Talk:Acharya S/Archive 10

message: This IS old... know why? Because what I am doing is responding to you. I told you along time ago that these lengthy replies you make will not deter my responding to them... as I told you and one of the admins then, 
I mean, your stonewallign is getitng old, and your excuses are getitgn pld. Any excuse you can find agaisnt a Critic you iwll use to ensure Critism is silnced. Barrign that, you will seek to refute Critism to neutrlaise it int he aritle to lend ot the proposition that Acharya S's posotion is stornger than it rellay is.
This is soley abput you defneidng Acharya S.
Another htign that get sold is your recriminaitons agasint me.
you will not drive me away my numbers of words no matter how many time you repeat the same message.
Actually Im refutign your self-serving and rathe rone-sides arguments,which read like Nazi Propaganda. This isnt a link between you and Nazi's, before you distort my words to it, btu you se the same tactics of silencign oposition and nedless repetition.
''
That's right... belief, like truth, has many meanings, but I have clearly stated that the belief that requires faith to exist begins where fact ends and does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. If a thing requires belief to exist, it probably doesn't. 
Which doesnt relaly relate tot he topic at habnd, excetp to show hwo you are fixared with discreditign religion, even though this aritlce isnt abotu evidence for religiosu beelifs beifng true.Its abotu Acharya S.
''
I don't believe (think) any such thing. I don't know why you do what you do... but you are right, as I have pointed out, your actions define who and what you are. They stand as testimony to what you are about and what you are up to. The premise of Acharya's books are self evident. I think that their assessments are correct. 
Now you lie, sicne in just the preciosu two postigns you ascribe motives to me. And her premise is largley talken form other soruces, most of which ar htemselves specious.Her assessments are also not relaly beogn discussed for merit. All I want is to present who she is, what she belifves, and then her critics. Thus makign this a netral, balanced, standard Wikipedia article.
I see no problem in deleting all the links... just tell the bare bones description of the books and their author and let this article serve to inform the reader the basic information about them. I have no problem in deleting the thing. All that you are putting yourself through simply is not worth it. It is has virtually trashed any credibility you may otherwise had. 
THis is more of the same bully tactic. My credibility is acutlaly higher than yours. At leats I regestered a username and do delve into modificaiton and creaiton of aritlce s in WIkipedia outside of a singular interest. 
This beign said, your "Bare bones description" of her books is nothign more than an attmeto to market her books. You omit all Criticsm, ignore her life ( And the arilce is abotu her) except to says hes "A scholar" and giv e a breif justificaiton that serves as a promotion of her credibility, and represent the books as if they are clear, conciuce schoalrship. You ignroe the acutal premise, the fullness of her ideas, and Criticsm to deflect the readers possible rejection fo them. You cast them in the best posisble light in order to elevat them to a position of acceptannce. (A dn no, this doesn mean I want htem in a bad light, I want them in a proper one.)
''
What opposition? You could save yourself a lot of trouble if you just stated up front that you despise the books and the author for writing them. That would sum up all of your efforts in one neat sentence. 
This is acutlaly not true. I ofund her books amusing and have no personal animosity toward her. I do, however, oppose any attmeot to use Wikipeida as a paltform for promotion of her works, as I stornglyadhere tot he Neutrality policy. Sayign I am biased and you want a bare bones descirption wotn work sicne yor "BAre bones description" is as I said above, nohtign btu a shameless promotion designed to present ehr books in the best possible way, omit Criticsm, and even ignroes the author except a Bref "ABotu" ala what yo fidn ont he bakc of her books.
This is entuirley abotu you dispisign rleigion in general, Chrosyainity in aprticular, and ageign with Acharya S.
You cannot seperate htis agrenda form a Wikipedia aritlce, instead yo wish to impose it on Wikipeida.
And there you are... you consistently resort to this sort of behavior. Name calling is what one resorts to when they have run out of anything else to say. 
And I havent namecalled.
Show me where I have lied or distorted the facts. 
OK.Her eis but one example.
"What opposition? You could save yourself a lot of trouble if you just stated up front that you despise the books and the author for writing them. That would sum up all of your efforts in one neat sentence. "
You may respect Tekton ministries if you like but I will gladly show you where it and Turkel are a lot less thought of than respected and with hundreds of examples why. They are not a chief focal point of Acharya... she responded to their highly derogatory attack on her. 
Both of these statements re false.
1: I never relaly dispalyed much respect for Tekton Ministires. I said they where mroe credible than Acharya S. But then, so is Connan O'Brain. For that mattr I'd trust Infidels more htan her too, which is outright an Atheist orginisaiton, simplybecause htye have highr standards than sh does, dispite their pbviosu agenda. ( Make no mistake, Infidels, Connan, Tekton, and Achayara are all Agenda's inteties.)
2: SHe does fixate on Tekton to he poitn of obsession, and paranoia. She thinks I am in leuge withthem, and that I soemhow ge tinformaiton form them. I opaiend little form them. I havent emaield them in months ( SIcn ei asked their side of the whole "Tektonsis is evil and out to desotry Acharya"FIasco) and her bizzarre idea thta they have a conspiracy agaisnt her rings on at her very own website, and she speaks often ont he mailign list fo them.
I have already shown, without any doubt that your original and subsequent inputs to this article have been to refute the books and the premises they pose. 
No you havent. You reprodices article one, which contianed no real crtiism of her work whatsoever but a breif description of her work. And as I said, that was an initial aritlcd, my intent was to clean it up but I never got roudn to it.
One method you use to demean them is to attack the veracity of the author. You list these things and call them as facts... but they are not facts, they are just what you imagine and do not exist beyond your saying so. 
Such as?
The proof is in the pudding. The onus for the claim of a thing to exist rests with the claimant. If you claim that religion exists without having incorporated myth then show it to be so. 
OK. Buddhism exists mainly as an ethical Philosophy. Likewise, Both Secular Humanism and Many forms of OCntemproary New Mind Health religions,which  tend to be Psycologiclaly motivated,lack supernatural elements.
But this is ultimatley a side isssu to the article at hand.
But your rejecting or denying it only makes you out to be what you think I call those who do. If you have a right to be here, then I have a right to be here and the fact that your mentality has drawn the conclusion that I should be banned for contradicting you justifies your solution. 
Actually I say you shoud be banend because youer a troll. You are here to ensure a Baised Wikipeida article remaisn Biased in faovur of your side. You want to faovur Acharya S.
I dotn rlelay care about yor beleifs concernign religion, but their yours and donot belong in a Wikipedia aritlce.
( And no, neither do mien, btu I havwnt inscerted mien into it.)
No, it is hardly a gross over simplification of religion, this is the definition of it... look it up. 
I did. Here is how it is defined.
Religion.
You copied it from J.P. Holding's site who lists “Similarities to the sun” which states "Acharya S's works are poor scholarship. They contain essentially no primary research and little substantiation for her claims. Her research is one-sided, and uses biased, inaccurate, and outdated sources to prove her point." When one engages in using words intended to evoke contemptuous feelings toward a person, that is ridicule. 
Actually I copied the list out of her book, by hand. 
Re... Age of Pisces, uh, yeah... that true, what's your point? It didn't say they proclaimed it to be the Age of Pisces... during that time. 
Let me spell ou the point.
1: Acharya S claism that Jesus CHrist was created as the Avatar for the Age of Pisces.
2: The above indicates that it WAS understood as he Age of Piscese by those who created the Jesus myth.
3: If the peopel did not understand it to be the Age of Pisces, or call it the Age of Pisces, why create an Acatar for it? Or how? How can you create an Avatar for soemthgin you do not yet recognise?
4: As the Ages in the Astorlogical Zodiac did not yet exist whenthe JEsus Myth as purportedly beign constructed ( Between 100 AD and 300AD Accordign to the CHrist Conspiracy) then it is hihgly unlikely that JEsus was created to be its Avatar.
Again, so what?... "to serve as" means as of a quality or concept; an archetype.
 
