| Revision as of 23:56, 20 January 2007 editJustas Jonas (talk | contribs)203 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:57, 20 January 2007 edit undoJustas Jonas (talk | contribs)203 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <center>'''NOTE WELL''' | <center><p>'''NOTE WELL'''</p> | ||
| '''Clutter, spam, personal attacks, harassing notes, and otherwise unnecessary material on this page will be deleted or archived. Thanks.'''</center> | '''Clutter, spam, personal attacks, harassing notes, and otherwise unnecessary material on this page will be deleted or archived. Thanks.'''</center> | ||
Revision as of 23:57, 20 January 2007
NOTE WELL
Clutter, spam, personal attacks, harassing notes, and otherwise unnecessary material on this page will be deleted or archived. Thanks.Please e-mail me via Wiki "E-mail this user".--Drboisclair 21:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, I choose not to have an e-mail on file with Wiki, so I can not e-mail you.
Justas Jonas 00:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, some users do not like their user talk pages cluttered with messages. I wanted to discuss the Book of Concord article. Paring it down while keeping in information that characterizes it and fits it into Lutheran and Christian tradition in a way that gives more information than the usual encyclopedia entry.--Drboisclair 03:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea to me, Drboisclair. What do you have in mind? Justas Jonas 13:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are making good improvements; however, the need for stating the corollary: that the documents of the Book of Concord were/are not the private documents of their individual authors is an important point when one cosiders the issue of the Augsburg Confession and the Apology, which Melanchthon believed he could alter as he saw fit. To say that they are public documents is to say that they are not private writings. Maybe you could put that in somehow.--Drboisclair 00:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea to me, Drboisclair. What do you have in mind? Justas Jonas 13:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's fine, but the sentence was terribly worded. Just bad style. Better to make that thought another sentence. Go for it. Justas Jonas