Talk:Acharya S/Archive 9

message: -:Thank you Charles... 
69.19.14.24 01:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been questioned as to what this article should look like. I see it thus: To remove slant, bias and prejudice from this article it would have to look something like this. A truely neutral article in its point of view would simply inform the reader of the premises of the books, give a short background of the author and give the reader options (even to detractors) in the form of links to investigate them further. It is not necessary to do more. This article should not be a forum for debate where allegation, accusation, conjecture, and innuendo are allowed to run rampant.  
Acharya S
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Revision as of 02:18, 10 December 2005; view current revision
← Older revision | Newer revision →
Jump to: navigation, search
Acharya S is the pen name of D. Murdock. As a mythicist, she has authored two books and operates a website called "Truth be Known". Her contention is that all religion is founded in earlier legend, myth and morality stories and that the characters depicted in Christianity are the result of the plagiarizing of those myths to unify the Roman State.
Contents
[hide]
    * 1 Books
    * 2 General premise
    * 3 Education
    * 4 External links
Books
Her book, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, is an expanded version of her website. A follow-up book, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, discusses her views further to clarify and document the sources used in the first book. In it, she comments on the Hindu story of the life of Krishna, as well as the life of Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama). She points out parallels to the life of Jesus, presenting this as evidence that the story of Jesus was written based on existing myth and not the life of a real person.
General premise
Acharya's claim is that the Christ story is based upon pagan myths, and is explainable in "astro-theology" or the story of the Sun. She asserts that the pagans understood these stories to be myths but that Christians destroyed the works stating this, and killed all who did not accept it as literal, factual history.
This purportedly led to widespread illiteracy in the ancient world and ensured that the mythical nature of Christ's story was hidden. Scholars of other sects continued to oppose the historicizing of a mythological figure. She presents as evidence, that this is because the arguments were destroyed by the chruch but are preserved through their own refutations.
Education
Acharya is a historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist, and archaeologist. She received an undergraduate degree in Classics–Greek Civilization from Franklin and Marshall College. She is a member of the American School of Classical Studies in Athens, Greece. She has field archaeology experience in Athens and Crete and has been admitted into the Center for the Scientific Examination of Religion. She has been admitted as a fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER).
External links
    * Truth be Known (Acharya S's website)
    * The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ by Acharya S
    * Interview with Acharya S in Paranoia Magazine
    * Earl Doherty reviews The Christ Conspiracy, see Earl Doherty
    * Robert Price reviews The Christ Conspiracy
    * Paranoia Magazine review of Suns of God by Joan d'Arc
    * "A Refutation of Acharya S's book, The Christ Conspiracy" by Mike Licona, and rebuttal
    * ebtx.com reviews The Christ Conspiracy
    * Tekton Apologetics Ministries reviews The Christ Conspiracy
Category: Religious philosophy and doctrine
69.19.14.33 14:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

