This is an archive of past discussions about Acharya S. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

Now again...

No... stop this attack on me! This is not about me either. Smearing me seems to be the only thing you have to say.

I have made no attack on you. Likewise, you have addressed other thigns I have said, so cllearly yo did not see htis solely as an attakc on you.

If the information is available... it's available.

But much available informaiton you seek to eliminate.

There wouldn't be this argument if what you presented was information but that isn't the case.

Actulaly this is not true. It is so that you simply wish to silence the oposiiton to your worldview, and have demonstrated such. This is nto abotu fact VS beleif, with me supportign beelif and yoyu fact. This is abotu you supportign your belifs.

You present defamatory statements and call it information.

No, I do not. For example when you say that: "Critics have claimed her work is based on poor scholarship, with little primary research and heavy reliance on outdated or fringe sources, and shows ignorance of the topics on which she writes, in particular of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions. Mainstream scholars have paid little attention to her work." is unsubstantiated, biased and prejudicial...

It is not biased, as it is a rport on what others have said, it is not Predjudicial to include such a report, and it is substantiated.CHeck the Critics.They say htis.

all that can be done is to refute it with something like: "Other critics have lauded her scholarship, especially in the field of Hindu and Buddhist tradition and further has warranted the attention of such mainstream biblical notaries as JP Holding, Mike Licona and Robert Price."

But their is no need to refute it, as this page doesnt exist to refute her Critics. Her ideas are already preasent, and to balance htis Critics need also to be offred. No judgement on who is and is not right is offered. What you propose woidl, hwoever, Bias wikipedia. FItts we tell ehr ideas, then we tell her critics, then we tll how the Critics are wrong. What tou are tryign to do is lead the aritlces conclusion. ( ANd I didnt say her critics where wrong, btu this is how you woudl rpefer the aritlce to read. Or, better yet, omitt the Critism so her vieews are the only ones given.)

Likewise, your "Refutation" tithe Critism is more unsubstantiated. No one outside of her emideate supporters make such claims. Your complaint baot sayign hr critics make statements is o say othrs make the reverse, btu have not shwon any who do.

But this isn't about her work... it's about her.

Yet you mak it baotu her works.

I have nothing to do with belief... facts serve me far better.

If this where only the case, hwoever, ypou have consistantly denied faCT to support your agenda. it seems that your opinion means mroe than facts.

All religion is based in myth...

This seems to be the driving factor here. This is yoyr beleif,and, you wish to promote it here. Any who oppose the spread f your agenda will be Neutralised.

but if you say it is not, then produce hard evidence of otherwise. More name calling...

Their is no need. The purpose here is to write abotu Acharya S, and present a balanced article.It is not Germane to enter such a debate.

Hypocrisy is the professing of beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess. Like saying this article is about Acharya when every aspect of it is based in refuting her works.

Actually this is not true. Your version omits her life detials, and others tyr to include more. This hardly makes our agenda a refutaiton of her works.

A description of the books is not the same as a refutation of them. You are afraid of presenting them for what they are... you are scared to death that unless you show them in a bad light, someone might read them and agree with what they say.

This is actulaly the pppsite of the truth. Indeed, I even presente dint he aritlce the enture Saviour god list she compares Jesus to, and the SOlar Myth she presnted, in its entirety.

I have no fear of presentign ehr ideas Neutrlaly.

On the other hand, you omit all Critisism of her work, for fear that others will read them, and conclude that her premise is false. You are the one advocatign Censorship, not I.

Reason is the capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought... I rest my case.

You do not rest your case, as you ocntinue below.

I employ no such tactics... stating a thing straight forward is not a tactic. You are wrong... Pisces has been in the Zodiac since 2300 bc. Libel? Haha.. now that's the pot calling the kettle black.

Though I am accused of Liable, I have not commited it. As for Picease, you did not read what I actulaly said. I said the "Age of Picese" did not exist, not the Zodiological sign. Many elements f the Astorlogy in The CHrist COnspiracy simply did not exist at the time of Jesus, odr even the third century where she claism CHrostanity relaly got started.

She cponcludes her book by pointign out that we ar ein the beginning of the Age of Aquarius, and Jeuss time is past. But, at the time of Jesus, in the firtys three centuries, Astorlogers did not knwo it was "The AGe of Picese".

But you said that Wikipedia is no a place for debaiting (arguing opposing views). There is nothing wrong in putting opposing views and views that agree with her in links and make them available to the reader.

I didnt say their was. In fact, I am supportive of offeirng differing perspectives. You ar eht eone who omits form the aritlce all Critiissm, which eliminates an alternate poitn fo veiw.

Since religion is about emotion, it is simply the wisest move that can be made and avoids the entanglements that religion inevitably instigates.

Reliigon is not abotu EMoiton, and sayign such only dispalys a Gross Ignorance as to what Religion is.

Many Rleigions, including Buddhism, tend to claim Emoitonal attatchment are actulaly bad things, and many Aesthetics in Christaintiy as well as the Stoics tend to avoid motion.

Reigion is about philosophy and beliefs abot the world at large, life, and othr such things. This is not to say emoitonal elements do nto exist in rleigiosu studies, but rleigion s not abotu EMotion.

And even if it where, this is no reaosn to exclude religious perspectives. Acharya S Critisises rleigiosu beleifs and rleigions, so why cant we also include perspectives from Rleigions to shwo how they respoinded to her?

The answr is simple, because you want her voice heard solely.

You have two choices... allow countering views to your refutations or put them in links. It's that simple.

A third option is that we make this liek any other WIkipedia article, and allow Critisism in general. What you want is either the eliminationof the Critisism, or else the addition of elements to subvert the Critissism.

To remain neutral it must not be aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side of a dispute.

Which is exalcy why we need a Critism section, and cannot add the subversive, menaignless support for her, which itsself is unsubstantiated.

I challenge you to produce one thing that I have posted to that article that was not neutral... now look at your input and say the same thing.

Everythign in the former aritcles I have written is neutral. Your current verison omits King Davids link, adds unnessisary supprot for Acharya S , links to her page unnessisarily oftren, and omits life detials, and reads as if it belongs ont he back of her books as it seems liek an advert. We have discussd this before.

That you are right and everyone agrees? Such ego.

I have no ego problem, i have a problem with lies and manipulaiton.

The bible says what? I don't recall that one, care to give chapter and verse? I do remember one about slaves giving respect to their masters, though.

Odd that you give no CHapter or verse.

It has the same advice in a few places, I will giv eonly one instance in he Old Testament, and one in the New Testament.

Proverbs 24:23.

Romans 2:11.

It is one thing to tell "about" ones life, quite another to engage in exposing the details of a traumatic incident, one for which she had no control over and was not culpable in any way for. That is nothing more than a tabloid.

Yet she herself exposed it. Until I posted it on Wikipedia, she had the link added on her own website. Indeed, Wikipedia prompted this. She wanted Sympathy and used her son's Kidnappign to win it. But, as she herself acted as the SOurce for the Informaiton, I cannto see hwo this is a Tabloidesque endeavour.

As regards word games... well, I guess they proved their point.

No, they only show the deapths of irrational symantics you will resprot to to contrive an argument to win your way. Sophist argumetns do not work well with me.

You'll have to show how this was libelous... anyone who has been following your input here can see exactly for themselves how it is a true statement and not making you a villian of you.

Actully this is mroe how you prefer to show me, not hwo I am. And htis above statement a raitonalisaiton, not the truth.

Fine, remove both pro and con links and let the article be about the books and the author that produced them. Keep it straightforward, simple and just the facts. Can't get anymore neutral than that.

Except the aritlce is nto abotu her boosk at all, and in yor "New and imprved"verison we must also rmeove all Critism and present only what he rboosk are about, as if to try to sell thm.

We cnanto tlak abotutheh books, as it must be written in aw ay as to make it appear as a solid work, and the "ABout the Author" segment iwll be a blurp.

Provide alternate views, then... not just the one you want presented.

I presented her veiws, then those who have critised her. You predsent only her viees, and seek either to rmove the critics, or inscert biased refutaitosn to nullify them.

Acahrya's books shows where christianity and all religions come from.

Actually no, she simply bulds a conspiracy theory. But her book is self-refuting.

That is not against them... you just take it that way.

If you read her book, phrases like this tend to crop up.

From the Introduction Alone.

"The History of Rleigious Beleifs on Earth is Long and Varied, with Conceps, Doctirnes, and Riturals of all sort to propitiate and beseech any number of gods and goddesses .Although many beleive religion to be a good and nessisary thing, no ideology is more divisive than religion, which rends humanity in a numbr of ways through extreme racism, sexism, and even spiecieism.Religion is, in fact, dependant on division, because it requires an enemy, whether isbe earthly or in another dimension."

She oes on to discuss how more wars and death are cause dby Rleigion, sopeaks of Hitler, and tlaks abotu how Religion automaticllay prodices war and dispare.

the introduction ends with a DIsparagy of Jesus, usng the term "Prince of Peace" in quotation marks, and talks o the need to expose Christanity spacificlaly and rleigion in general, to destory it.

The rest of the book has similarly vitirolic CHarges laced throghout. Need spacific page numebrs and quotes?

If one were to tell of the Dark ages and Christianity's part in it... would it be speaking against Christianity?

Considerign that htis is Historically untenable, yes. The so-called ark Ages acutlaly saw soem progress, and where cause dmore by the loss of the ORman roadsystem and educaitonal standards than by Christaintiy as a faith, which Ironuclaly preserved all the classical literature we have todsay in Monastaries.

Without he CHurh musch woidl ahve been lost, and the age darker than it was.

Apologetics is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines. It has nothing to do with fact, or right or wrong as long as it justifies itself.

Acharya S is an apologist, though one who supports her Quasi-new age feminist agenda. An apologist is one hwo defends a posiiton, muchas you defend her and hers.

