Misplaced Pages

Oh no! This is a dreadful mistake! Please unblock Anthony asap. Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, revert that. Even if he was baiting (big "if"), do you really think Malleus would want someone civility-blocked on his behalf? – iridescent 20:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked; this was a tongue-in-cheek supportive statement. –xeno 20:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced it was, but in the spirit of WP:AGF, I apologize for misunderstanding the tone and intent of your interaction. MLauba 20:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Noting for reference that I requested an oversight on your block log to return it to its pristine state and avoid any prejudice from other admins in the future. MLauba 21:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Update, it has been declined, pointing out that oversighting your log would actually be worse and give the impression that the block was correct but the reason in the block log inappropriate.

I understand you'll be mightily pissed off when you return tomorrow. Unfortunately, there's no way I can undo the damage I did, and mend an egg's shell once it has been broken. Oversight suggested a one second block with an apology to make it clear for posterity that I did screw up, and I'm perfectly willing to do that. However, it is your block log that gets a third entry, and I expect I've done enough there by my own, so it's entirely your call. In any case, you have the diffs of these talk messages to resort to, if I can do anything more, please let me know. MLauba 22:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In case it's helpful, as an oversighter, I can confirm what MLauba has said. Suppression wouldn't be appropriate in this case because it would imply that the block is correct but the reason given was not appropriate. There is also no way to remove the block from your log entirely. The 1 second block (with autoblock disabled, that's important) approach is best in this case. --Deskana (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's in a MySql database table; a fool could delete it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding that developers won't do this. Someone once told me that if your block log is clean, you aren't trying enough. I, of course, cheated to get mine, but Anthony should wear his proudly. –xeno 22:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It ought not to be their choice, but there you go. Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

My first block. I feel so... radical. Anthony (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth

Sorry for interfering. I was looking if SlimVirgin reacted somehow to my post, and I am seeing your question, Anthony. I am not a native English speaker, and I neither have experience with categorizing on WP. Can you just educate me please, what sort of `fringe' you mean here. I am just adding a few points which can help to faciliate your answer.

E.g., does the fringeness automatically follow from the fact that only a very few biblical scholars in each generation find the nonhistoricity hypothesis probable? If this is the case, can you show me please an example of a theory which you would judge fringe on similar grounds?

If the number of scholars is not decisive, on which other grounds you would judge the hypothesis (theory) as fringe? It would be always illustrative if you can name (an) example(s) of other theory(ies) which you would judge fringe on similar grounds. In any case it would be good if in your example has an analogue of a book like James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, The Historical Jesus: Five Views, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity (2009) where the mainstream academics publish and comment each other with a `fringe' author on equal footing, or something like this. In short, your example of some clearly fringe theory should have the status as close to the JoN nonhistoricity hypothesis as possible.

If you cannot come with a suitable example, would that mean that this is a fringe theory of its own, very isolated, kind?

Also what subcategory would it be? E.g. Historical revisionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/Historical_revisionism)?

If this is the case, does here, e.g., the following paragraph apply?

Those historians who work within the existing establishment and who have a body of existing work from which they claim authority, often have the most to gain by maintaining the status quo. This can be called an accepted paradigm, which in some circles or societies takes the form of a denunciative stance towards revisionism of any kind.

Anyway, I have seen a lot of discussion there about fringeness, but it seems to me that nobody has a clear idea what fringeness in this particular case means. Btw, I am reading in WP instructions that everything is best treated with common sense ... (unfortunately, there will never be a consensus what the common sense is, I know ...).

So, I sincerely ask you Anthony (and SlimVirgin, of course) if you can explain to me your understanding of possible fringeness of nonhistoricity hypothesis, and give me some good examples of theories which are generally accepted as fringe and are as close to JoN nonhistoricity as possible.

(I hope you do not take this as bothering, I think it can be helpful also for you to make clear your ideas about it.)

Thank you very much for considering my question.Jelamkorj (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jelamkorj. You can talk to me anywhere. I value your contributions. I'm basing my (present) view on my reading of WP:FRINGE. The quotes supplied by Eugene in his FAQ 1 have convinced me that the vast majority of establishment scholars have discounted the proposition as implausible. (In the light of good evidence to the contrary, I shall change my view with ease. But I have neither the time, nor the competency, to search for that. Can you provide me with a good argument against?) I believe this means it conforms to WP:FRINGE. The examples WP:FRINGE uses are a pseudoscience (Creation Science), a conspiracy theory (faked moon landing), quasiscientific mumbo jumbo (Time cube), an urban legend (Paul is dead), astrology and autodynamics. I don't for a second think the Christ myth theory is in the same league as this nonsense. But my reading of WP:FRINGE combined with FAQ 1 leaves me no choice but to conclude that this theory conforms.

I do understand that the vast majority of establishment scholars are influenced by faith and so, possibly, the theory deserves to be taken seriously today, and their discounting of it is highly prejudiced. But that is asking a different question. It seems plain to me that this is fringe. It is by no means certain that it deserves to be.

