Talk:Philosophy/Archive 17

message: The first subsection after "philosophers on pholosophy", should not be this somewhat archaic area of the branches of philosophy.  Who makes these branches? No one, they are just made up and shuffled around every few decades.
The worst thing about this section is the 20 questions that in Sesame street fashion even personify some of the little branches on the tree and get them to ask questions.  Well was I tired when I go to the end of answering all those questions!  Here it is in full:
::Each branch has its own particular questions. Logic asks: How do we distinguish arguments from premises to conclusions as valid or invalid? How can we know that a statement is true or false? What kinds of questions can we answer? Aesthetics asks: What is beauty? What is art? Ethics asks: What are values? Why does man need them? Are values absolute or relative? Is there a difference between morally right and wrong actions, values, or institutions? Which actions are right and which are wrong? What is happiness? Is there a normative value on which all other values depend? Are values 'in' the world (like tables and chairs) and if not, how should we understand their ontological status? Politics is the study of social organization. It asks such questions as: How should men interact in society? What is law? What is government? Do men need law and government? What is Justice? What is freedom in the political context? What is the nature of production and trade? How do they function within the various forms of government? And metaphysics asks: What is reality? What exists? Do things exist independently of perception? (See Solipsism, the idea that only perception exists.)
Can we just delete this!  Anyhow can we move this section to the end or its own page.  I think it does worse that a dictionary definition of the words ethics, politics, logic, etc.  Presumably most people would already have a rough idea of the word meanings (apart from perhaps metaphysics and epistemology).  Then again it added one of its own "normative" without explaining it.
Also who made that picture so small, I can hardly see it now, it's probably the best thing on the page!
: I support the idea of deleting the redundant pages History of Western Philosophy is just a copy of History of Western Philosophy.  Western Philosophy is awful.  Dbuckner 08:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I got angry every time someone told me something I already knew, then you'd have to call me the Incredible Hulk { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 22:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First subsections after "philosophers on pholosophy" 

