|
|
|
Jossi's gone and blocked me again. Now isn't this just daft. He doesn't like my original edit and keeps changing it and I get blocked for reverting. Here's the Talk: Ron Geaves page. Tell me if I'm wrong or if, instead, Jossi's just riding rough-shod over the spirit and law of his blessed Wikipedia: I included the paragraph about Geaves' writing about Rawat with the one example of his claiming that Rawat had no idea of premies' expectations at the Millenium festival contrasted with Rawat's own words from his invitation to that festival. Wasn't sure how to do the citation for the letter but here it is, if anyone's interested: http://ex-premie.org/papers/millenium_invit_letter.htm Here's the text: A LETTER FROM GURU MAHARAJ JI Bonn, Germany September 31, 1973 Dear premies, First of all, I would like to tell you about something of great importance to all of us. Because we have realized this beautiful Knowledge which is of great bliss to us all, it is our duty to propagate it to the human race. For it is something they really need. In the world there is suffering, hatred and dissatisfaction. That fact does not need proof. It is understood by all that the world is passing through a great moment. No one has satisfaction of mind nor can they find the solution to this. The world is looking for the Perfect Master to come and reveal the Perfect Knowledge of God. There is a supreme energy constantly vibrating in everything making it survive and all the Perfect Masters coem to reveal this Knowledge to people. We can attain all materialistic things and still not have peace, for peace lies inside not outside in materialism. As you all know Millenium '73 is being prepared for now. This festival has been organized by Divine Light Mission each year since 1967, in the memory of the late Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaji on His birthday. This year the most Holy and significant event in human history will take place in America. I think that Millenium '73 is a point where we can really get together and enjoy the bliss bliss with all of our borthers and sisters who are premies; and also tell the world that we have received and realized the permanent service of Truth, Consciousness and Bliss which all the world is looking for in one way or manner. To do this I really need your help. I really need the help of all the premies in all respects; physically, financially and all other ways to make Millenium '73 come off. This is a festival not for you or me. It is for the whole world and maybe the whole universe. I hereby invite you to this Divine Festival of Peace, Millenium '73 and request all premies to help me financially, physically and spiritually to make the program manifest for all seekers of Truth. Isn't it about time you all get together and help me bring peace to this Earth? Blessings to you all, [Sant Ji Maharaj] - Jim, although everything what you write seems true and verifiable, I do not think that such a comparison of his articles with primary source material is appropriate here because it goes far too much into detail. Andries 18:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- What happened to my edit? Isn't there some sort of rule against anonymous, unannounced edits? Isn't that called vandalism on Wikipedia? Anyway, it's going back up.--Jim Heller 20:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Your edit has been reverted as it is an opinion rather than facts. See WP:NPOV and WP:V ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC) - Yes, I thought it was you. Well the edit's going back and if keep vandalizing I'll report you.--Jim Heller 21:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Your edit cannot stay because:
- it is an opinion
- it does not have any reputable sources that support that opinion
- To understand how to reference your edits in Wikipedia please read WP:CITE and WP:RS
- Please note that you have reverted this three time already. Please read WP:3RR ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
You are the one who reverted, you shameless editor, you! Besides, you're wrong. My edit was a report of opinions, ones that Geaves himself has acknowledged in his own internet reply to his critics. My text returns.--Jim Heller 00:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC) - I would suggest that you tone down your personal attacks. You were penalized once already because of that. Please note that you are now in violation of the WP:3RR rule. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- And I would suggest that you stop reverting my edit. Yours is the reversion, not mine. There was nothing at all on the subject until my addition earlier today.
- Do you really think, by the way, that Geaves is not caught in a major bit of mischief here? And not on an incidental point but one that goes to the very heart of his "work" as a Rawat apologist: to cast Rawat in as good a light as possible, even if it means lying and scapegoating others for his mistakes. What other possible explanation do you think Geaves could have for getting this so wrong? Rawat's letter inviting everyone to Millenium was a public, well-known document in the cult, oh sorry, group. Maybe you weren't around then but Geaves was. He knows full well that Rawat supported the wild expectations. If he didn't he's inept and a terrible historian. In any event, this evidence flies in the face of his thesis but, as before with his work, he doesn't seem to care. He's a premie.--24.69.30.212 02:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Modified by Jim at Mon, Apr 10, 2006, 21:38:33
|
|
|
|
'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'
from 'Animal Farm' by George Orwell
And at Wikipedia anyone can edit (so they claim), but some editors are more equal than others, and they get to decide who are 'vandals'.
I'm thinking of registering there, what's going on there is absurd.
Jossi deliberately provokes anger, that's the reaction he wants.
Check out what Artingrid has to say about Jossi.
"I set up the article "Rodney Chang" in good faith. Dr. Chang is a
well-known artist with good reputation and he has nothing to proof. 10
degrees including 2 doctorates. That alone is more than the usual human
achieves in a lifetime. Out of the blue I found myself in court. This
court calls itself Wikipedia. And claims to be an open-source. Nobody
tried to assist me as newbie, vice versa.
Moreover I found out that the admin is a digital artist himself like
Dr. Rodney Chang (Pygoya). Dr. Chang is worldwide known as digital
artist and cyberart pioneer. Jossi Fresco, the admin, is not. Jossi
Fresco has set up the below announced articles at Wikipedia. Jossi
Fresco is not in the Wikipedia encyclopedia.
But he puts himself there by self-promoting his images along with
texts about digital art. This is a clear conflict of interest. He
cannot act from a neutral point of view. Could it be here is an admin
who tries to hinder a worldwide known digital artist with good
reputation and proven third-party achievements to get the place he
clearly deserves?
Could it be he wants to keep his power position as an admin with
special powers at Wikipedia to keep his reign over the digital artist
area online at Wikipedia?" I looked up 'Pygoya' on AltaVista: 5,210 hits, on Google: 26,600 hits, for "Pygoya" "digital artist" on Google: 322 hits.
A picture of Pygoya with Brooke Shields: Pygoya, founding Webist. I'd say he's famous.
For "Jossi Fresco" on AltaVista: 84 hits, for "Jossi Fresco" "digital artist" on Google: 8 hits. I'd say he's not famous, certainly not as a digital artist.
Looking at the history of 'Digital Art' at wikipedia, one can see Jossi's mucking with the page, trying to promote his mediocre "art". I've studied art and I can affirm that Jossi's "art" is unremarkable and doesn't follow good design principles. He doesn't seem to know much about it. I've created digital art myself (I'd say much better than Jossi's) but I wouldn't be so brash as to self-promote it at Wikipedia. Jossi is pretentious twit.
Jossi is clearly abusing is power as an admin to a great degree.
