As on the talk page, I understand that that was one of the points that was raised (the general "proponents are not respectable"), but other claims like the one I was talking about were also brought up, and I was trying to figure out what the deal was. Thank you for answering.
However, I don't really understand how you're pinning the "bringing too much emotion" thing on me - I have been trying to be as neutral as possible on this page, frequently reverting anti-myth material that has no basis and trying to preserve pro-myth material as much as possible, and yet you keep attacking me as biased and seemingly denigrating me for the other kinds of articles I edit (like immediately assuming I'm trying to "apologetics the article out of existence", when even a cursory glance of my edits would show that prediction as ridiculous). I can try to be compromising and keep the discussion on the article, but at a certain point it's impossible for me to not get annoyed when I am near constantly attacked by you and certain other of the article's editors. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Have you seen the Jesus myth hypothesis article lately? I think we are finally making some progress and I remember your input on the talk page and tha tyou had been involved with it for 2 years. It would be good to see some old hands return now that the article seems to actually be going somewhere.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 08:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
He is HK30. -- DHeyward ( talk) 01:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's the WR post. It's just not believable that they aren't the same person given the circumstances and the fact that he's admitted to all the other ones that Musical Linguist identified and this one fits the pattern of his other ones in terms of account name and linguistic clues. -- DHeyward ( talk) 22:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Read this rant where the "Professor" talks about the sites that you are concerned about and also protests how innocent he is. Then read this [2]. I think this is the first time he's actually admitted to this sockpuppet, previously only admitting that he used sockpuppets in the past and only admitting to the confirmed checkuser cases. -- DHeyward ( talk) 23:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Sophia, you welcomed me some time ago at Wikipedia. Thank you for this but I can see that I will "leave" for some indefinite time. I tried to contribute to the Jesus Myth (and historicity), in a way which I felt similar to yours. But I must say I am giving up now, it is so time consuming, and in some sense hopeless. I will let evolution do her work by herself :-) Good luck in your further endeavours! Jelamkorj ( talk) 12:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't think it's rude and it makes sense to me. You're not making a credible case that being an atheist does not give you a conflict of interest. Being an atheist gives you a conflict of interest with any of the Biblical claims just as it gives you a conflict of interest with any religious claims. It's possible for an atheist to accept the historicity of Jesus in the same way that it's possible for a Christian to reject the existence of a personal God or that Jesus didn't rise from the grave (as some Christians do). That doesn't change the fact that is in the best interest of an atheist to deny the truth claims of any religious work. You can't tell me there's no conflict of interest. Do you think it's a sheer coincidence that those who assert the Jesus Myth are all atheists? Where are all the Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus denying that Jesus ever existed? They have absolutely no stake in his existence whatever, and the Jews in particular have a stake in his non-historicity. You really seem to think that atheists are incapable of personal bias and are uniformly objective in their assessment of evidence and issues which infringe on their worldview. That's just not realistic. But all of this is beside the point. The fact remains that a case has been made which is entirely falsifiable. All you have to do is falsify it. -- Taiwan boi ( talk) 14:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Category:Brights, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold ( talk) 14:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse -- ragesoss ( talk) 02:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sophia, I believe you've been involved before in determining whether Nicholas Beale fits our notability criteria. Although the article was deleted, the subject has moved it back into mainspace. Would you mind taking a look at the discussion here and offering an opinion, if you have time? Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Not much has changed. [3]. I think we went over this a few years ago. Take care, ^^James^^ ( talk) 21:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Christ myth theory has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christ myth theory and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.
Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list ( click here for details).
Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.
Hello Sophia, thanks for your note. I'm reluctant to get involved because I'd like to be able to review the article if it comes back to FAC. I've already been the subject of criticism over my oppose at the first FAC, and that would only get worse if I were to become further engaged. I'll put the peer review page on my watchlist just in case I can add anything of value, but my feeling at the moment is that it's best I stay away. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 12:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Christ myth theory and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,
Thanks for your note, Sophia, and for offering to help with the Martin book. I've ordered several books but they're going to take some time to arrive, so in the meantime I'm struggling to do the reading via Google or Amazon, but they don't show everything. I was thinking of writing up a section on Martin's view of Wells, so perhaps if there are pages I can't access about that, you could either help me write it, or let me know what the missing pages say? That would help a lot.
In the meantime, Shell Kinney, one of the Arbs, made a good suggestion, namely that we ask each editor to list what would satisfy their concerns about the article. I've started a section about that here. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk contribs 23:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm so sorry to hear that, Sophia. Don't worry about the other thing even for a minute; it's massively unimportant. I hope you and your family are coping okay. SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Sophia, in case you didn't see it, Ari asked for a clarification to your vote on the CMT talk page. When you get a chance, can you please explain your "oppose" vote, since it is contrary to what you have affirmed in the past? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 ( talk) 22:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
As on the talk page, I understand that that was one of the points that was raised (the general "proponents are not respectable"), but other claims like the one I was talking about were also brought up, and I was trying to figure out what the deal was. Thank you for answering.
