Talk:Your Best Life Now

message: This edit:
(cur | prev) 19:25, 9 December 2011‎ 99.123.14.143 (talk)‎ (2,027 bytes) (Undid revision 464912811 by Hrafn (talk) This article is not about a living person, it is about a book. WP:BLPSPS does not apply.) (undo) 
Restored this line:
"Author and evangelist Adam Key wrote a book entitled Your Best Lie Now: The Gospel according to Joel Osteen. The book is available for free online"
First of all 99.123.14.143 is in fact author Adam Keys using the IP address as a sock puppet.  Mr. Keys your statement above suffers from the following deficiencies:
1) Your self-published work is deemed as an "unreliable source" per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources.  What it amounts to is your opinion based on your perceptions of what you believe the intended meanings are of a real live person named "Joel Osteen".  Your book, for one, critiques Mr. Osteen via a Larry King live interview and available on the net on various video channels like youtube.
2) It is about a living person. Your reply that the book is not about a living person is a laughable claim in view of your book's title and the actual content.  It is all about parsing what you think Osteen meant followed up with Biblical quotes to show how wrong Osteen is.  So in fact, contrary to your claim, it is all about a living person, namely Joel Osteen.  It is a methodical parsing of things he has said based on your interpretations of what his intended mesanings are.  It is riddled with errors and you appear to take the worst case misperception of what Osteen said and then lambast him using Biblical quotes and your perceived application of them. It is subjective in both perceptions as to what he said and intended meanings as well as applications of scripture to render Osteen into one of Satan's minions.
There is room for a friendly discussion in this realm but you seem to consistently close the doors on this approach throughout your self-published book especially with the snarky conclusions.
3) You are in a "conflict of intertest".  This edit shows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Your_Best_Life_Now&diff=464376283&oldid=464339634
"This book has been found For Sale only and is not free as claimed (as of 5 December 2011)."
You then deleted this line completey via your sock puppet ip address of 99.123.14.143.  You then went to your self-publishing website at lulu.com and changed it so that it could then be downloaded for free.  Only the author would have this capability.
Since it is still for sale on other websites (e.g. amazon for $6.40) your are clearly self-promoting a book for monetary gain and using wikipedia to self-promote it.  A buyer on amazon.com for example would not know it was free on lulu.com and may buy it.
4) Your defense that you are a published author in rhetoric is irrelevent on multiple counts.  See the above 3 points.  Also since you are not an expert publishing on Bible Doctrine and Interpretations (some might say there is no such expert only other interpretations) your claim of expertise in some other area (i.e. rhetoric) is therefore immaterial.
On the basis of the above four counts your self-promotion based on your subjective opinions about and against a living person is legitimately deleted for cause.  It is quite understandable that in one of your edits that you suggested a MOD 'lock the editing function'.  That would nicely lock in some (small) profits from your self-published opinions about a living person (Osteen) for you based on using wikipedia as a promotional vehicle for your "book".
I've read through your book and you are clearly twisting and warping what Osteen says in order to arrive at your (pre-ordained) conclusion that Osteen is a wolf in sheep's clothing.  Are you even interested in hearing other interpreatations of what he's saying and means?  An objective researcher usually would.  Are you?
Therefore, as described above, your self-promotion for profit of your self-published book (@ lulu.com) is deleted for multiple legitimate reasons.  (You're always welcome to promote it through your own website or other avenues besides wikipedia.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.198.142 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject: Restoration / Deletion of this line from article 

message: @ As mentioned, I'm not a Lakewood employee or affiliate (like it's impossible that a 3rd party can articulate an opinion against key's book?).  I've never met Osteen or talked to him nor know all about what he has said across all his lectures.  I do know that the presentation against him as presented here and in the (Key's) book is quite lacking and especially in understanding his perspective.  I have seen  him on tv and do appreciate his upbeat tone and presentation.  I also try and appreciate where he's coming from before condemning him and especially publicly.  I think he deserves an opportunity to respond and should be given the benefit of the doubt.  Thusfar no rebuttal has been offered to the point below made on a previous version of the page about Key slandering Osteen on video.  This lack of response to answer this speaks volumes.  Additional points from his book could be made but why bother if a main one cited already remains unanswered??
198.228.198.142 Reply Comments are bold faced and indicated with a "@"
99.123.14.143 Reply comments are Italic text
Unnumbered: not a sock puppet.  
@ Maybe not but your ip address serves Adam Key's neighborhood and in addition only author Adam Key could add a "free download" tab to his (self-publishing co.) lulu page which was missing at 17:06 utc 5 December 2011 but restored after it was commented that no free download of yoru book was available anywhere.  Suit yourself Key.  Your welcome to your 99.123.14.143 mask.
The ip address I'm under registers for Corrigan, TX.  Key is a professor at Sam Houston in Huntsville, TX, which is about an hour away from here.  As to where he lives, I have no idea, but I doubt he lives in this town.  How do you know where Key lives anyway? So much for your lie that it services the same neighborhood.