I try to avoid discussions about categories. May I duck that one? Anthony (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anthony (hope that SlimVirgin does not mind (mis)using her page :-) ). Yes, I understand that you base your (present) view on your reading of WP:FRINGE. Many people seem to be reading it that way, but I find strange that they do not give serious examples of similar cases (which then looks like inventing a new category of what should be generally understood as fringe). You yourself understand that CMT is not in the same league as the examples you presented. (Btw., just food for thought: Is the theory that the Gospels are basically reliable historical accounts fringe? Is the theory that Jesus was just a minor rabbi, who got quickly deified on unprecedented level, fringe? Etc.) One problem here is that there have been surely history-ignorant Jesus-denial claims (like in some Soviet propaganda, or in sensational books or so), to which the label of `moon-landing denial thinking' can be probably rightly attached. (Of course, there are surely many `strange-thinking' books which automatically assume historicity of Jesus ...) Maybe that the comments which SlimVirgin (with you and others, I did not follow in detail) skilfully removed from the article were directed to such attempts. Anyway, since nobody has been able to show a scholarly work which would seriously handle the arguments of people like Wells, Doherty, Price, it is just on WP-editors to decide if these various derogatory comments can be taken as including Wells, Doherty, Price, ... don't you think? Btw, I just noted the remark from JohnWBarber below `When an agnostic like Bart Ehrman compares Christ myth theory with Holocaust denial, he's showing just how confident he is that the idea is on the fringe'. You have probably read on the talk page that I recommended you as well to hear Ehrman's interview which Bill the Cat suggested. I think Ehrman is a rational guy, and thus he could never use the arguments he does (Paul says he met disciples of Jesus, Paul says he met relatives of Jesus) if he ever contemplated Wells, Doherty, Price and then checked Paul's epistles again. But ok, you would have to look by yourself, you surely doubt that some jelamkorj could find really embarrassing mistakes not only in Ehrman, but in EVERY work which claims to give arguments that historicity of Jesus is historically clear. Yes, I read Doherty, but afterwards all the early Christian literature for myself. But this does not matter for wikipedia, of course. I just thought, people like you can take care about neutrality of the article, e.g. by not letting the opponents (mis)interpret the arguments of proponents, etc. This is more important than whether it will be formally categorized as fringe or not.Jelamkorj (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Almost everything about this article is more important than whether it gets categorized as fringe. Speaking of which, I have just rewritten the FAQ. If you have any thoughts please tell me at the FAQ deletion discussion? I've removed all unnecessary and insulting stuff. Anthony (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I will not participate there. But looking there, it again strikes me when seeing all the quotes `no serious ancient historian doubts that Jesus was a real person' etc. etc. Such quotes are, in fact, very often taken as if they were the scholarly arguments by itself. If somebody reads Doherty or Price or so, and wants then to read a scholarly work demonstrating some serious methodological and/or factual mistakes Doherty, Price etc. are doing, then (s)he is disappointed to find only such vacuous quotes. I find this disgusting, really. But it is clear to me that WP cannot do much about this. What can be made is at least the neutral reporting.

I can add two small concrete things. In `See also' in the CMT article you first encounter * Bible conspiracy theory. Such a thing has, of course, nothing to do with Wells, Doherty, Price, but including this reference characterizes the effort of many editors to push all this into such a category. I hope that neutral people like you will also address such things there. (Maybe you find the reference appropriate, I certainly do not.)

There are various innaccuracies like this

Advocates also sometimes reject the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers such as Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, which seem to indicate an early belief in a historical Jesus. Their writings are either dismissed as forgeries, or the most pertinent passages in their works are bracketed as later interpolations.

I leave Ignatius aside; the problems with his letters were recognized already in 16th century I think (but Doherty certainly takes Ignatius into account). The epistle of Clement is, in fact, used by Doherty as another argument for nonhistoricity of JoN. I read it and I certainly concur, such letters like Clement's are in fact, big trouble for historicists (they just ignore such negative evidence in their works). But my opinion is of course not important here; important is that again somebody put a `straw man' into the article.

Sorry again for no more active participation.Jelamkorj (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jelamkorj. Thank you for all your good advice. I just went back to FAQ and removed the quotes that referred to Christ myth theorists as not serious or respectable, cranks, etc. I have come here from editing science and medicine and am appalled. The comments of these "scholars" about this theory are so juvenile, puerile, even. To edit the FAQ I was obliged to read carefully all the quotes! I had to shower afterwards. Once the ban, or whatever it's called, is lifted, I'll remove that external link you spotted. It does seem to me that mainstream scholars have marginalized the theory, though. Or am I being deceived here? Anthony (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, thanks for chocolate :-). You ask `It does seem to me that mainstream scholars have marginalized the theory, though. Or am I being deceived here?'

I can tell you briefly mu subjective experience. I became Christian as an adult but in a secular country in Europe (Roman Catholic, not some evangelical Christian or so). My Christianity was sort of C.S.Lewis (http://en.wikipedia.org/C._S._Lewis) if I can use such a shortcut. In 2002 somebody gave me Lee Strobel's book Case for Christ. (http://en.wikipedia.org/Lee_Strobel). I was happy to read about a journalist becoming Christian, but got successively very uneasy with the strange logic and obvious untruths from the New Testament experts who Strobel interviewed. I thought that somebody must have reacted to this, looked at the web, and found Doherty's web page http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm with his Challenging the Verdict. This then lead me to start his Jesus Puzzle. It looked incredible to me, I never noticed anything particularly suspicious when reading New Testament previously, so I stopped reading Doherty (not to be influenced) and started to read all early Christian literature (mainly at http://earlychristianwritings.com/). In fact, this overwhelmingly supported what Doherty says (I mean the basic outlines), everything showed a clear evolution of Christianity, as a mystery religion, child of its time, very well sitting in the context ... There is a complete void of any Jesus of Nazareth in the earliest Christian literature, Christ Jesus is spoken of as heavenly being who somehow brought a sacrifice for us (this long hidden secret is now made clear through the scriptures ...), they await his coming (the word parousia of course does not translate `second coming' though wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/Second_Coming_of_Christ) again follows scholars, who know better: the early Christian authors `obviously must have meant' SECOND coming, you know) ... In fact, I now hardly can comprehend how somebody who reads this without any preconception, can easily accept that the authors had a recent human man in mind, who in fact had already been here very recently and had started this religion ... When I then also realized that it seems very probable that all of the Passion story started with ONE literary work of an uknown author (`Mark') in unknown time and at unknown place, with uknown intention, and this story is obviously based in many details on rewriting passages from the Old Testament (which his audience was supposed to recognize, he was no `liar' or anything like this ... )... OK, I'll stop, I am suprised myself that I am writing this to you here, on a public board (but I will not erase when I have written already). It was emotional at the time of my deconversion; my Christians friends would think I am probably trying to confirm to myself that I was correct and that's why I am also (slightly) engaging here ...

