Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Restoring version of Prayers

I haven't had time to look into this, but there is else something going on in terms of trying to come up with a new formula for prayers. See here. Its not actually being done by the new Sanhedrin, but by Rav David Bar Hayim "in cooperation with the nascent Sanhedrin". I wish there were 25 hours in a day. --Historian2 11:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC

What is the Sanhedrin going to do next, publish an Orthodox Gates of Prayer? — Rickyrab | Talk 22:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Reform and other Liberal Attitudes

Reading the articles right now = the first I even heard of this New Sanhedrin. I wonder if most Reform and Conservative Jews have even heard of it, especially on my side of the Pond (America). Has anyone from the frei camps had opinions on this, or is this practically an entirely frum debate? — Rickyrab | Talk 22:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It consists entirely of Orthodox rabbis. Adin Steinzaltz, its Nasi, is a well-known figure outside the Orthodox world, I doubt anyone else would be well-known. There have been people with Modern Orthodox etc. leanings who have proposed a revived Sanhedrin in the past as a way to permit clarifying interpretations and limited halachic change in a fashion that would be generally acceptable. There was a great diversity of views expressed in the Talmud, and many issues of contemporary interest had minortiy as well as majority views. A Sanhedrin, while not having the power to make up its own views, would have the power to revote and turn a former minority opinion into the new majority. Even this would likely be of little interest in the Reform and most of the Conservative worlds. However, the current body appears not to be composed of people interested in revisiting such questions. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The nascient Sanhedrin has indeed asserted a power to change Jewish law, a power that might be thought welcome from a liberal perspective. But I think these three documents are likely to provide a flavor for how the actual nascient Sanhedrin (as opposed to a theoretical concept of one) is likely to be regarded by Jews from the more liberal denominations: [1], [2], [3]. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The 'authority' it claims rests with medieval scholars and the Shulchan Aruch so I would be surprized if it were otherwise. On the one hand its agenda includes several "towards unity and healing among the various divisions of the people of Israel". On the other hand it is clear that it wants to do this 'healing' from a strictly orthodox POV. --Historian2 10:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Title Paragraph

This article's title paragraph needs to be summarized. It is simply not enciclopedic to have such a long opening paragraph. Chavatshimshon 12:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Many wikipedia articles are this long, it is essentially a subheading of Sanhedrin. Do you have a suggestion? --Historian2 09:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Authority of Sanhedrin

We had discussed earlier whether and to what extent a revised Sanhedrin would have the power to change Jewish law. The current Sanhedrin has declared itself to have such a power, stating that "The Sanhedrin has the authority, in certain cases, to rule differently than is currently in Jewish law." Given that it has expressly taken upon itself the war power of a sovereign traditional Sanhedrin, any doubts as to whether it thinks itself as really a Sanhedrin or not should be laid to rest. One may agree or disagree with its POV, but it is not waiting for every city to have a lesser Sanhedrin, or for any of the other events that have been proposed, before assuming to itself an authority that only a Great Sanhedrin can have. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree --Historian2 09:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Sanhedrin's recent actions

The original text was "Recent military operations have come under scrutiny by the new Sanhedrin (generally for being too dovish)", now it says "Its opinions, in the exercise of this claim to authority, have been quite hawkish". The former was an attempt to describe its actions relative to the Sanhedrin's point of view. The latter sound like a judgment. Perhaps we can come up with a better description? --Historian2 09:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Conflicts with Israeli government

Added section given recent Isreali government actions in response to the group's calls on soldiers and policemen to disobey orders etc. --Shirahadasha 00:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That may happen in the future, but this particular arrest was a little different. An IDF officer had issued restraining orders to someone living in the West Bank from entering the West Bank (ostensively to prevent trouble). This settler appealed to the Sanhedrin as a court. The court requested the IDF officer to appear before them and explain his actions. But the officer refused to appear before the Sanhedrin. So, as is customary in these situations, the officer was placed in a mild form of "cherem" where a letter was sent to his synagogue requesting that he not be honored with be called to the reading of the Torah. This letter was considered incitement by the israel government and they summoned Rabbi Ariel for questioning. He agreed to questioning, but not at the police station. After several summons, the police came and "escorted" him to the station for questioning, although it was not really an arrest. Go figure. [4][5][6] Although the reaction of the new Sanhedrin was defiant.[7]--Historian2 00:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Will move this to "The Sanhedrin's recent actions" section --Historian2 00:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Partisan website?