Again, she critises Christainity, and so mucht accept that they rspond.

By virtue of the fact that Price agrees with Acharya's hypothesis, it should be dropped because all he did was nitpick on the differences between his research and hers... his comments are just professional competition.

In other words, we shoudl drop the Chrisytain apologists because they defend their beelifs form ehr attack, and allow her to attack their beelifs unopposed. We shoudl drop Privce because he agrees wiht her overall. Sorry, this is further proof that all you want is her to be seen as soemthgin other thna she is.

Price doesnt nitpick, he shwos the errors in her book.

Define just what encyclopedia means.

From the Dicitonary. The American Heritage online was ocnveneint.

NOUN: A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.

You can't trash trash... all you can do is disbelieve those who believe in it and that makes for your contentions and debate. But only a fool would say there is nothing about christianity and its history undeserving of criticism.

Yet all I am sayign is that the works of Acharya S also need to be Critised, and we nee dot allow her Critics vpice in the aritlce, rather than censort hem and puff her up as soemthgn shes not.

The books verify their titles. If you want to take them on then create another article for that purpose.

This was my iniital proposal recall. You ar eht eone insitant htis be about her books.

History irrelevant? I see... ignore what you don't want to hear. Typical.

This is not what I said, Lobo.I said that arguign the case here is not relevant.

I repeat... the only information you have is bits of gossip. The essentials of her life are not publicly known.

I have more, btu am not permitted ot hsow, and you knwo why Im not, and I am not all talk ehre, you ar eth eone brignign it up.

So, you are in league with Tekton... and that is where you have been getting your information. I figured.

No Im not. I have no rformal rleationshp tp them and have not contacted htem in amny Months. My information doesnt ocme form them, and htis is a GROSS distortion fo hat was said. In fac, its an outright lie.

So... I am blind, delusion and paranoid. Thanks. My feelings are hurt and my reputation is in the toilet. I'm no good and don't deserve to live. Guess I'll just have to go fine an ice flow somewhere and let the polar bears have their way with me. I don't know if you are a zealot or not... but gauging by your actions here... it comes close.

THis is simply emoitonally charged, meandering, immature drivel.

It contributes nothign tot he discussion.

You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. Let me get this straight... you read the Christ Conspiracy and drew from it the conclusion that Jesus was the Hindu god Vishnu for the age of Pisces in the first century... would you quote the page where this is found?

As soon as you wuote me as saying all this.

Again... cite what you are talking about. What system of astrology did not exist?

The sysem currently in use that acutlaly diliniates the ages by Astorlogical sign.

The problem is... you keep bringing it up that you want to produce data about her life and then hide behind that you may get banned for doing so. All I'm doing is telling you is to put up or shut up.

Actually as sooin as the complaint was lodged agaisnt me I droped it. You keep brignitng itup.

That's not so... she told this King David exactly where to find the information he was looking for. The correspondence that he copied over into his forum ended... neither you nor I know why or whether he quit copying it or she stopped replying.

the link, if so harmless ot her, is removed why?

We already know that you ignore wikipedia policy... (such as biographies of living persons) but what I was referring to was how this article has been handled.

I have ignroed nothing, I follow the principles of the Encyclopidia. Yiu do not.

This article is little more than a format for the denial of her books. At best, the most it can produce is an eternal debate. It would be better to simply remove it and let the parties move on to other and better things to do.

You make this charge often, and end with an appeal to delete, again, its "Give me my way or rmeove the aritlce."

ZAROVE 02:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

-

Name one belief I have... Belief requires faith to breath life into that which would otherwise have none. Belief does not rest on logical proof or material evidence... it rest on the imagination and emotion of individual who has been brainwashed into a doctrine to support its dogma.

In the first place, Wikipedia policy states that "we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." It tells you that sources that are self published are not good sources because the author, editor and publisher are the same person.

According to you, as long as someone said something, it is reportable no matter what it is. But you are right, this page exists to refute her ideas not her critics.

I have shown unequivocally that this is a ruse and a lie. It is about her works.

Where have I denied fact? Show me... again, you make a wild accusation without reference. Like nearly all you do, you fabricate things to throw off the discussion.

There is no religion that is not myth. Religions typically create a tradition that is told in stories dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the world view of a people... they often explain aspects of the natural world or delineate the psychology, customs, or ideals of society. In other words, they are a myth, founded and adopted from previous myth.

I recall that you did ridicule a list that compared jesus to myth.

I think you are very confused... quote her comments on the age of Pisces and age of Aquarius.

Offer different perspectives in the form of links instead of copying what they say... if you copy what they say, then stand ready to post an opposing view to them. That is only fair. You can't have it one way.

You bespeak a profound ignorance with such comments. Religion is the institutionalization of belief and belief cannot exist without emotion to give it life. Belief engages a reverence for a supernatural power regarded as creator and governor of the universe for the purpose of worship. Worship is the reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object and includes the ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed. I don't disallow any criticism... I just want to keep it from becoming a debate.

So there it is in back and white. You say... "Which is exalcy why we need a Critism section, and cannot add the subversive, menaignless support for her, which itsself is unsubstantiated."

I want everyone to witness this. You want to be free to criticize without rebuttal. You're right and everyone else is wrong. If this is not the earmark a true zealot I don't know what is.

You say "Odd that you give no CHapter or verse." It was in Ephesians 6:5 NLT and 1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT

Proverbs 24:23.

These also are sayings of the wise:

To show partiality in judging is not good:

Romans 2:11.

For God does not show favoritism.

Oh but that we would but practice what we preach

Tabloid behavior is engaging the sensationalism mentality that seeks to expose peoples traumatic events in their lives. What is appropriate for a Wikipedia article? Read the policy on Biographies of living persons. Read:

Presumption in favor of privacy

Public figures

"Only details relevant to the notability of the subject belong in the article. If a fact or incident is notable, relevant and well-documented by reputable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If not, leave it out."

Speaking of Sophist arguments... what did you just write?

"No, they only show the deapths of irrational symantics you will resprot to to contrive an argument to win your way. Sophist argumetns do not work well with me."

I guess they do work for you after all.

You have created a mantra in your mind and cannot get past yourself on this. If it is solely about her and not the books and their hypothesis, then make no mention of them and what they say and only tell of her. Print it here so we can all see what you are talking about.

You make the statement... "We cnanto tlak abotutheh books, as it must be written in aw ay as to make it appear as a solid work, and the "ABout the Author" segment iwll be a blurp."

And then... "I presented her veiws, then those who have critised her. You predsent only her viees, and seek either to rmove the critics, or inscert biased refutaitosn to nullify them."

Do you ever listen to yourself?

I think you need to print out the whole introduction and then read it... the truth often hurts but it's seldom unjust.

How wonderful it must be to be so lost in a rationale so complete that that one agrees with it. There is no lie quite so perfect as the one believed. To say the salvation of the Dark ages was the cause of it is not sane. What brought the Dark Ages to an end was the breaking of the hold the church had on government. It is called the Age of Enlightenment followed by the Age of Reason, the Renaissance and the Reformation.

As I said, put the detractors links in as well as those who support her in an external link section and let the reader choose for themselves. I went through over 25 of those so called Price errors chosen by one of you and discredited each and every one of them without a shadow of a doubt which when posted did not receive one single rebuttal to them.

But it is not about the books... it is about her. Right? You are playing this whole article like a church organ summoning the faithful to come to sunday meetin' and bring your purse change.

69.19.14.38 12:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 07:01 AM EST

-

lOBO, THIS GETS OLD.

Name one belief I have... Belief requires faith to breath life into that which would otherwise have none. Belief does not rest on logical proof or material evidence... it rest on the imagination and emotion of individual who has been brainwashed into a doctrine to support its dogma.

Actually "Beleif" is defined as anythign one holds ot be true, and often rests on evidential fact. IE, sicnetists beleive the theory of relitivity. But it isnto beelived "On faith", its beleived because of experemental Data and mathematical evidence.

You beleive I am here ot smear Acharya S. No evidence exists, outside of gross distortion of my acitons. You beleive you have a computer to type at. You beleive that the USA exists. You have several beleifs. Including those which do not rest on logical evidence, such as the premise of Acharya S's books.

In the first place, Wikipedia policy states that "we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." It tells you that sources that are self published are not good sources because the author, editor and publisher are the same person.

three poroblems arise then.

1: We shoidl delete the links to Acharya S's website, since its self published.

2: We shoudl delete all links to any site on all wikipedia, as most wenbsites are self published.

3: We shoudl then only use Paranoia magazinee as a source.

This is ridiculous, and another cheap ttemto to silence oposiiton. Wikipeida will use souces that are self published, so long as its nto form WIkipedia or one of tis mirrors.

According to you, as long as someone said something, it is reportable no matter what it is.

Lobo, at this point its safe to say you are as your Mentor, Acharya S, and a liar who distorts facts to get your way.

I didnt use just any old attack on Dorothy. I used only those with substance. You, on the other hand, omit all Critism of her, and post any support for her.

I have higher standars than that. Tekton is a respcted Apologetics orginisaiton for instance. This dosnt even mena I have to agree with thm, but they are respected and the Cheif focal point for Acharya S's rage. As she has such an animosity toward them, and as they are reputable ( And have their own wikipeida article) it is a germane sorue. So is RisenJesus, and so isDr.Robert Price.

But you are right, this page exists to refute her ideas not her critics.

Actually it exist to inform the readers abotu who she is, not to refute her works. Her Critics ar eonly included to balance the aritlce.

I have shown unequivocally that this is a ruse and a lie.

No you haven't. You just mamke cheap assertion.

It is about her works.

THis is why I add more life detial, and you delete everythign I post baotu her life except a blurp...right...

Where have I denied fact?