An archtype representign soemthign they dodnt know about and didnt recognise.
The naming of the "ages" are from a historians perspective... there is no indication in any of the Chapter on Astrology and the Bible that states that those who lived in those times named their own age. 
YET, we ARE netering "THE AGE OF AQUARIUS" and HAVE named it! and again, ti smore htna just "THey didnt name it he age of Pisces", they must have understood it as the Age of PIsces ( as per Acharya S's book, need more wuotaitons?) sicne they clealry created Jesus as an avatar for the age of Pisces.
Acharya S herself says they recognised it was the Age of Pisces.
And, if they didnt, why did they need JEuss to be its Avatar?
You want to call what she writes garbage and you don't want anyone to say it not? What you call truth is your truth. Nice gig if you can get it. 
Actually Ive avoided Judgement calls int he artilce proper. WHich is standard Wikipolicy. You on the other hand tend to make it abotu her owrks and sek debate, you and james both.
All religion is concerned with supernatural powers with the purpose of worship. It wouldn't be a religion if it didn't. The supernatural means not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material. 
This is not true at all. Many Rleigions are acutly materialistic and naturlaistic.
the Reformation noted the disintegration of the hold the Roman Catholic Church had in controlling government.
Which was by no means as absolute and rck solid as you pretnd it to be.
 It was then that the various protestant sects came into being. In 1517, the German monk, Martin Luther issued his 95 Theses to the Castle Church door in Wittenberg, Germany. Martin made a translation of the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into German. It was no long before all the countries of Europe followed suit. For the first time in history, the printing press made the bible available to everyone which broke the back of the church. 
THis is at least the famous, sectarian verison of Hisotry, but its not quiet the full story, and, of coruse, not germane tot he ropic. Also not ehtat afte rhtis rleigiosu ferver increased as oppsoed to decrease.
The Roman Catholic Church was the driving instrument of the Dark Ages. 
Evidence?
From about A.D. 476 to about 1000 it suppressed knowledge by being the sole retainer of it. 
Proof?
The Crusades, The inquisitions and the lack of Roman and Greek classical literature contributed to the ignorance and backwardness of European society. The educated were the monks and the repository of knowledge kept in church archives. Most of the land and wealth of Europe were owned or were under the control of the church. 
Not accordign to standard Hisotry.But as it is not germane to the artilce, why are we even discussing it?
ZAROVE 16:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate seems all you want.