@ My information says otherwise.  Is Key hiding out somewhere?  Why wouldn't somebody be able to locate him easily? In any case, out of the huge number of ip addresses in the universe the fact that yours is in Texas and close to some of Key's claimed locations is a fascinating coincidence though it doesn't prove anything.
I do believe you are the same person who, likely without reading it, published a negative review of the book at the same time your original vandalism appeared on this page.  Your personal vendetta against Key in blatant support of Osteen makes me question whether you are actually an employee of Lakewood.
@Needless to say the available video of Key on youtube already cited is pretty telling as to how the book would probably read.  The cited video remains unrebutted to this second.  Enuf said?  The WP policy regarding what can be or can't be posted here is all that really matters. A point by point discussion of Key's book is certaintly also a possibility.  Why doesn't he set up a blog with a chat forum to receive feedback on his book? 
@  My comments are not vandalism since the original material may be viewed by others and they can confirm the facts of the matter.  I don't blindly support Osteen and merely point out that arguments are extremely lacking and outright lies.  If you had rudimentary knowledge of how the net works you would know that I'm not an employee of Osteen.  These aspects are merely distractions to focusing attention on your lying remarks about Osteen.
Your IP being in Brooklyn proves nothing, as it registers from a mobile provider.  You could be literally anywhere with that and still have the same IP.  Does Lakewood, the largest church in the country, have no employees outside Houston? 
@Thus you could be Key himself and literally anywhere using your IP.  Thanks for confirming that.  Again, I'm Not affiliated with Osteen though I have watched him on tv and will admit to a minor bias in his favor.  I think the world could use more upbeat people like him and people have to take their own responsibility for what they hear and believe including the Lakewood flock. Osteen says as much as well.  He certainly does not constrain listeners to join only his group.  At the end of each broadcast he implores listeners to join a (local) Bible believing church.  You can't get anymore even handed than that can you? 
1.  It is not an unreliable source.  "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."  Key's thesis for his first Master's degree was on Osteen and is, verbatim, the text for the book.  Key is also a published expert on rhetoric, featured in a textbook, numerous journal articles, and presentations at national and regional speech communication conferences.  The third party-publications on the previous subject area make the source, self-published or not, reliable under WP policy.
@ You sure know alot about Key that nobody knows for not being Key.  Where was the Master's degree issued?  Key's is published where? What journals and textbooks?  The self-published source material is unreliable because the subject that the person needs to be an expert in is in "Biblical interpretation and meanings" and not "rhetoric" which is a skill applied to any topic across the universe.  Thus your claim is denied for cause.
Again, your opinion that expertise in rhetoric is unreliable is irrelevant.  Just because you say you need expertise in area X doesn't mean it's the only area where it is needed.  And as far as knowing what Key has published, it's called a curriculum vita.  Please tell me you know what that is.
@My point was regard to WP policy in unreliable sources and the point that Key must demonstrate that 3rd parties recognize him as an Experet in Bible doctrine and interpretation.  Since third parties do not recognize him as such as evidenced by a lack of cited references revealing these specific facts, then his self-published work is deemed unreliable and can't be cited in WP.  So my opinion doesn't matter.  But being able to cite or not 3rd party interest in Key as a Bible doctrine expert is critical to allowing or disallowing his book citation herein.  Thusfar that standard has not been met.  One could argue that a publication made as part of a school degree is not independent since the school has an interest in producing graduates and thus may allow publications forward due to personal bias in favor of their students.
2.  The article is about a book.  Yes, the book is written by a person, but the prohibition only extends to articles about living people.  This does not appear on the page for Osteen the person.  The book is also a critique, primarily, of Osteen's book but also of his published rhetoric.
@ duh - thus against a living person.  Your logic that it is  not going on a page about the living person Osteen is lame indeed.
There's a difference between critiquing a living person and a book written by a living person.  Your lack of logic and ad hominem attack demonstrates you have no real point.
@It some universe where you live in that is probably true.  The WP policy is clearly not into allowing negative publications against living persons and the 'where' it is published (about a living person page or a book by same) is irrelevant.  Any perceived attack I make is backed by a citation which any person can evalate and make thier own judgements on it.  As mentioned the youtube display by Key outside Lakewood church remains unrebutted.  These words are spoken by Key himself and can be viewed by anybody.  If you call that ad hominem you clearly don't know the word's definition.  The point made is specific to what Key said in the video and specific as to how untrue it is by viewing any Osteen tv video.
3.  You claim the book was only made free after your comments on 12/5. The ebook page for the book demonstrates that it, at the very least, has been free since September 2011.  Your claim that it was made free after your false comment was deleted is a lie and a blatant one at that.  If you read Lulu.com policy, if a book is available for free as an ebook, then the physical book is sold for the cost alone.  The author, in this case Key, makes no profit whatsoever off the sale of the book.  There is therefore no conflict of interest.  Further, the claim that it is available for free online is true.  Your statement that  "This book has been found For Sale only and is not free as claimed (as of 5 December 2011)" was and is a lie. 