Above is a good example, when you deny that this is an Article abotu her life. You also deny the fact htat WIkipedia shoudl use Critisms.You deny the fac tthat I just want a baalced artile. You deny the fact that the aritlce is abot her and not her ideas.

Like nearly all you do, you fabricate things to throw off the discussion.

No I don't. Sofar you are the only oen using Fabrication.

There is no religion that is not myth.

THis is a vlaue call and a beleif, a Bias on your part. You don't hoenslty expect Wikipeida to operat eon this premise do you? Wiipedia shoduil just clal all Rleigion myth, and so, clal beelivers dilusional fools. Im sorry, this is what you prefer, but, this makes you Biased. This is why you shoudl not be here.

Religions typically create a tradition that is told in stories dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the world view of a people... they often explain aspects of the natural world or delineate the psychology, customs, or ideals of society. In other words, they are a myth, founded and adopted from previous myth.

This is both gross oversimplificaiton, neglegent into the real deapth of theological and cultral studies, not to mention PSycology and hisotry, and, again, a bais that cannot be added to the aritlce.

I recall that you did ridicule a list that compared jesus to myth.

You recall incorreclty. I simply posted it. I didnt ridicule it. If you woudl like you can view the article in which the list was intordiced. It shoudl be in the Hisotyr section. But, I didnt ridicule it. However, it is in your iterest to say I did to shwo how I have animosity tot h auhor, which I do not have, and so create a false image of me.

I think you are very confused... quote her comments on the age of Pisces and age of Aquarius.

"the fish is in fact representative of the ast. ageof pisces,symbolised by two fish."- The CHrist COnpsiracy, Physical Evidence, page 79.

"In the Gospels. Jesus refers to sdifferent 'ages' , which are in fact divisions that COnstitute the proccession of the Equinoxes.As Moses was created to usher in the Age of Ares, so was Jesus to serve as the Avataer of the age of Pisces, which is evicnt fromt he abundant fish imagry used throughout the Gospel tale.This Zodiological connection has been so suppressed that peopel with the fish symbol on the back of their cars have no idea what it stands for, a;though they are fallaciously told it represents 'ICHTHYS',an nogram for 'Jesus Christ,Son Of God, Saior.' Ichthys being also the Greek word for fish."- The CHrist Conspiracy, Astrology And The Bible, Page 146.

" As the mythical Moses had been Utilised to Inaugurate the new age of Ares,Jesus was created to do likewise with the Age of Pisces."- The CHrist Conspiracy, The Making Of A Myth, Page 360.

Their are other referneces but I think this serves for now.

Offer different perspectives in the form of links instead of copying what they say... if you copy what they say, then stand ready to post an opposing view to them. That is only fair. You can't have it one way.

No its not, tis goping over with a Bias in faovur of Acharya S. As I explaiend before. e present ehr ideas, as whitewashed and mainstream as poisble, mention her critics, then emideatley refute her critics shwing them to be wrong, so Acharya S seems right and true. Thsi is your goal, to either rmove all Critism, or else neutralise it.You are hee to defend Acharya S, not truth and neutrlaity.

You bespeak a profound ignorance with such comments.

No, I odnt.

Religion is the institutionalization of belief and belief cannot exist without emotion to give it life.

Yes it can.Ive exoaliedn before what beleif is, and many reliigous peopel are not very emotional.

Belief engages a reverence for a supernatural power regarded as creator and governor of the universe for the purpose of worship.

Not always. Look at many forms of Buddhism, or Unitarianism. Many branches of Neopaganism also lack such. Furthermore, Secular Humanism is also a rleigiosu worldview, as is Discordianism

Worship is the reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object and includes the ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.

And yet, not all worship is aimd at suhc.

I don't disallow any criticism... I just want to keep it from becoming a debate.

Actulaly you did disallow critism by cliamign all the cirism we had thusfar shwon needed rmeoval, and if we show any other critical pages they woul similarly be objected to. Since you cnanot hav them removed, you wan tot add refutaitosn to her critics to shw her as right.

So there it is in back and white. You say... "Which is exalcy why we need a Critism section, and cannot add the subversive, menaignless support for her, which itsself is unsubstantiated." I want everyone to witness this. You want to be free to criticize without rebuttal. You're right and everyone else is wrong. If this is not the earmark a true zealot I don't know what is.

Now you are again distortign what I said to force a meanign into it that doesnt existy. The supprot you give her is subversice nto to my rleigiosubeleifs which Im ehre to defend, but to the Neutrlaifty of Wikipeida. You, in short, wan tot briegyu mention her critics, btu refute the critism and show it to eb wrogn, to elad the reader intot he concluion that Acharya S is right.

You want to lie, manipualte, and distort what her ciritidcs say and brish them aside with a comment that says "They are wrong' and then lie, distrt, and manipualte ont he tlak page to get your way.

You say "Odd that you give no CHapter or verse." It was in Ephesians 6:5 NLT and 1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT

STill you make demands you yourself do nto afford to give.

Proverbs 24:23. These also are sayings of the wise: To show partiality in judging is not good: Romans 2:11. For God does not show favoritism.

Oh but that we would but practice what we preach

I have been. You syagn otherwise is simply mor elies baotu me. James is also tryign to smear me. How Ironic that you are "Upset that hes out to sm,ear Acharya!" while you "Valiantly denfed the turht" by smearign me. oh thats right, your just "Tlelign the truth abotu Zarove/Cook.". No, your here to smear me , bully everyone, an get your way.

Tabloid behavior is engaging the sensationalism mentality that seeks to expose peoples traumatic events in their lives. What is appropriate for a Wikipedia article?

I didnt engage in this, you only say I do to make sure I get banned so that you can have youe way withthe aritcle.

Read the policy on Biographies of living persons. Read: Presumption in favor of privacy Public figures "Only details relevant to the notability of the subject belong in the article. If a fact or incident is notable, relevant and well-documented by reputable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If not, leave it out." Speaking of Sophist arguments... what did you just write? "No, they only show the deapths of irrational symantics you will resprot to to contrive an argument to win your way. Sophist argumetns do not work well with me." I guess they do work for you after all. You have created a mantra in your mind and cannot get past yourself on this. If it is solely about her and not the books and their hypothesis, then make no mention of them and what they say and only tell of her. Print it here so we can all see what you are talking about.

Yet, she is the oen who made knwon the "Sensatioanlsitic" facts. IE, even though its since been removed, on her own website she has a link on the hom age that read abotu a Heroisng story". She used her sons Kidnappign to garner sympathy for herself. On her website. Shen clale don it, she removed the link, which she still posted in hr mailing list. ( And claism this is my source for informaiton, her ex lover I didnt knwo abotu till she opened her own yap.)

If she makes a fact knwon, it is not tabloidesque to mention it.

Last of all when she makes it known to the general public.

You make the statement... "We cnanto tlak abotutheh books, as it must be written in aw ay as to make it appear as a solid work, and the "ABout the Author" segment iwll be a blurp." And then... "I presented her veiws, then those who have critised her. You predsent only her viees, and seek either to rmove the critics, or inscert biased refutaitosn to nullify them." Do you ever listen to yourself?

Distorting what I said will not make what I say less relevant. The firts was sarcasm. That is what you are doing, and I was pretendign to agree. You simply wan ta breif "Shes a schoalr" intro abotu ehr life, and then how great her boosk are, and how wrogn ehr critics are. You want an advertisement.

I think you need to print out the whole introduction and then read it... the truth often hurts but it's seldom unjust.

The truth is, you and your Guru are both frauds who dotn care abotu truth, and only wan tto distort and manipualte other sinto your worldview.

Im gettign rather tired of it.

How wonderful it must be to be so lost in a rationale so complete that that one agrees with it. There is no lie quite so perfect as the one believed. To say the salvation of the Dark ages was the cause of it is not sane. What brought the Dark Ages to an end was the breaking of the hold the church had on government. It is called the Age of Enlightenment followed by the Age of Reason, the Renaissance and the Reformation.

this is acutlaly gross distortion.

For starters,the reformaiton was a CHruch movement, so, how can a rleigoous movement show rleigion tobe bad when it helped spociety? Liekie, the "Enlightenment" saw mroe bloodshed than the previous middle ages.

And again, the cuse of the So-Caleld Dark Ages had nothgin to do whtht Chruch loomign large and congorljg ghe Govnemrnet, and indeed, often the CHruch didnt controle much.

And, again, without the CHruhc we woudltn even have an Englightenment because the Humanities woudl have been lost.

Beleiving lies as you do just as they accord with your worldview is oen thing, reprotign them on wiipedia is another.

As I said, put the detractors links in as well as those who support her in an external link section and let the reader choose for themselves. I went through over 25 of those so called Price errors chosen by one of you and discredited each and every one of them without a shadow of a doubt which when posted did not receive one single rebuttal to them.

In other words, tlel little to nothing abotu her real life and credentuals, just whats ont eh bakc of her books, and tell of her boosk as if marketign them, makign sure not to mentin critcs.

Sorry, silengin her critics is not acceptable.Nor is it fair.

But it is not about the books... it is about her. Right? You are playing this whole article like a church organ summoning the faithful to come to sunday meetin' and bring your purse change.

No one is payign me ot be here, Lobo, and All I want is for it to be a fair article, no ammount of disparagy agaont me and pretext of how Bias I am will negete the lies and dstrucitons you present.

ZAROVE 19:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

-

This IS old... know why? Because what I am doing is responding to you. I told you along time ago that these lengthy replies you make will not deter my responding to them... as I told you and one of the admins then,

you will not drive me away my numbers of words no matter how many time you repeat the same message.

That's right... belief, like truth, has many meanings, but I have clearly stated that the belief that requires faith to exist begins where fact ends and does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. If a thing requires belief to exist, it probably doesn't.