"The debate stirred among non-Jews, especially Evangelicals and Catholics - Can't use a partisan website to make a claim about notability or claim a statement as a fact)" I seem to be missing something here, the quote said the 'Sanhedrin' formed a 'high council', so I brought a link from the 'high council's website itself. There could just as well be a link to A7 or to Vendyl Jones' website. What is a partisan website in this context? I recommend a revert. Is there any reason to doubt they made such a council with the people involved? --Historian2 22:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim that Vendyl Jones is the "best-known" individual is a notability claim, and a notability claim can't be based on a partisan website. A claim about how well-known an individual is has to be based on a third-party source. I reworded the paragraph to erase just this one point, I didn't delete the whole thing. It can be put back in if there's a reliable third-party source for it. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I had never heard about Vendyl Jones until this event. The claim that that Vendyl Jones is the "best-known" individualthis is directly from the wording of Arutz-7: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/96347 --Historian2 07:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The debate stirred among non-Jews, especially Evangelicals and Catholics

"Christian apocalyptic and eschatalogical claims about the End Times, the Last Judgment, and the End of the World, have inspired a wide a range of conspiracy theories..."

Please explain why the above (final) paragraph is here? It has absolutley NOTHING to do with the topic at hand (Sanhedrin). It is used without footnotes or citations as well. Dump the final paragraph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mg196 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

A google search on "noahide sanhedrin antichrist" yields about 27,200 results. http://www.come-and-hear.com/navigate.html http://www.revisionisthistory.org http://www.stormfront.org http://www.samliquidation.com/noahidenews495.htm http://jesus-messiah.com/html/noahide.html http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2234 http://www.cybertime.net/~ajgood/syn.html http://www.talmudlies.com/ http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/noachide.htm http://www.watch.pair.com/law.html http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/prophecy/newlaw.htm and thousands more. IMHO This is a significant reaction to the attempt to reestablish the Sanhedrin. It is definitely relevant. How would you word a paragraph describing this kind of reaction without promoting fringe websites. --Historian2 12:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Google searches do not in any way replace research. The final paragraph does not even reference the Sanhedrin. Several of the websites' TITLES that Historian2 quoted are outright racist and shouldn't be considered evidence of anything other than that racism exists. Stormfront.org is a Neo-Nazi site for cryin' out loud! So now Wiki accepts Neo-Nazi propaganda as references? The bottom line is that the final paragraph makes outrageous claims without ANY citations or references to ANY legitimate source. --mg196 11:26, 20 March 2007

Hal Lindsey is a source respected by many people, and has written a book about this. Here is a reference www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42898. The final paragraph does reference the Sanhedrin.

The point of the paragraph is that some people see the new Sanhedrin as a sign of the end of the world. No one denies that these are outrageous claims. The use of the title "Sanhedrin" by this group invites all sorts of religious connotations and historical, prophetic and end-times associations, and IMHO that is worthy of mention in an encyclopedia article about this "Sanhedrin".

Sites like these are sources quoted by wiki. Stormfront even has its own wikipedia entry. Please look at Conspiracy theories and the discussion on the talk page and the talk pages of the conspiracies referenced. See the sources they quote there. Conspiracy theories are usually, by their nature, not from legitimate sources.

Ascended to a portion of the Temple mount

This quote is under discussion:

Some of its members ascended to a portion of the Temple mount that was added by Herod and is considered forbidden to Jews according to most halachic authorites (including all Ashkenazi Haredi rabbis) and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, and permitted according to some opinions.