Regarding the New Testament scholars, some (older, not comprehensive) overview is also at that above page (http://earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html). What is the mainstream there? It does not seem that they would have a common methodology by which they can come to a reasonable consensus on anything, maybe except the claim that there certainly was a historical Jesus of Nazareth (for otherwise what would they have been researching in effect ?) I do not know if they somehow `marginalized the theory'. They surely view it as `marginal'; if that is sufficient in a scholarly research ... I repeat, it is clear to me that WP can only reflect the actual situation, no original research and/or evaluations are allowed, that is clear. One can only hope for a neutral and fair treatment in the WP article.Jelamkorj (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is fascinating. Having read the early church documents, do you now conclude that Doherty's view is reasonable? I have to go to bed now but look forward to continuing our conversation soon. Anthony (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're trying to move the discussion forward. Given the above, I think it might be helpful if I mention that modern mainstream scholarship disagrees with Doherty's take of Paul's beliefs (hell, even G. A. Wells disagrees with Doherty's take on Paul's beliefs). Here is perhaps the most pertinent quote from a major source I know: "Paul himself, though notoriously unconcerned with Jesus before the Crucifixion as opposed to the Risen and Returning Christ, nonetheless still incorporates a key moment in the life of Jesus into his proclamation when he invokes the teaching about the Last Supper... The point, both for the evangelists and for Paul, was that Jesus, his elevated status as Redeemer, Lord, Messiah, or Son of God notwithstanding, had acted and operated in a human context, within human time." Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, p. 3

Anthony, I will still try to react somehow. Eugene (whose signature I cannot see at the above comment) made it clear by his post that it was a temporary illusion that I was speaking just to you (sitting on the sofa and having chocolate ...). One has no privacy here, of course. Speaking of Eugene, it is clear to me that I have a completely different view from his how the article should be written (if I wanted to engage in that endless editing, which I do not want, in fact). This has been demonstrated (already) on the (minor) point with Crossan's comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_32#Crossan.27s_comment). In my opinion, there are no good reasons to include this casual side-remark by Crossan into the encyclopedia entry, as if it demonstrated a scholarly response to the work by Doherty. (My opinion is that only a scholarly response dealing with Doherty's arguments would be worth to be registered in the encyclopedia. Eugene seems to have a different opinion.) I find also characteristic that Eugene, who seems to like collecting various quotes, suddenly does not like Funk's quote which I mentioned still at SlimVirgin's page. I like the quote, since Funk speaks for himself, not speaking for `all serious historians' or so. Of course, it is clear to me that Eugene and others would somehow find that quote completely irrelevant, a non-issue as Eugene says, ... Eugene preventively added another quote form Funk "Nevertheless, there is substantial evidence that a person by the name of Jesus once existed." This, of course, draws again attention to the question what is the main issue here. You are rightly asking that question, Anthony, as I noticed. (I think in some old contribution I also tried to stress that the main notions are not sufficiently defined.) The issue is surely not "if a person by the name of Jesus once existed", but it is difficult to use the literature to define it precisely. I would think that the main question here is if the religion known as Christianity started with a historical Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and with his disciples claiming the resurrection of their master afterwards; this would also entail that all early Christian authors (like the authors of NT epistles) were equating their heavenly Christ Jesus with that historical Jesus of Nazareth in their minds. If the question is posed like this, then e.g. Wells certainly answers NO. If the question was posed, e.g., like "Are some episodes (some parables etc.) in Gospels inspired by real historical people in the first century (among whom some could have name Jesus)?", then Wells, Doherty, Price would say YES. I think one would also find some opinions that there was nothing like this going in the first century, everything was forged much later or so ... Maybe this is from which Wells wanted to distance himself ... Good luck, Anthony, with your efforts to clarify the main issues first (but the archives are full of such attempts).

Replying to your question "Having read the early church documents, do you now conclude that Doherty's view is reasonable?", I can only say YES. Btw, I cannot imagine how else I could evaluate claims of Doherty, Fredriksen, Ehrman, Price or whoever without reading the primary sources by myself. (Or should I count how many scholars say this, how many scholars say that, or what?). I know, such evaluation is not the job for WP-editors. It is also very time consuming, but it was important for me personally. It has no sense that I would try to argue here. I will just quickly react to Eugene's remarks.

Yes, Doherty and Wells differ. But they do agree that the silence about Jesus of Nazareth in the early Christian literature cannot be cavalierly dismissed as unimportant. They both view the option, that the epistle writers had Jesus of Nazareth in mind, as highly improbable. They differ in what seems to them as the most probable possibility how these authors thought about their Jesus Christ ...