I don't believe (think) any such thing. I don't know why you do what you do... but you are right, as I have pointed out, your actions define who and what you are. They stand as testimony to what you are about and what you are up to. The premise of Acharya's books are self evident. I think that their assessments are correct.

I see no problem in deleting all the links... just tell the bare bones description of the books and their author and let this article serve to inform the reader the basic information about them. I have no problem in deleting the thing. All that you are putting yourself through simply is not worth it. It is has virtually trashed any credibility you may otherwise had.

What opposition? You could save yourself a lot of trouble if you just stated up front that you despise the books and the author for writing them. That would sum up all of your efforts in one neat sentence.

And there you are... you consistently resort to this sort of behavior. Name calling is what one resorts to when they have run out of anything else to say. Show me where I have lied or distorted the facts. You may respect Tekton ministries if you like but I will gladly show you where it and Turkel are a lot less thought of than respected and with hundreds of examples why. They are not a chief focal point of Acharya... she responded to their highly derogatory attack on her.

I have already shown, without any doubt that your original and subsequent inputs to this article have been to refute the books and the premises they pose. One method you use to demean them is to attack the veracity of the author. You list these things and call them as facts... but they are not facts, they are just what you imagine and do not exist beyond your saying so.

The proof is in the pudding. The onus for the claim of a thing to exist rests with the claimant. If you claim that religion exists without having incorporated myth then show it to be so. But your rejecting or denying it only makes you out to be what you think I call those who do. If you have a right to be here, then I have a right to be here and the fact that your mentality has drawn the conclusion that I should be banned for contradicting you justifies your solution.

No, it is hardly a gross over simplification of religion, this is the definition of it... look it up.

You copied it from J.P. Holding's site who lists “Similarities to the sun” which states "Acharya S's works are poor scholarship. They contain essentially no primary research and little substantiation for her claims. Her research is one-sided, and uses biased, inaccurate, and outdated sources to prove her point." When one engages in using words intended to evoke contemptuous feelings toward a person, that is ridicule.

Re... Age of Pisces, uh, yeah... that true, what's your point? It didn't say they proclaimed it to be the Age of Pisces... during that time.

Again, so what?... "to serve as" means as of a quality or concept; an archetype.

The naming of the "ages" are from a historians perspective... there is no indication in any of the Chapter on Astrology and the Bible that states that those who lived in those times named their own age.

You want to call what she writes garbage and you don't want anyone to say it not? What you call truth is your truth. Nice gig if you can get it.

All religion is concerned with supernatural powers with the purpose of worship. It wouldn't be a religion if it didn't. The supernatural means not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material.

the Reformation noted the disintegration of the hold the Roman Catholic Church had in controlling government. It was then that the various protestant sects came into being. In 1517, the German monk, Martin Luther issued his 95 Theses to the Castle Church door in Wittenberg, Germany. Martin made a translation of the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into German. It was no long before all the countries of Europe followed suit. For the first time in history, the printing press made the bible available to everyone which broke the back of the church.

The Roman Catholic Church was the driving instrument of the Dark Ages. From about A.D. 476 to about 1000 it suppressed knowledge by being the sole retainer of it. The Crusades, The inquisitions and the lack of Roman and Greek classical literature contributed to the ignorance and backwardness of European society. The educated were the monks and the repository of knowledge kept in church archives. Most of the land and wealth of Europe were owned or were under the control of the church.

66.82.9.76 06:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 01:38 AM EST

-

Debate seems all you want.

This IS old... know why? Because what I am doing is responding to you. I told you along time ago that these lengthy replies you make will not deter my responding to them... as I told you and one of the admins then,

I mean, your stonewallign is getitng old, and your excuses are getitgn pld. Any excuse you can find agaisnt a Critic you iwll use to ensure Critism is silnced. Barrign that, you will seek to refute Critism to neutrlaise it int he aritle to lend ot the proposition that Acharya S's posotion is stornger than it rellay is.

This is soley abput you defneidng Acharya S.

Another htign that get sold is your recriminaitons agasint me.

you will not drive me away my numbers of words no matter how many time you repeat the same message.

Actually Im refutign your self-serving and rathe rone-sides arguments,which read like Nazi Propaganda. This isnt a link between you and Nazi's, before you distort my words to it, btu you se the same tactics of silencign oposition and nedless repetition. That's right... belief, like truth, has many meanings, but I have clearly stated that the belief that requires faith to exist begins where fact ends and does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. If a thing requires belief to exist, it probably doesn't.

Which doesnt relaly relate tot he topic at habnd, excetp to show hwo you are fixared with discreditign religion, even though this aritlce isnt abotu evidence for religiosu beelifs beifng true.Its abotu Acharya S. I don't believe (think) any such thing. I don't know why you do what you do... but you are right, as I have pointed out, your actions define who and what you are. They stand as testimony to what you are about and what you are up to. The premise of Acharya's books are self evident. I think that their assessments are correct.

Now you lie, sicne in just the preciosu two postigns you ascribe motives to me. And her premise is largley talken form other soruces, most of which ar htemselves specious.Her assessments are also not relaly beogn discussed for merit. All I want is to present who she is, what she belifves, and then her critics. Thus makign this a netral, balanced, standard Wikipedia article.

I see no problem in deleting all the links... just tell the bare bones description of the books and their author and let this article serve to inform the reader the basic information about them. I have no problem in deleting the thing. All that you are putting yourself through simply is not worth it. It is has virtually trashed any credibility you may otherwise had.

THis is more of the same bully tactic. My credibility is acutlaly higher than yours. At leats I regestered a username and do delve into modificaiton and creaiton of aritlce s in WIkipedia outside of a singular interest.

This beign said, your "Bare bones description" of her books is nothign more than an attmeto to market her books. You omit all Criticsm, ignore her life ( And the arilce is abotu her) except to says hes "A scholar" and giv e a breif justificaiton that serves as a promotion of her credibility, and represent the books as if they are clear, conciuce schoalrship. You ignroe the acutal premise, the fullness of her ideas, and Criticsm to deflect the readers possible rejection fo them. You cast them in the best posisble light in order to elevat them to a position of acceptannce. (A dn no, this doesn mean I want htem in a bad light, I want them in a proper one.)

What opposition? You could save yourself a lot of trouble if you just stated up front that you despise the books and the author for writing them. That would sum up all of your efforts in one neat sentence.

This is acutlaly not true. I ofund her books amusing and have no personal animosity toward her. I do, however, oppose any attmeot to use Wikipeida as a paltform for promotion of her works, as I stornglyadhere tot he Neutrality policy. Sayign I am biased and you want a bare bones descirption wotn work sicne yor "BAre bones description" is as I said above, nohtign btu a shameless promotion designed to present ehr books in the best possible way, omit Criticsm, and even ignroes the author except a Bref "ABotu" ala what yo fidn ont he bakc of her books.

This is entuirley abotu you dispisign rleigion in general, Chrosyainity in aprticular, and ageign with Acharya S.

You cannot seperate htis agrenda form a Wikipedia aritlce, instead yo wish to impose it on Wikipeida.

And there you are... you consistently resort to this sort of behavior. Name calling is what one resorts to when they have run out of anything else to say.

And I havent namecalled.

Show me where I have lied or distorted the facts.

OK.Her eis but one example.

"What opposition? You could save yourself a lot of trouble if you just stated up front that you despise the books and the author for writing them. That would sum up all of your efforts in one neat sentence. "

You may respect Tekton ministries if you like but I will gladly show you where it and Turkel are a lot less thought of than respected and with hundreds of examples why. They are not a chief focal point of Acharya... she responded to their highly derogatory attack on her.

Both of these statements re false.

1: I never relaly dispalyed much respect for Tekton Ministires. I said they where mroe credible than Acharya S. But then, so is Connan O'Brain. For that mattr I'd trust Infidels more htan her too, which is outright an Atheist orginisaiton, simplybecause htye have highr standards than sh does, dispite their pbviosu agenda. ( Make no mistake, Infidels, Connan, Tekton, and Achayara are all Agenda's inteties.)

2: SHe does fixate on Tekton to he poitn of obsession, and paranoia. She thinks I am in leuge withthem, and that I soemhow ge tinformaiton form them. I opaiend little form them. I havent emaield them in months ( SIcn ei asked their side of the whole "Tektonsis is evil and out to desotry Acharya"FIasco) and her bizzarre idea thta they have a conspiracy agaisnt her rings on at her very own website, and she speaks often ont he mailign list fo them.

I have already shown, without any doubt that your original and subsequent inputs to this article have been to refute the books and the premises they pose.

No you havent. You reprodices article one, which contianed no real crtiism of her work whatsoever but a breif description of her work. And as I said, that was an initial aritlcd, my intent was to clean it up but I never got roudn to it.

One method you use to demean them is to attack the veracity of the author. You list these things and call them as facts... but they are not facts, they are just what you imagine and do not exist beyond your saying so.

Such as?

The proof is in the pudding. The onus for the claim of a thing to exist rests with the claimant. If you claim that religion exists without having incorporated myth then show it to be so.

OK. Buddhism exists mainly as an ethical Philosophy. Likewise, Both Secular Humanism and Many forms of OCntemproary New Mind Health religions,which tend to be Psycologiclaly motivated,lack supernatural elements.

But this is ultimatley a side isssu to the article at hand.

But your rejecting or denying it only makes you out to be what you think I call those who do. If you have a right to be here, then I have a right to be here and the fact that your mentality has drawn the conclusion that I should be banned for contradicting you justifies your solution.

Actually I say you shoud be banend because youer a troll. You are here to ensure a Baised Wikipeida article remaisn Biased in faovur of your side. You want to faovur Acharya S.

I dotn rlelay care about yor beleifs concernign religion, but their yours and donot belong in a Wikipedia aritlce.

( And no, neither do mien, btu I havwnt inscerted mien into it.)

No, it is hardly a gross over simplification of religion, this is the definition of it... look it up.