There is simply no source for the word "all Ashkenazi Haredi rabbis", and IMHO there was no reason for our dutch speaking Bear and Dragon to add this text. I believe that the previous word "some rabbis permit it" is less POV. --Historian2 15:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

To be precise it does not evne mention "Ashkenazi". It simply mentions "all" halachic authorities.

http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/archives5759/vayigash/conspic.htm : "ascending the Har Habayis... all halachic authorities categorically forbid it," --Bear and Dragon 16:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And now that we have a source for that, I challenge you to show me a source for Ashkenazi Haredi rabbis permitting people to go on the Temple Mount, or simply to admit that you did not read the article carefully. --Bear and Dragon 18:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

We have been through this before when you signed in as Daniel575. Saying I "should learn how to read" is close to a violation of WP:NPA. Here is what I mean: Your source says "all halachic authorities categorically forbid it", it does not say "all Ashkenazi Haredi rabbis", that is your own WP:OR. You could say that ShemaYisrael says that "all halachic authorities categorically forbid it" and I could bring the halachic authorities which allow it. So obviously the ShemaYisrael's comment is a generalization and exaggeration, and you cannot conclude from it that every single Ashkenazi Haredi rabbi forbids it. --Historian2 08:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I bring a reliable source, a well-known weekly newspaper, and you merely throw it aside saying that it is a 'generalization' and 'exaggeration'. Well, you are right. Indeed there are those who call themselves 'halachic authorities' and permit going there. The Yated, however (this is the website of the Yated Ne'eman newspaper), represents only the Ashkenazi Haredi world. It could not care less what the 'Israeli Chief Rabbinate', the Modern Orthodox, or the Sephardi authorities think. Thus, I have already made quite a concession by not writing in the article that "all halachic authorities categorically forbid it" (as the source says), but by writing that Ashkenazi Haredi authorities forbid it. You could credit me for that. Instead, you just ignore the source and call it a 'generalization' and 'exaggeration'. Now, again, for the second time: please list some Ashkenazi Haredi rabbinical authorities (and this is not Dov Lior of Kiryat Arba) who permit going on the Temple Mount. --Bear and Dragon 11:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And now we have Shuki getting involved. Shuki, could you please explain why you simply delete a reference to the English edition of Yated Ne'eman, which is referred to in multiple places? While you consider the website of the 'Sanhedrin' (thesanhedrin.org) and Arutz Sheva to be just fine as sources? As I just explained: indeed, the Yated's writing "all halachic authorities" must be taken with a grain of salt, for you at least. They do not consider non-Haredi authorities even worth mentioning, and they do not really care about Sephardi authorities either. Thus, when they mention "all halachic authorities", what they really mean is "all Lithuanian Ashkenazi Haredi authorities". I am already making a huge concession here. What exactly is your problem? Are you disputing this fact? I do not understand what your problem is. --Bear and Dragon 21:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel this is all WP:OR. You can say that the Lithuanian Haredi newspaper Yated says "all halachic authorities" forbid it. That is fine. Anything more is original research. --Historian2 11:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a known fact that the Yated represents the view of the Ashkenazi Haredi gedolim. I refer here, where it says, "According to the ruling on 28 Tammuz, since the role of Yated Ne'eman is to publicize the Torah-based worldview and the opinions of gedolei Torah the newspaper conducted itself properly and fulfilled its mission." It is a well-known fact that the Yated is fully controlled by the Lithuanian Haredi authorities of Bnei Brak, mainly Rabbi Nissim Karelitz, Rabbi Aharon Leib Shteinman, but also Hasidic Rabbi Shmuel Wosner. It does often also publicize the views of other authorities where these agree with the view of the aforementioned rabbonim; in such cases, for example the view of the Edah HaChareidis is frequently reported.