message: -----Lobo: I think what exists at the page presently is not too far off base--double links could be removed.  The article on Mae Brussels could be removed, the article on Enochian Laws and the Price criticism.  Price could be included as external links and you are being generous to include Tektonics and Licona.  I say let them stand as links, with the proviso that answers to their critiques can be found at Truthbeknown. 
In other words, omit all critism, and leave the arile worded in such a way to make her sourd reaosnable. Again, no matter how you word it, thsi is the intent. We need to give the critism, knwon life detials, and an accurate view of her beleifs. Not a slanted aritlce iwht redundant links.And we are nto beoign generus to inlcuse Tektonic and Lucida's mateiral. They are valuable as they speak for ht eoposiiton to her ideas.SOemthigny uo want to rmeove altogather.
I doubt that Zarove will concede to Acharya's qualifications, even if she produced documents unknown to him (because he can't find them and wouldn't consider them good enough to stand on their own. 
The only qualificaitosn that have been prodiced thusfar is her Bachelors degree. She has no other or else wshe woudl have trumpeted them. Relaly,y ou may pretend I brag abotu my degrees ( When in fact all I did was answer objectiosn tot hem) But you needn't smear me at all times.
In the last archive, he has exhibited his detestation for the author and thus will not likley accept any reasonableness.
Im sorry, but this is a lie. I have neither shown detestaitonf or the auhtor, nor have U nbeen unreasonable. Of coruse, by reaosnable here you mean agreeign with her, and telling the world she is what she claism to be. It is also reaosnabel in yor midn to call me a Psyhcopath.
ALl I have doen is insist that her views be presented fairly, and not presnted in a way to hide her tru e beleifs. I ahv also insiste don shwoing her critics, and her life, and not lying about her credentials.
His mind was and is made up. 
The same can be said of you. In fact more so, since you ignroe facts ot the poitn fo attakcign any who oppsoe your worldveiw.
It appears to be easy for him to put others under great scrutiny and demand standards that he himself could not likely hold up to if he were the subject of the page.  So I see very little reasonable concessions from him at all.
This is simply unnessisary personal attack. You have no evidnece that I detest the auhtor, aside form her own hatred of me because I wrote the article and Jame's attakcs on me. And no evidnece that Ivebeen thusfar unreasonable. Need I remind you that yout attakcs on me have proven far worse.
I will agree with Zarove on this one thing (begrudgingly)---the Origins essay could be removed since it is available at her site.  As Charles has said, the criticisms section re: the underlying thesis of the books could be treated at the Jesus-myth page, although the underlying thesis has much more to do than with just that particular religious myth.  I don't know if there is a page at wiki for that covers the range of religious mythology that is inclusive of all of them.--
Wikipedia vcovers it all, of corue it doesnt show the "DIrect parrallels" beteenthe Pagan myths and CHirndom tat underlie The CHrist COnspiracg,y, as they do not truely exist.
ZAROVE 01:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to print the criticism if the link for it is provided. Let those interested readers follow the link if they are so inclined. Label them detractors if desired. The article could just as easily outline basic information and provide access to any pro or cons and thus avoid constant bickering. The complaint about input that is felt to be showing Acharya in a positive way because it does not show her in a negative way is unacceptable reasoning. 
66.82.9.46 02:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Deja Vu all over again. Pretend you are not you and read what you just wrote. You said... "In other words, omit all critism, and leave the arile worded in such a way to make her sourd reaosnable. Again, no matter how you word it, thsi is the intent." In other words, whatever is said it must jibe with the judgment that it show her in a bad light. You say that "descirbign er as she descibes herself unqueasitonignly is a bias. She shoidl be shown naeutrlaly"... so, neutrality would be negative? Well, in any event, this is shear opinion and by now, now one can mistake the message... no amount of arguing, regardless of how true, is going to lead you to see it any other way. The concern over the "casual reader" is not rightfully a valid concern... this is treating the reader as though a child and is attempting to censor what is put before them. It is amply clear that there is a fear that they might read it in some other manner other than the way it has been prejudged and that there is an obvious attempt to word things in such a way as to insure that judgment is stated in that way rather than allow the reader to form their own opinion on their own. 
66.82.9.55 06:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Now to address.

message: Lobo, I have been cnsistant. Her vies are to be losted butnot central, andmust be neutelaly listed, and not scewed to make them appear mainstream, as you and her other disiples do aconstant, for you know they will be rejected by a causal readership unless they are doctored.
Skull, you have no such evidence, or else it woudl have been rpesented already. By all means, show it. AGain, this is an encyclopedia. I am nto actgn as an apologist out to discredit Dorothy's ideas ( Regardless of this beign the way you depict me with your compatriots) nor have I even tried to refute her claims. I have merley poitne dout that others do critise her work, and on spacific gorunds. An Enclyclopedia gorws wih informaiton, and is nto threatened. Regardless of yru need ot defend Acharya S and her ideas ( Mainly her ideas) you fail to grasp the basic truth of this contraverzsy on Wikiepdia. I am not here to prove or disproe anything, I am here ot balance the artcle.
Likewise, any evidence you submit itsself will be open to the scrutiny of all editors. Relise this, before posting soem Geocities site or pop-book.
ZAROVE 02:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Now now