Regarding the quote from Fredriksen "Paul himself, though notoriously unconcerned with Jesus before the Crucifixion as opposed to the Risen and Returning Christ ...". If I did not know the early Christian literature, I would just deduce from the quotes like this that the scholars found in the early Christian literature (or how would they know otherwise?) that Paul was a bit `strange guy' who was not so much interested in what the founder of his religion (the Redeemer, Lord, Messiah, Son of God) said and did on the earth before his Crucifixion. But since I read that literature, I know that there is nothing like this there, and that Paul is no exception, all early Christian authors look like "unconcerned with Jesus before the Crucifixion". But this "notoriously unconcerned" is just a speculation of the historicist; they just find impossible to contemplate the more natural possibility, i.e., that those Christian authors simply did not have in mind any such things with which they would be `notoriously unconcerned'. (As I also said above, the word "parousia" translates "coming", not "returning"; this "Returning Christ" is again something which scholars like Fredriksen just read into the epistles, though it is not there ...).

(Btw, if you ask these scholars why there is no sign of any interest in holy places by Christians in the first two centuries, they would tell you that they were not interested, if you ask how it is possible that the Christians did not remember if Jesus had brothers=children of Mary (one Christian version), or brothers=children of the first wife of Joseph (East Christian version), or no blood brothers at all (Catholics), ...., if you ask them how it is possible that several major Christian apologists in the second century explaining their religion to pagans say no word about Jesus Christ at all (one explains that "Christians" means "anointed with oil of God), ...

I know, Anthony, for you these are just my claims, you will probably never check by yourself. And I understand that a quote from Ehrman or Fredriksen surely must have a larger weight for you than a comment by some jelamkorj; this is in particular true, when discussing the WP-article, of course. I repeatedly stress that what I would be happy to see is a neutral, decent and fair encyclopedic treatment ...Jelamkorj (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(Remove indent) Thanks for taking an interest in this very confusing topic. While a non scholar John Remsburg's The Christ (1909) gave what I think is the best explanation for this mess: "While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination."

"Or, alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him." Dodd, C.H. (1938) History and the Gospel under the heading "Christ Myth Theory" Manchester University Press pg 17 shows that as late as the 1930s there were scholars who accepted a historical person being "plugged-in" to an already existing messiah myth as part of the definition of "Christ Myth Theory". The real question is did the definition of "Christ Myth Theory" change from 1938 to the present and if so what does that mean for those put in that category before 1938 (like Drews)?

The biggest problem comes from the fact that "Christ" is a title not a name so "Christ myth" can refer to 1) the myth that grew up around a historical 1st century teacher named Jesus (mainstream), 2) a preexisting messiah myth that Jesus either intentionally tried to fulfill or was made to fulfill by his followers after death (borderline mainstream), 3) The Gospel Jesus is a composite character which by definition is non-historical even if the parts were made from historical people--Longfellow's Paul Revere is a more modern example; there certainly was a Paul Revere but Longfellow's has him mixed in with other riders the names of some have been lost to history, and 4) the fringe idea that the Gospel Jesus was made out of whole cloth with no historical basis what-so-ever. That in a nutshell is the mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. Can you supply the full text of that Dodd (1938) quote and/or any others that use or define the term in a way contrary to the FAQ definition? Do you know any other editors who might be able to help with that task? Anthony (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of my references can be found through Google books in preview mode. Here is Dodd and Wood for example. I have already provided full contextual links for Bromiley and Doherty's "JESUS — ONE HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE CHRIST by Alvar Ellegard" article.

"As for the story of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, Mark took the basic ideas from the Christ myth but dared to imagine how the crucifixion and of the Christ might look if played out as a historical even in Jerusalem, something the Christ myth resisted. Ever after, Christians would imagine Mark's fiction as history and allow this erasure of the time as a wink in the mind of Israel's God." (Mack, Burton L. (1996) Who wrote the New Testament? pg 152)

"I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus." (Schweitzer (1931) Out of My Life and Thought page 125) But "my theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth" Frazer, Sir James George (1913) The golden bough: a study in magic and religion, Volume 9 pg 412

"In the first and second editions of his work Drews noted that his purpose was to show that everything about the historical Jesus has a mythical character and thus it was not necessary to presuppose that a historical figure ever existed." pg 50. Further along Weaver says "A second part of the book took up the Christian Jesus. The Jesus myth had been in existence a very long time in one form or another, but it was only in the appearance of the tentmaker of Tarsus, Paul, that Jesus community separated from Judaism took root." pg 52 (Weaver, Walter P. (1999) The historical Jesus in the twentieth century, 1900-1950

Hope these help--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Your note and CMT

Thank you for your note, and thank you for asking people to clarify what non-historicity means. In general, it's nice that you try to genuinely shed some light on the topic rather than pushing one side. I will maybe still casually follow it, but my wife does not allow me much time on Misplaced Pages (thankfully!), and since I completely agree with Eugene that the theory is completely untenable, I think I've spent more than enough time on this topic. I also noticed that Crum375 has asked very similar questions in the GA page... In any case, it is a delicate balance one has to strike on these fringe topics: on the one hand, there is an academic imperative to first state a proposition as it would be recognized by its proponents; on the other hand, a serious encyclopedia should never describe a fringe theory completely in its own terms but only with reference to the mainstream. Good luck in doing that! ;) Vesal (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

historicity of Jesus

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Eugene (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Your note

Constantin Brunner

Hi, it's not like I actually understood what he was on about; the language is extremely difficult. But I think he is trying to argue that Arthur Drew and myth theorists were at least used to remove any Jewishness from Jesus. Ideally, someone who really understands the source should cover it in the article, but see this: "Ultimately, past all shame, its loud-mouthed bellowings of victory resounding far and wide, criticism marches across the last frontier and enters the land of brazen fraud, solemnly swearing that Christ has Aryan blood as well, that he has only Aryan blood, and that to say Christ is a Jew is a lie on the part of the Jews—for only Aryans can produce geniuses, only the Germanic peoples, only the anti-Semites: Christ is of Germanic race, Christ is a Westphalian, Christ is a Saxon anti-Semite!"