"the pages of Yated Ne'eman in recent months under the direction of maranan verabonon headed by Maran HaRav Eliashiv." .... "HaRav Eliashiv instructed Yated Ne'eman" [8]

"In 5745 (1985), he (Rabbi Elazar Menachem Shach) perceived the Torah world's need for a vehicle of expression and together with the Steipler Rov, he founded Yated Ne'eman, sacrificing himself for the paper's establishment and recruiting resources for it. He also set up a supervisory Vaada Ruchanit composed of roshei yeshiva, rabbonim and gedolei Torah, who determined every aspect of the paper's policy and watched over what went into it, with everything printed in it having first passed their scrutiny. There was fierce opposition to the establishment of a paper especially for the Torah world. However, HaRav Shach saw the project as being of supreme importance and he made tremendous efforts to put the paper on a solid foundation, to strengthen it and to lend it his support at all times. He guided the editors on a daily basis, as to their reactions to the issues of moment, and expressing his own daas Torah to them. Articles dealing with fundamental principles were even read out to him, word by word. .... Three months later he insisted that Yated Ne'eman have an English edition." [9]

"Yated Ne'eman is, first and foremost, an ideological newspaper. It is not a political newspaper and it is certainly not a business, though it functions in the political and business realms. Yated Ne'eman was founded to express the guidance of maranan verabonon gedolei Yisroel. They, and only they, chart our way, according to the changing circumstances of our tumultuous times. The Yated that is published in Bnei Brak is fully controlled by its Vaada Ruchanit which works together with gedolei Yisroel. " [10]

"The blessing of HaRav Eliashiv read, "May it be Hashem's Will that Yated Ne'eman continue to remain on the alert in safeguarding religion and accurate hashkofo. May the newspaper, which was founded by Maran the Kehillos Yaakov, ztk"l and yibodel lechaim tovim ve'arukim Maran the Rosh Hayeshiva, shlita, continue to fulfill its sacred mission." And other messages from Rabbi Aharon Leib Shteinman, Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Shapira, Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach.... See: [11] These are *the* most prominent leaders of the Lithuanian Ashkenazi Haredi world.

I assume that you will now agree that the Yated does indeed represent the viewpoint of Rabbi Eliashiv, Rabbi Karelitz, and Rabbi Shteinman. If not, what else do I need to do to prove this to you?! Do I have to bring you a letter signed by each of them?! Now, as I said: the Yated is not simply another paper. It is the official channel of mass communication of the Lithuanian Haredi leadership, just as Voice of America for the US government. --Bear and Dragon 12:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You have only shown that the Yated claims to represent the viewpoint of Rabbi Eliashiv, Rabbi Karelitz, and Rabbi Shteinman (your quote was written by staff of the Yated paper itself. Rabbi Mordecai Plaut is editor of the English version of Yated Neeman). If these are such "well known facts" then bring a source. --Historian2 12:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is totally ridiculous. You yourself DO RELY on 'thesanhedrin.org' which ADMITS that it is not officially affiliated with the "Sanhedrin" to represent THEIR viewpoint!!! How much more hypocritical can you get!!! You are not doing anything good to my blood pressure here. --Bear and Dragon 12:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not rely on 'thesanhedrin.org'. The wikipage says "The website claims..." It does not state it as fact. The only fact is that the website made such and such claim. In fact I have brought other sources (as below) that disagree with their claims. --Historian2 13:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You can say "the Lithuanian Haredi newspaper Yated claims all halachic authorities forbid it..." Just as it says "the Sanhedrin website claims..." That is fine. Anything more is original research. --Historian2 11:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I appreciate that. But that does not change the fact that you simply remove my Yated link, while you leave your 'thesanhedrin.org' and 'israelnn.com' links in. Are you seriously going to claim that the Yated is POV while Arutz Sheva is a Reliable Source? Please do answer this question. I could, by the way, even argue that the Yated is a real print newspaper (it officially forbids the use of the internet, even though it is published online), while Arutz Sheva is just an online website which does not do anything outside of the internet. --Bear and Dragon 13:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: User:Bear and Dragon is a suspected sockpuppet of the banned User:Daniel575 See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (5th) --Shirahadasha 22:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