message: :Ha ha... are we having fun yet? This article is about as trivial as it gets. You've turned this into a game. I'm not supporting Acharya, I'm opposing you and your tactics... that's why you are thwarted at every turn.   
:You should expect that if you make a charge that a counter charge would ensue.
:Nazi propaganda indeed. Obviously, you have no idea what that means. And then you wonder why you are going through wikipedia arbitration. There is nothing I have said to silence you, in fact, I have encouraged you to post on numerous occasions, I have offered various solutions which encouraged your participation... just because you say foolish and insupportable things, don't blame me for the ease with which I can show them to be what they are, next thing you'll be doing is complaining to the admins about how you are being attacked. But that ruse is only going to work just so many times. You'll run out of them and they will will begin to see what it is that you are doing.  
:You said  "This is nto abotu fact VS beleif, with me supportign beelif and yoyu fact. This is abotu you supportign your belifs." And then again, "THis is a vlaue call and a beleif, a Bias on your part."Now, since you brought it up, it must be about the topic at hand, after all, you are right and everyone else is wrong. 
:Show me where I have ascribed motives to you. I've challenged you before on this, and you couldn't show it then either. Her assessments define the premise of her books and are what is beyond your ability to accept... even their possibility is beyond the scope of your vision as witnessed by your rejection of any and all that says otehrwise. You've turned this article into a platform of denial that will not be settled unless it complies with your rejection of it.   
:Ok, you are higher than me and I am a big mean bully. Honestly, there is no accounting for the way you think. I don't want a user talk page, that's my decision. I don't want anyone knowing who I am... I've dealt with christians and been trashed, spammed, and threatened into oblivion before... and I don't want to go through that again.  
:Anything that does not trash her or the books is a marketing of them, to you. So far, you have failed to show anything that hasn't been refuted. All you can do is keep crying the same thing over and over again... it's unfair, it's a bulling tactic, it's nazi propaganda, it's not scholarship, it shows her ideas in a positive light... ad inifinitum. You're a broken record. 
:Suggestion, if you oppose using wikipedia as a forum to show her books, then have it deleted... but we both know this is not the case, just look at what you post and the reasons for posting this article become amply clear. 
:I don't despise religion, I'll admit that I don't care much for what it does but I have no feelings about it. If one needs religion, then I suppose they should have it... after all, there is no telling what they might be like without it if they were free to make decisions for themselves.  
:You said, "you and your Guru are both frauds", and called me a liar. Admins, you going to ban this guy for attacking me? 
:You call this an example of a lie or a distortion of the facts? I have to tell you, there is no fathoming how you think. 
:They are not false statements... I repeat, Acharya responded to their attack on her and her books. I might not have responded in the way she did but then I'm not her. If you hold their standards higher than anyone's, I think your judgment is seriously flawed. Well, by virtue of your postings, that's not a big jump of imagination. By the way, regarding your Farrell Till note, Turkel posted this:
September 30, 2005
    * It's time for another Profile in Balderdash with Farrell Till as star, as I have caught him blatantly misusing a scholarly source. In short, reason #5,433 why he no longer deserves or requires direct or detailed replies (as if he ever did!).
    * Added a little more to the Matthew study (link below).
    * Updates to the Loftus page on the Closet of Logical Fallacies and the House of Waffles.
    * It's time for the September Screwball of the Month feature, plus new Tekton Toons with an entry in the Atheist Survivor series. 
:His Tektoons is especially crude. 
:Yes I have shown that your inputs have been to refute the books and their premise... and now by your own admission it was your "intent" to clean it up and you failed to do so.   
:Such as? Such as calling her a liar, a fraud, and a wacko.   
:Buddhism qualifies as a religion because it is a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
:Secular humanism is not a religion. Neither are the other ones you mentioned. 
:So, Now, I am a troll! A troll posts rude or offensive messages. The fact that you are calling me a troll qualifies you as being one.    
:I can't know where you got them from, but there were no misspelled words. On your best day, that hasn't happened yet. Under the criticisms of this list, it says: "On the site, J.P. Holding lists her “Similarities to the sun” and offers rebuttal to each point, illustrating problems with her analysis."
:Acharya makes no such claim. There you go again, it seems you can't get anything straight. You read into things what you want to hear to back yourself up. What it actually says is this:
:"In the gospels, Jesus refers to different "ages," which are in fact the divisions that constitute the precession of the equinoxes. As Moses was created to usher in the Age of Aries, so was Jesus to serve as the Avatar of the Age of Pisces, which is evident from the abundant fish imagery used throughout the gospel tale."  
:Don't you look anything up before opening your mouth? Astrology began in Mesopotamia about 2300 years ago, originally, there were some 18 signs but by 600 BC some of these would be combined and some would be deleted to form the twelve constellations of the zodiac we know today.   
:Still, it was not stated that way in that chapter which renders your point moot. Since the zodiac was well established by that time, we don't know whether they did or did not name it the Age of Pisces. 
:You have avoided judgment calls? Oh sure, a thousand Frenchmen might believe you but nobody here will. 
:Actually, religion, being the institutionalization of religion, is by its very nature is, materialistic, greed and power driven. Take money, status and greed out of the equation and it would dry up and blow away. 
66.82.9.69 00:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: dividing

message: Simly sayign this si all abotu beleif hindgin truth is just absurd. You have thusfar omited links, critism, and actusl content of her beleifs, as wlel as slantign the content that rmeians in Acarya S's favour. All the hwile, James Digs up dirt on me in an attewmtot o smear my good name, and show popel hwo rotten a personaI am. ( FOrgetitgn that the enture litigaiton on WIkipeida is baout my use of informaiton I gained (Legally) to silence her use of force on wikipeida via her minions.) This is done for the osle putpose of pbscurign the isuse and villinisimg me.
The reality is htis. THe artilce is baout her, not her books, and shoudl eb rpesented neutrlaly, not as an advertisement. What you present is not Neutrlaity, but rather a diliberate attempt at silencign her critcs and removing vital informaion while pursuadign the reader to her owrldview. This is why "BEleif demand s it." Your blidn belekif in these ideas prevents you form dougnanyhtign but open endorsement and outright hostility is given toany who oppos your propoganda mission.
ZAROVE 02:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said it is about belief hiding truth? No one has said that... but now that you mention it, it appears that underneath the  veneer, it is recognized. Thank you. You say on the one hand that, "You have thusfar omited links, critism, and actusl content of her beleifs" and in the next breath say the opposite... "The reality is htis. THe artilce is baout her, not her books". The books are waht constitute her ideas... you don't know about her ideas without the books. Your entire stance is based in the refutation of what the books say and you are so blinded by your own ideas that you cannot see the contradictions you present spoken in the same breath. 
66.174.93.103 12:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You cannot fake your way past this one... I have, several times, challenged you to post in this discussion forum exactly what you would have the article look like without mention of the books or thier ideas. You have not done it because what you say and what you do are two different and conflicting things. You define what you are by what you do... this audiance does not need anyone to inform them of what they can perceive simply by reading what you say and comparing that to what you do. No one has to point out the obvious. Calling me a liar for it only bolsters the lack of credibility you yourself engender.
66.174.93.105 04:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Admin's... dispatch this article. Quick delete it and be done with all this nonsense including having to deal with these people. 
66.174.92.168 13:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: nOW NOW.