message: Lets see, you and your confederatss distort facts, compalin abotu me and try to get me banned form wikipeida ( By lies and inuendo, I didnt contact any ex lover of Dorothy's, nor did I need ot to get oublic informaiton for my article) anx you distort what is said.
AGain, I am sophisticated enouh to know the root of the word Solomon. I know the Hebrew language. ( Which, in toyour former claim, makes me a "Linguist".)
I knw the History.
Simply put, doothy's "Schlarship" is poor.She is not a scholar, nor a member of a "SCHOLAR group". Shes the member of an Ahtiest apologetics group.Signifigant difference.
Now, rather than hurl accusatiosn and try to silenc eoponants by makign false accusations and claims that hye are baised, try to stay focused. Yoru the one, along wiht your cohorts, who made htis abot her work. Remember? DOnt compalin when what you say is not beleived and incorproared base don yur say so.
ZAROVE 17:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact remains that without her works, she would not have an article on her. She is an author of two books so the article is about her works. The complaints listed are due to those books having been published. No case can be made without admitting that without the books... there could be no complaints made of her. Making unsubstantiated comments regarding any aspect of her abilites 
is against wiki policy. Personal attacks are frowned upon. Repeating such accusations from biased internet sources that are clearly detractors and certainly not qualified due to fact that they fail to meet wiki requirements for Verifiability... i.e. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." 
66.82.9.77 08:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accusations

message: I ddn tput my credentials on th table. Jmes did. In an attmeot to disparage me. Muckh Like Skull called me a liar for no reaosn when I said I know Hebrw. Again, I am not considered a linguist fo speakign different languages.
Nor shoudl Acharya S be. 
And if she is on that absis, then it shoudl be note din the article she is a linguist base donthis. Just as shes a "Religiosu schoalr" based on writting two books, andnot academic merit.
Her critics have better degrees and have proven mor creidble thna she has, which is not difficult to do or prove of others.
As ro CSER, their site is blatant that they are Secular humanist, and that their mission is to sprad it. See the about seciton on their own website. Likewise, Acharya S is listed as a "Writter", not a Scholar, on their site.Which is not closed to the general publis but is open to anyone who happens ot oppose religiosu beleifs in favour of secular humanism.That is not objective.
Now, if you will excse me, I will await an intellfnt answer.
ZAROVE 04:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tables

message: Every xomment I made was addressed to yoru points. Not meant to disparage.
Either Acharya S shoudl nto be clled a Linguist, Religious Scholar, and Archeologist, and Historian, or else the reasosn fr callign her these htigns shoudl be int he article.
On the tlak page you will use dctionary definitions to defned its inclusion in the article. Yet try to use the same logic you use here int he article, and you yourselves delete it. ( In other words, if I put intot he artlce she is a Historian and rligious shcolar because she written twobooks on rligion, it is omited, in faovu rof the plain " SHe is a rleigiosu schoalr and Historian", wihtout notifyign the reader on what basis she is as she claims.)
Your own bias shows clealry as well. You cliam that peopel who hold to a rleigiosu beleif system and have PH.D's ar eprisoners of fairy tales. Is this not clear evidence of Bias? I hvent claiemd all Athess as stupid, but you certianly are derogetory aboty those hwose beleifs differ dfrom your own.
Now, their is no raosn to withhold the truth abotu Acharya S formt he reader, excpet that it makes her less than she wills herself ot appear. Obfusion s not the policy of Wikipedia.
ZAROVE 21:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a valid complaint that someone is calling another a liar when they caught in the act. The claim as to degrees and language skills were freely offered in comparison to Acharyas to minimalize her credentials. Anyone wishing to check this out can check back in these archives and read it for themselves. The definition of linguist and scholar stands in refutation aside from any disbelief of it. Whether any critic has "better degrees" is of no merit... what does "better" mean unless spoken in envy? Opinion is cheap especially if meant to denigrate another. CSER overtly states that they are a division of the Council for Secular Humanism and to give an example of how a lie is exposed... they do not state anywhere that it is their mission to spread it. As previously quoted... "While its perspective is broadly humanistic, the Committee values the academic contributions of critical scholarship regardless of orientation" which belies the idea that they cater to those who oppose religious beliefs in favor of secular humanism.  That is far more objective than any apologetic religious mission statement. Ok... now my feelings are hurt. I realize the limitations of my intelligence but to publically whip me this way and without repercussion for personal attack... well, I feel the deck is stacked. 
69.19.14.23 05:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Actually