Modified by G at Mon, Apr 10, 2006, 22:38:31
|
|
|
|
There's a whole internet outside of Wikipedia, where he can't gag people.
The Geaves debackle is being picked up.
Prem Rawat and el Ron Geaves, terrorist sympathisers.
What did Rawat say about OBL? That he'd say 'have a nice day' or something?
Modified by G at Mon, Apr 10, 2006, 23:44:25
|
|
|
|
At what point does a mind decide on a course of action for his whole life: which incudes eventually being prepared to enforce the rewriting of history to prove that he did what he originally intended to do?... what threshold?.... what gateway?.....
Further, how does such a one manage to convince or hold onto human beings and ensure that they do his bidding 'round the clock... 24..7... fortunately, .. at some point they are so exhausted the veils start to fall away, the masks, to drop, and the character or true nature of such ones to manifest themselves. BTW the word we were looking for is Truth!..........
..........The quality of being true, genuine, actual or factual,.. something that is true as opposed to false,.. a proven or verified principle or statement; fact:... a system of concepts purporting to represent some aspect of the world,.. fidelity to a required standard or law,.faithful reproduction or portrayal, an obvious fact; truism; platitude. Honesty, reliability, or veracity,.. Accuracy... The state or quality of being faithful, veritable, veracious.....(Collins)
Modified by LP at Tue, Apr 11, 2006, 06:10:45
|
|
|
|
The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression
for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc,
but to make all other modes of thought impossible. ...
Newspeak was
designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.
George Orwell: 1984
Principles of Newspeak
in premiespeak:
an act of terrorism in which many people are blown to bits and millions are terrified = a demonstration
any criticism of "the Master" = terrorism, hate speach
"the Master" = a newpremiespeak term used to mean oldpremiespeak terms "the Perfect Master", "Lord of the Universe", etc. which are not to be said anymore, only thought as concepts, but don't acknowledge you are thinking them and don't admit this new term means the old term.
in premielogic:
' Since Prem Rawat answered the question "Guru Maharaj Ji, are you God?" with "No. My
Knowledge is God." and said he was "a humble servant of God trying to
establish peace in this world" then he could never have claimed to be God because the Master doesn't say contradictory statements, after all, he's Perfect (but don't claim he's Perfect in public, that is oldpremiespeak).
So even though he answered the above question addressed to "Guru Maharaj Ji" and said "Guru Maharaj Ji is the Supremest Lord in person before us" he couldn't have been claiming to be God-in-a-bod (He just is, but don't admit you're thinking that, tee hee, wink wink, nod nod, hoo hoo, hee hee, haa haa), he must have been talking about His Father (oops, I mean his father), Shri Maharaj Ji, even though Hhe was dead at the time and Prem Rawat assumed His Rolehis work. The word "is" is tricky you know. Besides, the Master says we should say that Hehe never claimed to be God, we only thought He claimed to be God, it's all our fault (tee hee, we'll go along with that, what's the harm?), even though He sat there smiling as we sang Arti to Him saying Hehe is the "the Superior Power in Person" and even though Arti was sung to Himhim. Those non-premies people-not-interested-in-Knowledge-yet (pniiky's) have a hard time understanding all this because they don't have that understanding, they are caught up in the logic of the mind. '
Modified by G at Tue, Apr 11, 2006, 07:41:17
|
|
|
|
To whom it may concern, Hi. My name's Jim Heller and I'm a 52 year-old Canadian lawyer, currently and for some time now caught up in a series of edit wars with Jossi Fresco. The background is this. I am a former follower of Prem Rawat, a/k/a Maharaji, a person I believe is a nefarious cult leader. Fresco, on the other hand, is a current follower and, needless to say, of a different mind altogether. For some years now, ever since the advent of the internet, Rawat and his followers have engaged in a long-standing campaign to whitewash Rawat's past and somehow protect him from the harsh light of history. The latest flashpoint arose just today when I tried to edit a Wikipedia article of another of Rawat's current followers, a religious studies professor in fact, Ron Geaves (who, by the way, just shot to flashpan infamy as the English academic who opined that the July 7th bombers were "demonstrators", not "terrorists" . Please excuse the fact that, to explain the problem in any meaningful way, I have to flesh out the context somewhat. My edit concerned an academic (not Wikipedia) article Geaves had written where, discussing a program Rawat held in 1973, he wrote that: In November 1973, Divine Light Mission had booked the Houston Astrodome, a large sports stadium with a capacity of 90,000. The event had taken on millenial expectations in the U.S. with devotees announcing and advertising Maharaji's appearance at the stadium as a second-coming, complete with angelic and alien visitors. Only 20,000 attended the event and Maharaji did not appear to have any knowledge of his American followers' expectations. He spoke as he usually does at such gatherings with no hint of messianic promises.
(My emphasis here and below) In fact, a widely-disseminated invitation to that same 1973 program, Maharaji himself not only demonstrated knowledge of the "millenial expectations" but fanned the flames substantially. Thus, he declared the program the "most Holy and significant event in human history" and even hinted that it might have intergalactic significance: A LETTER FROM GURU MAHARAJ JI Bonn, Germany September 31, 1973 Dear premies, First of all, I would like to tell you about something of great importance to all of us. Because we have realized this beautiful Knowledge which is of great bliss to us all, it is our duty to propagate it to the human race. For it is something they really need. In the world there is suffering, hatred and dissatisfaction. That fact does not need proof. It is understood by all that the world is passing through a great moment. No one has satisfaction of mind nor can they find the solution to this. The world is looking for the Perfect Master to come and reveal the Perfect Knowledge of God. There is a supreme energy constantly vibrating in everything making it survive and all the Perfect Masters coem to reveal this Knowledge to people. We can attain all materialistic things and still not have peace, for peace lies inside not outside in materialism. As you all know Millenium '73 is being prepared for now. This festival has been organized by Divine Light Mission each year since 1967, in the memory of the late Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaji on His birthday. This year the most Holy and significant event in human history will take place in America. I think that Millenium '73 is a point where we can really get together and enjoy the bliss bliss with all of our borthers and sisters who are premies; and also tell the world that we have received and realized the permanent service of Truth, Consciousness and Bliss which all the world is looking for in one way or manner. To do this I really need your help. I really need the help of all the premies in all respects; physically, financially and all other ways to make Millenium '73 come off. This is a festival not for you or me. It is for the whole world and maybe the whole universe. I hereby invite you to this Divine Festival of Peace, Millenium '73 and request all premies to help me financially, physically and spiritually to make the program manifest for all seekers of Truth. Isn't it about time you all get together and help me bring peace to this Earth? Blessings to you all, [Sant Ji Maharaj]
It is clear, when you contrast Geaves' claim with the documentary evidence, that Geaves, bless his heart, is playing the role of the typical cult apologist, lying about his leader and blaming the followers, the press, anyone at all, for the inexcusable, laughable excesses of the cult. What's particularly worrying about Geaves, I'm sure you can appreciate, is that, as a religious studies professor, he's imbued with a certain authority that makes him an especially effective, if unscrupulous, propagandist. It's one thing when he makes silly comments about the July 7 bombers being "demonstrators" not terrorists. No one would ever take him seriously on that score. But it's another altogether when he publishes supposedly-scholarly works about his cult leader (without ever disclosing that he's a follower, by the way) which completely distort the historical record. With these concerns in mind, I wrote the following additional comment for Geaves' Wikipedia article: Geaves has written a couple of articles about Prem Rawat, his guru, for various scholarly journals without publically disclosing in those pieces that he is a follower of Rawat (a/k/a Maharaji). Critics of Geaves allege that these works are dissembling, revisionist propaganda and far too biased and inaccurate for proper scholarship. For instance, in a 2006 article, Geaves commented on the "Millenium" festival Rawat held in Houston in 1973, noting that "The event had taken on millenial expectations in the U.S. with devotees announcing and advertising Maharaji's appearance at the stadium as a second-coming, complete with angelic and alien visitors. Only 20,000 attended the event and Maharaji did not appear to have any knowledge of his American followers' expectations. He spoke as he usually does at such gatherings with no hint of messianic promises." However, in a letter that Rawat himself wrote inviting followers to the festival, he called it "the most Holy and significant event in human history". And later, "This is a festival not for you or me. It is for the whole world and maybe the whole universe."
