User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive/August 2005

Panentheism

The schools of Hinduism that are panentheistic include Ramanuja, and Kashmir Shaivism, see http://www.kashmirshaivism.org/introduction.html The schools of Hinduism that are panetheistic are those of Sankara. Kasmir saivism rejected the maya theory.

Raj2004 00:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question about an example of a school that is neither, Madhva's dualistic school or dvaita is one example. Sam, I also made more changes to the panentheism article with a quote by a respected swami. Raj2004 12:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, I did more research. It is interesting to note that all Vaishnavite schools are all panentheistic. I have edited some changes. Only Sankara's school of Advaita is pantheistic. Many of the Vaishnavite schools hold that the world is only a manifestation of Vishnu's shakti or power but is ultimately part of God. I guess the Vaishnavite theologians do not find it acceptable that the universe is only limited to God but instead the universe is part of God.

Hope this helps.

Raj2004 01:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know much about Bharat Mata? I'm very interested in Hindutva and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, and apparently they worship her. Her article is in very bad shape, and could use any additions or edits whatsoever. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Unfortunately, I do not much about the subjects. I made a minor edit to Hinduvta.

speaking about Hinduvta, please see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4723409.stm

Raj2004 10:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem some don't feel she is a deity at all, any more than mother russia or "the fatherland" of Germany, or etc... I guess what I need to do is find out what Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh thinks, and if they feel that they pray to a goddess, or simply honor India, at their meetings. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think she's a phony deity. RSS is a Hindu nationalist organization. some of their concerns are legitimate, such as having three laws, one for Muslims, Hindus, and Christians in matters of personal law in a supposedly secular India?

Their other concern: How come there are less than 1% of Hindus in Pakistan? Their other extreme view is that Hindus got one country, India while Muslims have three countries, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.

These are extreme views.

Raj2004 01:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to study them because I found myself agreeing with them so often. I would prefer if they don't think Bharat Mata is a deity however, because I think their 'prayer' is really great, but I'd feel a bit uncomfortable if it was truly worship of such a new (as you say "phony" ;) deity. They say many good things, in this prayer and otherwise, and frankly, I prefer them to any american political party (I am american ;) Politics is very hard on me, because I study and think and feel so deeply its very hard to agree with most mainstream political parties (such as american [republican]]s and democrats). I suppose maybe that makes me an extremist? Not always, however, I disagreed w Hindutva regarding censorship of bollywood films, either for reasons of crime influence,or of lesbian kisses ;) Freedom of information is important, and I wish they would respect this more. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy metal template

I don't find the idea of holding this discussion again very amusing, so would you mind if I reverted the template to its original colors, we held a vote at Talk:Heavy metal music or wherever else and sticked to whatever the consensus say? --Sn0wflake 16:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2-1 isn't concensus, anymore than you by yourself is concensus. As far as chatting about the template, i agree that would be pretty pointless, given past experience. I trust you'll do whatever the hell you want, and I'll do the same. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was not talking about the past, I was rather talking about listening to the opinion of a wide range of people interested on the subject and reaching a definite conclusion, but forget it. I'll assume good faith and suppose you truly believe this color scheme is much better than the previous one, so I'm not going to insist for it to be reverted to the standard-compliant version any further. If somebody else wants to buy this fight, then that's their problem, but I'm out. --Sn0wflake 21:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, and I have no intent to fuss over it either, regardless of who does what. My wikistrategy is M:Eventualism, in my experience waiting disagreements out, rather than charging in and kicking up dust, works out best in the long run, and pisses less people off. I appreciate your compromising attitude, and fully intend the same in return. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Mata

As far as I have learned Bharat Mata is a term used for representing India. Being RSS claims to be a patriotic organisation it use this term Bharat(India) + Mata(mother)= Mother India, Patriotically. Earlier this term was used by Indian Freedom Fighters to personify India during the Independence. So Bharat Mata is not a diety. And there in the Bharat Mata Article there is an ancient Hindu verse which was used as a quote to represent Bharat Mata as a diety. I think that, the word 'Bharat' used in that verse was to represent something else in sanskritic terms and glorified it as Mata (Mother).I've read that India earned the name Bharat from the king Bharat.So there are chances for the word Bharat synonymous in other ways. Finally, I can't accept Bharat Mata as a Hindu diety by the things which I've read. And I do not know how, and with which reference Bharat Mata was called as Goddess of fertility - Vaikunda Raja.