I did. Here is how it is defined.

Religion.

You copied it from J.P. Holding's site who lists “Similarities to the sun” which states "Acharya S's works are poor scholarship. They contain essentially no primary research and little substantiation for her claims. Her research is one-sided, and uses biased, inaccurate, and outdated sources to prove her point." When one engages in using words intended to evoke contemptuous feelings toward a person, that is ridicule.

Actually I copied the list out of her book, by hand.

Re... Age of Pisces, uh, yeah... that true, what's your point? It didn't say they proclaimed it to be the Age of Pisces... during that time.

Let me spell ou the point.

1: Acharya S claism that Jesus CHrist was created as the Avatar for the Age of Pisces.

2: The above indicates that it WAS understood as he Age of Piscese by those who created the Jesus myth.

3: If the peopel did not understand it to be the Age of Pisces, or call it the Age of Pisces, why create an Acatar for it? Or how? How can you create an Avatar for soemthgin you do not yet recognise?

4: As the Ages in the Astorlogical Zodiac did not yet exist whenthe JEsus Myth as purportedly beign constructed ( Between 100 AD and 300AD Accordign to the CHrist Conspiracy) then it is hihgly unlikely that JEsus was created to be its Avatar.

Again, so what?... "to serve as" means as of a quality or concept; an archetype.

An archtype representign soemthign they dodnt know about and didnt recognise.

The naming of the "ages" are from a historians perspective... there is no indication in any of the Chapter on Astrology and the Bible that states that those who lived in those times named their own age.

YET, we ARE netering "THE AGE OF AQUARIUS" and HAVE named it! and again, ti smore htna just "THey didnt name it he age of Pisces", they must have understood it as the Age of PIsces ( as per Acharya S's book, need more wuotaitons?) sicne they clealry created Jesus as an avatar for the age of Pisces. Acharya S herself says they recognised it was the Age of Pisces.

And, if they didnt, why did they need JEuss to be its Avatar?

You want to call what she writes garbage and you don't want anyone to say it not? What you call truth is your truth. Nice gig if you can get it.

Actually Ive avoided Judgement calls int he artilce proper. WHich is standard Wikipolicy. You on the other hand tend to make it abotu her owrks and sek debate, you and james both.

All religion is concerned with supernatural powers with the purpose of worship. It wouldn't be a religion if it didn't. The supernatural means not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material.

This is not true at all. Many Rleigions are acutly materialistic and naturlaistic.

the Reformation noted the disintegration of the hold the Roman Catholic Church had in controlling government.

Which was by no means as absolute and rck solid as you pretnd it to be.

It was then that the various protestant sects came into being. In 1517, the German monk, Martin Luther issued his 95 Theses to the Castle Church door in Wittenberg, Germany. Martin made a translation of the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into German. It was no long before all the countries of Europe followed suit. For the first time in history, the printing press made the bible available to everyone which broke the back of the church.

THis is at least the famous, sectarian verison of Hisotry, but its not quiet the full story, and, of coruse, not germane tot he ropic. Also not ehtat afte rhtis rleigiosu ferver increased as oppsoed to decrease.

The Roman Catholic Church was the driving instrument of the Dark Ages.

Evidence?

From about A.D. 476 to about 1000 it suppressed knowledge by being the sole retainer of it.

Proof?

The Crusades, The inquisitions and the lack of Roman and Greek classical literature contributed to the ignorance and backwardness of European society. The educated were the monks and the repository of knowledge kept in church archives. Most of the land and wealth of Europe were owned or were under the control of the church.

Not accordign to standard Hisotry.But as it is not germane to the artilce, why are we even discussing it?

ZAROVE 16:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

-

dividing

Ha ha... are we having fun yet? This article is about as trivial as it gets. You've turned this into a game. I'm not supporting Acharya, I'm opposing you and your tactics... that's why you are thwarted at every turn.

You should expect that if you make a charge that a counter charge would ensue.

Nazi propaganda indeed. Obviously, you have no idea what that means. And then you wonder why you are going through wikipedia arbitration. There is nothing I have said to silence you, in fact, I have encouraged you to post on numerous occasions, I have offered various solutions which encouraged your participation... just because you say foolish and insupportable things, don't blame me for the ease with which I can show them to be what they are, next thing you'll be doing is complaining to the admins about how you are being attacked. But that ruse is only going to work just so many times. You'll run out of them and they will will begin to see what it is that you are doing.

You said "This is nto abotu fact VS beleif, with me supportign beelif and yoyu fact. This is abotu you supportign your belifs." And then again, "THis is a vlaue call and a beleif, a Bias on your part."Now, since you brought it up, it must be about the topic at hand, after all, you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Show me where I have ascribed motives to you. I've challenged you before on this, and you couldn't show it then either. Her assessments define the premise of her books and are what is beyond your ability to accept... even their possibility is beyond the scope of your vision as witnessed by your rejection of any and all that says otehrwise. You've turned this article into a platform of denial that will not be settled unless it complies with your rejection of it.

Ok, you are higher than me and I am a big mean bully. Honestly, there is no accounting for the way you think. I don't want a user talk page, that's my decision. I don't want anyone knowing who I am... I've dealt with christians and been trashed, spammed, and threatened into oblivion before... and I don't want to go through that again.

Anything that does not trash her or the books is a marketing of them, to you. So far, you have failed to show anything that hasn't been refuted. All you can do is keep crying the same thing over and over again... it's unfair, it's a bulling tactic, it's nazi propaganda, it's not scholarship, it shows her ideas in a positive light... ad inifinitum. You're a broken record.

Suggestion, if you oppose using wikipedia as a forum to show her books, then have it deleted... but we both know this is not the case, just look at what you post and the reasons for posting this article become amply clear.

I don't despise religion, I'll admit that I don't care much for what it does but I have no feelings about it. If one needs religion, then I suppose they should have it... after all, there is no telling what they might be like without it if they were free to make decisions for themselves.

You said, "you and your Guru are both frauds", and called me a liar. Admins, you going to ban this guy for attacking me?

You call this an example of a lie or a distortion of the facts? I have to tell you, there is no fathoming how you think.

They are not false statements... I repeat, Acharya responded to their attack on her and her books. I might not have responded in the way she did but then I'm not her. If you hold their standards higher than anyone's, I think your judgment is seriously flawed. Well, by virtue of your postings, that's not a big jump of imagination. By the way, regarding your Farrell Till note, Turkel posted this:

September 30, 2005

   * It's time for another Profile in Balderdash with Farrell Till as star, as I have caught him blatantly misusing a scholarly source. In short, reason #5,433 why he no longer deserves or requires direct or detailed replies (as if he ever did!).
   * Added a little more to the Matthew study (link below).
   * Updates to the Loftus page on the Closet of Logical Fallacies and the House of Waffles.
   * It's time for the September Screwball of the Month feature, plus new Tekton Toons with an entry in the Atheist Survivor series.

His Tektoons is especially crude.

Yes I have shown that your inputs have been to refute the books and their premise... and now by your own admission it was your "intent" to clean it up and you failed to do so.

Such as? Such as calling her a liar, a fraud, and a wacko.

Buddhism qualifies as a religion because it is a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Secular humanism is not a religion. Neither are the other ones you mentioned.

So, Now, I am a troll! A troll posts rude or offensive messages. The fact that you are calling me a troll qualifies you as being one.

I can't know where you got them from, but there were no misspelled words. On your best day, that hasn't happened yet. Under the criticisms of this list, it says: "On the site, J.P. Holding lists her “Similarities to the sun” and offers rebuttal to each point, illustrating problems with her analysis."

Acharya makes no such claim. There you go again, it seems you can't get anything straight. You read into things what you want to hear to back yourself up. What it actually says is this:

"In the gospels, Jesus refers to different "ages," which are in fact the divisions that constitute the precession of the equinoxes. As Moses was created to usher in the Age of Aries, so was Jesus to serve as the Avatar of the Age of Pisces, which is evident from the abundant fish imagery used throughout the gospel tale."

Don't you look anything up before opening your mouth? Astrology began in Mesopotamia about 2300 years ago, originally, there were some 18 signs but by 600 BC some of these would be combined and some would be deleted to form the twelve constellations of the zodiac we know today.

Still, it was not stated that way in that chapter which renders your point moot. Since the zodiac was well established by that time, we don't know whether they did or did not name it the Age of Pisces.

You have avoided judgment calls? Oh sure, a thousand Frenchmen might believe you but nobody here will.

Actually, religion, being the institutionalization of religion, is by its very nature is, materialistic, greed and power driven. Take money, status and greed out of the equation and it would dry up and blow away.

66.82.9.69 00:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 07:13 PM EST

-

my turn, use dividers nexrt time

Ha ha... are we having fun yet? This article is about as trivial as it gets. You've turned this into a game. I'm not supporting Acharya, I'm opposing you and your tactics... that's why you are thwarted at every turn.

Just liek James is by digging up dirt on me form my apst. Yup, its just abotu oposuit me and my tacitcs,not supportign Acharya, right, Wizard?

Look, your lies and manipulatiosn are transparent. Whiel James tries to convence peopel Im a perophalic monster who must be hated as everyone hates me ( By selective use of my hisotry, and iognorign the osurces for infromaiton,. and the fac thtta he is now guilty of the sort of harrassment he has accuse d me of) you smear me further here.

The truth is, you arent here to oppose me and my tactivs. I employ no tactics. You are here to smear me, and promote her and hr ideas. This is why no real reelvant examinaiton of her is allwoed. Justa blurp that tells thats hes such a brillaitn and acocmplisherd person. Her boosk are hte focus, and we must omit critism because that woudl tend to generate queasitosn in peopels minds. You want tpo present an advertisement for her, ans then make her the victim of some plot.

You should expect that if you make a charge that a counter charge would ensue.

OK, here ar ehte charges, their simple.