message: You ignore hte actual points made to take further potshots at me.
Again, if the aitcle calls her an Archeologist, rleigiosu shcolar, ect... based on her written books, it shoidl also include the absis of these claims. They ar ento base don Academic merit, and his shoudl be mentioend.
I dont relaly see how this makes me NPOV or malignant towards her.
Likewise, I am not defendign any beleif system. DIspite the oft-toted claim, I am not here as an apologist, and my personal veiws are not truely motivaitonal to this article. This is a lie on your part. ( Much liek your acusation of me beign a liar is a lie on your pat, to defame me and create an environemtn hostile to me to silence me.)
I have been fair and balanced int he article at hand. You only say otherwise because you are supportign your position, not objectively giving facts.
Whereas I am accused of defendign a worldview, you cannot show me to have doen so.On the other hand, you clealry defend a worldview and amdit to it,. You claim you are capable of objectivity because yours is a Minority view. THis does not, however, render you Neutral in assessig facts. It is a Nonsequitor.
ZAROVE 05:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the umpteemth time, Acharya is an archeologist by the definition of the word, she is a historian by the definition of the word, she is a scholar by the definition of the word, she is a lnguist by the definition of the word. Over and over and over... we run this circle. As has been said previously, it simply cannot be allowed that the tactic of ignoring a fact go unchallenged. Not "defending a belief system"? The fact that the major complaints listed are from avowed Christian apologist sites and the defense mounted in their favor, demostrates the deceptiveness of such a statement. When bias sees itself in the mirror, it sees itself as normal. There are none so blind as those who will not see. No lie is quite so complete as the one believed. 
66.82.9.61 07:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: So

message: Reginald is easily shown to be a liar. ("If you will cease clalign me a Liar, which itsself is unsubstantuated, and cease in your misguided attacks on my charecter, and please acutlaly discuss the arutlce, it wodil be appriciated.")
Still defamign me and not discussing hthe article.
In the first place, he claimed repeatedly that A.S is not a member of the American School of Classical Studies. He was shown to be wrong - in other words, a liar - but he never acknowledged that fact.
Actually I said I foudn no record of her membership, and when membershiop was shown I did acknowledge it and did allow it in the article.
Secondly, he claimed that A.S. was never recognized by any scholar, which is a lie.
Tehcniclaly I said no academic instetute recognised her owrk. Which is true.
Thirdly, continuing to disparate her language skills - 
I never disparaged her language skills.
which by dictionary definition makes her a linguist - is a lie.
Bringign this poitn up, when will we twll the world that she is a linguist by the dictioanry deifnition, but lacks acredition or work in this feild?
Being merely multilingual doesn't make one a linguist unless that is applied in a field of professional field of study that requires it and of course in the study of language origins and affinities itself.
If this is the case, then Dorothy Murdock is not a Linguist. HS doesnt work int he field of language origins or affinities itsself. SHe simply quotes others, which doesnt constitute origional work.
Fourthly, on James's page he says A.S. had "poor grades" - a complete and total lie.
Not relaly. Her grades whee poor on a few courses and average in a few. She excelled in a few as well, but not as many as whee average.
One does not get into the American School of Classical Studies with "poor grades." Nor does one get into Franklin & Marshall College with "poor grades." A.S. had excellent grades throughout her entire schooling, so I really resent these defamatory remarks.
Saying that Acharya am is not a scholar and that her books constitute "poor scholarship" is also a lie. 
No its not. She hasno academic qualificatiosn, has no publised work in learned jorunals, and is not recongised in any knon acadmeic feild. Liekwise, her books are published by a fringe conspiracy Publiher.
Suns of God could in no way be considered "poor scholarship." By whose opinion? His? Who is he? Speaks for itself.
The book is a regurgetation of her claism in the CHrist CPnspriuacy, and isnt even origional work. Its only a book that documents other peoesl claims, suh as Barbara Wlaker. It has no origional contentand lakcs any validity of soruce material.
This makes it poor Schoalrhsip. ( Relaly its cheap fodder for a conspriacy press, but thats not th issue.)
Saying that Acharya S has a "criminal past" is an utter lie - entirely libelous - for which he could easily be sued.
She had soemebt issues in her past, as well as kown affiliation with other nefariosu sorts. Ill keep it vested unless I need to publish my article online to serve as a soruce for htis wikipedia article.
Ive given enough berth.
Insinuating that her "court record" is something other than a restraining order based on a psychotic person beating her is a LIE.
At leats accoridng ot her. Not the coruts.
She herself has minor criminal incedents. Inlcuding soem debt issues.
Holding and Licona should be required to present their academic qualifications within or without their specifical Christian training and to produce published works that are specifically geared toward refutation of the Christ Myth or the view represented by Acharya.
They do. Holding has a Masters in Library Sicnece and Licidia is owrkign on a degree in the fild of Theology I beelive. ( COrrect me if I am wrong.)
Likewise, the Degrees they hodl are comparable to Dorothy's in that noen are related tot he fields she tries to rpesent herself an expert in. Theology and Histry.
She has a Bachelors degree in Classics. My own Masters in Journalism trumps her.
Also, Holding in particular, should have a link to the challenge in dialogue made with Infidel Guys as to his background and failure to take up the challenge, so the reader can see what kind of "detractor" or critic this fellow claims to be.
That makes no sence in context o this artilce. Infidel Guy is not rellay beign discussed, nor is Tekton Ministires. They ar eincluded to balance the article. Include the link in Holdign sown artilce. ( Just as the E-Exchange with Dorothy and King David needs ot be included here.)
Relaly, this is pointless.
My request for deletion has been turned down--apparently there is a time limit--so many rules and procedures, a time consuming effort to wade through the maze. My faith in this kind of public created encyclopaedia is greatly diminished for many reasons--a failure and a trap its seems. Many veteran Wikans have said so too, and as other subjects of Wiki are aware also (I have seen the hatchet jobs on others considered outside 
In shot, you cant get your way so you pout.
ZAROVE 04:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Skull.An address abotu my purported lies.