Yes, I also found it a curious deity, but if it is true that people pray to her, than this would make her a deity of sorts. I'll continue looking into the subject, thank you for your assisstance. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 13:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-view representing India: http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mag/2003/08/17/stories/2003081700160200.htm

Interesting points. I think Hinduism faltered under Buddhist influence which encouraged extreme pacifism. To fight against evil , i.e., a just war, was always accepted in Hinduism.

Raj2004 01:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. While pacifism and sanyasa are ok for some people, at some times, I think that most people need to be involved with the world. This is a lesson taught very clearly by the bhagavad gita, that doing what is right is preferable to abstaining. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lists

I haven't gone through completely but I applaud you for excellent edits. I made one minor edit by adding Karma in Hinduism As you know, Buddhism is essentially an atheistic religion and the concept of Karma in Hinduism is quite different. Please read and take a look. God in Hinduism is the Divine Accountant and karma is not simply a natural law, like the law of gravity.

Raj2004 02:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I take interdenominationalism very far, and would say that many Buddhists are not atheists. I admit that some are, and that I see atheism as deeply wicked, however. I feel that science and religion are weaker the farther they are apart, so for me, Karma is both a law of God, and a law of nature. That said, I agree 100% w your edit, the page is for Hindu links, not Buddhist (altho some deities are the same).

On a different topic, what do you think of Purusha? Would anyone have him for their ishta deva? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, Sam as practical matter, there are only five forms of God, Siva Vishnu, Devi, Ganesha and Skanda worshipped by Hindus. There are many other deities but they are not ishta-deva. Ishta deva means a form of God that can conceivably grant mankind moksha. Most lower other deities are not worshipped and do not have the power to grant moksha. As Lord Krishna said,"O Arjuna, even those devotees who worship other lesser deities (e.g., Devas, for example) with faith, they also worship Me, but in an improper way because I am the Supreme Being. I alone am the enjoyer of all sacrificial services (Seva, Yajna) and Lord of the universe" (Gita: 9:23).

Practically speaking, historically in Hinduism, only Siva and Vishnu are considered to be the forms of God that can grant moksha. Other lower deities are akin to angels and do not have that power. an analogy would be to compare the difference between God the father and Gabriel. You can venerate Gabriel as a deity but he can't grant you heaven unlike God the father.

It's analogous to saints in Christianity. Christians worship God the father, and Jesus but there are hundreds of saints, most of which are not venerated at all.

as I said before, when it comes down to it, practically all Hindus worship God as either Vishnu or Siva.

"Notably, Shakti is worshipped to reach Shiva, whom for Shaktas is the impersonal Absolute. In Shaktism, emphasis is given to the feminine manifest through which the male unmanifested , Lord Shiva, is realized. Additionally, Shaivites and Vaishnavites often regard Surya as an aspect of Shiva and Vishnu, respectively. For example, the sun is called Surya Narayana by Vaishnavites. In Saivite theology, the sun is said to be one of eight forms of Siva, the Astamurti. Additionally, Ganesh and Skanda for them, would be aspects of Shiva and Shakti. According to smartism, most Hindus worship Saguna Brahman as Vishnu or Shiva." from smartism

Hope this helps. Please let me know.

Raj2004 02:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is very odd to me that brahma is 1/3rd of the trimurti, but not one of the most revered 5. Have you seen the Tat tvam asi article? It brings up the Mahāvākyas, which I feel tend more towards Purusha, atman, brahma or brahman, rather than Vishnu or Siva. Of course this is only my view, as an outsider, and fellow perrenial philosopher, looking in. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct. All Vedic and Upanishadic verses have been interpreted to mean Vishnu or siva. the same with tat tvam asi. For example, Purusha has been interpreted by Vaishnavites to mean Vishnu. " Other mantras are also cited that identify Visnu as that Supreme Being, including the Purusa-sukta [8] which is regularly chanted during worship." from http://www.sanskrit.org/Ramanuja/Ramanuja&vaishna.html#_ftn8