However, the merits of his arguments stand on their own. The fact that the Yated is one of the most popular journalistic mediums in the Haredi world indicates that if they were printing untrue stuff about the gedolim that the gedolim would say something. Of course, the Haredi community does not consider the Modern Orthodox to be legitimant halachic authorities. I would argue that it is common sense that the Yated is referring to all--including Sephardic--Haredi opinions. Do common-sense-inferences comply with Wiki standards? I don't know Wiki rules that well. The following situation would be exemplary: if the Yated said "all rabbis believe that pigs may not be eaten," could we infer that the Yated is referring to Orthodox rabbis and use it as a source? Btw, dudes, we're all yidden here. Kiss, make up, adjust the tone, and forget about personal differences. --Yodamace1 20:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the Yated believes this to be so. I personally also agree that it is the case that the vast majority of authorities in Jewish law prohibit ascending to the Temple mount (with a few significant exceptions). I disagree that this needs to be mentioned twice (in addition to the section we are talking about "Sanhedrin Actions" it is completely spelled out in a later section "The debate stirred within the Haredi camp"). This is a haredi opinion and should be in that section, it should be discussed on the Temple Mount page, not here.

As I said in my opening statement of this section, I think that saying "some authorities permit" was sufficient and saying more than that (twice) tantamount to pushing the "Dutch anti-Zionist" agenda which is spelled out by Daniel himself clearly below. He said that he "must use any means possible to oppose this Sanhedrin" and has been doing so for a year (see archives above) and I am simply tired of all this. --Historian2 06:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

For example he added this POV wording to a wikipage about Rabbi Yoel Schwartz. Its not strictly against wikipedia rules, but it is tiresome. --Historian2 08:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know anything about all that. I just saw the talk section about the Yated. --Yodamace1 21:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Sanhedrin's Actions

Bear and Dragon has marked this section under dispute: Daniel, please explain what is under dispute. Everything is sourced. Perhaps the comment "Events as portrayed by the media, however, have not always fit this idealic picture"? Do you want this removed? --Historian2 12:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel if you don't write anything here, I will remove the dispute-section tag. --Historian2 13:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I will write something here, but I did not see this section previously. I will make a short list here of issues that need attention. First of all, the issue being discussed above. As I noted, the vast majority of halachic authorities, from all walks of life, from extreme Haredi to modern-Orthodox, from anti-Zionist to strongly Zionist, have prohibited Jews from accessing the Temple Mount. That includes the entire range of Ashkenazi Haredi authorities. It includes the Chief Rabbinate of the State of Israel. It includes Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (leader of the Sefardi Haredim and leader of Shas). To then be using the wording that "some authorities permit it" is weasel wording. The correct wording is that the vast majority of halachic authorities forbid it. --Bear and Dragon 13:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

All that belongs to the dispute above, why do you dispute The Sanhedrin's Actions section? --Historian2 13:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Because of this. Weasel wordings. It was you who started this paragraph on the talk page, remember? --Bear and Dragon 14:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Biography of Rabbi Halberstam

Now, let's discuss the biography. What added value does it give to copy Rabbi Halberstam's entire biography here? If we do so, why not copy the biography of the Chazon Ish as well? If you revert it, then that is indeed what I will do. --Bear and Dragon 13:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what relevance that biography has. Anybody who wants to read it can simply click his name and read it there. We do not copy the biography of anyone else to the article either. It seems to me like you two are simply reverting me for the fun of it. Could you now please come up with a motivation for insisting on the inclusion of Rabbi Halberstam's biography? --Bear and Dragon 14:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a six line summary of his biography and is required as supporting information for the statement "He was known for his tolerance towards other streams of thought in Orthodox Judaism. Despite his own Chareidi anti-Zionist background, he also maintained contacts with Modern Orthodox, religious Zionist leaders." which would be of interest to a wiki reader wanting to know what kind of person was claimed to have renewed semicha, and indirectly a sanhedrin type body. He was a unique and unusual individual. I don't known why I bother to explain, you will just delete it anyway... --Historian2 14:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not delete it anyway, since this is merely a content-related dispute and there is no sense in holding a rv-war for that. I am merely noting that, for example, Steinsaltz does not have such a biographical summary. Why should Rav Halberstam have it, but not Steinsaltz? --Bear and Dragon 14:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Formal Complaint