1: Acharya S, and her disiples, you and James included, ar elowlifes who hypocriticlaly use soemones past agsitn them by stalkign them, and digigng up dirt, while bemoanign this beign doen to her.

2: You guys also dont want a fair and baalnced artilce. Liek any bully you will lie and say you xdo, btu tis evident nwo that all you want is to promote her books and present them in the best possibel light to convence peopel that they are at leats vlaid.

3: Speakign fo whicjh, yo will nto allow any examination fo he rlif and credentials, even a basic one, because you knwo that such will bprov her les simpressive than shepresents herself to be.

4: You activley seek to desptry anyoen who opposeds her while rpetendign to be the victims.

You have alreayd made charges agsaitn me, and their all lies.

You wotn even discuss the aticl and iviate into ridiculous defnecs of her books, which no one has turly attacked.

Nazi propaganda indeed.

Your charges agsitn me and promotion of her is reminicent of it, and SOviet Propaganda.

Obviously, you have no idea what that means.

Obviosuly, you want to denegrate me further.

And then you wonder why you are going through wikipedia arbitration.

Autlaly Im goign through Arbitration ebcaue Acharya S and her disiiples ar ebullies and tyrants.

She and James and others claim Im a criminal who stalked her, consorted with criminals to optian informaiton abotu her, and am a threat to her safety. This si why Im at arbitration. Because Bullies lways, and I mean always, feign victimhood.

MEanwhile. they attack their victims, claimign that they arre "Defendign themselves." This is happenign as James uses mateial form three and four years back, gathered form my itnernet stalkers. Never mind that they woidl lie to desotyr me. Never mind that they woudl harrass me and give me no peace. Ignroe my side and objective observaiton. Instead, beeliv everythignt hy say, as it paints me in a bad way. It must be true, nbecause it makes Zarove into a monster and hsows how prciosu, gentle, lovign Acharya isbeign ruthlessly atacked.

Such sickenign lowlife tactics as employed by James as postign form past websites the charges made agasint me by adolecence who woulnt even let me get on with my life from a perido in my life that was traumatic enough shows just hwo sympathetic and loving he, and his compatirpots, relaly are.

You, and he, and acharya , will desotyr me simply because I dont give you your way.

THats why Im in arbitration, because Acharya can lie and fake begn a victim.SHe posted her own sons Kidnappign on her websiote to boost sympahty, and when it was shwon that this was the soruce for my infomaiton abiou it, removed it.

She doesnt even love her own son enough to keep that out of public veiw if it means gatherign support.

Relaly, this is so much hot air and Im fed up.

There is nothing I have said to silence you, in fact, I have encouraged you to post on numerous occasions, I have offered various solutions which encouraged your participation... just because you say foolish and insupportable things, don't blame me for the ease with which I can show them to be what they are, next thing you'll be doing is complaining to the admins about how you are being attacked. But that ruse is only going to work just so many times. You'll run out of them and they will will begin to see what it is that you are doing.

This is just mor elies form you. You are tryign to silence me by manipulatign me into postign informaiton yo know will get me banned.

THis is further evidence if your inability to do anyhtign other than extortion.

You said "This is nto abotu fact VS beleif, with me supportign beelif and yoyu fact. This is abotu you supportign your belifs." And then again, "THis is a vlaue call and a beleif, a Bias on your part."Now, since you brought it up, it must be about the topic at hand, after all, you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Actulaly most people see throygh this and agree with me. Only an Acharya Disiple thinks that thiis is Zarove VS the world.

Show me where I have ascribed motives to you.

Scroll up. Its int he archives. Im not playing games and have quoted you before.

I've challenged you before on this, and you couldn't show it then either.

Actually I did, I said to scroll up. I dotn need to shwo it, tis a waste of time, you knwo you did it and nayon who reads the archicves will too.

Her assessments define the premise of her books and are what is beyond your ability to accept...

Actually we have avoided debatign the books, because Im not willign to discuss the merits of them, because htis is Wikipeida, soemthin you dont respect in your queat to make this abotu my rleigion blindign me tot he truth. Its not, its your blidn devotion to Acharya s and her ideas that oevents yu from allowign a neutral article and a fair look at her.

even their possibility is beyond the scope of your vision as witnessed by your rejection of any and all that says otehrwise.

This is more distortion and manipulation. Again, its not liek Ive been arguing againt her books, Ive been arguign agaisn your use of Wikipeida for an advertisement for her, by omiting the ciritms and presentign an image of her that is avaialbel on her website.

You've turned this article into a platform of denial that will not be settled unless it complies with your rejection of it.

You havetn quoted me doign that yet, or shwon it to be the case. Its just more manipualtion.

Ok, you are higher than me and I am a big mean bully. Honestly, there is no accounting for the way you think.

You use Bully Tacitcs.

THis is why yor a bully. You feign victimhood. You lie. You attack underhandedly. You ignroe evidence. You attmeot to manipualte your vicitm. And you learned it all form your msitress Acharya S.

I don't want a user talk page, that's my decision.

It's also your descision to be a Double minded, hypocritical controel freak who want sonly his view used and hwo can do nohign but attack others.

But then, you wont get by with it.

I don't want anyone knowing who I am... I've dealt with christians and been trashed, spammed, and threatened into oblivion before... and I don't want to go through that again.

Yet accoidng to you, Im here as a CHrisyain to defned my fiaht and you seem to manage just fine. Which is it? Am I a Zealot whose trashign you? You say I am, but show no evidence.

Indeed, this is abotu your Bigotry againt XCHristains and Christainity, and your blind loyalty to Acharya S's ideas as they help you to attack Christainity.

THis is why you want a Biased article, and hwy you must pretend Im based and you defned the truth.

Anything that does not trash her or the books is a marketing of them, to you.

THis is actulaly quiet the reverse of what is happenign hee.

I didnt trash her boosk in even the origional aticle. No veison fo the Article trashes her books. You can accus all you want, but your not tlelign the truth, this is the bototm line. The truth is this, any Critism of her book is removed, and her books are presented in a manner inwhich will hopefully ilicit interest and trust int hem. THis is your verison of the article. Its base don selligj her ideas tot hw world. This is an advertisement.

So far, you have failed to show anything that hasn't been refuted.

Yes I have. SImply denying it doesnt mean its not refuted.

All you can do is keep crying the same thing over and over again... it's unfair, it's a bulling tactic, it's nazi propaganda, it's not scholarship, it shows her ideas in a positive light... ad inifinitum. You're a broken record.

Acutlaly you are, Im repeatign the same problems as you post the same article.

Suggestion, if you oppose using wikipedia as a forum to show her books, then have it deleted...

In other words,w e have two options.

1: Do it Acharyas way and promote her boosk and IDeas, tlel theowrld shes a Brillain ASchoalr and her ideas are mainstream and accepted, and the books are greta reads!

2: Delete the artilce.

Again, yo wan tot controle the aritlce, or remove it if you cant. THats why you ought ot be banned, or at leats up for arbitration.

but we both know this is not the case, just look at what you post and the reasons for posting this article become amply clear.

My reaosns where to write an Article on a very unimportant figure to learnhwo to oprate Wikipeida, and my reasosn now are to maintian the Policy of Neutrality that you violate.

I don't despise religion, I'll admit that I don't care much for what it does but I have no feelings about it.

THis is imposisble to beelive given what you say on Acharya S's tlak listings and what you have demonstrated here. Proffesisng indifference doesnt generate it.

If one needs religion, then I suppose they should have it... after all, there is no telling what they might be like without it if they were free to make decisions for themselves.

Yet you wish to guide peoesl perception fo it by censorign informaiton that disagrees with you.

You said, "you and your Guru are both frauds", and called me a liar. Admins, you going to ban this guy for attacking me?

You attack me constanly, Lobo.

So let snot play that game.

You call this an example of a lie or a distortion of the facts? I have to tell you, there is no fathoming how you think.

Mostpeoepl do just fien with how I htink.

Smear tactics wont work.

They are not false statements... I repeat, Acharya responded to their attack on her and her books.

Actually soemone over at Tekton Ministries shwoed her the Wikipeida aritlce to shwo that her name had been revealed. THis is hwo she learned of the aritlce and she grew irraitonally hostile and attakced Wikipedia and the author ( Me).

Demandiend to know my credentials, ect...

Then got mad as its not a promotion of her, as her follwoers tried to make it, after she got banned form Wikipeida.

I got her name from Robert PRice, incedentlaly,as it was at one time listed on his website.Not form Tekton and not form her ex lover. ( Though I confirmed it from Tekton, they also used Price as a SOurce.)

I might not have responded in the way she did but then I'm not her. If you hold their standards higher than anyone's, I think your judgment is seriously flawed. Well, by virtue of your postings, that's not a big jump of imagination.

THid is why I say you use Bully Tactics.

THis is hst further denegration designed to minimalise me.

Its used to silence me, nto get your way.

By the way, regarding your Farrell Till note, Turkel posted this: September 30, 2005

Not relevant. Again, stick to the bloody topic.

His Tektoons is especially crude.

Irrelevant tot he article at hand.

Yes I have shown that your inputs have been to refute the books and their premise...

No you havent, all you do is endleslsy assert it is if I do basic thigns liek add links tyou do not lik otr Critism.Or a Basic Biogrpahical sketch base don Known Data.

and now by your own admission it was your "intent" to clean it up and you failed to do so.

By CLean it up I mean, add more Biogrpahical Data.

Such as? Such as calling her a liar, a fraud, and a wacko.

No, I was intneding only to stick to knwon facts form my own soruces and form her own mailign lists.

Buddhism qualifies as a religion because it is a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

And often lacks Supernatural anything.

Secular humanism is not a religion.

Yes it is, and is even listed as one.

Neither are the other ones you mentioned.

Yes they are.

Look into them.