Hope this helps, Vesal (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

ARG! Now, for honesty and consistency's sake I have to argue against something supporting my "side"! From the quote above it looks like Brunner is addressing an idea that isn't exactly the CMT. This sort of Ayrianization of Jesus was popular with some writters in Germany at around the same time Drews was active and it stemmed from the same nationalistic/anti-semetic motives--but it was a different idea: that Jesus really existed, he just didn't happen to be Jewish. If this is the focus of Brunner's article, I don't think it can be legitimately used in the CMT article. Eugene (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, this quotation was from one small part of a very lengthy treatise. Yes, it does cover the Aryanization of Jesus, but the main topic is mythicism. Brunner does link Aryanization of Jesus with mythicism: to him these are both strands of the same kind of pseudo-scholarship. Right after the passage on Aryanization, he writes:

We will not go into detail here about where this criticism eventually ends up. Even where criticism does not share the motives to which we have referred and does not make Christ into an Aryan, or an Aryan folksong, it still gets no nearer to the truth. In denying the historical reality of Christ, while it does not directly result in men's ultimate baseness against individuals and is not so directly a danger to human life for those who come within its range, such criticism, though it lacks deliberate malice, is all the more repulsive and all the more dangerous to souls.

Barrett Pashak (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is the quotation from Brunner's treatise where he predicts that the kind of pseudo-scholarship that produces the Christ Myth Theory will lead to the Holocaust:

Scholarly criticism has come to this: it can now be enjoyed by the masses in the form of ultimate buffoonery, malice and spicy sleight-of -hand. Not only can it be enjoyed, not only has it reached its acme, where at last it can be pursued really energetically, now that the masses are rushing to get involved, it can be carried on with appropriate energy not only theoretically but, according to the ultimate goal of all science, the fruits of the theory can be harvested immediately. Immediate practical action can be taken: now, straight away, as a result of scientific knowledge, human beings can be subjected to violence and massacred…. But wickedness needs to combine with the right kind of nonsense, otherwise it will not achieve the right result: the God, the God who was different—there was a thing! And today it is the race, the race that is different; there's a thing that will prove fateful again for the Jews—and this is one case when we really can hear the grass of history growing.

Note that Brunner assigns the blame for anti-semitism and the yet-to-occur Holocaust to pseudo-scholarship, and it is this pseudo-scholarship as it relates specifically to the Christ Myth Theory that he is attacking in this treatise. His attack is on pseudo-scholarship in general, and in particular how it distorts the historicity of Christ, and how this kind of pseudo-scholarship serves to incite hatred, particularly against Jews.

Barrett Pashak (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all. That was very informative. Anthony (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI etc

Please, if you don't have anything helpful to say ("this is hilarious" is not helpful) don't say anything at all. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit butch, HJ. He's taking the piss and I'm laughing. It's very funny. And I'll say what I damn well like on someone else's talk page. Mind your manners. Anthony (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Anthony. It IS hilarious!  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Your essay

Thanks for your brilliant and important, to me at least, essay on the role of distress in physical pain, social pain, and mental illness. I have been wondering what you mean by 'distress' however, because the word is used in various ways. A few days ago, I've seen a definition that pleases me much, in Medpedia: "Distress : Extreme mental or physical pain or suffering." This definition might fit, from my point of view, with what your essay is about... --Robert Daoust (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you. ☺ It is pretty audacious and far fetched, but I think it hangs together. I may have interested a social neusoscientist cited in the essay (though he hasn't seen it yet - and may run screaming when he does!) to do the fMRI work on reactivity in chronic physical pain to acute social pain (rejection and empathy for pain). If he does proceed with it - and he sounds enthusiastic - he is mates with the perfect guy to test self-regulation in chronic pain. So, maybe he'll sell that project to his mate for me. That would be PERFECT. The theory predicts, and relies on, there being aberrant response in chronic pain patients in those two domains.

I like that Medpedia definition a lot. Very concise and elegant. I'm using distress to mean ACC and anterior insular cortex activity associated with negative homeostatic emotions: pain, itch, fatigue, etc. But I think I'll get it out of there, because it's vague; or maybe define it more clearly. Thanks again for your very kind response, Robert. Anthony (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Doherty and Dating

I said that I didn't want to debate and I stand by that. But since you seem to be honestly interacting with the Fredriksen material I'll address you question about the dating here. (I don't want to do it on the article's talk page for fear of encouraging Bruce to use the page as a forum.) Mainstream scholarship dates Mark to just prior to AD 70, with Matthew and Luke appearing sometime after that up to maybe 80ish, and John coming last, probably around 90. Doherty late dates Mark to 90ish and puts the rest in the second century. Fredriksen is confused by Doherty's statement about stepping "outside those Gospels into the much more rarefied atmosphere of the first century epistles" because she doesn't seem to realize that Doherty late dates at least most of the gospels until after Ignatius. So what reason does Doherty give for departing from the mainstream here? Well, because nothing "forces" him not to. That's it. "Nothing in Mark should force us to date him before the 90s" Eugene (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Doherty's assertion that there is no attestation by other writers until at least 125 makes his later dating plausible, by no means illogical. Is he lying (or mistaken) about there being no quote from any gospel until after 125? Anthony (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak to that particular issue. I can say, though, that actual manuscript fragments from the Gospel of John have been found that date to c. 125. Given that the fragment is very likely a copy that means that John was written earlier. And given that John is almost universally believed to have been the last gospel written that means that Matthew and Luke were written even earlier. And given that Matthew and Luke are believed to depend on Mark as a source that puts Mark even earlier. Eugene (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52 says the c in "c. 125" means plus 75 years or minus 35 years. Anthony (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that most circa dates in my field of archeology are supposed to be normalized with the circa date in the middle of the curve the c125 date strikes me are more wishful thinking especially given the size of the fragment and that the provenience of this document is shot to blazes.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Comparative denial

