, El_C

A very interesting and wonderful communication! I am most impressed that we spoke so long, and so politely disagreed on such potentially inflamatory matters (religion and politics). I think this speaks volumes as to your intellegence (in having understood me) and your character (being able to disagree while maintaining politeness). I appreciate this very much. I agree however this conversation is near ending, especially since it leads to a very fundamental disagreement on religion, and converting others is not what wikipedia intends us to to be doing here. I thank you again for the pleasent conversation, and hope I do not offend you in saying a prayer that you may find God. Sam Spade 21:46, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I thank you for the many kind words, Sam. These are very much appreciated.

All the best,

El_C

Bombing of Dresden in World War II

(rv to last version by GBWR) -- Why? Philip Baird Shearer 22:57, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV and factual accuracy. For one thing we should not speculate as to how long the allies thought they had left in the war. Secondly, Air Marshal Arthur Harris is not the only one suggested to have been guily, he just happens to be one among the accused. Sam Spade 23:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not what I was asking. As there is an edit war going on does it not make sence to resolve it on the talk page first? Philip Baird Shearer 10:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sure, but why leave the wrong version up until then? ;) Sam Spade 12:53, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why is it the wrong version? It is the one before "protected" with the same information? BTW you need to reply to my page if I am to know that you have sent me a message.

Have you read the wrong version? Why can't we talk on Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II? Sam Spade 19:11, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

God and Gender

Hi, Sam and COGDEN, Cogden is partially correct. Hindus believe that nature of the Ultimate Reality, i.e., God or Shiva has really no form. But form is needed for humans to concentrate as Saguna Brahman. One of the form symbolzing that God is everything, is Ardhanarishvara, half-male and half-female, representing all genders of all living things. See source, http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/M04.html additionally, see, http://www.dlshq.org/download/lordsiva.htm As for Ganesh, Ganesh is never presented in that manner. As a practical point, Hinduism is too broad a term and is really four divisions. 1) Vaishnvaism 2) Shaivism 3) Shaktism and 4) Smarta see below web site. Ganesh, by 99% of Hindus is not the Supreme God, who is typically in Hinduism is Vishnu or Shiva. Ganesh is worshipped for material success just as Christians veneraate saints. Even most Smartas pray to either Vishnu or Shiva. As a practical point, Hindus are mostly liberal in theology. However, if pressed to identity, 75-80% of Hindus are Vaishnvaites. So this theme about being a polytheistic religion is garbage. See http://www.gitamrta.org/, misconceptions about Hinduism In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna, avatar of Vishnu states that He alone is God. Those who worship Devas, commonly potrayed as gods in Western media are of limited understanding. http://www.harekrishna.com/~ara/col/books/BG/tsem1.html; The Gita itself preaches strong Vaishnavite monotheism.

And for Cogden to understand the nature of what Hinduism is, and not the proproganda what is presented, please see http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/M02.html. I believe that you are Mormon and many do not consider Mormonism to be part of Christianity. I withold judgment on that as I am not familiar with Mormonism, as you are not familiar with Hinduism. Also see the commentary on wikpedia's User: 67.106.157.231

I prefer brahmanism myself. And just to be clear, I'm not a mormon ;) Sam Spade 12:56, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No problem, Sam, I am addressing Cogden; sorry for the confusion. A better term would be monism or Smarta Advaita. Brahmanism in some Hindu circles, has developed a negative connotation because of some Hindus's belief in casteism. see, also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periyar Smarta Advaita believes that the Ultimate Reality is an Impersonal Divinity, devoid of form or attributes but expresses Itself through attributes such as Vishnu or Shiva or whatever form a devotee conceives. We all can't be worshiping different Gods as different aspects of God belong to this Nirguna Brahman or God without form as there must be one God. Sankara wrote a brilliant commentary on the Bhagavad Gita where he states such feelings. As the Vedas state, Truth is one, the wise call by different names. User: 67.106.157.231

I am an interdenominational pre-roman catholic christian pantheist / panentheist monist, with a deep love and respect for sanatana dharma. I assume all good people worship the one God who is all, rather than judging others by denomination in an exclusionist manner. God loves us all, and wants us to embrace each other, loving our neighbors. Of course some religions are wicked (satanism for example) but these cults are very rare, and easy to identify. "You will know them by their fruits". Good religions have good fruits, as with good prophets.

Separately, Would you like to form a user account? Sam Spade 13:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not at this time, Sam I was educated in Jesuit schools as well as being born in the Hindu tradition. Additionally, I have had Jewish and Moslem friends. Perhaps that is why I am pretty open-minded. What really matters is your own personal faith and your deeds. There are many who pray but are hypocrites and do bad deeds. (e.g., Jimmy Swaggart,an American Protestant preacher who committed adultery!!)

I find Swaggart's adultery signifigantly less shocking than you might, I never suspected him of perfection ;) Frankly, I don't find him at all hypocritical in having prayed, and later erred in this small way. Of much greater concern to me are the human rights abuses, genocide, terrorism, etc... that has been, and still is today, being done in the name of religion. IMO much of this is based on exclusionism, the idea that others are likely worshipping satan, or some other evil entity, and that only ones own select denomination knows the true God. This is quite an unforgiving philosophy in my eyes, and not in accordance with God. Sam Spade 13:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you completely on that!

Yes, one of my favorite concepts in the bible is the idea "host". Christ is sometimes refered to as "lord of lords, and host of hosts". A host is a man, or family, or church, which welcomes others in, and cares for them as a guest. This is something I find quite righteous and in accordance w God. Clearly going to a foriegn land and slaughtering others in the name of God is quite different than welcoming these same foriegn strangers to our homes, feeding and caring for them when they visit us. Clearly I favor the latter method, and think it a better way to teach and share Gods love :) "You shall know them by their fruits". The fruit of love is clearly superior to the fruit of xenophobic violence. Sam Spade 13:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Sam Krishna said in the Gita: Men worship Me in different ways, I accept them all. That is why Hinduism historically has been tolerant of other faiths. India was one of the few places in ancient times (perhaps Persia under Cyrus) not to persecute Jews. Parsis fled Iran from Arab invasion to escape persecution from Islam and took refuge in India. Here is another excellent book available on the web: http://www.kamakoti.org/newlayout/template/hindudharma.html/2/1/hindu/The+Vedic+Religion%3A+Introductory;

God is One: http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part14/chap9.htm

http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part14/chap10.htm http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/gita/gita_sara/gs-007.html