message: At this stage I'm not going to join in the editing frenzy, but I feel that I should point out something concerning the etymology. The most relevant Greek words are exactly these: φιλός (philós: friend, or lover); σοφία (sophía: wisdom); whence we have φιλοσοφία (philosophía: philosophy, love of wisdom). There is also, incidentally, φιλόσοφος (philósophos: lover, or friend, of wisdom – therefore philosopher). Note the accents, and note the precise translations. It would be a good idea at least to get these details right, and to keep them that way. Anything else is a bad look (and we wouldn't want that for our page, would we!?). – Noetica 05:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Goodness no.  Could you make the changes?  I'm no good at Greek.  Dbuckner 09:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And a splendid change it was, I thought.  If only it were all so easy.  Dbuckner
Above there was a discussion of etymology now it gets a full sentence or two.  In any case it is fine, except I remove the phrase "love of wisdom" since in same discssion it is not clear if also, from what Socrates says in the Symposium, it could also mean the wisdom of love.  So rather than add both which might be objected to, I remove that one. --Lucas 15:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Lucas, there is no doubt that the meaning is love of wisdom, and not wisdom of love. I have restored love of wisdom as the correct gloss on φιλοσοφία, since it could not mean anything else. Let anyone who dissents bring forward a respectable source for the alternative reading of the word, and I will agree to the alteration you want. My source is OED, backed by innumerable others. (One 27-word sentence on etymology in the article. Quite reasonable.) – Noetica 03:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We've been over this. You never gave me a page number. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 17:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A page number?  I referred you to Socrates' speech, its not that long.  Others have called it Plato's ladder, the ascention of erotic love, in explaining what erotic love is, he goes through the usual dialectic and discovers that love is desire to permanently have the beautiful, one can reproduce oneself and have a kind of immortality, one can found new laws and also be honoured after death as a hero or poet, for Socrates these are only half way to true beauty which is wisdom.  It is this wisdom of love that that gives Socrates' clearest description of what philosophy is.Lucas 18:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reason why you are being asked for a page number is because I have read and re-read the work and do not recall anything like what you describe. I made a few very specific stabs in the dark at what you might have meant, but the selections were inadequate. If you want to make a point, then make it by giving evidence. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 19:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the speech by Socrates is fairly clear but try from 210 on within Socrates contribution to the various descriptions of what love is.  He gives his idea of ultimate love as philosophy, "boundless wisdom".  I thought it was a well known idea, anyhow you talked earliar  only of the bit about Resource and Poverty. Sophia is also philosophy (sophistos was philosopher or wiseman) in Greek, and was loved by the sophists and teachers of Greece (ie, the guys who got paid for it, like today's academics).  To distinguish philosophy from it, is where Socrates' "philo" comes in.  --Lucas 20:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's funny that I've been watching and contributing to specialized articles on philosophy for a year, but never had philosophy in my watchlist.  Seeing discussion here, maybe that was for the best!   Anyhow, I corrected the accents on 'phi/los'.  When listing Greek words, the standard is to list the nominative case, and the 'normal' accent.  In Greek the accents for a given word move based on declension and conjugation (particularly when the ultimate and penultimate change from a short vowel to a long vowel), and they may change based on the surrounding words (e.g., beginning with smooth breathing vowel) and punctuation (e.g., word occurs before a comma).  I searched the TLG (collection of existing Greek works) and found a total of 4 instances of philos with the ultimate accented and about 5500 with the normal accent on the penult.  BTW, Greek lexicons such as LSJ usually mention Pythagoras as being attributed to first use of the word philosophos (lover of wisdom). Philosophia was derived later.  The source for Pythagoras is likely Diogenes L.  Zeusnoos 19:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Zeusnoos, for fixing my inadvertently misplaced accent: φίλος is of course correct. Damn! You can see that I was trying to get something that is uncontroversial wrapped up, in a tide of uncertainties. I'll try to be even more vigilant than my pedantic norms already dictate. I agree with you about φιλόσοφος preceding φιλοσοφία; it is reflected in OED and elsewhere. I think reference to this would, however, unduly complicate the etymology in the article. Finally, I take note of the common element in our wikinames, mine really being Νοητικά, of course. (Snap!) – Noetica 23:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: On the contrary, I am looking right at it.  In which edition do you find the "wisdom of love" translation?  KD Tries Again 17:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Here are the changes for today.  Dbuckner 08:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence was written on the basis of your Definition of philosophy wiki, specifically: "The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy ([4]) says the method of philosophy is rational enquiry, or enquiry guided by the canons of rationality... PDP says the subject matter of philosophy is "the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action and reality"." I confess that "introspection" and "dialogue" were fanciful additions on my part, but they seemed so obvious as to be uncontroversial. Sorry if that was poetic license. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 19:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not quite so. I'm more after trying to clarify the matter in simple terms. In terms of the article, what helps, what doesn't and how do people see it. If consensus is hard to find, sometimes a good starting point is to ask basic questions - is this the right level of detail? What are the key sections to cover? - and see what emerges. Hope that clarifies. if not then it may be I am misunderstanding something, in which case please drop a note by email or on my talk page to check. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Sorry if that came across harshly.  My point was about the bit in the questionnaire which asked people what was in common with the various quotations.  These quotations were not particularly representative, and it suggests there may be a kind of vote on what they have in common (whereas in fact they have very little in common).  In any case, I am adding to the list on the  quotations page as it may be useful. Most of them have not been on the Internet before.  Best.  Dbuckner 17:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunday 21 Jan 2007 

message: Peter King drew my attention to this part of the article.  Read it, and the next section.  Doesn't it, er, strike you as quite barmy?  Grateful to FT2 for trying to create some sanity around here but, well...  Dbuckner 20:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. And what is 'reveding'? It doesn't coincid with any word I know. --Chris 20:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: ...and since spelling corrections hardly improve it, may I suggest we lose it? --Chris 21:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Reveding" produces 154 Google hits, of which this article is the third. We are present at the birth of a new term, gentlemen. Banno 21:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah absolutely, I agree! (he says as he edges his way towards the door :-) --Chris 22:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well, good luck then and, by the way, thanks for your spelling contribution! Lucas 23:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, good luck Chris. This place is like the Hotel California. You can check out any time you'd like, but . . . .  .Richiar 03:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schism of Analytic and Continental philosophy 

message: Here are the changes for today.  Please don't change the diff Id's, I am trying to keep a trail of all the changes on the article on a daily basis, so we can get a clear idea of the madness going on.  And here are the  changes for Sunday 21.  Dbuckner 09:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monday Jan 22 2007 

message: *1 Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy (PDP),
*2 The Penguin Encyclopedia (PE),
*3 The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (OCP),
*4 Modern Thomistic Philosophy (MTP),
*5 Collins English Dictionary (CED),
I deduce that you 2 are about to define philosophy for the whole world, based on the above random selection? Are we to hold our breaths? I guess the citation which say it is a controversial task if done prfoundly is irrelevant? Or are you doing it non-profoudly? Or is it merely going to be a characterization of philosophy? --Ludvikus 20:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The works were