I am withdrawing from editing this page. The banned and aggressive user Daniel575 has taken over the page and I have neither the time or energy to defend the wikipage from his self proclaimed "Opinion of the Dutch extreme anti-Zionist" agenda. [12] --Historian2 13:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't talk like this. There is nothing extremist about me. In fact, it is you who is the extremist here. You have continuously been trying to portray it as if the entire Orthodox Jewish world loves, supports and admires this "Sanhedrin", while in fact most people think they are sick nutcases who belong in a mental ward.

Yoel Schwartz is on the brink of being put in cherem by Rav Eliashiv and Rav Karelitz for his involvement with Nachal Charedi.

Adin Steinsaltz is regarded as an object of laughter, a silly idiot who does not even wear white shirts, has a lot of university titles and claims to be a highly-educated rabbi because of that.

My rabbi, who is one of the most senior dayonim of the Edah HaChareidis and was a close friend and colleague of Rabbi Halberstam. I explained him everything about this "Sanhedrin". My rabbi said it is all lies, plain dirty lies. "Sheker gamur". And he told me that this entire "Sanhedrin" thing is Purim Torah. My rabbi is Rabbi Avrohom Yitzchok Ulman, by the way.

You have been portraying Orthodox Judaism in a very negative light by pretending that this "Sanhedrin" is accorded any importance by Orthodox Jews. Why? Because that "Sanhedrin" is a HUGE chillul hashem, because of the things they did against the state. How they treated Yair Naveh, for example. They are under police investigation because of that. Yisrael Ariel, one of the other clowns running the circus, has been arrested twice over the past year. I, and the people I know, do NOT want to be affiliated with these people.

I have also spoken with Rabbi Mordechai Plaut of the Yated, who is close to Rabbi Eliashiv. He confirmed to me that at no time has Rabbi Eliashiv given any support to this "Sanhedrin" joke, not even a single word, and that Rabbi Eliashiv would never say anything positive about them. So, that is also a lie.

I am fully intent on improving this article. You, however, created a highly POV article which is very much in support of this "Sanhedrin", and you throw aside and ignore any criticism of them and pretend that even Rabbi Eliashiv, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and Rabbi Z.N. Goldberg support them! That is my entire basis for getting involved with this article again.

If you wish to depart, that is unfortunate. I have not forced you to leave. I merely request that you come to understand that this "Sanhedrin" does NOT represent ANY group of Orthodox Judaism in ANY way and that the entire Orthodox Jewish world - except perhaps Kach - thinks these guys are idiots who are only good for laughing about. --Bear and Dragon 13:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Historian2, I am awaiting your reaction. You have proven yourself to be a very useful and capable editor. The fact that we are involved in a pure content dispute here does not mean that you should begin screaming and leave Wikipedia right away. You have not made a single attempt to discuss the issues at hand. --Bear and Dragon 14:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

nonsense --Historian2 14:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is really going to get us somewhere. --Bear and Dragon 15:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What you write above is not much different than what you wrote in this wikipage a year ago. For one year I have been harassed by your aggressive editing. Your attitude is what got me riled up to add facts to the page in the first place, but my professional duties do not allow me to play this game any longer. Just cut and paste the above from "sick nutcases...to...laughed about" into the wikipage and be done with it. --Historian2 14:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Even though it is true, unfortunately we cannot use such language in articles.... And no, I am not going to do that, since I am not a vandal. --Bear and Dragon 15:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a vandal, perhaps. But are you the same editor who previously edited as User:Daniel575? Tomer^talk 10:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)