message: You both prove me right here. You ar eboth makign cheap personal attakcs that lack substance, after manipulatinb the text. 
In short, while you reinscert odd quotes to supprot her ( Form an internet essyaist) remove all refenece tothe fac thtat her credentials arent rlelay bse don Academic merit, insist that her list of inflated credentials be in their int he first palce, omit all facts baotu he rlife not aimed at sales of her books, omit critism, and make changes that make her sound much more acceptbale to the mainstream, you come here and shoot vitorol and hatred at me.
This is childish and absurd.
As to my internet past, you exagerate, as your wont to do. ( After all, I frequent many forums where no one has washed their hands of me. And htose htta have owe it all to OutlawStar.Net, who intended ot ruin my reputaiton. Its thnaks to their tactics that I recognise yours and hwo to deal with it. See, I left OLS.Net and htey follwoed me around and ruine dmy good name no matter where I went. Because htye liked the power kick. And here you ar using thier tactics and now using them as proof that Im hated wherever I go. Nice. If I did the ame to Acharya S, Id be smearign her... Hypocracy is a nice thing to be able to use though I suppose.)
I will now resume editign the artilce, as Arbitraiton has not rlelay moved forward and liekly wont in suhc a case.
I was never under anyhtign but self imposed restriction, because peopel relaise what you guys are doing.
This is a sham, you wan tot ban me to have your way. Nothign more.
The John Komanski quote exists soely to promote her, and doesnt rlelay give anyone any viable informaitonabout Acharya S. It exists soely to show that shes "A religiosu thinker with recignistion." PEopel arent even told who Komanski is.
Likewise, omitign the fact ( and I do mean fact) that her "Credentials" arent base don acadmic standards is low. You simply want peoep to beelive she rlelauy is a Historian, rleigiosu scholar, Linguist, and arhceologist, wihtout rlelay queasitonig it. ( I knwo I know, By dictionary deifnitonn she is, she says so in her own Rebuttal to Wiipeida... and you parrot it. But you wont let that absurd reaosnign int he aritlce itsself.)
Now, lets be more reaosnable. STop revertign the article.You have not given a reaosn to do so, and do nohtign btu attack pepel who you do nto agree with.
As for yor worldveiws, I knw them, as you have both made them manifest here.
ZAROVE 20:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this is a perfect example of why this article should be removed. No matter what fact, logic or reason is presented, nothing matters except the dogma being hidden behind. It is a constant repititionon as though mantra spoken in a ritual. Quick delete this article. Nothing is going to change to allow a concensus because belief simply cannot allow it. Administrators... remove this article.
66.174.93.105 12:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Skull, Lobo...

message: Again, this is a perfect example of why this article should be removed. No matter what fact, logic or reason is presented, nothing matters except the dogma being hidden behind.
No gdogma beign hidden behind here. An dno reaosn either. Using my internet past, selectivley I may add, to hslow how a gorup of stalkers ruine dmy reputaiton abotu 4 years ago is not rlelay evidence as to anythign pertainign to this page. ( Hey, I coul have used a new username you know. Im not stupid.)
Likewise, saying that htis is abotu beleif not allowoing truth in itsslef is an accusaiton you cannot support. Show me wher eint eh actcle that I revert to any rleigiousbeleif is promoterd. In yours, you omit uncomfortable facts about DOrothy that you dont want the world ot know, and present the res tin a spin.
You also minimalise critism to her works.
Reason? You dont use reaosn, logic, or facts, you use accusaiton, threat, and harrasment. Liek any Bully you try to win by putitng up enough fuss.
It is a constant repititionon as though mantra spoken in a ritual.
Your the one dpign all the repetition. "Zarove is evil, and hates Acharya, and want sot SMear her." and " Beleif wont let truth in" and " This is abotu DOgma blidnign people". Rhetoric with no evidnece.
Quick delete this article. Nothing is going to change to allow a concensus because belief simply cannot allow it. Administrators... remove this article. 
You are quoet fcorrect...YOUR beleifs will no allow a Neutral article. Your blidn devotiontot he CHirst Myt h theory, proppoed up by Acharya S and her books, is why you are demandign the aritlces deletion, or my banning so you can have your way. Even if I am banned, soemone else will notice how bad the artilce is. Thwen you will complain of thm and acuse them of beign zealoted and this being about their beleifs.
In relaity, this Article as it stands as of when I type this is not really in promotion fo any view, does not slander Acharya S, and presents known facts. It must be deleted because it doesnt pomote her ideas,and is htus not Biased in her favour. Relaly that si very pedantic.
ZAROVE 01:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: nOT MORE COMPLAINTS.

message: Below are osme very real problems to the current verison you revert to.
'''''
At least one critic and various detractors from the apologetic camp' have claimed her work is based on poor scholarship, with little primary research and heavy reliance on outdated or fringe sources, and shows ignorance of the topics on which she writes, in particular of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions. 
The reason this is bad is becausre its Biased. You wan to neutralise Critism by sayign that only relaly one critics has spoekn againt her the rest are detractors, and lump everyoen in the apologist camp. Likewise, you try to steer the reader into thinkign only rleigious perossn object to her owrk, which is patently not true. It also omits fromt he rpeviouis articl the fact that her work is not given sny attention by the Mianstream academic community. 
This si done to remove fromt he readers sight the fact thats hes a little-known COnspiracy theorist, not a renown schoalr. And to create the Illusion that her works are profound schoalrly works rejected ot only on rleigiosu grounds.
Below is form the previous edit.In Bold are the sements you rmeove totlaly.
Acharya S has been described, by her own books, and website, as well as the Paranoia Magazine website, as a historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist, archeologist;it should be noted, however, that these claims are not based on Academic merit, rather, her supporters claim she is these things based on her books, which cover these topics. She has no formal training in most feilds, and only moderate undergraduate experience in Archeology.
Slso added is the ststement thT jOHN Komanski said she was the rnakign religous schozlr of our time. 
The quote is added to give her wieght and credence. But it is superfluous as it doesnt rlelay tell us anyhtign abotu her or her worlk, or her life.
The omited portions remove formt he aritlce vital informaiton, and the cirrent evrison, presented below, makes her seem as if she is more accredited than she is.
Acharya S has been described, by her own books, and website, as well as the Paranoia Magazine website, as a historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist(she speaks, reads and writes several ancient and modern languages), and archeologist with moderate undergraduate experience in Archeology. Internet essayist John Kaminski describes her as "the ranking religious philosopher of our era". 
By remoivng the fact that she holds no formal trainign in the fields she claism expertice in, and by incersion of the unnessisary Kamanski quote, you intordice a Bias designed to promote her, and make her appear great, when WIkipeida shoudl only be informative.
You also remove, once again, the link to an email exchange with her, simply because it doesnt go in her favour.The claim fo superficiAlity doesnt work sicne you seem adament that the Kamanski quote remin, and it serves no real function other than to promote her. At leats the link ( WHich is not part of the main text) has ger direct involvement.
Really, you do nto tine fdoen a vitorolic attack fom a fundametalts CHristain who is threatened by what she says, and hwo savagely attaxks her, rather you remove any fact that isnt approved by your mistress and create an article designed ot further sell her tot he puyblic by pretendign shes omthign other than she is.
ZAROVE 02:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The unchanging chant rings clear... Aum, Aum, Aum, Aum, Aum, Aum... it simply cannot and will not change. Gettimg rid of this thorn in the side of belief will accomplish two things, it will remove an instigation and be rid of this talk page from you. Admin's, quick delete this platform for denial!
66.174.92.168 04:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fatcs? No, promotion.

