Misplaced Pages

User talk:Justas Jonas

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Justas Jonas (talk | contribs) at 19:19, 20 January 2007 (removed harassment, abuse and personal attacks, also clutter.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:19, 20 January 2007 by Justas Jonas (talk | contribs) (removed harassment, abuse and personal attacks, also clutter.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

PLEASE NOTE

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)


That's fine, but the sentence was terribly worded. Just bad style. Better to make that thought another sentence. Go for it. Justas Jonas