So, Now, I am a troll! A troll posts rude or offensive messages. The fact that you are calling me a troll qualifies you as being one.

You have offended. You distort and lie. You accuse ptjhers, and impute motives. ( I know Im not quotign you, btu I odnt need to bother.)

I can't know where you got them from, but there were no misspelled words. On your best day, that hasn't happened yet.

Mocjery of my dyslexia now? I used a spellcheck. soemthing I do for the article proper but sledom for tlak pages.

Under the criticisms of this list, it says: "On the site, J.P. Holding lists her “Similarities to the sun” and offers rebuttal to each point, illustrating problems with her analysis."

WHich is true.

Acharya makes no such claim. There you go again, it seems you can't get anything straight.

More shameless Denegration. "You cant get anyhtign staight" is a personal attakc. Your psost ar elittered with such subversives.

You read into things what you want to hear to back yourself up. What it actually says is this: "In the gospels, Jesus refers to different "ages," which are in fact the divisions that constitute the precession of the equinoxes. As Moses was created to usher in the Age of Aries, so was Jesus to serve as the Avatar of the Age of Pisces, which is evident from the abundant fish imagery used throughout the gospel tale." Don't you look anything up before opening your mouth? Astrology began in Mesopotamia about 2300 years ago, originally, there were some 18 signs but by 600 BC some of these would be combined and some would be deleted to form the twelve constellations of the zodiac we know today. Still, it was not stated that way in that chapter which renders your point moot. Since the zodiac was well established by that time, we don't know whether they did or did not name it the Age of Pisces.

Yes we do, and my "Popont" isnt mooted. Achaya S claism HJeuss is the Piscean Ages's avatar. A Myth that everyoen knos is a myth, created to serve as the Age of Pisces Avatar.

THis means they had to knwo th Age of Pisces existed.

THis limits the formulation fo the "Gospel tale" to after the ages where established, which was the vital fact you miss. we know when the ages where diliniated. No record of any "Age of Pisces" much less an "Age of Ares" seems ot be mad ein Ancient Hisotry, and the International Astronomical Union created the distinctive baorders of the Vernal Equinoxes int he 20th Century, which is needed ofr the "Ages" to be recognised.

You have avoided judgment calls? Oh sure, a thousand Frenchmen might believe you but nobody here will.

Mosty beelive me here, denegration, again.

You canto shwo how my aritlce is Baoeed, yponly how you warp event sot make it so.

Actually, religion, being the institutionalization of religion, is by its very nature is, materialistic, greed and power driven.

No, it is not, and likewise, this shows your Bais further. Yoru here ot "SIlence the rleigious folk" and pretnd its to defned "The truth" and not just your sectarian veiws.

It also serves no use in discussing the article. It only illustrates you rintentions.

Take money, status and greed out of the equation and it would dry up and blow away.

Much like your objectiosn to me woudl if you removed all bias.

ZAROVE 03:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

-

What are you talking about? What dirt from what past? Who is wizzard? I think you are becoming paranoid and seeing ghosts under the bed. I do not lie. I have not smeared you... how you do and what you say are predictable... they are a tactic you have developed. I began this opposition to you openly and declared my intentions from the very start.

I oppose lying, deceit, dishonesty, unsubstantiated accusations, conjecture, and supposition. From archive 1... The "you're wrong and I'm right" biased attitude being promulgated here is beyond the scope of knowledge much less encyclopedic standards. That observation still stands.

1. Here we go again... so now I'm a lowlife and a hypocrite. Administrators! Why does Zarove get away with attacking people with impunity?

2. Now I'm a bully and a liar.

3. I have told you... list all those who are her detractors, I've no objection but if you print what they say... then be ready for their rebuttals. But in so doing, you are turning this article into a forum for debate.

4. No one is actively seeking to destroy those who oppose her views. As you have told us, you have an Arbitration case on wikipedia... but the reason cited were mainly based on documented threats you made against Acharya not because you oppose her ideas.

I have not made charges against you.

What charges against you and what promotion of her are you talking about. You are not making any sense. How on earth can anything I have said sound like Nazi and Communist propaganda?

I have had a lot of dealings with bully's in my time... believe me, this is tame in comparison. It's all in your mind. Like you said, bullies feign being a victim... kind of like you are doing now.

Are you not attacking while claiming to defend yourself by calling other sickening lowlifes?

I have offered several different ways you could rise above all this but because you have to have it your way, this article has sunk to a level that warrants it as permanently flawed.

The thief thinks everyone steals, the liar thinks everyone lies and those who would garner sympathy thinks everyone would act as they would.

How do you know that her posting that wasn't an effort to alert people to the fact that her son had been kidnapped like an Amber Alert? Are you not using this to justify your willingness to publish the sordid details of a traumatic ordeal of a mother who nearly lost her child making a Wikipedia article little more than a scandal sheet?

More personal attacks... now I'm a double minded, hypocritical control freak.

That is not according to anything I have said. Being a zealot merely means you are excessive or fanatically committed. Look into a mirror and tell me what you see. I have shown you reams of this.

Now I'm a bigot... all these personal attacks and still you get away with it.

You didn't trash her book? Read what you said. I'll let the reader decide.

"Her book, "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story dever Sold" is an expanded verison fo her website, and both have been heavily critisised for their lack of use of primary soruces, diliberate obtuse and obviosuly biased remarks, lack of formal reaosning, and promenant use of secondary soruces, which themselves ar often suspect.

such as Barbara walkers "womens encyclopedia of Mysh and Secrets" and "The worlds 16 Crucified Saviors" by Kersye Graves. The latter beign the pimary soruce ofr her book, which relies heavily on quotatiosnform others to generate an artificial air of authority for the work,which if examined wants you to beelive thwt Jesus did nto exist as an actual person because the author has found people who say he didnt. This beign the primary weakness of the book, which sems geared to sales rather than scholarship, dispite its claims."

What have I said on "Acharya's talk listings"?

So, you are now saying that you are a contributor to Tekton Ministries?

And the criticisms you copied from that site are actually your own?

Acharya has never been banned from Wikipedia. Where did you make that up from? Deeper and deeper.

You got her name from Robert Price? He did not post the erroneous middle name of Milne... so he couldn't be your source. Deeper and deeper.

So you don't need to bother to quote me when you say I have offended, distorted, lied, and impute motives... everyone is just supposed to take your word for it because "you are right". More personal attacks. I seem to remember someone getting banned for a month with a lot fewer personal attacks that you have been providing.

You use a spell checker on the article? Not according to the last revision you posted. But as far as the list... the fact that it was on Tektons site in exactly that format doesn't mean anything.

You made the claim and it wasn't straight.

As for the "Age of Pisces"... You are making assumptions about a passage in a book for which you have no foundation for making the claim. The paragraph did not say THEY called it the Age of Pisces.

69.19.14.25 05:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 12:29 PM EST

-

nO, YOUR THE ONE USING TACTICS, OH GREAT aPOLOGIST!

What are you talking about? What dirt from what past? Who is wizzard? I think you are becoming paranoid and seeing ghosts under the bed. I do not lie. I have not smeared you... how you do and what you say are predictable... they are a tactic you have developed. I began this opposition to you openly and declared my intentions from the very start.

This is all very nobel sounding, liek a ty[ical bully. RThe truth is you knwo full well the "Evidence" James is compiling is, in short, smear tactic. ( He wants ot brign up what Ive doen on othr sites, and even now on Wikpida he seems contented to take several quotes of mine and use them as proof that Im a bad perosn, which is irrelevant or the case at hand.)

You arent oppisgn tactics I use, you lie when you say I use tactics. Im not here ot smear Acharya, yet you claim I am. You smear me by sying his is my motive, that Im paranoid, that I cant get anything striaght, ect.

You are here, in short, to ruin my credibility, and to hopefully get me banned. ( Another tactic was to manipulare me into postign personal informaitonabotu Dorothy so that Id get banned. Lie all you want its transparent.)

Im not paranoid, your just doing as any good lacky of Acharya S woudl do, tryign to make sure her veiw is the only oen accepted.By foirce.

I oppose lying, deceit, dishonesty, unsubstantiated accusations, conjecture, and supposition. From archive 1... The "you're wrong and I'm right" biased attitude being promulgated here is beyond the scope of knowledge much less encyclopedic standards. That observation still stands.

Actulaly you faovur lying, deceit, dishonesty,unsubstantuiatedaccusation, conjecture, and supposition sicne you beelive the CHrist COnspiracty which is buolt largey on these, and make ssusations which ar eunfoudned here agsint me , and make similar accusaitosn agaisnt others.

VIllinisimg me so you can appear as the ehro wont cut it since you have repeaeldy censured anyoen who hilds a differnt veiw than Acharya S and forbidden acutal examinaiton fo her grandiose claims.

1. Here we go again... so now I'm a lowlife and a hypocrite. Administrators! Why does Zarove get away with attacking people with impunity?

You attacked me, remmeber? Why is it that yors zre eithe r"Dfence" or "Tellgn what you observe" and mien are attacks?

2. Now I'm a bully and a liar.

Now nothign, you usd bully tactfics, and employ deciet as a common mean, no matter how often you say you do not.

3. I have told you... list all those who are her detractors, I've no objection but if you print what they say... then be ready for their rebuttals. But in so doing, you are turning this article into a forum for debate.

This is why your a bully. Its your way or the highway and when you fial toget your way you try to be subversive to resolution so that you still ge your way.The factthat you call her Critics "Detractors" is proof iof your biuased attitude.

No Wikipedia aticl is written thus. But we must accomodate his " World class Brillaint schoalr" by makign sure all oposition is neutralised.

Our options, accoring to you, are as follows.

1: No Critism invovled, maybe int he extenral links. ( Wiht linsk to rebuttlas, butnot rejoinders.)