message: philosophy \fe-la-s(e-)fe\ noun pl philosophies
   [ME philosophie, fr. OF, fr. L philosophia, fr. Gk,     fr. philosophos philosopher] (14c)
   1	a  (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts
   (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology
   <a doctor of philosophy>
   (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary
   b  (1) archaic : physical science
   (2) : ethics
   c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
   2	a : pursuit of wisdom
   b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative
   rather than observational means
   c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
   3	a : a system of philosophical concepts
   b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought
   <the philosophy of war> <philosophy of science>
   4	a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group
   b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher
   
   (C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Yours truly, Ludvikus 00:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you want a definition of philosophy - why not go to a Dictionary? 

message: What comments were removed, by whom, and why?
:It's important to note who did what now? Ludvikus 01:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quotes Ludvikus 01:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Typo e --Ludvikus 01:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Removed comments by anonymouse user from talk page" 

message: Now I know for sure that you guys are Vandals and Forgers.
My name has been forged to make it look like your writing's are mine.
So you store your own Vandalized Forgeries in that Museum of yours, huh Dbuckner?
And who's the actual forger, you Ben? Or do you do the forgery yourself?
:I would find it hard to believe that it's the work of Mel, or an underling of his.
:I wonder if Banno is smart enough to uncover this Vandalism? --Ludvikus 02:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What? { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 04:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Vandalism]] and [[Forgery]] by [[Dbuckner]]'s "Cabal"

message: Here are the changes for today.  Dbuckner 06:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tuesday 23 January 

message: (DBuckner, why a new section for this! There is alreayd one on this above! )
The purpose of WP:OR is to avoid any "analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor".  The division of primary, secondary and tertiary applies mainly to history, where 'primary' means sources close to the event.  These sources must be interpreted and synthesised by a secondary source (an authoritative writer) before they can be used in Wikipedia.  Tertiary sources are compilations of secondary sources by writers who are not authorities in their field.
Since there is no exact equivalent of a source that witnesses a historical event in philosophy, I suggest the following interpretation.
* A primary source in philosophy is the text of a great philosophical writer, such as Wittgenstein.    
* A secondary source is an authoritative writer (such as Kenny) explaining what Wittgenstein means.
* A tertiary source is a compilation or copy of what secondary sources have said.
The Oxford Companion is a secondary source, because it chooses authoritative writers in their field (Kenny, Quinton, Williams &c) to write about the texts of philosophy.  A tertiary source is an encyclopedia that uses these secondary sources, or a database, to compile an article.  OK?  Dbuckner 06:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the best contribution I've seen you make, Db. I sincerely thank you for it. I'm going to think about it a bit, and get back to it. Unfortunately, it seems to begin with a non-primary source, or am I mistaken? On this what source are you, Db, secondary, tertiary, ...? --Ludvikus 08:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are you talking about? Dbuckner 08:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's your own interpretation, of Ben's interpretation, of X's interpretation, of said Wiki Rule. And my interpretation is that it's highly inaccurate, now that I've read the actual Wiki Rule. Let me just tell you, that I have many years experience in Civil Litigation, and Administrative Law - and there these kinds of distinctions are the most rigorously defined. I've just read the rule - and your paraphrase is atrocious, and counterproductive by the distortion it presents. But I do believe in your naive sincerity. Ludvikus 08:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that's correct. But your fraud and forgery are amazing Db? How did you do that? Or are you a magician? Is Wikipedia Software so insecure against Vandalism? Who is helping you? I cannot believe you did it all by yourself. Ludvikus 09:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  What on earth are you talking about?  What forgeries?  Are you referring to the fact that I placed some 'diffs' on your talk page?  And are you claiming that I have somehow interfered with the Wiki to make it appear as though the diffs were edited by you?  If so, that is a truly preposterous allegation.  Please clarify. Dbuckner 09:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  What's are "diffs"? And what do you mean by witnessing a historical event in philosophy? Ludvikus 09:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  What on earth are you talking about?  A'diff' is a Wiki term for the 'difference' that an editor makes when he or she makes an edit.  This for example.  It identifies who wrote what at a certain point in time.  The diff I have just given identifies you as the editor in question.  It may be that you cut and pasted some nonsense of which you were not the original author.  Personally I don't distinguish between the cutting and pasting of nonsense, and original authorship.  And the edit does have a number of spelling mistakes, and one horrible grammatical mistake.  Dbuckner 10:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ludvikus 10:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you are saying what I thought you were saying.  You are suggesting that I or someone else tampered with the Wikipedia audit trail to make it look as though you were the editor of something that you claim you never wrote.  That is a very serious accusation and I suggest you take it up with an administrator.  Banno?  Mel?  Your call.  Dbuckner 10:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As I have said repeatedly, I have no idea what you are on about.  I mean this kindly: please seek help elsewhere.  Dbuckner 10:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary, Secondary and Tertiary sources 