message: Lobo, you didnt even address what I said.
SKull, your makign stupid comments for the sake of denial.
STating that her critics are " One critc and many detractors ofr he apologist camp" is baised. Likewise, it is not my opinionthat htis is baised. PResentign the Critisms placed agisnt her thesis is not a love of CHrisyain apologetics. ITs standard Policy. She has NO acadmeic record in Linguistics, Rleigious STudies, or Hisotry. SHe has only a Classiocs degree, and Minor archeological experince.
Depictign the reality of her credentials is not Biased, and claimign tis all my opinion is just a way to force yo ropinion onto the aritlce.
Im not tryign to demote her, Im tryign to show what she relaly is. THis is why you are so adament here. You wan tot distort the aritlce to make it rea din her faovur and neutralise any claim againt her by pretendign only CHrisyaisn oppose her owrk and by makign things soudn better ofr her than they rlelay are.
As for the sleciton, keep in midn I didnt choose to quote PRice. I was ocntent wth a limited involeemnt wiht her books. And ht eorigional Critism section, which you collectivley complaiend abotu as it was not a direct quotaiton. 
As for Barbara Walker, why quot her? SHes not only NOT a Scholar in any feild ( Shes a feminist writter whose "Feminist" theology is well known for its many fantasiical and flase claims.) She has no real bearign on the critism seciton as she is a supporter of Acharya S. The Critism section is designed to show what others disagree iwth in her work. It snot their to debate her work. Her premise is presented fialry, and critism of her premise is givewn to balance the aritlce. Quoting Walker woudl be a ridiculous inclusion, and serve no other reaosn thatn to further turn this artlce into a face. Again, its liek the Kamanski quote, you include it just to make your hero look better. Nothignmore.
WHih bigns htis up.
How many email links would you like in this article to "demote" her?  Shall I include endless emails which "promote" her--ie goes in her favour.  Alas, the email link is not only subjectively one-sided and a nit-picking nuiscance by someone too lazy to follow up on their own research. It is trivial to the whole subject.
Margionlaising the link is what I said you owiudl do. You add the trivial quote form Kamanski which is nto informaitve but only serves to promote her. I do not recall the email exchange as being within the main aritlce, rather, tis a link in the etenral link section as it is relevant to her.
You only want it removed as it doenst show a promotional stanc of her.But it does prove how little she can defend her claism agaisnt iinquerry, so you want it deleted.
As for this bit of gibberish...
It is a fact that John Kaminski said this and that many others have approved of her thesis.  Contrarily, the statement that "mainstream" academics have not given her any attention, other than being beside the point---is not fact, but your opinion
The facthtta he said soemthing doesnt really matter. You want what others said omited because htey dotn agree with what you want peopel to beleive. Your opinion. And they offer actual critiism of her work! On the other hand, you want a useless, irrelevant quote form a fellow conspiracy theorist added, so that she can be made to look good. How is the reader informed o her lie by this quote? HEs not! hes just treated to more "See how wonderful Acharya S is" rubbish.
Hes not mainstream, and hes no schoalr. And as to what Mainstream is, it means what is generlaly accpte din most major recognise dinstitutions. Acharya S is not tagh in University classes.
You will simply reject nayhtign that doesn tuphold your own Bias.
ZAROVE 04:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zarove. The beauty of all this is, that you claim that any input here other than the view you represent is an effort to sell Acharya's books... what you fail to realize is the old ad game of any publicity is good publicity and the more controversy the more books it sells holds true. By keeping this piece in the lime light, you are doing more for bringing their message to the public than any other effort represented here. You are a greater cause for them than anything anyone else has to say. With the exception of a few minor edits to contribute to the edit wars, you have been virtually abandoned in your efforts here and have been the only input on these pages in months. By the way, responding to you anymore is merely saying the same things over, and over and over (Aum, Aum, Aum). Your rants are unchanged, so responding to their points is useless and just repeating myself. 
66.174.93.102 11:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Now agin intot he frey

