Talk:Principia Discordia

message: See also the Wikipedia repository of Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense  
(Why? I see nothing related there. Do we need a talk page here?)
-- Discordianism seems to inspire people to write a lot of silly things - I wanted to direct them to the appropriate page for (merely) silly things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.191.188.xxx (talk • contribs) 13:44, 29 November 2001 (UTC)
replies: text: Just scanning this entry softened my brain around the edges. --Wetman 09:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  untitled 

message: :The Principia has not been printed in a single run.
I'm not even sure what this means, if anything, but I suspect it to be inaccurate.  You can get one on Amazon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.41.104 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 5 April 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe they mean that it has had more than one printing? DenisMoskowitz 19:44, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
There have been many different printings. You can print your own as well since the original material is not copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutante23 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 7 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Printing 

message: "It features typewritten and handwritten text intermixed with clipart, stamps, and seals appropriated from other sources, possibly in violation of copyright laws."  This had originally read "from other sources, possibly illegally."  I think the reason for that was to cover the possibility that some of the physical stamps (e.g. gov't stamps) were "appropriated."Schizombie 06:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: appropriated from other sources

message: Is there any verification that the first three editions existed ?  Or could they be added to give versimilitude to the 4th edition ?
-- Beardo 05:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a link to scans of the third edition at the bottom of the page, though they leave something to be desired.  I don't doubt the former existence of the earlier editions, but I am curious about where they might be now if any are still extant.  There's also supposed to be some pre-PD Discordian material, but I don't know what might have become of that. Schizombie 05:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I assume you mean (K) All Rites Reversed? B.Mearns*, KSC 11:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be cool.  The third edition scans aren't very readable though, so I'd love to see a better version of that one.  I'm also curious to compare quotes from the earlier editions with Illuminatus! because some of the PD quotes in it differ or aren't in the 4th PD.  I should scan my Rip Off Press 4th ed sometime since it has better resolution than the printings I think.  Шизомби 03:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I'm the Rev.DrJon, responsible for putting up the 1st Edition. I've love to find a copy of the 2nd Edition, and I'm working on recovering the text from the 3rd. I'd love also to get my hands on a copy of the Rip Off Press 4th Edition. Please note that the PD quotes from Illuminatus have been included in my Apocrypha Discordia.Drjon 03:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First three editions 

message: I can't say I've read this rubbish, but can anyone verify the Yin Yang being a symbol in the book (as mentioned in the opnening paragraph of the article)? I certainly hope no-one's confusing this with the "hodge-poodge" of Discordianism with the apple of discord and the pentagon. If anyone has further information on this matter, please posta follow up here, and remove the reference in the article as neccessary. Bmearns 16:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if you're referring to the article or the PD as rubbish, which in either case is a strange thing for a Pastafarian such as yourself to be doing, my fellow Trojan.  The thing you describe with the apple inside the pentagon is not in the PD unless I'm overlooking it.  A version of the Yin Yang appears on pages 3 and 50; another version appears on page 44; and in the SJG edition the first version is also on pages 91 and 103; I'll change the article to note how it is different.  Thanks for adding the Hamell on Trial entry BTW. Schizombie 18:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, that was meant to be the Apple and the pentagon, not in, referring to the SC. Bmearns 19:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Yin Yang most emphatically does not appear on page 00003 or 00050.  The Hodge Podge does.  The thing on 00044 I'm not too sure about. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Egads!  I'm sorry!  However page 49 does say "The SACRED CHAO [...] is sometimes called the YIN-YANG.  The Sacred Chao is not the Yin-Yang of the Taoists." Schizombie 20:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I always thought the thing on 00044 was Hung Mung's ur-chao - it naturally couldn't refer to the apple since it predated the Greeks, so it used different symbols for order and chaos. DenisMoskowitz 20:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's all damnable rubbish, I can't be leave we are spending so much time on this cockapoo. Idle hands are the play things of the Purple Oyster (of Doom). Crap, I need another link. Bmearns 21:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure which I want to adopt as my personal motto more: "Idle hands are the playthings of the Purple Oyster of Doom" or "Crap, I need another link". ;) 23skidoo 16:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yin Yang 