message: Be very careful when disclaiming what you said in Wikipedia.  There is an audit trail that
   identifies exactly who wrote what, and at what time.  For   examplehere,
   here,
   and here.
   Dbuckner 08:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ludvikus 10:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you are saying what I thought you were saying.  You are suggesting that I or someone else tampered with the Wikipedia audit trail to make it look as though you were the editor of something that you claim you never wrote.  That is a very serious accusation and I suggest you take it up with an administrator.  Banno?  Mel?  Your call.  Dbuckner 10:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Who said what" [Db to Lud] 

message: *Could you summarize the contents of your Museum which you created?
*What does it exhibit?
*Who is it about?
*Who can edit it, only you, where is it, etc.?
*How come you don't answer my question - how come your so concerned with my welfair?
*Why do you want me to be "very careful when disclaiming what" I "said in Wikipedia"?
*It appears that there is no "rational" explanation for your good will.
*What would happen if I were to be careless in my disclaimers?
*Please explain yourself, as I've asked you repeatedly. --Ludvikus 10:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said repeatedly, I have no idea what you are on about.  I mean this kindly: please seek help elsewhere.  Dbuckner 10:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dbuckner's Museum 

message: There has been taking place here a discussion on the merits of the snake version of the intro (where a few descriptions of philosophy are appended to one another) versus those of the neat version (where it just gives the etymology and notes that it must defer any finite description of what philosophy is).  The discussion took place between DBuckner, Lucidish and myself.
The outcome it seems is that 
DBuckner thinks the snake is better than the neat version but that snake has some problems.  It should not mention in the intro a diversity of opinion as to what philosophy is and instead should describe what is in common amongst all views (and he believes there exists a describable common position).
Lucidish thinks the snake intro is fine with minor word changes here and there.  He notes that in the primary description:  "analysis...&dialogue &... to solve problems", the word "dialogue" is able to cover Continental style philosophy.
Lucas, is of the opinion that the snake intro gives a too Analytic description of what philosophy is (as analysis, solving, examining) and only gives its peers, Continental and Eastern philosophy as a kind of afterthought.  Also notes that the only sources given are tertiary (encyclopedias/dictionaries) and should be replaced by secondary ones (ie, references to canonical philosophers).
--Lucas 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I ask that the issue be put asside for the moment? I will not touch that item, and you guys may do as you please with it. I believe that it may take care of itself if we work on the structure and body of the article. So I obstain for the time being, and let you guys do whatever you agree among yourselves. Let's see what happens. Best wishes, Ludvikus 22:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of discussion on Snake Vs Neat version of intro 

message: :Best regards to you 2 from me - Assume Good Faith, Wiki Policy--Ludvikus 22:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice the following remaining structure of "Western Philosophy":
 4 Metaphysics and epistemology
    * 4.1 Rationalism and empiricism
    * 4.2 Kantian philosophy and the rise of idealism
    * 4.3 American Pragmatism
    * 4.4 The prominence of logic
    * 4.5 Phenomenology and hermeneutics
    * 4.6 Existentialism
    * 4.7 The Analytic tradition
Move up accordingly - Clean up. And Thank you. It's to much work for me - I might mess up! --Ludvikus 22:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no idea, and haven't even looked at it. Do with it as you find fit - since I'm too bussy elsewhere. Ludvikus 23:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Work - Quiddity & KD Tries again - keep it up - & conform to Dialogue on Talk Page 