Now you may think that this isn't quite NPOV enough. You may think it requires more specific attributions. You may even think it isn't particularly well-written. But these are all matters which can be discussed and worked on in a Wikipedian collaborative spirit. Instead, what happened was Jossi Fresco, a paid web tech for Rawat (Maharaji), who stands guard dog over the Rawat articles for his master, anonymously began deleting my text and inserting, instead, this: Dr. Geaves has also written a number of papers related to Maharaji and affiliated organizations to combine his first hand knowledge of the subject (Geaves is a student of Maharaji) with his academic training to provide insights into this movement [2]
As indicated on the Talk: Ron Geaves page, eventually Fresco admitted that he was the deleter. We then got into a big tug-o-war wherein I would reinsert my text and warn him to quit reverting and he would then blame me for reverting in contravention of the Wiki excessive reversion rule. At one point he siezed on the fact that I posted without remembering to log in (I'm a bit new at this), accusing me of trying to sneak in via a sockpuppet or whatever you call them. Hardly. I've never denied my identity which has been apparent to Fresco all along. Like I said, he was the one who started the anonymous vandalism of my edit before finally coming out of the shadows. After all this, though, the nub of the issue is this: who was the original editor here and who was performing the illicit reversions? How can I be fairly accused of too many reversions for simply trying to protect my own original edit against his vandalism? Believe me, Jossi Fresco is the first to complain when the shoe's on the other foot, namely when someone changes some text this way. So how can he have it both ways? I know that Fresco has wormed his way into some sort of admin position with Wikipedia but that's just a potential embarrassment for this institution. This is just one example but things like this happen all the time with him. That's why the Prem Rawat articles are so terrible, really. They have very little substance, their focus is all off and, frankly, they're just boring, whitewashed advertisements for this cult. And Fresco's largely responsible. I look forward to your considered reply. Sincerely, Jim Heller
|
|
|
|
Dear Mr. Heller,
Thank you for contacting us regarding the dispute you encountered while
editing.
Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia (as explained at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction>, and so anyone may edit
its articles. Its policy, nonetheless, is that articles must be written from a
Neutral Point of View, representing all majority and significant-minority
views fairly and without bias, as is discussed extensively at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV>.
However, since article content is not controlled by a central authority, we do
not resolve editing disputes via email. Instead, please follow the steps
outlined at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution>. These
steps are designed to help you work with other editors and to draw upon the
help of the wider community.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Yours sincerely,
Jim Redmond
--
Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org
---
Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses
are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation.
For official correspondence, you may contact the site operators at
<http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>.
|
|
|
|
Jossi is now fired as an editor!
|
|
|
|
that we find a simpler definition.................
..............Truth is that which changes never.............
..............Nope, still no matches...........
'elp
Modified by LP at Tue, Apr 11, 2006, 15:40:23
|
|
|
|
ancient memories....... I mean ANCIENT memories. The Aquarian Gospel.... oh my..... that is as famous as Be here Now (aka: why weren't you here yesterday, by Bottled Ram Piss)Seriously...... the guy who wrote the Aquarian Gospel was around the same time as Joseph Smith. Those were crazy years in the U.S. Tent revivals were in full flower.... everyone was really wound up..... and a whole lot of silly religious schtick was the result. Book of Mormon, Aquarian Gospel and a whole lot more..... ugghhhhh!
Modified by NAR at Tue, Apr 11, 2006, 15:57:45
|
|
|
|
I enjoy sometimes comparing two apparent descriptions of Truth
.In the left corner:- ......gm......in the right crnr... That which changes never........
and see how they squirm as they try to rationalise, slowly, away the crust, magma, and molten iron core that separate these two Polar Opposites
Like a polar bear trying to catch a penguin by digging straight down...
lapland laddy...
Modified by LP at Tue, Apr 11, 2006, 16:33:16
|
|
|
|
In one corner we have The Truth, weighing in as eternal and changeless and in the other corner we have Satsang, otherwise known as the discourse of um well he keeps changing his name so lets stick with tradition and call him Mr Rawat.They do say opposites attract and Mr Rawat speaks very fondly of The Truth and The Truth isn’t complaining. But then how could it? Personally I came to the conclusion that the whole notion of an absolute truth is suspect. But if The Truth existed then wouldn’t it be the trump card, the ace that takes the trick the gazumper that by virtue of being The Truth negates all the truth that is relevant to me including the earth beneath my feet? Me I’m no match with The Truth, I’ll leave her to dance with the gurus and priests.
|
|
|
|
fair comment ... a thorn to take out a thorn ..and ...throw them both away...
|
|
|
|
You are HERE! "Here" is a place we decided to call earth. Earth is resident in a thing we call a solar system that is in one of the spiral arms of the Milky Way Galaxy. That galaxy is one of the residents of the affectionately named "local group" and, as such...... EXISTS in that point in space/time!The entire universe exists and we have decent handle on everything following about 10^-23 seconds post-big-bang, in terms of hydrogen formation all the way to where we are today. We are a bit hazy on anything prior to that point, but gives us some time and we might just get there, too ...... The speed of light is a constant, time and space are relative. You cannot go faster the speed of light. In fact, with your mass you cannot even approach the speed of light. No, turning yourself into an anorexic won't really help...... see E=MC^2 for details  Hang your hat on that "truth" and you will not likely be led astray..... modified a bit, maybe, but not led astray
|
|
|
|
limping
Modified by LP at Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 14:40:36
|
|
|
|
.. my original point in this thread, joking aside, is that if that were the definition of truth, that it is; if not changing were a criteria.. (your guess is as good as mine... the universe changes, but slowish to us ...over a lifetime)
m's ever shifting, changing self image does him no favours ... ...if,
...I mean, that is to say there were a truth.. and if a Christ really did say or channel .. Truth is that which changes never!.. I mean... if...