The first name of Vishnu in the Vishnu Sahasranama, Visvam means the ALL "(1) Visvam - He whose manifestation is the whole universe of forms: the Viraat-Purusha. The cause is always present in the effects and as such That Form from which the whole universe has emerged out can only be its own manifestation. The whole cosmos of gross forms is His own expression, and therefore, He is called as Viraatpurusha. ‘Sa eva Sarva- Bhootaatmaa Visvaroopo Yato-Avyayah’. The Sanskrit term Visvam comes from the root Vis, to enter: Thus it means He who has created and entered into the entire universe, as the All-Pervading Reality. It can also mean, That into which the entire universe has entered to remain therein established. In the Upanishads also we have assertions of similar ideas. It is only when intellectually, we view the Lord that we come to recognise Him as the ‘cause’ for the universe. When viewed through contemplation, since the effect is nothing other than the cause, there can be no world other than Him. In fact, there is nothing other than the Supreme. In the Mandukya Upanishad we read ‘Omkaara Evedam Sarvam’. In Geeta ‘OM ltyekaaksharam Brahma’." from http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/Homepages/shivkuma/personal/music/vishnu-sahasranamam-meanings.htm

There are similar interpretations with siva. I just don't remember.

Yes, Brahma is akin to the Holy Spirit in Christianity. No one really worships Him.

In Vaishnavite theology, The trimurti concept is not strictly followed and Brahma is merely the first created being by Vishnu.

Raj2004 11:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As Hinduism is probably at least twice Christianity's age, you can see how many people throughout those years have conceived of God. For example, the celebrated hymn to Vishnu, the Vishnu sahsranama has been chanted for at least 4000 years! There are only three ancient peoples who are still extant today, Hindus, Jews and the Chinese. I think perhaps only the Hindus, despite the numerous attacks on it by invaders, Islam and Christianity has remained strong.

I think God is protecting Hinduism from destruction.

As Lord Krishna said, For the protection of the good, for destruction of evil, and for the establishment of righteousness, I come into being from age to age.” (Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 4, verse 8.

from eons to eons, many great saints and warriors have come to defend and clarify Hinduism.

Raj2004 02:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is more widespread / unified, perhaps. In my view the purest truth, sanatana dharma / righteousness / theosophy is everywhere, and in every time. India is obviously a very holy place, with a great many enlightened persons thruout its recorded history, but I think the truest path is in everyones heart, or inner light, rather than any one religion. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thaipusam

Hai Sam, You placed Thaipusam under the sub-heading Tamil Denominations.Thaipusam is a festival celebrated by Tamil, Hindus. So it should be removed from there and better to create a sub-heading 'Festivals ' and place it inside.And I've asked Mr Tan to suggest his opinion about his edits regarding Tamil People - Vaikunda Raja

Thanks for your information

Thanks. I'm a newbie here. What should I do in such a slanderous situation?

4.250.xxx.xxx

I finally broke down and created a non-anon. (Horrors!! What WAS I thinking?) WAS 4.250 19:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Important VFD

Please see the VFD for commons:List of victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm. This is of vital importance. This list and others like it are being pushed off of the entire Wikimedia project. It started at Wikipedia, where they were VFDd in favor of moving to Wikisource/Commons. Now they are being VFDd off Wikisource (they don't really belong there, since they are not original source texts), with people there saying they should be on WP/Commons, and it is also being VFDd on Commons, where people don't realize that Commons accepts texts (says so right on the Main Page). This will set a precedent for any user-created lists. -- BRIAN 0918 22:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Please don't vandalise Wikipedia