message: 69.19.14.20 14:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ===============================================

message: There seem to be no ongoing discussion in the past few days, and the article has been protected for a ridiculously long period.  I've unprotected and will watch this article. --Tony Sidaway 01:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm, why was this article protected again by Woohookitty? I didn't see any vandalism after Tony's unprotect. --Ragib 02:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think unprotecting this article is the wrong thing to do... It should be removed from Wikipedia because it will not stand as a benign article telling of an author who has written two books. I patterned this change in accordance with a half dozen other Wikipedia authors and have shown these changes in the talk pages previously. They were only met with one detractor and have been here for a month without comment. I will state again... 'This article needs to be removed altogether. It serves no good purpose if all that it exists for is to be a platform for its denial.' 66.82.9.82 07:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Why not list it for deletion?  Having said so, I don't think it likely that you'd find many people to agree with you, but I could be wrong. --Tony Sidaway 12:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, this has been to AfD and back - as is noted on this page. The discussion around the article is also the subject of a case for the ArbCom, being brought by Michael Snow. Charles Matthews 12:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Listing it for deletion doesn't seem to matter... the last time it was "voted on" the count was "3 deletes, 2 keeps, 2 non-votes, 2 uncounted comments"... and it didn't get deleted. So what's the point if the admins decide in spite of any vote? The article should be removed because of the track record it has had, not because anyone says so. It cannot and will not be treated with neutrality or equanimity because of the emotional attachemnt involved in a belief that simply cannot and will not let the ideas the books represent go without challenge... remove the article and you remove the incentive to vilify them. 
66.82.9.89 12:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: Whether I believe you or not is not material... the proof is in the pudding. You decide the validity of your words by those you use and the truth they demonstrate. Her books weave a picture from the volumes of sources she researched on a theme or hypothesis showing all religion to be based in myth. An example of modern day myth is Judaism and its progeny... Christianity, and Islam. Since you have done your reading, you already know that in most instances, she not only shows one view but those that offer a differeing view. I cannot let you go with saying she "misquotes" without challenging you to show exactly where and what she says is misquoted.
Thix is what I eman by emotional attatchment. Anyone who doesnt flal in lienb with this thinkign is branded a fanatical Zealot. Acharya S is brillaint, and thus must be called so int he aitlce. Her critics are just detractors and ought to be omited. Beleive this! its the turth! 
COem on now, this isnt abotu Rleigionists attackigng h article an dpreveting neutrality because they cant stand the truth, its about you attakcign anyone who dares write a neutral aritlce, because it doesnt favour Acharya S.
As for me showign quotes, Ive avoide dsuch because, unliek you and her other supporters, Im nto here ot debate her books, or the merit of her thesis. Its not Wikipeidas palce to Judge the books or author. it is WIkipeida's place to present the authros life and known credentials as best it can base don piblic informaiton.
Which is what Im tryign for here.
I did nto write the aritlce to refute her work. Thats wht its abotu her, and not her work.
Of corus to you this is Ad Hom attakc to iundermien her, tis not. Its the point of the aritlce.Then again you htink she "SHows both sides", havign read the Christ COnspriacy, I can assure anyoen that she does nto. If my word isnt sufficient, as my hoensty is attakced often, ask Crazieeddie or nayoen else thats not an Acharyan who has read her book.
I do witsh you woudl relaise htis, but it interferes too much wiht your Crusade to eliminate RTleiigon in faovur of essentisally the Dogmas of your Guru.
ZAROVE 18:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Administrators... see? I told you waht would happen. Remove this article... it's only purpose is to provide a platform for Zarove to deny the ideas of the books by denigrating their author. Be done with it... perform a speedy deletion now. Otherwise this never ending debate will go on nad on and on. 
66.82.9.48 23:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To make an address...