..sorry... this subject makes me nervous. its almost impossible to heal some areas except through humour .. some threads on here have made laugh in a place in my stomach; more deep than I remember since school days 'til tears were streaming down face, it hurt. beautifully. Blessed relief.. Thankyou .. my brothers and sisters..
...its the only way, if I had only said: "You can't be serious" and walked away... but a good belly laugh now, still does wonders..
Modified by LP at Thu, Apr 13, 2006, 05:05:03
|
|
|
|
If you did want to say that real truth is something changeless, then it would appear that the universe cannot be included...... but wait......The universe is the result of changless laws of physics. We might not know all of the various laws, although we certainly know many of them, but one thing is for sure, they don't change. So, in that regard, the universe and its behavior are direct proofs of those laws in action. Those laws aren't called laws for nothing. So, do I worship physics? Some might say I do, but the answer is "no." Instead, I am awed by physics and the proofs that are provided by our changing universe. BTW, the universe isn't as static, even in a human lifetime, even in a human day, as some would believe. Light pollution has made it more difficult for you to see it with the naked eye, but change..... major change..... is a daily occurrance. Stars explode daily. We see them or discover a new explosion almost every day. Of course, it helps to be looking in the right direction at the time, but fortunately there are many dedicated serious "amateur" astronomers who have their eyes to the skies on almost every clear night. I put the word "amateur" in quotes because many of these so-called amateurs are as educated in the subject, particularly the areas they are most interested in, as any PhD! No kidding. I know many who I would call colleague (and I actually do call them that). Anyway, if you want a wild ride, put yourself on some of the email lists that notify of happenings in the universe. I think you will be pleasantly surprised. Yes, stars exploding is a natural outcome, too. Ig it weren't for exploding stars, you would not be here. That isn't conjecture, it is a fact
|
|
|
|
Thankyou for clearing that up so articulately....
Modified by LP at Thu, Apr 13, 2006, 10:56:53
|
|
|
|
And if my memory serves me correctly there was a brief moment in front of rather a good tv show where I had some grasp of understanding what physicists mean by "The speed of light is a constant, time and space are relative. " , but it didn't last.I guess I'd need to have it explained a few more times before retaining it. However I am not without a truth to hang my hat on. Rather literally really in that the point to me, my solid ground is that my brain resides inside my skull upon which I do indeed on occasion place a hat. A little while ago there was a news item that scientific observation now points towards there having been a multiplicity of big bangs, a veritable field of them going off, rather than just one. This strikes me as a more satisfying picture, more like what I see here on Earth.... see the funny funny thing is I am dead serious about where I hang my hat!
|
|
|
|
Those work for me and yours work for you..... and both are true, assuming that you really wear a hat.... I'll take your word on that On a more serious note, alternate hypothesis abound. They key is, of course, the data. I tend to disagree with the multiple-bang (roughly simulatneous bangs) hypothesis, already, because the evidence doesn't support it. Whilst the data from COBE and the more granular (higher resolution) WMAP show clearly the structure of the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation), just as they should. The model predicted exactly what they found. This, of course, was a single bang model. A multi-bang model wouldn't fit the data. So..... I tend to disagree. Not flushing the whole idea, but I am not convinced. It takes data to convince me. I haven't seen anything, yet. Just the conjecture (imho) of a couple of cosmologists (and truely only a couple). That, by itself, wouldn't make any difference, but sans data..... well.... I am skeptical. There is some room for confusion on your part, as well. NOT your fault. There are a few cosmologists who refer to their hypothesis of multiple bangs as one following another in an infinite play of expansion and contraction (e.g big bang, big crunch, big bang, big crunch, ad infinitum). The only way to prove this a possibility is to find the missing mass. There was a very significant discovery/confirmation made in that general direction quite recently (within the last three weeks). But the mathematicians need to work on it some before we can draw serious conclusions about its significance with regard to the possibility of a big crunch. Too, don't forget that science reporting on TV tends to be a bit inaccurate. I don't think there is any intent to deceive, but just that a science reporter cannot be an expert on everything nor can they necessarily understand everything they hear. I leave some room for unintentional error in those reports. There are some scientists who think the big bang didn't happen at all, even today. However, they can locate no evidence to contradict the the big-bang. In fact, when they go looking, all they find is more data to back it up. But, truely, the CMBR and it's hot/cool spots are the clincher. COBE was a teaser, WMAP was the clincher! It is the same with special relativity and general relativity. All we have done, so far, is to confirm their accuracy. Einstein's hypothesis had been around quite a while, as you well know. We now have instruments that can detect the very things that were predicted...... and when we deploy one..... there it is! No evidence or data to the contrary is located. Amazing!
Modified by NAR at Thu, Apr 13, 2006, 18:09:31
|
|
|
|
mm, 42 wasn't it? ... though I suppose I shouldn't believe everything I read, even Douglas Adams probably had the odd off day but I do think it very considerate of him to have provided us with such a simple answer to everything.I've just spent a few minutes googling multiple big bang theory, any chance of pointing me in the direction of a good site?
|
|
|
|
It isn't a very popular hypothesis, again if you are referring to the idea of "many bangs almost simultaneous." Like I said, there are only a few cosmologists that give it any sway at all. Let me see if I can find one for you.Added later:
Try http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ That is a good site with lots of questions and answers. That question, of course, has been asked and answered. I can't seem to locate a good site with discussion of original research, though. If I locate a paper, I'll post the link.
Modified by NAR at Fri, Apr 14, 2006, 17:25:08
|
|
|
|
Here's a link to the talk page for a guy named Heah (Has it really come to this?!) who is the Wiki admin Jossi got to block me. Feel free to join in the conversation if you like.