@ Yes - I have a screen grab from 5 & 6 December 2011.  No free download tab was present then.  Yes, after that fact was pointed out here, a free download tab suddenly appeared on lulu.com.  Gee- what a coincidence that author Key suddenly decided to put one up there?!  No- I didn't read lulu policy nor should I have to.  So you say that there is no profit but since you claim your are not Key then HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?  You can't have it both ways Key.
What part of published September 2011 don't you understand?  Furthermore, a google search for "your best lie now" shows references to the free dowload since 2007.  @Where's the free download link then? [Addendum:  I did look again and found an ebook download link on lulu that I had not notice before (since it was a scroll down on the right hand side with no mention of it up high).] Post it here.  Both google and an free ebook download site failed to show it.  There is no sudden coincidence, you were simply looking at the page for the physical book, not the ebook.  @ A free download tab did appear on 6 Dec. 2011 (on lulu.com) and then was gone by 11 Dec. 2011.  Go figure. Also, one does not have to be the person to know that lulu policy states that you can't have a free ebook but make profit off the physical book.  Your arguments once again are lies lacking logic or evidence  @Well by your logic the price should have changed reflective of the 'profit per book' when the free download tab appeared (on lulu.com).  However, the price remained at $6.40 when the free download tab was present thus undermining your argument.
4.  This is a reiteration of other points.  Your opinion that Osteen's text and messages are not rhetoric demonstrates a lack of knowledge as to what rhetoric is.  You clearly have a bone to pick with anyone criticizing Osteen.
@ No it is not.  
'''
#)Since the work is self-published and you (Key) aren't 3rd party published in the subject of "Bible Interpretation (as applied to one's life)", which is the area of expertise required to be deemed reliable you are therefore not. 
#) You are making negative lying statements which anybody can verify by watching a video clip of you/Key and reading your/his book. You are in violation of WP policy for 'living persons' (namely Osteen).  You're cutesy reply that your typing to a WP page 'about a book' rather than 'the person page for Osteen' is a lame dodge and red herring. 
#) It's a conflict of interest since the book is still listed on amazon for $6.40 and no mention is made there that it is available for free download there.  Thus you (-Key) are profiting via the WP forum by launching a negative attack on a living person who is widely known and which you are trying to capitalize upon.  
'''
@This conflict of interest is against WP policy and goes to profit motive.  Since you claim you're not Key then you can't make statements on his behalf that he's(you are) not profiting from book sales.  The first 3 points are all separate from each other.  Reread point 4 above which relates a little back to point one.  Your work is allowable (reliable) if you are published by third parties and you (Key) are being widely known as an expert in "Bible Interpretations and wisdoms for living etc.".  You are not and your claim that you're an expert in "Rhetoric" does not make you an expert in any one particular subject that methods of rhetoric can be applied (Bible Doctrine and interpretations in this case.)  There is a clear example of you lying about Osteen in your book which a pro in rhetoric would never make.  So even your claim to be an expert in rhetoric is rendered into pure nonsense.  (Would you like the page number on that?) 
If you're going to claim Key has a profit motive, then demonstrate with evidence that he is making profit off the book.  @I did - see above.  The book price (reflecting profit per book) did not change when the free download tab appeared (on lulu.com per their policy as you have claimed). The statement that the book is available for free online is true.  @Great.  Please post the link here so there will be no mistake on your claim. Your claims of him lying in his book are suspect as you've clearly lied repeatedly throughout this. @Please point out where and be as specific as possible.  I'm always willing to clear things up.
Your deletion is premature as you're supposed to post in the discussion page and garner consensus before deleting contested sections. 
 
@ Well apparently nobody is reading this and/ or cares mostly.  Also, I did garner concensus in that whilst I was away someone who concurred in part with me undid your restoration of your own dark work plug fro your self-published hatchet job work.  They also undid your cute deletion of my arguments 1-4 above.  I'd say we've reached concensus here and the verdict is that your tired play here should be deleted for multiple just causes in accordance with WP policy.  Again, you are welcome to put up your own blog webspace like others have done to continue to air lies and dubious reasonings about Osteen.  To reiterate I'm no employee of Lakewood however I do make comments when some people clearly go off the deep end assaulting a person's reputation.  I like to se if I can see their source material and to see if the arguments are reasonable.  Once I find blatant lies, as in your case, and seeing that you are in clear violation of WP policy well then it's a fait accompli.  There are cases I've read elsewhere about Osteen where if you accept a premise then yes the conclusion seems reasonable.  However, what the premise is is often the result of a misinterpretation or a misconstrueing of that is being said.
I am restoring the section and will report you for vandalism if you delete it again. 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.123.14.143 (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to either author Key himself or an agent of his who has close hold knowledge of him using 99.123.14.143