message: Someone (but not me - conflict of interest, sorry, I can't do it) might like to change the external link to the Myth of Starbuck - it's currently pointing to Rev.Loveshade's reposted copy of my page, but the original page at http://appendix.23ae.com/pd1/13.html is the source. Of course, you guys may prefer to point the wikipedia at the (very fine and worthy) Rev.Loveshade's copy instead, in which case it's none of my business. Cheers! Drjon 07:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's because it already links to the first edition on your site which has the myth. But that's not clear from the article. I'll change it to show that. We know you deserve credit! Gerina 01:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how linking to a copy of the source is relevent, or adds to this wikipedia article, beyond promoting Rev.Loveshade's site (no offense). How would you substantiate it? I have a conflict of interest, as I said. But I'm sure it will sort itself out. Drjon 22:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gerina fixed it so it links to your site as having the First Edition of Principia Discordia and "The Myth of Starbuck" or "The Myth of Ichabod."  If it linked to your site twice for the same thing I think it would be redundant. Binky The WonderSkull 16:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I take it back. I just recounted--there's one link to Rev. Loveshade's site, and three to DrJon's. Before I cut them, there was two to Loveshade's--did we really need two links to one site?  And there was four links to DrJon's site--do we really need four?  There's still two or three to DrJon's.  Seems a big excessive to me. IamthatIam 06:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myth of Ichabod (aka Myth of Starbuck) 

message: Why is Ronin Publishing's edition "questionable"? Petronivs 13:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ronin Publishing 

message: Since we can say silly things here, I will put the thing I GREATLY resised the temptation to add after the Foreign Translation page:  I, Icarus 23, HC, KSC, Episkopos of the MSDD, have declared that upon the translations of the PD attaining 5 languages total (we're almost there if the Polish one grows beyond a page) that there will be a special ceremony of the DDDD held to open up the higher levels of IT.  Posessors of HARDCOVER copies of the Principia and authors of thie own Discordian texts are also strongly encouraged to participate.  Further discussion here not encouraged, please email me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus 23 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FNORD

message: Pentabarf is a redirect to this page but there is mention of the term here. If the terms are synonymous, it should be noted in the page. Perhaps it would be good to know where the (very usual) term "Pentabarf" comes from in the text of this article. —mako (talk•contribs) 20:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have fixed this. Cheers, Drjon 16:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pentabarf 

message: It IS a parody religion. And if it's not, it's certainly NOT a true religion with a true sacred text. Religions are socially organized and involve serious followers. Some people may claim discordianism is a real religion, but it's mostly a counter culture "hippie" based movement, which is as religious as taking drugs like LSD, for that matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.211.149.108 (talk • contribs).
:Huh.  I'm a Discordian, and it's just as "real" as anybody else's belief system.  I wouldn't call it a "church", on account of the lack of social organization, but insofar as it is sufficient to inform someone's view of spiritual/metaphysical questions, it's definitely a religion. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why must religions be serious? I think it's extremely hilarious why people are so averse to calling anything with humor in it "real". Voretus 16:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: errr. Stop taking discordianism srsly. Stop taking yourself srsly. Stop taking, srsly. Jpipkin42000 08:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's such a quintessential Grayface comment that I suspect you of being an Erisian plant. -Toptomcat 13:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parody again 

message: This article (and a few other related, mutually cross-referencing articles) was created as an experiment and has been used to demonstrate various facets of reliability of internet sources.  The original idea was principally rooted in humour.  However, as it has evolved it has become a useful source and reference of itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.108.108 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  April Fool!  Or was it? 

message: I had uploaded the basic Principia to Scribd and was recently notified that it was taken down. When I asked why, as the core content is explicitly kopylefted, I was told: "This content is marked as copyrighted in Scribd's BookID database by the Robert Anton Wilson Estate". Does the Robert Anton Wilson Estate indeed hold the copyright to the entirety of the Principia? 70.62.26.165 (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Wilson as far as I know had nothing to with the writing or publication of the Principia so any claim by his estate would be invalid. You can reply to the copyright breach notification on Scribd and request for a review as it is often an automated process and catches public domain works, I've done it in past and received an apology from them. Czarnibog (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Wilson DID provide the introduction to one version of the book (which has been repeated in many later editions), but I'm don't think that is copyrighted either. As Czarnibog said, Scribd often believe public-domain works to be copyrighted (it once made that claim on a Tolstoy book I uploaded, which was not only published in the 1900's, but was never copyrighted to begin with) so I wouldn't take their claims as a serious source on it's own. --Painocus (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a discussion about this at: :c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Principia Discordia (1970). Veverve (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It was first published before 1977 without a valid copyright notice, during a period when including a notice was a requirement for a work to be copyrighted. This is similar to the situation that allows us to take stills from Hollywood trailers made during the same period when Hollywood also did not include notice in said trailers. Skyerise (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright status of the Principia? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Principia Discordia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://geocities.com/bloodstar84/pd_metaphysics.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Editors should please note that WP:BURDEN explicitly says that giving editors time to provide citations once they have said they intend to do so is part of the process: "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." Since multiple editors have stated that they intend to provide citations, a courtesy sensitive reading of WP:BURDEN would suggest that continued removals without first tagging and then giving other editors time to do their work would be against the clearly stated spirit of WP:BURDEN. Skyerise (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request that editors actually follow [[WP:BURDEN]]