Related link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Heah
|
|
|
|
Please read the basic Wikipedia policies. Please do not waste the time of more experienced editors by making edits (esp. reverts) violating basic Wikipedia policies due to ignorance. Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines and is quite complicated. Apart from that a lot is subject to change. The editors who know the policies and guidelines best, who have the best sources, and who has the most friends are the most likely to win disputes. I think a better place for your edits would be the article Prem Rawat instead of Ron Geaves if you omit your personal opinions from your edit and let the readers draw his or her conclusions. Andries
Modified by Andries at Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 11:22:05
|
|
|
|
Andries, I'm running right now but, briefly, how can you say that I, not Jossi, was the reverter? There was nothing at all in the Geaves article about Rawat until my contribution. Jossi didn't like it so he replaced it wholesale. Who was doing the reverting? Gr......................................
|
|
|
|
Andries, I'm not following you. Will you please tell me in plain English how I, and not Jossi, violated the reversion rule? Not one or two words, either. Sheesh!
|
|
|
|
You reverted more than three times in 24 hours, in contrast to Jossi, me, and Momento. It is very simple: you cannot revert more than three times in 24 hours. You violated that rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule Andries
Modified by Andries at Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 12:38:55
|
|
|
|
Oh my God! Now I see what happened: I contributed this about Geaves: Geaves has written a couple of articles about Prem Rawat, his guru, for various scholarly journals without publically disclosing in those pieces that he is a follower of Rawat (a/k/a Maharaji). Critics of Geaves allege that these works are dissembling, revisionist propaganda and far too biased and inaccurate for proper scholarship. For instance, in a 2006 article, Geaves commented on the "Millenium" festival Rawat held in Houston in 1973, noting that "The event had taken on millenial expectations in the U.S. with devotees announcing and advertising Maharaji's appearance at the stadium as a second-coming, complete with angelic and alien visitors. Only 20,000 attended the event and Maharaji did not appear to have any knowledge of his American followers' expectations. He spoke as he usually does at such gatherings with no hint of messianic promises." However, in a letter that Rawat himself wrote inviting followers to the festival, he called it "the most Holy and significant event in human history". And later, "This is a festival not for you or me. It is for the whole world and maybe the whole universe."
Then you anonymously changed my text to this: Geaves is a long-term follower of the Indian spiritual leader Prem Rawat, formerly called, Guru Maharaj Ji and has written several papers about him and affiliated organizations.
I then changed it back at which point Jossi changed it back to your namby/pamby nothing vandalized replacement of my text. I changed it back again and this time blasted Jossi for the vandalism when he posted on the talk page admitting he'd done that edit. He changed it again and we went back and forth a bit before your other friend, Momento, joined in the fun and reverted. So what's the deal here? You guys covered off each other so none of you could be guilty of doing three reversions leaving me vulnerable for that bullshit accusation? And you never had the guts to step forward and explain that it was you, Fresco and Momento but instead allowed me to get blocked, allowed me to write that long complaint about Fresco, knowing full-well that it was in fact all three of you? You little worm!!!! And you have the audacity to then lecture me on learning the Wikipedia rules better? Why? So I could play nasty little tricks like this?
Modified by Jim at Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 13:01:45
|
|
|
|
It all went a bit fast so I had not explained it here until now. I had explained my edit on the talk page that you should have read: A comparison of somebody's articles with primary source material goes far too much into detail. Please read the policies and guidelines. You cannot expect me to teach you here the many policies and guidelines. Andries
Modified by Andries at Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 13:16:09
|
|
|
|
The whole point of my text was that, academic or not, Geaves is a lying revisionist who blatantly lies about his cult leader in the classic mode: scapegoating others for his mistakes. There's nothing the least bit too detailed about that. Your replacement text doesn't even begin to make that point but rather simply states the banal fact that Geaves writes articles about his guru. So what? What's important is that he f**ks with source material with abandon as I demonstrated. I used one small example, Geaves' distorted footnote about Rawat's knowledge and/or involvement in the crazy hype about Millenium. You didn't work with my text to make it simpler, as you might have done if you really thought it was too detailed. Rather, you deleted the entire point altogether. So, end result, you and the two premies have gotten me blocked for telling the truth about a purported authority on this cult, a great religious studies professor no less, who, in fact, is completely untrustworthy. You couldn't have done better if Rawat paid you. We know that Jossi's on the cult's payroll. Are you?
Modified by Jim at Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 13:20:51
|
|
|
|
I forgot to ask, are you the one who asked this other admin, Heah, to block me? Did you, Jossi and Momento have a little discussion about it?
|
|
|
|
but I continue to think that a detailed analysis of a small point in somebody's writings is not appropriate material for a Wikipedia biography. Yes, Elan Vital started paying me Euro 300,- every month starting on April the 1st. Andries
|
|
|
|
This is from the Wikipedia article on another revisionist, "Historian" David Irving: As to what evidence further led Irving to believe that the Holocaust never occurred, he cited a report by self-styled execution expert Fred A. Leuchter, which claimed there was no evidence for the existence of homicidal gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp. After the trial, Irving published Leuchter's report in the United Kingdom and wrote its foreword. In Errol Morris' 1999 documentary about Leuchter, Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., Irving said, "The big point [of the Leuchter report]: there is no significant residue of cyanide in the brickwork. That's what converted me. When I read that in the report in the courtroom in Toronto, I became a hard-core disbeliever." [8] In his 1991 revised edition of Hitler's War, he had removed all references to death camps and the Holocaust. Many have considered Irving’s historical arguments to be very convoluted. An example occurred in the above-mentioned interview with Ron Rosenbaum, when Rosenbaum questioned Irving about a memoir that had come into Irving’s possession that was alleged to have written by Adolf Eichmann in the 1950s (The precise authenticity of the Eichmann Memoirs is in doubt, but parts of the book, according to the German Federal Archives, appeared to be genuine). Irving had received the alleged memoir during a visit to Argentina in 1991 and was quite proud of his find. In The Eichmann Memoirs, Eichmann claimed to have heard from Himmler that Hitler given a verbal order authorizing the Holocaust, thereby contradicting Irving’s claim in Hitler’s War that Hitler was unaware of the Holocaust. Irving’s response to the claim that Hitler ordered the Holocaust in The Eichmann Memoirs was to claim that Eichmann wrote his memoirs in 1956 at the time of the Suez War, and was fearful that Cairo, Egypt might fall to Israel. Irving’s reasoning is that if Cairo was taken by the Israeli Defence Forces, then the Israelis might discover the “rat-line” as undercover struggling networks for Nazis were known that had allowed Eichmann to escape to Argentina, and that therefore Eichmann had written his memoirs as a potential defense in the event of being captured by the Israelis. In this way, Irving argued that The Eichmann Memoirs were genuine, but the claim that Hitler ordered the Holocaust was false — only made to reduce Eichmann’s responsibility for the Holocaust. Also in the same interview, Irving claimed to want to be accepted as a scholar by other historians, and bemoaned having to associate with what Irving called the lunatic anti-Semitic fringe groups, who Irving claimed he would disassociate himself from as soon as he was accepted by the historians’ community.
