Talk:Acharya S/Archive 8

message: ==el Lobo. Try to show why the aritlce is bad, and dotn attakc rleigion. Its getitgn old.
Zarove.
63.17.201.202 20:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And there it is... censorship. There is a deafening silence where belief rules...    
69.19.14.18 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

message: Passing along common myths, like "All the great atrocities where religiously motivated" doesn't really address any problems. The article is not intended to attack her ideas, in any of its forms. As it stands now it's an advert for her ideas. As the other editors, myself included, want it to read it would fairy present her actual beliefs ( Not suger coated) and would allow for proper inspection of all sides. You want to remove critics of her work and present it in the most plausible sounding way possible.
Hardy speak of bais on our part.
63.17.201.202 21:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You condemn myths to then use them to justify yourself? Then you totally misquote in a manner that is illustrative of your past discretionary and intrepretive skills. Religion has a history like a thousand years plus of ignorance which includes the crusades and the inquisition. The article not only is intended to discredit her ideas but it does so openly. I doubt you have any idea of what her beliefs are... I challenge you to present them. I have consistenly rebutted your so called critics and showed them to be either wrong, unsubstantiated or shallow and did so without removing a one of them. That said, where I have done this, they were summarily removed demonstrating that your "proper inspection of all sides" to be a red herring. 
66.82.9.58 02:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More fallacies

message: Perhaos youthink your obfusion renders points. It does not. This article is not on Violence int eh new Testament, the name of any apologetics minisry, or yoru peorsonal veiw on rleiigon. It is only about Acharya S. Therefore, attacking and debating the topic iwll not be germane. Nor iwll objectign to any bit of informaiton hat is not promotional or approved by the articles subject.
ZAROVE 21:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of obfuscation... have you tried to read and decipher what you write? Facts are points on their own... it has nothing to do with the presenter. This article is about religion... were it not so it wouldn't exist. You made the comment of "Yet the Christain worldview doesntadvocate Mas Murder, and sayign it does sems to be a statement made in oblivion as tothe acutla theologicla underpinnings." If you don't want to go somewhere, don't walk the path. 
69.19.14.15 23:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Obfusion

message: No, the ticle is not on religion. It also is mos certianly in existance to discuss your opinin that rleigion is somehow evil. It exists to tlel the reader who Acharya S is.  This is what you seem not to undrstand. As to my writting, I am dyslexic. Deal with it.
ZAROVE 00:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artilce

message: So you rant and rave and create more Ad Hominim attakc son me. You do not want a fair treatment of her, if you did you owdl allow the email exchange she had with "King David" to stand. Instead its rmeoved because it presents her in a poor light. SPeakign fo which, it is logiclaly untenable to rpesume that just ebcause others want to cast her in a good light, tjat I automaticllay wan tot cast ehr in a bad light. Her books are self refutign to anyoen who knows the real materials. This is not opinion, btu fact. Solomon, fo rinstance, is not an amalgom of three words. Horus was not Crucified. Ect...
Now rather than make more chep assertion againt my CHarecter, can you actulaly give legitimate reaosn hy yor acutlaly here? All you do is make ure the reader is directed ot her page and all that queasiton her are silnced.
This is not neutrlaity.
ZAROVE 00:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zarove, you do indeed exhibit the symptoms of sever dyslexia... i.e. "A learning disorder marked by impairment of the ability to recognize and comprehend written words." While challenging the credentials of others, you claimed a degree in journalism, (to convince readers of the worthiness of your words?) in light of those words you have thus far presented, it behooves a questioning mind to ask you to show those readers your degree. I am not unfamiliar with journalism and I can honestly state that the level of professionalism such a degree would bear is absolutely missing in your work. The who, what, when, where, how and why of journalism is not only absent but is deliberately avoided. What year did you recieve your degree?   
66.82.9.91 21:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Zarove... So, you were a reporter which allowed you to skip the educational process to directly obtain a Masters Degree in Journalism? You were a reporter where, with what company?
69.19.14.31 11:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I see

message: I worked for a small paper no longer extant. But rather than digress and make htis about me, I will no longer answer such queasitosn about myself. You will, of coruse, take this to mean that I am avoidign the issue. Im not. But this is not about me and my degrees, and will solve nothing in the artilce itsself. Again, focus on the artlce and Achaya S, not Wikpeida editors.
ZAROVE 17:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Truth is, I didn't expect anything else. I was wondering how you would get around that one. What else could you say? I would point out that the last thing you want is to discuss this article... what you want is an acceptance of your judgment of it which is not going to happen. I would class you as a contributor... not an editor. You state that Acharya is not a linguist... and yet she speaks and writes several languages fluently... which is the definition of a linguist. You state that she is incompetant but do so with no more evidence than your say so. To be incompetant means showing lack of skill or aptitude... and yet has produced two predgious books, hardly indicative of incompetancy. You state that she uses poorly founded sources and yet she quotes over 1500 source in her bools leading one to think that you prefer to think of them that way because they do not agree with your prejudices.   
69.19.14.18 18:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: cOMPANY