N. T. Wright compares the denial of Jesus to the denial of Tiberias Caesar.

Michael Grant compares the denial of Jesus to the denial of Alexander the Great (quoted here). Eugene (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thanks Anthony (talk) 07:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out these comparisons are strawmen. Both Tiberias Caesar and Alexander the Great had known contemporary accounts written about them not to mention all the physical evidence that can surround a leader of a nation--coins with their picture minted during their reign as well as statues and mosaics commissioned to commemorate achievements. I would present King Arthur, Robin Hood, and John Frum as counter examples as to why the CMT is not in tin foil hat land.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry BG, there are NO surviving contemporary accounts of Alexander the Great. The only sources we have of ATG are 3-4 centuries after his death. And coins mean nothing. After all, our coins have "In God We Trust" written on them. Does that mean that that is evidence for God? Hardly. And there are plenty of statues of various gods from the ancient world. Does that mean they existed? Once again, no. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

As I had to explain in 1999 to a overly zealous prehistorical fanatic called Sheff in sci.archaeology you need to understand provenance to understand the issue at hand.

Provenance: the records documenting the existence of an object or other records either in an archaeological (provenience) or historical context. (Sharer, Robert (1987) Archaeology: Discovering Our Past)

Clearly Bill the Cat 7 never bother to actually read the article he linked to as it states "The primary sources written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost, apart from a few inscriptions and fragments. Also if you go and read the The Hellenistic age: a history on Google books you get a different interpretation than Bill the Cat 7's--the lost works were used in what does survive. Furthermore you have to remember the Gospels were anonymous works not given title or authors until c180--in terms of provenance there is nothing to connect the Gospels to the people who supposedly wrote them.

Never mind that works like Against Heresies by Irenaeus show that critical thinking just wasn't (and to some degree still isn't) functioning here. It is impossible to reconcile the claim that Jesus had to be a minimum of 46 years old when he was crucified as "even as the Gospel and all the elders testify" (2:22:6) with our current c4 BCE to c36 CE timeline but Irenaeus is happily used by some to show just how "reliable" the Gospels are.

The biggest problem I have with the Christ Myth theory as presented is it is not always clear by people using the term how they are using it. Some use it to say there never was a Jesus while others use it to say the Gospel Jesus didn't exist and as I have pointed out before those are two very different issues.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

BruceGrubb does not so much need an understanding of "provenance" as of WP:ENC. There is a difference between Misplaced Pages and usenet. BruceGrubb is abusing Misplaced Pages for endless usenet-style exchanges of opinion. This is not acceptable. We have long established that the relevant scholars in the field reject BruceGrubb's pet theory as without merit. This is good enough for Misplaced Pages, as an encyclopedia based on secondary sources, to treat the theory as without merit. Everyone accepts that there are people out there who still choose to believe in it, but for our purposes this is irrelevant. BruceGrubb has been pulling this off literally for years. In my opinion it is high time someone threw the book at him. --dab (𒁳) 19:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It not my pet theory but rather what can be shown by the material. I have repeatedly shown that the Christ Myth theory (even using that exact phrase) is not always that Jesus didn't exist.

• Doherty said it was the Gospel Jesus not existing using the "Jesus myth" label,
• Price has called Wells after Jesus Myth part as of the Christ Myth group on at least three separate occasions from 1999 to at least as late as 2002,
• Welsh's excluded middle definition includes part of Wells current position but excludes Mead's, * Bromiley's story of combined with constantly shifing gears (Lucian, Wells, Bertrand Russel, and then P. Graham) makes is unclear as to how he is defining it.
• Boyd putting Wells with Bauer and Drews and later calling Wells "the leading contemporary Christ myth theorist" which Wells says is not accurate but then you hit one of Boyd's definitions ("thereby refuting the Christ myth theory that Paul thought of Jesus as mythological figure who lived in the distant past." ) and you wonder if if Wells and Boyd are using the same definition for the term and if that is where the problem is,
• and to top the whole mess off you have "Christ Myth" and "Jesus Myth" used in totally different ways by reliable sources as well as non experts like Holding calling people like Dawkins and Remsburg "Christ Myth theorists" came though they better fit Boyd's "the reports we have of him are so unreliable and saturated with legend...that we can confidently ascertain very little historical information about him." category.