Why don't you just go and delete all that too? Replace it, perhaps, with: David Irving has written several books about Hitler.
|
|
|
|
hmmm, on second thoughts, I have to admit that what Geaves wrote was at best very implausible about a major event in the history of the DLM. Andries
|
|
|
|
You created this mess, Andries, because, in my opinion, you still operate on an assumption, after all this time we've gotten to know each other, that ex-premies irresponsibly exaggerate bad facts about Rawat or their significance. That's why you didn't even try to tweak my text but rather deleted it so disrespectfully. That's why you stood by and let me make a fool of myself, falsely accusing Jossi of doing all the revisions. Okay, so now that you can see that this isn't trivial what are you going to do about it? You didn't like my text, fine. Let's see yours.
|
|
|
|
No, I edited this article with the reasoning as I have stated hereabove. That is why I did not tweak your edit, but simply removed it. As I wrote, a summary of your edit, but without your personal opinions could be inserted at the article Prem Rawat. You could and should have looked at the history and the talk page. Please learn Wikipedia better then I will not have to explain you everything. Andries
Modified by Andries at Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 14:00:02
|
|
|
|
You should be apologizing, Andries. Instead, you're equivocating, trying to have it both ways. I can see where this will end. In silence and nothing resolved. Too bad. Anyway, I still say that, it behooves you to go back in and edit the Geaves article appropriately. What there is now is nothing.
|
|
|
|
The difference between the revisionism by Geaves and the revisionism by Irving is that others have written about Irving's revisionism and not about Geaves' revisionism. That is why it is appropriate that Irving's revisionism is mentioned in his article and not in Geaves' article. Irving's revisionism seems to be the main reason why he is notable. The only reason why Geaves is notable is because he labelled the 7 July 2005 bombings a demonstration and objected to the term terrorism for the bombings. Andries
|
|
|
|
The only reason why Geaves is notable is because he labelled the 7 July 2005 bombings a demonstration and objected to the term terrorism for the bombings.
Nah Andries, the main thing that Geaves is notable for is his revisionist attitude he take with respect to his dear leader, Guru Maharaj Ji, now known as Prem Rawat. I really don't like to wade into this whole Wiki world but reading this thread makes me feel very uncormfortable as to what is happening. I understand the 3 revert rule and it does probably make sense. However it does seem that more that one person is reverting Jim's excellent points and thereby each invidividual person keeping within their 3 revert day count. Seems to me all it would take is for one or more person to help Jim and no one would break the 3 revert rule. What Jim originally put up seem to make a lot of sense to me and it does follows the NPOV rule. Where does this all end? Oh, I guess it all ends up with quoting another 'complicated' Wiki rule and then if the 'senior editors' don't like the result they get the upper hand. T
|
|
|
|
That wiki needs a MAJOR overhaul and cannot, under any circumstance, be trusted as a source until they do.The OBVIOUS uneven response to your article, when compared to the one about Irving cries out with POV! The only people permitted to possess a POV on wiki are the admins/editors/whatever they are called. This is another disgusting example of the hypocrisy inherent in that organization and those running it. Andries, your responses to Jim were not only inane but self-serving and downright stupid! Your feeble attempt to seem even-handed with your little "hmmmm" reprise below is dishonest and insulting. Get a clue..... it wasn't the "rules," which are skewed towards the ignorant anyway, that casued this to occur. Plain and simple truth is that you guys have what you claim you don't..... a POV and a damned stinky one, at that. Screw wiki...... it's a waste of time and energy. You refuse to fix it and people waste an enormous amount of time trying to correct the pablum that is the ultimate result. To add to Jim's analogy, I'd bet that Hitler would be described as a person who brought germany back from the brink of bankruptcy and that he had a minor tiff with some of the Jews that happened to reside there. But, of course, EVERYONE has the same POV about Hitler, so the article would probably be a bit more truthful/factual. Get a clue, Andries, that letter Jim tried to post is a FACT, it is EVIDENCE, it isn't an opinion! Jim has only stated facts! While there might be some emotion involved, facts are facts. When you guys selectively enforce the rules and use obscure and meaningless terms like "notable" which you, yourself, cannot properly define to anyone's satisfaction..... what do you expect people to think? Hmmmm???????? My definition of Wiki: Monument to ignorance and political correctness on steroids (especially if one of the editors is a Premie!) Prove me wrong, Andries! Moreover, it wouldn't surprise me if you were on EV's payroll....... now doesn't that get your attention? It should..... because if it is untrue, you are projecting a persona that is just the opposite of what you want. Which betgs another question, why are you lecturing us on ANYTHING to do with M? Were you ever a premie? If not, why are you here? Why aren't you over on an ex-SSB site? In fact, I think I am going to look up the wiki entry on SSB. Will I find any emotion in it? Will there be ANY negative comments? Will it say he is a cult leader? Will it have any language in it that could be interpreted as inflammatory? I'll bet the answer to all of the above is YES..... why? Becasue you are a "notable" wiki person maybe? Sorry buddy, but your reputation is down the tubes in my eyes. Associating yourself and trying to ply wiki here has done more damage to your rep than anything I could imagine. I think the only reason that you try to get people here to post on wiki is so that you can say it was edited by "both sides," and that they agree on the pablum produced, when in reality you only accept the input from the Premies..... again, prove me wrong!
Modified by NAR at Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 14:11:29
|
|
|
|
Nar, http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/4812.html I have repeatedly stated that I agree with Jim's reasoning, only that his reasoning is not appropriate material for Geaves' biography in Wikipedia. If there were a lot of Neo Nazis editing Wikipedia then the article about Hitler would probably be a whitewashed version about him. Andries
|
|
|
|
You won't allow neo-nazis to edit there. C'mon, get real! I was born, but not yesterday! You guys wouldn't permit a single whitewash edit to stand.... not one! Why? Becasue it disagrees with your POV, that's why! NPOV, my arse!Andries, if what you are saying is true, with regard to agreeing with Jim, then edit every negative thing out of the Irving article NOW! Right this second! AND..... make those edits STICK and ban anyone attempting to revert them. In other words give it the same treatment. Otherwise, I for one have no reason to believe you.
|
|
|
|
If there were 4 Neo Nazis in Wikipedia whitewashing the Hitler article then I would be powerless to stop them if nobody helped me. I meant to say that I agreed with Jim's reasoning about Geaves' revisionism. I did not agree with Jim's analogy with Irving. I do not want to remove the statements about Irving's revisionism, because they seem to be well sourced. And I cannot remove them because I will be reverted and if I continue reverting I will get blocked. Andries Andries
|
|
|
|
The definition seems to sway to and fro depending upon the POV of the definer....... "seems" is non commital and subjective (and is thus an OPINION..... aka: POV). "Well sourced" is ill-defined and subjective when used in concert with "seems" (meaning a POV is involved, not a fact).What is it that makes the source better than the source Jim possesses? Exactly what? Maybe Jim can fix it if he has a REAL definition of "well sourced" and even "seems." Moreover, what is better than an eye witness? You have been presented with eye witness testimony and have stated, categorically, that it is not a decent source. Well, ok then, what IS a decent source? If that source has, as its basis, eye witness testimony, then it is (by your own defintion) a bad source! You cannot have it both way, Andries. The real point is that you cannot even consider the fact that Jim is being treated unfairly and being held to a different standard than those who wrote the Irving article. THAT would be the whole point. Unless you are a premie, you will not be permitted to post anything with substance. All an ex is permitted to do is agree with the paid premie. Yup, that's fair!