However, I don't really understand how you're pinning the "bringing too much emotion" thing on me - I have been trying to be as neutral as possible on this page, frequently reverting anti-myth material that has no basis and trying to preserve pro-myth material as much as possible, and yet you keep attacking me as biased and seemingly denigrating me for the other kinds of articles I edit (like immediately assuming I'm trying to "apologetics the article out of existence", when even a cursory glance of my edits would show that prediction as ridiculous). I can try to be compromising and keep the discussion on the article, but at a certain point it's impossible for me to not get annoyed when I am near constantly attacked by you and certain other of the article's editors. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Have you seen the Jesus myth hypothesis article lately? I think we are finally making some progress and I remember your input on the talk page and tha tyou had been involved with it for 2 years. It would be good to see some old hands return now that the article seems to actually be going somewhere.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 08:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
He is HK30. -- DHeyward ( talk) 01:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's the WR post. It's just not believable that they aren't the same person given the circumstances and the fact that he's admitted to all the other ones that Musical Linguist identified and this one fits the pattern of his other ones in terms of account name and linguistic clues. -- DHeyward ( talk) 22:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Read this rant where the "Professor" talks about the sites that you are concerned about and also protests how innocent he is. Then read this [2]. I think this is the first time he's actually admitted to this sockpuppet, previously only admitting that he used sockpuppets in the past and only admitting to the confirmed checkuser cases. -- DHeyward ( talk) 23:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Sophia, you welcomed me some time ago at Wikipedia. Thank you for this but I can see that I will "leave" for some indefinite time. I tried to contribute to the Jesus Myth (and historicity), in a way which I felt similar to yours. But I must say I am giving up now, it is so time consuming, and in some sense hopeless. I will let evolution do her work by herself :-) Good luck in your further endeavours! Jelamkorj ( talk) 12:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't think it's rude and it makes sense to me. You're not making a credible case that being an atheist does not give you a conflict of interest. Being an atheist gives you a conflict of interest with any of the Biblical claims just as it gives you a conflict of interest with any religious claims. It's possible for an atheist to accept the historicity of Jesus in the same way that it's possible for a Christian to reject the existence of a personal God or that Jesus didn't rise from the grave (as some Christians do). That doesn't change the fact that is in the best interest of an atheist to deny the truth claims of any religious work. You can't tell me there's no conflict of interest. Do you think it's a sheer coincidence that those who assert the Jesus Myth are all atheists? Where are all the Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus denying that Jesus ever existed? They have absolutely no stake in his existence whatever, and the Jews in particular have a stake in his non-historicity. You really seem to think that atheists are incapable of personal bias and are uniformly objective in their assessment of evidence and issues which infringe on their worldview. That's just not realistic. But all of this is beside the point. The fact remains that a case has been made which is entirely falsifiable. All you have to do is falsify it. -- Taiwan boi ( talk) 14:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Category:Brights, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold ( talk) 14:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse -- ragesoss ( talk) 02:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sophia, I believe you've been involved before in determining whether Nicholas Beale fits our notability criteria. Although the article was deleted, the subject has moved it back into mainspace. Would you mind taking a look at the discussion here and offering an opinion, if you have time? Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Not much has changed. [3]. I think we went over this a few years ago. Take care, ^^James^^ ( talk) 21:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Christ myth theory has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christ myth theory and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.
Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list ( click here for details).
Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.
Hello Sophia, thanks for your note. I'm reluctant to get involved because I'd like to be able to review the article if it comes back to FAC. I've already been the subject of criticism over my oppose at the first FAC, and that would only get worse if I were to become further engaged. I'll put the peer review page on my watchlist just in case I can add anything of value, but my feeling at the moment is that it's best I stay away. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 12:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Christ myth theory and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,
Thanks for your note, Sophia, and for offering to help with the Martin book. I've ordered several books but they're going to take some time to arrive, so in the meantime I'm struggling to do the reading via Google or Amazon, but they don't show everything. I was thinking of writing up a section on Martin's view of Wells, so perhaps if there are pages I can't access about that, you could either help me write it, or let me know what the missing pages say? That would help a lot.
In the meantime, Shell Kinney, one of the Arbs, made a good suggestion, namely that we ask each editor to list what would satisfy their concerns about the article. I've started a section about that here. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk contribs 23:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm so sorry to hear that, Sophia. Don't worry about the other thing even for a minute; it's massively unimportant. I hope you and your family are coping okay. SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Sophia, in case you didn't see it, Ari asked for a clarification to your vote on the CMT talk page. When you get a chance, can you please explain your "oppose" vote, since it is contrary to what you have affirmed in the past? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 ( talk) 22:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)