The floating/changing definition for "Christ Myth theory" is IMHO the main reason the article has had WP:NPOV from the get go--it is uncertain if the various different authors are using the exact same definitions and the fact that some aren't (Welsh vs Boyd) is glossed over.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm done arguing with him. I'm sure he's a nice person in "real life" but I have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in a debate on pet theories. Thanks for the heads up dab. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Bruce is welcome to discuss anything he chooses here, as are you (pl). Anthony (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome‎

Thanks for fixing that dead link in the article. It is much appreciated it. Nightscream (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not "wait" two and a half months to address the revert, I simply wasn't aware of it until a few days ago. As for SandyGeorgia, the problem does not seem to be one of time (since she is clearly able to edit the article and participate on the talk page), but of the hostility she is bringing to the discussion. Nightscream (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking the less distracted people are in a conversation, the better the conversation goes, and depending on the nature of the journey, travel can be pretty distracting. Anthony (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My, this is just popping up everywhere :) Nightscream, it has now been clearly explained to you multiple times that I am traveling, I do not have access to a book that is at home, and do you really not understand that it is tiresome when you remove accurate info from articles and add false info to them, instead of waiting for others to be able to access sources for what is common knowledge anyway? I can sporadically edit in between long days of medical appointments; I most certainly cannot access a book that is at home, dedicate full attention to the article while on the road, nor can I understand why you don't answer direct questions or why you are adding incorrect info to an article. Nor do I understand why you made an issue of a dead link to a hard print source-- it doesn't appear that you understand wiki guidelines, nor that you recognize the difference between a BLP and easily citable material in a non-BLP, nor why you can't just simply add a cn tag for info needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Your recent edits to Talk:Acupuncture could give Misplaced Pages contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Misplaced Pages itself. Please note that making such threats on Misplaced Pages is strictly prohibited under Misplaced Pages's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Misplaced Pages, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Verbal chat 07:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Please strike and retract the threat as soon as possible. Verbal chat 07:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Diff's please. Anthony (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You have accused me of libel. Verbal chat 12:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Too right. You did libel me. And I'm still waiting for that apology. Are you man enough?

In light of that template thing you just pasted on my talk page, I now accuse you of being a fool. Anthony (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Verbal chat 13:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What can this be about? Anthony (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Really, responding to an "accusation" of being misleading with a claim of "libel" is over the top, whether or not you actually intend to take legal action. Dial it down a bit next time, ok? (And "fool" is unambiguously a violation of WP:NPA.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What have I done wrong, Sarek? Anthony (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Libel is a legal term for a false statement that when written, negatively impacts the individual it is written about. For one thing, throwing that term around can create a chilling effect - especially in an instance like this where there was obviously no libellous statement made. While there is no legal threat made, per WP:NLT, there is still the implication of an attempt at intimidation...and that is not acceptable. In addition, calling someone a fool is an ad hominem personal attack. Misplaced Pages operates on consensus and cooperation, not on intimidation and insults. --Smashville 13:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Regarding events at ANI. Verbal accuses me of being deceptive, which is demonstrably false. I call him a fool which he has demonstrated amply. I get the block (without warning). Seems not right somehow. Anthony (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please have another look at WP:NOTTHEM. I'm not considering anyone else's actions here, only yours; you were made aware that calling another editor a "fool" was unacceptable, and I don't see any indication that you intend to discontinue that behaviour. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Reblocked with talk page disabled for repeating the "fool" personal attack yet again. Leaving existing unblock request to stand for review.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If you still feel that you need to appeal before the block expires, you can email unblock-l@lists.wikimedia.org.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarek, please be more careful when giving out the unblock list address - it's unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org, not unblock-l. Sarah 09:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just noting here that I've restored Anthony's ability to edit this page, as he was having difficulty getting an email through to the unblock list. I've also asked Sarek for his blessing to undo the unblock, as I think the sequence of events probably boil down to a misunderstanding and some frustration. SlimVirgin 07:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if an admin might consider unblocking me

I have been blocked for 24 hours and had my right to edit my talk page revoked (and now restored - Thank you SlimVirgin.). The blocking admin said on my talk page that I could appeal by email at unblock-l@lists.wikimedia.org but I have sent 2 emails to this address in the last 8 hours from 2 different email addresses and both have been returned "wrong address". I believe the block to be unjust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat_and_general_incivility

I had called the language a user employed towards me on a talk page "libelous, rude, ad hom PA," which it was. Very mild, actually, but rudely implying I was behaving deceptively. The editor posted a warning on my talk page saying this "could give Misplaced Pages contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Misplaced Pages itself." The person was reading this into my use of the word "libel" which, according to the Oxford English Dictionary means "In popular use: Any false and defamatory statement in conversation or otherwise." I categorically did not imply any other meaning. So I told him not only had he libeled me, but he is a fool..

After an 18 minute discussion at ANI, without waiting for a comment from me, it was decided I had intimidated the editor and an admin warned me on my talk page that "the implication of an attempt at intimidation" (!) was unacceptable, though I never implied it - they had erroneously inferred it. That editor and another told me that calling an editor a fool is a PA. At ANI, explaining why I had used the term fool, I said the editor "has demonstrated he is a fool by inferring a legal threat in no way inherent or implied in my use of the term libel." For this I was blocked for 24 hours.

In my first appeal against the block I explained an editor had accused me of being deceptive, which is demonstrably false and I had called him a fool which he has demonstrated amply. For this I had the right to edit my talk page revoked. Nobody warned me that if I use the term that is under discussion at ANI, in the discussion, I would be blocked. No one warned me that if I used the term in explaining why I was blocked and should be unblocked, in my appeal, I would lose my right to edit my talk page. In a nutshell:

• An editor falsely accuses me of acting deceptively.
• Then falsely accuses me of a legal threat.
• I am rebuked by ANI for this non-existent legal threat without even being asking if I had implied a legal threat.
• I am blocked for using the word "fool" in my explanation of my use of the term.
• I have my right to edit my talk page revoked for using the word in explaining my first appeal.
• Meanwhile, back at ANI, the boys are tittering and slapping each other on the back.

Seems wrong to me.

I've been editing here for a couple of years with an utterly unblemished record. Since September, I have contributed quite a bit to the Pain article and was intending to take it straight to FA in a couple of months, and I've written a number of good neuroscience articles.