Modified by NAR at Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 14:53:20
|
|
|
|
I wrote "seems well sourced" in the case of Irving because I do not know much about Irving. Some parts of what Jim wrote about Geaves are well sourced. I do not have to write "seem well sourced" in the latter case, because I know by now much more about Prem Rawat than about Irving, but the question to whether to include a point or a controversy in Wikipedia depends not only because on the question whether it s well sourced (aka verifiable in Wikipedia's terminology), but also depends on the question whether the point or controversy is notable. Clearly Irving's revisionism is notable. Until now there is no indication that Geaves' revisionism is notable. See what Wikipedia is not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_wikipedia_is_not Andries
|
|
|
|
In many cases, that could get you bounced from your chair. What does it have to be to be notable? Define "notable."You see where I am going with this, Andries? You didn't actually define "well sourced" you just jumped to notable. Eventually, I am goin gto have you cornered, in case you didn't notice and you will have no place to jump! As an example, you cannot now go back to "well sourced" becasue you have been asked to define it already. Now that you decided to jump to "notable" I am asking for a definition there! Sooner or later you are going to have to define something and the whole house of cards will fall! Why will it fall? For the simple reason that it is IMPOSSIBLE for ANYONE to not have a POV, unless they are deaf, dumb and blind..... even THAT is a POV because they have the POV of a deaf, dumb and blind person. THe whole premise behind wiki is false. WHy don't you guys admit that the sky is the limit for posting IF and ONLY IF your POV happens to agree with all other POV's or your POV is not in the least bit controversial and won't cause the admins any grief (grief being relative, therefore a POV). That is what you guys actually mean, why not admit it? This isn't hard Andries..... just admit that Jim's treatment is utterly unfair and that Jossi is a favored person and, thus, has unlimited editing rights (personally or by proxy, as "seems" to have happened here). Jossi asking you guys to revert the text should have been counted as a revert for JOSSI, not you ar anyone else! In which case, to be FAIR, Jossi should be immediately banned and you guys should give each other a good tongue lashing for falling for that little scam. "Seems fair" to me!
|
|
|
|
The revisionism by Geaves is not notable, because others have not written about it, with the exception of people on this talk forum. However, I have to admit that "notability" is a vague concept and I have had quite a few discussions on this concept on wikipedia. But before you make it notable by complaining to others, please first ask Geaves why he wrote this: he may have a good reason for it. Andries (amended for grammar)
Modified by Andries at Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 15:15:55
|
|
|
|
When will it end......... and you didn't address any of the other salient points. NOr have you provided any definitions for any of the terms you so freely bandy about. Bull!You don't ask WHY an academic rewrites history. You NOTE that is was revised and exactly how! I could give a crap what his reasons were..... I care about the fact that it happened, at all! It should be obvious to anyone with eyeballs that the revisions were to protect his blessed guru. Plain and simple! I guess the SSB entry should be something along the lines of: A nice harmless fellow who likes to stick his hand in pots full of ash. Yeah, that just about does it! I'm sure you've seen to it that this wouldn't happen, right Andries? So what makes you so special? Eye witness? Feh..... not notable or believable. In fact, I am beginning to doubt that you were even an SSB follower...... I mean why should I believe YOUR eye witness testimony when you are neither notable or credible and you show such disdain for the eye witness testimony of those present here (and belittle everything they say as "blown out of proportion."). WHat goes around comes around..... I don't think you were a member nor do I believe you were in any way associated with that wonderful, lively organization that SSB surrounded his glorious self with..... You starting to burn Andries? Then think about what you've said to people here.... just think about it! If you cannot do that, then I wonder why you are even here.
Modified by NAR at Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 15:26:44
|
|
|
|
Nar, Yes, I can understand that people here are offended by Geaves' revisionism. I do not think that I have shown excessive skepticism of first hand testimonies of people who write under their real names here. And your doubts about me not being an ex of SSB are unfounded. Feel free to phone me and I can tell you more.I have dozens of SSB books and quite a lot of internal documents of the SSB organization in my home that I can show you on the webcam. Andries
Modified by Andries at Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 15:48:28
|
|
|
|
in a very personal way, how it feels to be on the other end of your "wiki" stick!Moreover, the stuff you could show me concerning SSB, using your own rules, would be meaningless because I wouldn't be anything other than a second hand witness. If I apply the same rules to "you" that are applied to ex's on wiki, you are completely out of luck, my friend. There is no way that you could ever prove anything to me if I were to apply those rules to "you" and my interaction with you. Don't you get it? THey don't work...... they are unworkable and, worse yet, you have to suspend common sense to adhere to them. We could go on and on. You just refuse to see that Jim (and others here) have been treated unfairly. Fine, be intentionally blind if you like. But it doesn you no justice. Again, you didn't even address what I said about Jossi! He ASKED YOU and others to edit something..... it should count as HIS, not yours. Common sense, Andries.... common sense! You did the reverts/edits by PROXY FOR JOSSI! They are Jossi's and Jossi should be banned for even asking you guys to do that! But please don't ask us to participate in this wiki exercise anymore, ok? It is a total waste of our time and energy. Wiki, as such, is a total waste of time and energy. The rules are capricious, unevenly applied and are based upon an ideal that doesn't and can't ever exist. It is full of inaccuracies that are permitted, no encouraged to be placed there by the ignorant. Actually, I think you are just totally misguided on this issue, I don't really dislike you. But I have a hard time respecting someone who refuses to even look at a possibility like this. That was my last word on this topic here.
|
|
|
|
Everybody who doesn't is either ignorant or naive.
Andries
|
|
|
|
notable
There's nothing in the definition of 'notable' about 'having been previously written about'. That would be quite a catch-22, wouldn't it?
Instead I see "Worthy of note or notice; remarkable".
I find it quite remarkable that a professor in England (not in the former USSR) who is also a Senior Lecturer, Programme Leader and Chair in religious studies knowingly writes a false historical account of a cult (i.e. rewrites history) and that he didn't disclose that he is a member of this cult.