message: She bills herself as one of the foremost rleigiosu schoalrs of our time, A claim that is repeated by her followers and by Fellow COnspriacy Journalist John Kaminski, but that lacks verification form Established Institutions, who have largley ignroed her work. (By her own admission.)
:She does not bill herself... these are quotes from others. Her works have not been ignored... that is not provable and a falacious statement. What you are saying is that because you cannot find where she has been acknowledged it consitutes being ignored.  
69.19.14.35 18:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ========

message: :You mention her name and from there launch into her works. 
:You are so far off base...  I have been reading and investigating this stuff since before she was was out of grade school. I am not a devout follower... I am in agreement with her books. As for those "freethinkers"... they would probably welcome your label because it means  One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation. The alternative, as presented by your demeanor and tactic, demonstrate exactly why this article is in the condition it is in.
  
 
69.19.14.29 23:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ========

message: What part of the actual article that was in display acutlaly demeaned her or undercut her message? Again, tellign peol;el she has a collage degree is nto undercutting, nor that she spent time in Greece.
You are ovdrinflating the signifigance, and, evemn tbough her books make hwr famous, the books arent wo she is either.
Stop imputing into mempotives that do not exist.Accept the article is abotu her. STop tryign to amke it a promotion of her books.
ZAROVE 01:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My argument concerns what you stated you wanted to insert into the article. The article that is currently posted has a track record and went unchallenged for quite some time. Excuses don't cut it. What I posted was a simplified version of the current one and was in line with our discussions. By no stretch of the imagination was there any promotion of the books.  You do not know who she is so how can you  pretend that this is what the article is about? 
66.82.9.89 02:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OK.

message: Actulaly Lobo I used it to shwo your intent. Only goodsites included. Origionally you and your cohorts removed all critism, inclusing links. 
The Critiism secitons needs otbe in the article, as with all other Wikipeida subkects htat have critism sectiosn, which is most.
Imagine if I rmeoved all Critism from the Jesus Christ page, and placed it int he External links. Woudl this be justified? No, because you use a doubel standard.
As far as Academic mainstreadm, Acharya S is nto academic mainstream. The Christain apologists and Bobn Privce are mroe mainstream than she is.
Im not trygn to censor Wikipeida, Im not tryign to hide anything. What I am tyrign to do is present a non-baised artlc, and the boiks have becoem an obsticle since you wan totmake the aritlce abot them, and then debae them on the tlak page.
ZAROVE 02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not again