I suspect my crime was a lack of cringing obsequiousness and servility an ANI - I am used to the Australian justice system, not North Korean. Also, I had described an editor as a fool for not understanding the verb "to libel" and accusing me of intimidation on the basis of that misunderstanding. The editors at ANI all swallowed his misunderstanding (one actually asked "is libel a verb?") and acted on it, so I guess that meant I was calling them fools.

I suppose I am. They are certainly behaving foolishly. Thinking that calling something libel is threatening or implying a threat of legal action, that is foolish. And their response to me expecting an apology for an undeserved rebuke, that was foolish. Tittering and joking after this petty injustice, that was foolish. So, here, it is reasonable for me to imply they are fools. They are.

In this case, the implication was correctly inferred. But I dispute that that was a personal attack. Neither would it be an attack if I were to call them Americans, or English-speakers. You may think it would be an attack to apply the epithet to a smart person (which is not the case here), but even there, it is just an error, not an insult. If a person is blind, and we never tell them about this important difference between them and the rest of us, we are doing them a grave injustice. I am speaking frankly. I am not insulting them.

Anthony

• This block results from this comment of Anthony's which resulted with a warning template. It is clear that htere was no legal threat and the templating was inflammatory and unwarrented. Suggest unblocking and a warning given about over zelous templating.  Giacomo  08:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Anthony, telling someone that they exercised their judgement foolishly is one thing; calling someone a fool or telling them that they are is another. It is unlikely that you are going to be unblocked on the basis that the admin's response was utterly unjustified. However, you can be unblocked on the basis of AGF - that you won't continue to call another editor or refer to another editor as a "fool", even in very difficult situations. From now on, you won't call another editor (or refer to another editor as) a "fool", right? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that, if an editor calls me deceptive again and falsely accuses me of intimidation, I may call him a liar or a fool. I didn't actually call the admins fools, it was just the inevitable implication in light of their behaviour and what I'd called the editor. And my past record predicts my future behaviour more reliably than I could. Your observation that "It is unlikely that you are going to be unblocked on the basis that the admin's response was utterly unjustified." is interesting. Is that for real? Anthony (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes; and yes, that means you were not unblocked on the basis of the original block being unjustified - you can ask SlimVirgin to declare otherwise if you still disagree, though it might not be in interests of moving on (which was the purpose of unblocking). In any case, it's good to see that you can edit again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, I have to go offline shortly, so rather than leave you hanging, I'm going to unblock you before this situation deteriorates any further. I do agree that this was an unfortunate series of events, but I also think you didn't help your own case. I hope you'll acknowledge that so we can all move on. Now is not the time to stand on principle! :) I also think we need to look at the issue of civility blocks, because they end up putting everyone in an awkward position. Anyway, happy editing. I'll leave a note on AN/I and for the blocking admin. SlimVirgin 09:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SlimVirgin. I encourage the blocking admin, or any admin for that matter, to revert SlimVirgin's unblock if they don't agree with it. Anthony (talk) 09:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Unblock email address

I apologize for getting that wrong -- I picked it up from somewhere (irc, maybe?), and forgot to cross-check it before passing it on to you.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Accepted. Above, you rebuked me for my perfectly correct usage of the term "libel". At ANI you joined in mocking me after you had blocked me. Anthony (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding of the word "mock" appears on par with your understanding of the word "libel".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is.

libel, n. In popular use: Any false and defamatory statement in conversation or otherwise. Oxford English dictionary.

Anthony (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarek, here you are stating that you did not block for the "libel" comment; now you are implying Anthony does not understand the meaning of the word -implying Anthony was wrong to use it and you could have blocked. You seem confused, perhaps, it would be best if you disengaged.  Giacomo  14:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best if he/she apologized for his/her mistaken attribution of intent. Anthony (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And I think it would be best if you apologized for falsely stating that I mocked you on WP:ANI after I blocked you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have read, and reread this, and the only interpretation I can put on it is that I am being mocked.

They say it's better to wait for an apology rather than demand one. Demanding an apology makes one look very egotistical. –MuZemike 15:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Heh. Nicely refactored -- I missed that one. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, my timing was absolutely horrible there, but it really doesn't take away from the general message, though. –MuZemike 15:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

But only you can know your intent, so I apologize for misunderstanding. Anthony (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That was a response to MuZemike implying that you were a fool, and then quickly retracting it when he realized how absolutely horrendous the timing on that comment was. I was complimenting him on realizing what he had said and removing it before anyone else had to tell him to do it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I unreservedly apologize for my misunderstanding of your comment. Anthony (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Unreservedly accepted. :-) Let me think about if I can phrase the apology you want in a way that makes me happy as well.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And I thought I was being generous! I wonder if they'll address (or even understand) my points. Anthony (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No, no , no. where is this block reported.  Giacomo  20:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• ANI. FWIW I support unblocking but I'm too tired to deal with that shitstorm that unblocking before there is a consensus would bring. Spartaz 20:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but feel rather the same as you; this constant battling and head banging gets rather tiring - Sarak needs to take a step back.  Giacomo  20:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I too support unblocking, and Giacomo: it's at the ANI board. S.G. _ping! 20:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Relax guys. Get some sleep. Anthony (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarek has just Orwelled the ANI thread. Why? It used to read "Verbal's insulting language, and lazy ignorant and incompetent behavior of admins". Verbal's language was insulting. The admins who commented at yesterday's ANI were all ignorant of the WP:NLT guideline for admin response. Lazy... if one of them had bothered to look at the brief history, they would have realized (assuming they are not fools) there wasn't even an implied threat. Incompetent... well, what do you get when you combine lazy with ignorant? Anthony (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)