That is indeed worthy of note, especially since it provides some insight into the thinking of someone who claims that it is wrong to call the London bombers 'terrorists', which is clearly what they are. It is notable because it says something about the character of this man.
Modified by G at Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 18:57:52
|
|
|
|
it is notable because it sheds light upon a global disaster. An effect which has and is still causing a worldwide destructive phenomena in the minds of members of The Human Race.
....one which can be seen in the behavioural changes and personality alterations that have occurred in eighty countries round the world; and that is only from this guru's followers...
.....and thankyou, phantom editors, for demonstrating this phenomena before our very eyes ....
....it is only to be expected that where the phenomena is still occurring .. it will control the mind to perform to it's will: as parasite ideology within the host brain/mind/entity/jobsworth...
Modified by LP at Thu, Apr 13, 2006, 04:49:31
|
|
|
|
just blowing our concepts..
...besides he was talking about the knowledge.
...Not himself.....
Modified by LP at Thu, Apr 13, 2006, 05:00:21
|
|
|
|
Hi Andries,
Please ignore the unwarranted abuse you're getting. Editing a controverisal page on Wiki is not for the quick and the hasty and under the circumstances you have done an amazing job. Unfortunately Jim didn't practice the divine techniques of Maharaji's Knowledge long enough to achieve inner peace and tends to fly off the handle at the drop of a refrescaversion. Remember to remember, Jim else you might find yourself so hung up you might blow a gasket
|
|
|
|
When Jim posted this thread about the Geaves article I looked at it. By the time I did, you had deleted his entry. There was no reason for you to have jumped on that edit so quickly, and I couldn't figure out why you were so eager to do it. This is a question I would like you to specifically answer: Did you first find out about Jim's edit to the Geaves article on this forum? Did you then read it and make your edit? Please answer honestly. Okay, it's two questions. I just think that it would have been more polite to have let that edit stand for a few hours. Couldn't you have predicted this outcome? Don't you see how it may appear that you're playing both sides of the fence in this instance? Thanks, Cynthia
Modified by Cynthia at Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 15:53:41
|
|
|
|
If I remember it well, I wanted to edit in the only point that makes Geaves makes notable and that was his statement about the London bombings not being a terrorist attack, but a demonstration. And with the same edit I removed Jim's paragraph that I thought and still think was too detailed for the biography. Of course, I can understand that you find it upsetting that Geaves is re-writing and revising the stories of your lives with his very implausible statement. I do not know what you mean with your question " Don't you see how it may appear that you're playing both sides of the fence in this instance?"
If you mean with this disagreeing with ex-premies then I want to say that although it will be clear that I agree with most of the complaints by ex-premies about Rawat, it does not mean of course that I agree with every point. Andries
Modified by Andries at Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 16:04:10
|
|
|
|
Has he just been there longer than you, me, Andries and the common man/woman? Good at his job. Knows the ropes? Does he have special reversion rights? Or is he just another chancer like the rest of us, but who is bullying newcomers with his dazzling, multi-hued, digital Wiki-knowledge?
Modified by Nigel at Tue, Apr 11, 2006, 16:54:40
|
|
|
|
I think Jossi sought and was awarded status as an "admin". Sounds like minor clergy. I'd resend my complaint to other parties if a) I could make my way through WikiByzanteum and b) I wasn't blocked!
|
|
|
|
Tiny apology, Jim (I don't do big ones). I edited my post whilst you were doing your reply. [Hey, what's going on in Ontario - all this mass bandalero-murder stuff? I mean, we do murder in the UK, we're good at it - bloody good at it - but not usually more than one or two at a time. Common manners and all that. Yeah, know, July 7 could prove me wrong, but I've got Professor Ron on my side here - they were just demonstrators.] What does 'admin' mean in terms of veto rights?
Modified by Nigel at Tue, Apr 11, 2006, 19:06:34
|
|
|
|
User:Jossifresco
"This user is an administrator of the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons.
This user is a member of the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team.
This user is a member of the Counter Vadalism Unit.
This user is part of the Association of Members' Advocates."
Wikipedia:Administrators
Version 1.0 Editorial Team
Counter Vandalism Unit
Wikipedia:Association of Members Advocates
Jossi's "contributions" to the page on the Golden ratio were, as I guessed, related to 'aethetic uses' and 'golden proportion in human face'. Go figure.
Meanwhile there isn't discussion about where phi actually does occur (roughly speaking) in nature and why (e.g. optimal packing, see Fibonacci numbers and nature
A comment in the discussion page for 'Golden ratio':
There's a lot of nonsensical mumbo-jumbo about phi in the article. This includes the long-refuted claims that the golden ratio is aesthetically pleasing (in shapes like rectangles, proportions of parts of the body, etc.). Also, the claims that the Greeks purposefully used the golden ratio in their architecture is unsubstantiated and has been refuted in particular cases, such as the Parthenon. The actual fact of the matter is that, contrary to the opening paragraph, all this nonsense about the golden ratio is actually fairly recent, last half-millennium or so.
What's funny is that some of the external links point this out (notably the Livio book). I'm also disturbed by the linking to websites that are obviously of a very mystical nature. I'm fine with having a section on the history of the mysticism around the number, but as it currently is, it's a confusing mix of fact and mysticism.
I encourage the regular editors of this page to fix these erroneous statements in the article. I myself will try and fix them when I get more time. --Chan-Ho Suh 09:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
Well gosh, Chan-Ho, you're not being very "neutral" there, you're acting like some kind of highfalutin scholar or something, talking about facts and all. Don't you know that the team decides what's true by consensus, with admins getting more of a say?
Modified by G at Tue, Apr 11, 2006, 20:16:11
|
|
|
|
Hi again, Nigel, Yes, that was quite a modern-day St. Valentine's Day party, wasn't it? Heart-breaking, really, all those Bandidos struck down in the prime of life. Thank god there aren't a whole lot of people demonstrating that way. I get the feeling that what works at Wikipedia is dedication which is inferred from time spent hanging around and being a busy-body. Not unlike the old Food Co-op principle really. Of course when, as in Jossi's case, you're probably being paid to guard stupid articles about some stupid cult leader or other or, even if not, you're a fanatical follower, you're going to eventually come across as one very, very dedicated volunteer. Ingratiation is a natural in that case and Jossi's living proof. He didn't block me; rather he got some other admin to do it. He-ah, whoever that is. My 24-hour block party isn't over yet but when it is I'll try re-sending my complaint to whatever potentates, Caliphs, poobahs or what-have-you will read it at Wiki. I'm sure it's bound to work and Jossi will be restricted from ever touching the Rawat articles again. Yeah, right!
|
|
|
|
Jossi Fresco = internet and wikipedia policeman, and also art critic What exalted positions!
|
|
|
