Talk:Acharya S/Archive 3

message: Extremely long, diffuse posts tend to drive more concise editors away from talk pages an thus away from editing the article in question.  I'd like to begin moving posts of this nature straight into sub-pages as they appear, with a summary and a link on the main page.  brenneman(t)(c) 00:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All evidence to the contrary... ? What's your point? Allow that an inundation of words be allowed to stand unchallenged by virtue of weight of numbers? Some might be intimidated by such tactics, some might not. No one appreciates brevity more than I.  11/14/05  -el Lobo
ABout the Drug use sheadvocates...
Her website use to contian an Essay "Anti-Entheogens have Dirty Minds", which has since been removed. I suspect toelevate her credibility.
Butin her book, "The Christ COnsoiracy" , starting on page 275 is anentire CHapter dedicated to Sex and Drugs. On pages 293-296, SHe advocates Xrug use whilst scornign Christainity's hatred of the Drugs, eceptAlcahol which is supposedly Encoruaged by CHristainity as it is truely stupifuing. Those that, accordign to her, enhance mental acuity and perception are repressed by the CHruch due to its need ot contorle oens mind. 
Zarove 17:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: How about a precise quote? Charles Matthews 18:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Again and again, you are caught up in your beliefs to such a degree that you allow them to lie to you pressing you to make invalid assertions, allegations and conjectures. You were asked for a specific quote of her advocating the use of recreational drugs and what you quote is merely a recounting of the history of religion's use of drugs.  11/15/05  -el Lobo
Lobo, she says it increases Auity. And lets nto forget your lie. Up till about a year gao she had an enture esay on the benefits of these d rugs and openly adivxted it, until peopel pointed ot this as proof that she was a flake,then she removed it.
Zarove 04:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word smog 

message: 2. Re: nothing in the article indicates a Christian bias... [emphasis added]
LOL. I said you are a covert christian zealot. So yes, the bias in the article is not specifically Christian. (well, unless you count those two fundy sites masquerading as legitimate criticism... Funny how our astute admins haven't picked up on that yet...)
 
3. Re: digging up dirt... Well. You were digging up dirt when you 'exposed' the nature of my relationship to Acharya (I'm a member of her email group).
I also recall that Acharya's name was published here against her wishes because it was 'available via a simple google search'. Where was your objection to privacy then?? You can dish it out but can't take it??
On my user page, where you threatened to publish Acharyas supposed court records and credit information if I didn't let you have your way with the article, you say: "All her information is public if you know where to look, and I do. So this isn't stalking". Well Zarove: all your information is public, if you know where to look (and I do), so this isn't stalking either. 
Besides, I think it appropriate, since you have been less than forthcoming, that everybody know what a die-hard christian you are. You even moderate a christian discussion group! 
(I think that it's very impressive, by the way, that a person suffering from severe dyslexia would manage to get a masters degree in journalism, and later work as a reporter. But that's not all... Zarove was also a physics major in 2001! He knows hebrew and latin.... and he's only 28 years old! Amazing.)  
4. I and others have refuted your points till blue in the face. You (and near everyone else) just ignore them. It seems John Seigenthaler had a similar problem. Perhaps it is systemic. 
5. I've edited Dinosaur articles mainly, and Sci Fi. As a Christian Zealot, those seem odd choices. 
So. You're still going to play coy with your religious beleifs. (Why is it, pray tell, that we are practically the only ones on the internet to receive such a courtesy?) Yes, they are odd choices (although you've claimed elsewhere that dinosaurs do not prove evolution(!!) so perhaps these interests do dovetail). But since I'm claiming that you are *undercover* - that your motives for writing this article were entirely religious, and that you've been actively hiding these motives here on wikipedia... it makes perfect sense. Besides, anybody who cares can check for themselves. Your spelling is unmistakable. 
^^James^^ 05:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Whom the Bell Trolls 