File:Two topless young Canadian women02.jpg

The Vancouver Skybridge

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. [1]--Bishonen | talk 20:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above admin has already made the claim that "I have nothing to say to Sam Spade on Wikipedia", so her ability to remain neutral in my regards is highly questionable. Basically this all goes back to a dispute I had with one of her friends, User:El C. After intensive demands on her behalf from yet another admin friend of hers, I agreed to apologise to him for comments I had made. Since then, her "gratitude" for that gesture has been nearly perpetual, giving evidence to the claim that "no good deed goes unpunished". Such shenanigans often make me reconsider my presence here, but thankfully I am not here for community, and while I enjoy the friends I have made at the wikipedia, and find cliquish spite such as her's unfortunate, I am not here to politic, but rather to edit an encyclopedia. If she feels that image fails to add to the article in question, or might even be WP:PN or "Wikipedia:Vandalism", I advise her to discuss it via the proper channels, rather than attempting to huckster me with bluff and false authority. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK I think adding a vandalism warning to an established user's talk page is how shall I put it - silly. However I an curious as to why you did put that picture back in the article. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It contains an image of the bridge (see above). I am firmly of the opinion that it ads to the article. If others disagree, I think they might like to join in the discussion @ Talk:Skybridge (Vancouver). IMO bishonen could care less about this image, or the images of the various dukes of wellington, and rather prefers to get in a good jab at my expense. If that is untrue, than I could expect more than a vandalism template, I should think. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well. While I think it wasn't vandalism, it certainly was inflammitory and ill advised.--Tznkai 21:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some agree. Some don't. I found a discussion of it on RfC after adding some matters I wanted other wikipedians looking into. Feeling a twinge of guilt for asking for help w/o giving any, I decided to lend a hand to a couple of other RfC's. I went and made a number of edits to Tariq Aziz, and to Skybridge (Vancouver). Then I took my oldest out to an indian restaurant for his birthday, and came home to a vandalism notice. You can check my edit history if you doubt my veracity. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that because there was contraversy over it, inserting the image was bound to create problems (inflammitory and unwise). Not saying it wasn't an honest mistake. Just saying it was a mistake.--Tznkai 21:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been here for nearly 2 years now. In that time I have found that Being bold solves more probelms than it creates. I am terribly proud of my success at Human, where I struggled against perpetual talk page fillibustering, only to discover that making the needed edits solved all ills. We don't agree regarding wiki-process, it would apear. I may be an eventualist, but I was inspired to edit in the 1st place because I saw work that wasn't getting done. I'm always glad to discuss my edits, and am willing to respect concensus, but I am also not going to wait for it to occur before making an edit. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps as a general position, that makes a lot of sense. I just think in this case it was unproductive.--Tznkai 22:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I respectfully disagree. The copyright status and bridge displaying quality of these images is being discussed in the appropriate place, by knowledgable and articulate wikis. I feel that is progres made. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and I maintain it would've happened anyway without your edit. I guess we're at an impass then.--Tznkai 22:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thats ok, feel free to weigh in @ Talk:Skybridge (Vancouver) if you like, I think I've already made my position pretty clear. Thank you for your comments here and elsewhere btw, they are appreciated. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"It contains an image of the bridge." ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:23, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