message: That the distinction within Western Philosophy made between Anglo-American philosophy and Continental philosophy is undeniable among us who know. But is there a name for it? I've repeatedly asked Lucas about this, but he has never answered me on it. It is one of the reasons I say I agree with him 94.99% rather than 100%. If non exists, can we ask our literary masters, and/or poets, to help us on this? What I'm suggesting is that we symply use these two categories in a single sentence which asserts the difference. That way, there's no accusation of Neologism. --Ludvikus 22:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lucas. I've just created the stub: Anglo-American philosophy. Click on it and check it out. See if it conforms to your intent. --Ludvikus 23:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Great. I love Western Philosophy. And I love everything English. And I'm happy to be an American.  So I never ignore anything that's Anglo-America. How come you only use the term Anglophone. I know that it is used in Canada. But I'm unfamiliar with your use. Can you explain (again I know)?   
You have a funny idea of what a neologism is, schism (as written) is older than most of the words on this page and is very far from being a neologism. Your new page leaves out other Anglos: Australia, Ireland, etc. (there is already a page called, Anglophone philosophy). I explained above the choice and references for the use of the word "schism.", simply juxtaposing the words gives a misleading impression and does not get across the reality of the situation. 
--Lucas 00:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As I understand Wikipedia rules, if you employ any English word, with a special usage, to describe a collection of facts, or theories, in a unique way, you have committed a Neologim. What not say Revolution? What's you're take on that word in this context? Was the a Revolution which caused a "schism" in Europe, leading to the split of Great Britain from the Continent of Europe? Ludvikus 01:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A neologism is a new word, not a new use of a word, words are used in new combinations all the time.  In any case it is not a new use of schism in relation to this matter, again look to the reference given in the article (the first reference after the word appears). I presume you mean the French revolution? I'm sure you could make an argument for that, the Romans got there, but Napolean did not, so they are Christian and have straight roads, but do not like the metric system nor the Enlightenment.  --Lucas 01:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm asking what if you called this split a "Revolution" instead of a Schism? Or what if you called it a "Clash within Western Civilization"? When you give a word a usage that's not generally easily recognized, and its your peculiar way of characterizing a set of events, haven't you created a Neologism according to Wikipedia? --Ludvikus 03:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Revolution implies something revolved, in history, one class or system is replaced by another, this is not what is going onin philosophy, both remain alongside each other.  Analytic in the 50s was a kind of revolution in the Anglophone world but it did not take place on the Continent.  "Clash" is not right because there is very little contact between the two, whereas clash implies a strong disagreement on something in particular, but they are basically disengaged from each other.  When you give a word a usage it is not neologism it is just called language, you yourself have often put novel combinations of words together (see above) --Lucas   Talk 11:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yours truly, Ludvikus 03:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "Schism" a Neologism as used in the context here? 

message: Note, User:Dbuckner, the title implication: Philosophy = Cultural Politics.
   Book Description
   This volume presents a selection of the philosophical papers which Richard Rorty has written
   over the past decade, and complements three previous volumes of his papers: Objectivity,
   Relativism, and Truth, Essays on Heidegger and Others, and Truth and Progress.
   Topics discussed include the changing role of philosophy in Western culture
   over the course of recent centuries, the role of the imagination in intellectual
   and moral progress, the notion of 'moral identity', the Wittgensteinian claim
   that the problems of philosophy are linguistic in nature,
   the irrelevance of cognitive science to philosophy, and the mistaken idea that philosophers
   should find the 'place' of such things as consciousness and moral value in a world
   of physical particles. The papers form a rich and distinctive collection
   which will appeal to anyone with a serious interest in philosophy
   and its relation to culture.
   About the Author
   Richard Rorty is Professor of Comparative Literature,
   Emeritus, at Stanford University.
   Product Details
    * Paperback: 218 pages
    * Publisher: Cambridge University Press; 1st edition (January 8, 2007)
    * Language: English
    * ISBN-10: 0521698359
    * ISBN-13: 978-0521698351
    links added
I shall start a stub on this (2007) book by this major American philosopher. Ludvikus 03:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yours truly, Ludvikus 03:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Philosophy as Cultural Politics]] by [[Richard Rorty]] 2007 

message: Here are the changes for yesterday. Dbuckner 08:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work, Db, & wishing you a nice & productive day. --Ludvikus 08:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wed January 24  

message: All Quiet on the Western Front
*Request: Archive Page - This Page 
*As the Editor's War Bombardments have subsided, I think this Page should be archived.
*I would Baldly do it myself - but Archiving is something I have not yet learned.
*Anyone willing and able to do so, please step up to the plate - for a possible Home Run --Ludvikus 00:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[All Quiet on the Western Front (film)]]