message: To Skull. DId you even read past the word "Stupid"? You idnt read the sentence correclty but it seems you took ofense at this, and stopped reading. Such is hardly proof of any superiority of your position.
''
Stupid is as stupid does.  You call me stupid.  I can show you stupid--just look in the mirror. 
Actually I called comments stupid. You ar enow degeneratign into further childish personal attacks.
However, if you want to meet me face to face, I will make you show how I can enlighten you with civility, by beating that ass that rests on your slimy neck and dress you in your proper attire as a clown.
This proves you somehow morlaly and intellectulaly superior? This rellay doesnt speak tot he aritlce at hand, and as much as you demean me sayign I refuse dialouge, this rlelay shows no point. You dotn even address hte problems I raise withthe aritlce.
You can take that to the bank.
I doubr it, your just an intenret coward hidign behind a screen, makign Physical threats you dont wven want to remotely se tout to accomodate.
Not that it matters, Iv been shot at Point Blank range and as a result walk with a cane, so your threatenign a cripple. Ooohhh, so impressive!
Now can we tlak on the artilce?
I am not hiding behind the internet.
Yes you are, and I can see you peaking.
You want to meet to make your insults to my face?  
I made no insults. Callign your comments stupid is not the same as callign you stupid. DIstortign thigns to make me the bad guy just proves how limited your abulity to cope with raitonal, civilised ocnversaion is.
You arent even addressign the problems withthe Acharya S articld. Yoru makign physical threats gaianrt my person.
You really are a memtal misfit, who would taught humility is short thrift.
Basiclaly, your all mouh and prsonal attakc, and no real result. Power rest sin the truth of the matter, not this useless Ad Hominim Obfusion.
As far as I can observe you are a mental midget of the lowest quality, for which I have as much tolerance and respect as I due for an insignicant bug.
Posturing will win you nohting, and the aritcle you present is stull corrupt and biase din ehr faovur, not neutral, and will still require revision.
In my opinion from all that I have observed you are a juvenile in all repects, deserving only of discipline of the kind only your cowardly kind are capable of understanding. 
And yet, we are still not tlakign about anyhtign remotley conencted ott he artile. You ar emakignthis personal.
This is abotu makign me look bad so you can get rid of me and have your way. As I said, a Bully Tactic.
Now don't rave on about ad-hominens (one of your favorite juvenile whines), because you started this by calling me stupid. 
Again, I said your comments where stupid. I made no prsonal reference to you.
Your arguements are juvenile babbling not worthy of intelligent adults. 
This seems mroe like an attmeot to sidestep them without address, espeiclaly in light of the lenghty ad hom attakcs aboe, and the attmeot at rationalisaiton by claimign I started it by calling you stupid, which I didnt do.
Go read a comic, because that is your level of understanding. 
Actually Im in the middle of reading a book on QUantum Physics and three books on theology. Im well above comics.
From now on I won't be addressing you at all.
Lets hope.
I gave it one more stab, to see if I could get any legitimate comprehensible reasoning from you, but that failed as expected.
I gace you comprehensive reasoning, and you lash out with cheap personal insult and distort what I said.
You havnt even addressed the probems I raised.
You are even too damn lazy to at least try to make your meanderings readable enough. 
Again.
Zarove.
Is.
Dyslexic.
Mokign soemones condiiton is rather low and immature.
I don't want to hear any excuses about that either.
What you want is remarkabely unimportant. Im not goin to sit here and take abuse either. But at lea I didnt return in kind.
You are just a self-important smug twerp from the subculture of idiots that are shameless products of the DUMBING down of our educational and societal norms.
Yet Im beign consdiered for Cambridge on a Doctoral programme. Not bad.
None of you can think you way out of a paper bag without Maslov training embued with the ethics of borderline savages.
My ethics state we shoudl be fair, shwo no partiality in judgement, and always use reason. Your ethics are to desotry any who oppose toyr worldview. 
I think I can say safely mien works better.
Now to Lobo.
Zarove. The beauty of all this is, that you claim that any input here other than the view you represent is an effort to sell Acharya's books... what you fail to realize is the old ad game of any publicity is good publicity and the more controversy the more books it sells holds true.
Actially this sint true or ht eintent. The author is not intereste din money, she snterste din smearign CHristainityh, and if she doesnt seem credible, no oen will beleive her. FUrthermore, you simply edit out anyhtign that woudl challenge her veiws, or at least minimalise them as ebst you can so that she seems unopposed and mainstream, while makign sure htis whole Aritle exists to propote her ideas, and not simply tell of who she is.
By keeping this piece in the lime light, you are doing more for bringing their message to the public than any other effort represented here.
Actay Im maing sure the article remaisn neutral. I doubt reader swill simply flsl for her beelifs, and no one will read the tlak pages unless they do a Yahoo or Google search for Acharya S. She sot that popular.
You are a greater cause for them than anything anyone else has to say. With the exception of a few minor edits to contribute to the edit wars, you have been virtually abandoned in your efforts here and have been the only input on these pages in months.
Im prsistant, what can I say?
By the way, responding to you anymore is merely saying the same things over, and over and over (Aum, Aum, Aum). Your rants are unchanged, so responding to their points is useless and just repeating myself.
In other owrds, you gusy got togahte rin ione of your mailign lists and decide dnot to bother respondign to me. As your all parrotign the same line, now the "I wotn tlak to a looser liek you", whiel closig on condecendign tones, you hope to at leats make me angry, which wont work.
Liekwise, the attmeot at reverse psycology wotn work either.
And Lobo, you didnt address theprobems withthe aritlce.
ZAROVE 16:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem withthe article is you and your onesided view. The article has been ok on several occasions until you step in and slant it to show it in a negative manner. This is what you call neutral... but it is an effort to negatively smear the author to make the ideas presented by her books seem unworthy of attention. It's a denial that you have perpetrated from the first version you wrote and continue to perpetrate to this day. What you are doing is defending (denying) your chosen doctrine by negating anything that challenges it. The sad thing is, you don't even seem to know what you are doing. Your responses or drone blind and it is sadder still, that this is typical of religion and is responsible for much of the worlds woes today. Having an understsnding of where religion comes from and that there is nothing divine to it just might relieve us from the murder and mayhem it is responsible for the world over. Unfortunately, when you brainwash a child, it take an act of god to undo it. 
12.203.133.224 21:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: At leats use breakers people...