What the fuck, Sam? Were you drunk? Off your meds? You used to care. What happened? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. I'm disappointed. Wyss 00:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concensus has spoken. I still don't agree w any of this, and its nothing new from me. The fact that you expected something different shows that you don't know me very well, not that I have changed. I am still boldly making the edits I think are necessary, and I am still respecting concensus. I added the image once. I discussed it in talk. If you agree it was vandalism, and are concerned about future problems from me based on this one edit (hint, I've made over 27,000 edits) then feel free to add me to WP:ViP. Create a policy regarding nude or offensive images. I don't mind you disagreeing w the edit, but I take issue w the insults regarding my character and sobriety. I expected more from both of you. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Spade, the article is about a bridge. The photo is about something altogether different, with the bridge in the background. Wyss 02:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thats what my wife said. I now get the point that most involved parties don't want to see topless girls on an article about bridges. I did. I still do! I felt it was on topic and presented a positive atmosphere regarding that bridge. I still feel strongly that having a non-obscene image which includes the bridge (and I don't feel the image is obscene, btw) is better than no image. I even prefer the original, uncropped image to the current one. But I respect the concensus, and I respect honest disagreemnent, and I respect Theresa knott most of all, for making the article better than she found it. Its all about the readers. I thought they wanted happy girls displaying breasts in front of their bridge. Concensus deems otherwise, and I can respect that. What I don't agree with is that this is some sign of a change in my character. Anyone who thinks that never knew me very well in the first place. I always liked breasts, and I always will. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"I thought they wanted happy girls displaying breasts in front of their bridge." I believe YOU wanted "happy girls displaying breasts". Nothing wrong with that. And wikipedia has nudity in various articles where appropriate. So the question might be, is it appropriate here? Or maybe the question is, if the main object is in the background and something delightful but irrelevant in the foreground is it appropriate? Or maybe the question is, does Sam enjoy pushing people's buttons? Gosh, I guess we'll never know the answer to that last one. Ed Poor says you "add a certain energy to the place". You make me laugh, Sam. Try not to be too disruptive, OK? Pretty please?? WAS 4.250 13:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have never tried to be disruptive, but thank you for your concern. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 17:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Sam, nobody besides you needs a policy on nudity in order to realize that a photo featuring two topless young women with a landmark in the background is an inappropriate photo for an article about the landmark. That is clear, regardless of what the proper role may be for nudity in such articles as clitoris, nude, and autofellatio; in those articles, nudity is topical, unlike on the bridge article. You're going out of your way to make a mockery of the encyclopedia. Whether you do it to make a point or due solely to a lack of judgement on your part, the effect on the project is equally negative. I have in the past tried very hard to see your side of it in your various past disputes with the community, but I'm beginning to realize that you just don't get it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid what you don't get is that I'm not here for community. I'm here because I read books of reference as a pastime. I'm sorry that you are so slow to appreciate, and eager to persecute, my various contributions. Frankly, I see your shock and outrage here more as a problem with you than with me. I am no troll or vandal, whatever you may think. I saw an article where a non-obscene image of the subject matter was removed, without another in its stead. I made an edit as I saw appropriate. I explained this edit on the talk page. I defended my action and position here and elsewhere at length.

As I am sure you are aware, I utterly reject the "ignore all rules" philosophy, which guides so many admin actions. I take care not to violate policy whenever possible. Were there a policy against nudity, I assuredly would not have willingly violated it. If the image of the 2 girls had failed to contain the bridge in question, I would not have replaced it there. Once it became clear that my position was counter consensus, I promptly accepted and complimented the compromise presented, and have refrained even from placing the image @ Topfree equality, where it would arguably be more appropriate, due to vitriol such as yours.

If you think I am a bad user, or a bad person, you are not alone here. Perhaps you now feel more inclined to ban or block me than to nominate me for adminship. It is clear as day to me that you know me no better now than when you made that offer. Frankly, my advice is this: get to know me, or leave me alone. Friend or enemy, your ignorance in my regard does neither of us any service. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 17:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you are a "bad user" or a "bad person." And I may well know you better than you know yourself. The Uninvited Co., Inc.

OK... so what is your advice then, sage enchanter? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 18:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"I have never tried to be disruptive." I believe that is the case. Others may not, perhaps partly due to behavior in the past (that everyone but you can see as attention-getting behavior) followed by What?Who-me?What-did-I-do? type behavior. Visualise a three year old pulling on a lamp cord so the lamp almost falls - but doesn't - and someone else rushing over to stop what they think will be a broken lamp and the child with big wide innocent eyes saying "What did I do? Nothing fell. I was going to put it back in the center of the stand. Why are you angry???". You ask for advice. "Know thyself" is good advice for everyone. You should be better able to know which behaviors will wind up being disruptive. You obviously have both the knowledge and intelligence to figure it out. So then why don't/can't you? You say you know psychology. I'm not going to teach you your own field, but doesn't psychology have something to say about a situation where a person can't see something that is perfectly clear to everyone else? 4.250.201.121 09:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC) Whoops, forgot to sign in. Oh, and if the hate-Sam squad is gleeful over all this, rest assured we all have our blind spots. Some can't see that disruption for purposes of revenge (apology-seeking in their eyes) is at least as bad as disruption for attention. WAS 4.250 09:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I can't say that was terribly enlightening, but your heart is in the right place assuredly. I don't feel this incident needed to have been disruptive, it was a rather minor difference of opinion, and I respected consensus. The disruption comes in regards to the response to it. The idea that I was motivated by "attention seeking" isn't accurate, but I will admit I have precious little shame. I saw your edit to Talk:Topfree_equality btw, you might want to try a smaller image next time ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]