message: 1: You are removing the informaiton about her life. The aricle is abotu her, nto her ideas. Her ideas are covered because they are what makes her famous, but not rlelay much detail ought be givne to her ideas.
2: J.P.Holdigns article isnt mine. I dontevben veiw the page. This aritle is mine, I created the origional page. That's why Im here.
3: Speakign of Holding, I know yor paranoia maks me just a puppet of this evil mastermind, btu I hae no rformal rleations with him. In reality, I dont spend a good deal fo time on his site. I have little to no contact wiht him. I donot even agree with all his positions. I used his aricle as it was basiclaly convneint, and one of the better coutnerbalances for the aritlve. Regardless of what you beleive abotu me.( And your beleifs abotu me ar epretty coloured.)
4: I didnt make thisabout myself.This article wa snot made to smear Acharya. Nor are you here to remove the slander and make it accurate. Yoru ehre to make it an aritlce that sings the priases of Good old Acharya S. You rmeove all critism because you do nto want oposition to YOPUR worldview. You rmeove life informaition about her because it doesnt further yor worldview. You want to predsent her credentials in thebest posisble light ot manipualte the reader into accpeitng her. This is not a mroe truthful and fair repreentaitin and certianly not designed tobe unbaised.
5: As the article stands, as Mathew write it, what is wrogn iwht it? No personal attakc agaisnt Dorothy exists init. Even though Dorothy's repsonce is to say shes attacked, no attakc is made.
6:You state this.
"It is quite obvious that this article should be written by someone who is nonbiased, impartial, fair and honest and not a detractor who belives the opposite of the author of two books on a subject they vehemently hate and despise. What is wrong with the criticism  PP is that it is nothing more than opinion. What it does is whine and complain of things the nature of which provides evidence of their contempt. You talk of smear and then proceed to doing it.   "
I agree. The problem is, I also know it ought bot be written by her supporters. You arnet makign her credentals as short as posisbel and accurate. You ar epresenting her "Credentials" as if their anywhere near vlaid. She snot a Historian, a religiosu schoalr, or a Mythologist. Any mro ehtan I am for readingup on thiose topics. Shes not an Archeologist because she was given a trench once in Geece. Nor is she a Linguist because shes multilingual.
I dotn hate her. James may want to smear me ( And No, I odnt smear myself.) By syaign In a funde Chrisyainwith alterior motivs. But read the baord h refrenced. The beelifs are well too broad their to even remotley accuse it of noninclusion.
Im not vehemently opposed ot her. Frnakly shes not worh bign vehemently oppsoed to. Her ideas are discredited.
As the aritlc now stands, peopel ar emade aware of what she claism she is, a Mythologist, religiosu scholar, linguist, hisotiran, and archeologist. They ar ealso told she has no rleated degres in most ofthese and has only a BLA in Classics.
Oh, and shes in a Secular Humanist orginisaiton.
It also telsl brielfy of her views. ( And doesnt disparage them.) It telsl whats known of her life, a seciton I will expand later. ( Again, not to disparagfe.)
WHats worng with yor aritcl eis that its a virtual mirror of her claim abotu herself on her site, a presentaitonamde to make her appear marvelous and grand. Writtenby her supproters. The verison curntly up is designed ot give acutal facts andknwon Data abotu her, not nessisarily form her supproters poitn fo veiw, btu also not form ehr detractors.
7: The reaosn CHristaisn are allowed to have links on her aritle is simple. She critises Chrisyainity. It wodileb wrogn not to include their rebuttles. Regardless of the fac that you think tat ony Dorothy's views ought be rpeasent, and no link to the two soruces we brought up shoufl exist base don them disagreeign with her. She cant badmouht a whole religion and then wave her hand and silenc their reaction.
8: Dorothy is nto that important. Im hrebecause I want to defend the aritcle form her supporters attrition.But this is harldy evidenc eof Bias. Nor have yo nay evidnece that I am biased. So please drop that dead horse till yo show somthgin spacific.
----
What's it called when you flood us with volumes of nonsensical wordfog? ^^James^^ 20:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Again.

message: I have been offline for two weeks. This page's editors seem trapped in a loop. I'll engage in any specific issues, but you guys basically type too much and think too little about the need of Wikipedia, in pursuit of some agenda that is not at home here. Charles Matthews 16:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but you have to understand that criticisms must be sourced, also. Charles Matthews 20:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: See what I mean? I told you that what you are doing is eliminating any and all that contradict you and here you admit to doing just that. This is exactly the scenario depicted in Wikipedia's latest troubles.
Growing pains for Wikipedia
By Daniel Terdiman
After two scandals in one week, Wikipedia's founder decides to make a change to the anyone-can-contribute encyclopedia.
http://news.com.com/Growing+pains+for+Wikipedia/2100-1025_3-5981119.html?tag=sas.email  
12/08/05  -el Lobo
I can certainly understand why wikipedia is having "growing pains".  It has taken months of effort to try to have basic factual inaccuracies removed from the article. Zarove simply makes things up, like: "she claims to be a member of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, but they have no record of her." And the admins line up behind him, and defend his statement to the death. Do you realize how long it took to get that one obvious falsehood corrected? And countless hours have been spent demonstrating how the so-called criticisms are bogus. They are unattributed, vague, sweeping and factually incorrect. Yet months later they still appear in the article, backed by the admins. What kind of place is this?    
It seems to be some kind of game. Pick sides, then fight it out. To hell with facts, this is about what we can 'get away with' in an effort to make the author 'look like a nut', as one admin has put it.  ^^James^^ 22:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You are quite wrong. The problems with the page have to do with partisan editing. We have policies that should be applied. We also have fewer than one admin per 1000 pages. There is no way edit wars finish except by all concerned engaging with the need to apply basic policies: NPOV, cite sources, no original research. It is not reasonable to ask for all the issues here to be sorted out simultaneously. Charles Matthews 23:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Circular motion

message: Charles, I think you qousl agree, Acharya's follwors verisonw asnt exclty pelasant. it omited the life informaiton ( Which is that the aritlc eis bout) and removed the critisms, and gave the veriso of her that is prevailent on ehr website and that which her supporters will to give. My alst verison was not a revrsion to yur previosu article. ( BEcause I Promised I woidlnto do this.) It was, however, an alteraiton fo the oen her supporters invented, to make it more balanced. IE, instead of clalign ehr " A Historian, linguist, rleigiosu schoalr, and archeologist", I called her a self proffessed. THey insist onhaivng this in the article, Ihtink ti best ot notify the reader she has no credentials inthse feilds. 
Id prefer your older version. Which I reverted to now. I even said I prefered it in this tlak. Buyt my alst verison was hust minor inscersiosn into the supproters article.
At the very least you will agree that the Acharya supporter article wasnot grand either.
ZAROVE 14:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: hORRIBLE.