message: The problem withthe article is you and your onesided view. The article has been ok on several occasions until you step in and slant it to show it in a negative manner.
By "OK" you mean, slanted in ehr faovur. By "S:anted to show a negative view" you mwan Balanced andnot simply in existance ot promote her ideas. Say what you will, but your edits omit criisism, omit links , omit facts, and present her work as more mainstream than it is.
This is what you call neutral... but it is an effort to negatively smear the author to make the ideas presented by her books seem unworthy of attention. 
No, it simply presents what others have said and the general receptin the book has thusfar enjoyed. If mainstream academia had accepted it, Id write that it was accepted by Mianstream Academia. They havent. If it was well known, Id say it was. All Ive said is that its not been recognised by any knwon instotution and is larlgey ignroed, a fact even admited ot by Acharya S herself, and that peopel have critisised it, which su true, an dlited htis, while at the tsame time presenting the list of SImilarities from her book and presentign her side.
But, thats only int he book ection which I tried ot make even shorter, and tried to extend the life section, which tou fidn unimportant as you dont care baotu her, just the ideas she endorses.
It's a denial that you have perpetrated from the first version you wrote and continue to perpetrate to this day.
Evidenced by...what? SHow actual Bias, please.
What you are doing is defending (denying) your chosen doctrine by negating anything that challenges it.
No Im not. And never have. In my day Ive defended Catholsiism.Im nt Cahtolic.Ive defended Mromonism.Im not mromon.Ive defended Christain Yahwism.Im not a Yahwist.Ive even defended  an Ahteist vies.Im not an Ahtiest. On the message baord I administer, which James uss as evidence agsitn me, I acutlaly go out of my way to provide fair and equel treatment of all sides, never favourign any veiw above another. Even when I disagree.
So, this is simply an attmot to make me seem biased.
All this said, one cannot present Acharya S in a fair and balanced way, sicne she will insist that her veis be prsente din a watered down fashion as she knwos her veiws wont be accpted if given in full. Liekwise, critism cannotbe presented as it speaks agisnt her.Much liek in a Communist COuntry, she wants ot congrole what peoepla re otld in order to secure her position.
The sad thing is, you don't even seem to know what you are doing. 
Oh I know quiet well what Im doing. I have proven myself time and again.
Your responses or drone blind and it is sadder still, that this is typical of religion and is responsible for much of the worlds woes today.
See, this is why you shoudlnt edit the article. Your baised agsint rleigion, and cnanot see pas thtis bias into reality. You must prsent an article that speaks ill of rleigiosu beleif, depicts it as controlign and desturctive, and prevents the truth form comign to lighg while caisugn the worlds woes. Meanhwile, tyou trumpet Acharya S's ideas. 
In short, you must have the aritlce written in yor own Favour.
Having an understsnding of where religion comes from and that there is nothing divine to it just might relieve us from the murder and mayhem it is responsible for the world over. Unfortunately, when you brainwash a child, it take an act of god to undo it. 
So lets see.
1: You havent relaly addresse dmy problems with the Acharya S Disiple varient of the artilce.
2: You have made acucsaiton that I am baised, due to my rleigiosu beleif, and am blidn and brianwashed, and slant the aritlce to smear her. No evidence is offered to affect this.
3: If evidence is offred, I suspect it will eb liek James evidence. Uttelry absurd and distroted.
4: Furthermore, you pretend that havign a striogn bais agiont rleigion makes you neutral. THis stretches credulity. How can you sy you ar ebign fair and baalced whn you speak fo rleigion in this way? Keep in midn this si Wikipeida. If I said "All Atheists ar emorons who cannot think and know nothing" this woidl be good reason for me not to edit an article relatign to Atheism. You arent spekaign the truth abotu rleigion, you ar pseakign your personal Point of Veiw. This POV is the problem withthe aritlc eint he irts palce. You want her ideas advocated, and want to silence any who oppose her viees so as yto further your own worldveiw. THen you make out as if anyoen who disagrees with you has soemthign worng with them.
CLealry you dotn care abotu NEutrlaity, you care abotu peopel thinkign rleigion is bad and shoudleb doen away with.
WHich, of couse, is no more hte prividence of WIkipedia than promotion of religion.
NEutrality, not baus, belongs here.
ZAROVE 02:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And so it goes on, and on and on...deny, deny, deny, aum, aum, aum. I have posted a simple version describing her books with a simple typical author's bio and provided numerous examples of other like wikipedia articles of other authors. It was neither negative nor was it an ad. You couldn't handle it and pointedly stated that it did not show what you felt about her or the books. You cannot stand to have a benign article and are driven to have your negative criticisms (while filtering out positive statements), exposing private info and ridiculing her credentials. Your response? The same one you've been handing out since the first time you were chalenged. To repeat, you are the problem with this article and its removal would set us all free from your apologetics. Admin's, quick delete this artoicle and set Zarove free to go somewhere else to harrass. 
66.174.93.99 03:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Manner most NEgative.

message: OK, so in this day and age its easier ti beleiv the CHristyain cannto stand to se ehis faith critised, and thus the "Brilliant Schoalr" is beign hounded. Its a lie though. Ive not made htis persnal, and Ive not made this about my beleifs.
Nor am I denying anyhting.
However, saing " At leat one Critic and a few detractors form the apologist Camp" is Bias. It slants the article and renders all oposiiton as CHristain only, which it is not. Liekwise, the Quote form Kamanski exists soley to promote her viw of herself. The removal of the link to King David's website shows that you dont want the image of her as a reaosned, intelelgnt schoalr undermined by the fac thtat she cant answr a simpel email, and saying that its his fault for not chekcign facts doesnt rellay address the problem that you rmeove th elink for no reaosn. ( Had it been an e-exchange iwht a supporter you owdl kep it no matter how superfluous.)
Omitign that she has no acadmeic qualificaiton to warrent her assertions abotu herself only demonstrates further your need to obfusiacte the issue, justa s your constant attacks on me do nothign btu obfusiate.
Its clear on this matter. You are opposed ot rleigion, and so, you attack it, and this bais prevents you from objectivly givign facts. On the other hand, dispite constantly stating so, you havent shown me to be anywhere near Biased, as Ive not broguth up my beleifs in the aritlce or even the talk page.
Now, your verison is baised, flawed, and terribl. It omits informaiton whiole misleadign the reader. It omited a link for no real reason.
This fact will not change , and Ive not denied anythign in the above,  ecfore you slam me again.
Address the problems withhte artcle, and cease the personal attacks.
ZAROVE 18:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Drop the act, lobo.

message: This paragrpah is clear vnadalism.
She has received rave reviews from readers across the spectrum, from those on the edge of doubt about their religons to those having some familiarity with the unhistorical nature of religon generally. Her books have become popular with avid "truth-seekers" from around the world, eliciting interest from the average person to the professional and academically trained thinkers.
It not only exists soely to promote Acharya S, and is obviosuly POV, but it also contians a vlaue judegement, that rleigion is base don unhistoricaty. ( In shrot, tis not Hisotircal, but myth.) This is NOT the job of WIkipeida to decide.
Its clear tha tyou want me banned, so tyou cna distort this aritlc einto a press release for her all the while pretendign that you want Neturlaity, and blaming beleif with obsturctign you.
THis paragprah shwos the truth.
ZAROVE 20:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zarove, regards "saing " At leat one Critic and a few detractors form the apologist Camp" is Bia",
if what is said is fact... then your saying otherwise is lost to your own bias. What yopu seek is to dslant it in your fashion to meet your beliefs. The books stand on their own merit or they fail. What are you afraid of? Why can't you have a simple article describing tewo books on the same theme with a brief bio of their author? Why can't you leave the judgment of them up to the audiance that reads them? I think it is because you cannot help yourself... you are so brainwashed by your beliefs that you absolutely must deny and confront anything that challenges them. You are the problem with this article and the primary reason it should be deleted. 
12.203.133.224 22:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jame's new Paragrpah

message: I agree, the article is a joke... with reason. Admin's, quick delete this article, you will never get those of Zarove's mind set tpo ever admit they are culpable. They do not require fact or truth to wave their flag and taike their stand on in a sea of denial.
Actually this is what your doing, El Lobo. I presented very real problems wihtthe aritlce. The one you guys made int he week I was gone was just mor Anti-Christain gibberish. Its obviosuly POV, and clealry Vandalism. The factthat you ruine dmy rpeutaiton by leis, deceit, and accusation will not negete the problems wihthte aritlce, which I listed above.
1: the statements in which yoy minimalise her critics shows bias and exists to olour the rreaders views on those hwo oppose her works.
2: The paragrpah tellign of the "Rave rviews" is actually POV. Its not supported naywhere.And it makes value-calls on religous beleifs, clalign all rleigion ahistorical myth. Thats harldy neutral. It also doesnt say thigns like " Her boosk also rcieve poor reviews." After lal, you want the article o read in her faovur, so the paragrpah exists soley to make it appear as if shes accepted and even admied byt he masses. Its to sell her ideas.
3: The John Kamanski uote is superflous and exists to promote her iamge as well.
4: The rmeoval of the King David Link because she dosnt come off as so great in the email exchange shwos bias.
5: The links ot her website exist to fiurther direct thre reader.
The whoel hing is POV. This isnt so much me beign blinded by beleif, and you defneidng faxt. Nor am I culpabkle of anything. Your the conpsirator s here, tyign to silence all oposition ala 1984.
They cannot help themdelves and thus this article will forver be mired in the quicksand of thie belief. 
Whzt beleif? You so far are the only one acutlaly promotign a beleif system. Your beleif tht ll reigion is base don myt hand is opporessive is a bias you cant shake long enough to create a NPOV Artilce.
On the pher hand, my objectiosn arent base don my beleifs. Their obviosu problems wiht POV.
Yoru accusaiton is shallow.
Every challenge to them to show proof, or evidence of their claims has been ignored. This article is a joke. Be rid of it and delete it now. 
Actually the oposite is true. Ive listed several problems with the aritcle as it stands when your cdoen with it. You ignroe those claism and continue to make accusaitosn agaisnt 'The beleivers". Your the one whose blidn beelifs have lead to problems, not me.
ZAROVE 13:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, let's do it again. List each objection, specifically (not in genralizations), and let's look at them. 
66.174.92.164 15:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Now again.

message: You do minimalise her critics. You are not merley makign observation. Im not 'Driven by beleif" but rathe rby a sence of justice and a desire for true neutralitry. 
Look. Tghe links ot her website only direct the reader to her website ot sell he rideas to them. Thier little to no oposiiton in tyoyur verison. Just liek the basis ofr her claism to being a Historian, religiosu schialr, linuist, and archeologist ae missing. ( The same arguments, I may add, you and james use her eont he tlak page.)
The King David Link, if nonthreatenign to her, should remain. Even if threatenign it should. Why? Becuase its relvant. Its not sited int he article itsslef but is needful.
You just wan tto pretend this is neutral so you can sell her ideas ot the owlrd usign Wikipeida as a propoganda tool, an hgen smear me to neutrlaise me.
ZAROVE 00:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lobo, your lyuing.

message: In addition to beign a formatting nightmae, the omisison of the Critiism section is unjust, as it silences her critics. ( A goal of he DIsiples of Acharya S admittedly.) The section about her credentials is still biased, as it stil alludes to her beogn an archeologist with minor ect...
Likewise, the omisison of the King David Link has now been accompanies by the omisison of Tekton Ministies. Acharya S, and by extension her Disiples, hate Tekton, but this is no reason to omit Tekton form the links section.
The article shoudl give the reader all avaiable and accurat einformaiton. Not just the approved Acharya S verison, and not just her arguments with no critism.
It shoudl rlelay deal with her and he rlife, not her ideas. Which shoudl be included mor ein pasing with mention of the critiism.
And again, you link too often to her website. This is unseemly.
ZAROVE 02:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not to work.