2: QUote what they say, but add rebuttals. ( Do not add their replies to her rbuttals, jst the rebuttals, this way Achaya S ges the last word and makes thei compalists seem invlaid.)

Either way , this doesnt suppot hoensty, it supprots Acharyaa S.

4. No one is actively seeking to destroy those who oppose her views. As you have told us, you have an Arbitration case on wikipedia... but the reason cited were mainly based on documented threats you made against Acharya not because you oppose her ideas.

This is a bald faced lie.

1: On her mailing list aloen you find that she activley seeks to discredit anyone who is opposed ot her.

2: On her mailign list, and her eon Wkipeida, tlak of me and my past internet activitis is given., Of ocurse, the soruces sued are those who dislike me. Such as the Outlawstar.Net internet stalekrs. ( Who are all rlelay swell and nromal peopel whom simply became disgusted with me, I know... right...)

3: James also seeks to activley make me look lik an aggressor and hostile to her by postign lengthly segments of quotes form me, while tllign the rteader I am wrogn abotu Acharya and this is laible. ( Such as if I say shes a COnspriacy theorist. This is my faovurie since she obviosuly came up with a consporiacy theory, yet is not a conspoiacy theorist...) This has nothign to do with my supposed breach of her privacy. It does howeverr serve to cvillinaise me. this means hes out to dstory me by discreditign me. Thus, if soemone sing smy rpaises on a message board, tit will be ognrod. Instad James will focus on all the crsp thats said abotu me and pretned this is an average encouner with me and I cause torbel everywhere I go. All ths because I wrote a Wikipdia artilc eon Achayra S that wnt promotional, so am viewed as a threat to her. ( Oops, I mena, I rtiries to smear he rby not simply litign all the nice higns sh says of herslef and acutlaly tryign to be balanced... this created bias.)

I have not made charges against you.

Actulaly you did and even daid you did. You even "Reepated " charges.

1: You say Ihave an agenda to smear Achrya S, and this is obvious.

2: Tou claim I am paranoid.

3: You claim I am obviosuly here to refute her books.

need I go on?

What charges against you and what promotion of her are you talking about. You are not making any sense. How on earth can anything I have said sound like Nazi and Communist propaganda?

The above itsself is Orwellian.Its exhibit A.

I have had a lot of dealings with bully's in my time... believe me, this is tame in comparison. It's all in your mind. Like you said, bullies feign being a victim... kind of like you are doing now.

Actulaly, this is called role reversal and projeciton. Im not feignign victimhood, Im poiirng out he manipulation tactics you are using, and by labling me th ebully ( In a subversive way) you hope to manipualte the sentement.

The reaosn this sint as bad as soem thgins I went throyg, as with James source for my beign th emst vil man alive, is becas you have less power here to enact anything. The other Disiples whre banned, recall?

Are you not attacking while claiming to defend yourself by calling other sickening lowlifes?

No. Im defendign againt subversive manipulation tactics.Im fed up, Wizard.This whole affair is abogu you defndign the books of Acharya S againt crtiitcal thought and fair analysis and tryign to promote yor worldview. I just want o abandon the rpetext.

I have offered several different ways you could rise above all this but because you have to have it your way, this article has sunk to a level that warrants it as permanently flawed.

Acutlly your wayts ot "Raise above it" omit all critism, neutrlaise any claim mde agaisn ther owrks, and do not even rellay discuss her as a person. This because you ant her boosk read and belived.

The thief thinks everyone steals, the liar thinks everyone lies and those who would garner sympathy thinks everyone would act as they would.

Except I havnt don anythign to Ganer sympathy. Im pretty crabby.

Yet she did use her sons abduction to win sympahty and show how Im mean and nasty.I son her mailign lit, and was on her website. Why else post it?

How do you know that her posting that wasn't an effort to alert people to the fact that her son had been kidnapped like an Amber Alert?

It was after the son had been returned to her. And she posted it to show how sick I was beause she sid this was Zarove/Holdings source. SHe insists Im in leuge with Holdign and we both have contact withher ex lover.

On her website it was listed as a Heoine tale.Not a an amber alert.

The focus was entirly on how traumatic the expeirnce was for her, and how brace she was for puring up with it, and how bad odign and I ae for usign hr ex lover as a source.

That, simply put, sickened me, and Im seasoned here.

Are you not using this to justify your willingness to publish the sordid details of a traumatic ordeal of a mother who nearly lost her child making a Wikipedia article little more than a scandal sheet?

She posted the informaiton, and it was from a credible news soruce. It snto a scandal sheet because th events where not sensationalised, but mentioed in passing, and bcause the popor truamatised mother is the one that broguth attention tt he aritlc eint he first place.

Relaly, she dont care abotu her truama, just the sympahty she can get form it.Detials of peopels lives are given all over Wikipedia. This is nothign remotely scandalous, least of all sinc it shoed up on her own website. She obviosuly wanted the world to knwo it. Just, form a sympathetic soruce, not a neutral one. She veiws netural as Hostile.

More personal attacks...

Postign informaiton that she herself makes known is not a personal atack.

now I'm a double minded, hypocritical control freak.

You have been since day one. Rmemebr, you have called me p[aranoid and zealoted.Dont think you can do what others cant.

That is not according to anything I have said. Being a zealot merely means you are excessive or fanatically committed. Look into a mirror and tell me what you see. I have shown you reams of this.

In other owrds, when you call me a Zealoted fanatic, its th truth. Shen I call yo a Hypocrtie and doubdl mindd, tis a personal attack.

Right.

You cant even shwo how I furthered my religious beleifs in thsa rtilce. Its not abotu smearign Acharya S, or refutign her books, as you repeatley claim. But your accuse this, and sy accusaiton is equivolent toproof.

THis is why Im tired of dealign with you.

Now I'm a bigot... all these personal attacks and still you get away with it.

Aagin, you call em Paranoid, Zealoted, and say I am her ejust to smear her. Btu I guess htats OK as its true. Btu all I said abotu ytou ar lies and persnal atakcs... Grow up Lobo, everythign you said abotu me was personal attakc. I do nto see this when I look into a mirror.

You, on the othe rhand, see everythign I call you hwen you look into one, because its shwon itsself ot be true repeteldy.

You didn't trash her book? Read what you said. I'll let the reader decide.

I didnt trash her books.

"Her book, "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story dever Sold" is an expanded verison fo her website, and both have been heavily critisised for their lack of use of primary soruces, diliberate obtuse and obviosuly biased remarks, lack of formal reaosning, and promenant use of secondary soruces, which themselves ar often suspect. such as Barbara walkers "womens encyclopedia of Mysh and Secrets" and "The worlds 16 Crucified Saviors" by Kersye Graves. The latter beign the pimary soruce ofr her book, which relies heavily on quotatiosnform others to generate an artificial air of authority for the work,which if examined wants you to beelive thwt Jesus did nto exist as an actual person because the author has found people who say he didnt. This beign the primary weakness of the book, which sems geared to sales rather than scholarship, dispite its claims."

THi dosnt trash ehr books, it merley psents them in a way that sint promotional, suich as "HEr books, conraverisal and explosive, revela the truth that the CHristain Fiaht is based on Myth, invented to unify the ORman state and controle the masses! Acharya's Schoalrship is top notch, and she keenly guides the reader down the labyrithn of th past intot he darkest corners of obsession, controle, and murder, as we se the Ealry Chruch supproess all who oppose its new foudn power!"

What have I said on "Acharya's talk listings"?

See for yourself.

So, you are now saying that you are a contributor to Tekton Ministries? And the criticisms you copied from that site are actually your own?

This is why I caleld you a bully, this is manipulation tactic. Either I copied the sun-god listform them, or else I typed by hand the criticms form them and ocntronuted.

Its rlelay rather simple, even for an Obfusionist.

I ciopid the enture Sun-god list form her book, then copied the complaints Holdign made from his site. the list I used was longer than the list on hi sit I belive.

Acharya has never been banned from Wikipedia. Where did you make that up from? Deeper and deeper.

She said herself she was banned form Wikipedia.

Agin, check the mailing list archives.

You got her name from Robert Price? He did not post the erroneous middle name of Milne... so he couldn't be your source. Deeper and deeper.

Yeah I also did the Backgroudn check, rmemeber? Did a sotry on ehr that IO cant post because if I do Im banned, and now you will say doewnst exist to further smear me.

So you don't need to bother to quote me when you say I have offended, distorted, lied, and impute motives...

Nope, sicne this hwole tlak with you is nothign btu you tryign to either shwo hwo I hate Acharya, am threatend by her works, or am a Paranoid Zealot, and sicne you evr discuss th arilce proper, whoch is what its suppose to be about.

everyone is just supposed to take your word for it because "you are right".

More tactic. No one needs to take my word for it, everythign yo have said is in the archives. Scoll up.

More personal attacks.

No, I just dotn feel like quotign you at lenght while qotign you at lenght.

Again,scroll up.

I seem to remember someone getting banned for a month with a lot fewer personal attacks that you have been providing.

ActlalY i was baned, because I was suppsoeldy histiel to Dorothy,w ehn Im not. And for the 3RR, which I didnt violate.

The DOrohty follwrs where banned because of prsonal attakcs. Oh thats right, those ar tame compared to this. Entire psots either talking abotu my pedophilia, and how wrtched I was, or tellign how I was a liar and fraud, that made no reference ot the arric;e, are lighter than me addresisng your sueless shenanigans.

You use a spell checker on the article? Not according to the last revision you posted. But as far as the list... the fact that it was on Tektons site in exactly that format doesn't mean anything.

Nope. SInce I manually typed it. Wikipeida article format differs form Tektonics by th way, and the List was not the same format as Tekton Ministires. it was flatline with no margin, just lie Wikipeida.Nice way to accus me of lyign though.

You made the claim and it wasn't straight.

Actlaly you did.

As for the "Age of Pisces"... You are making assumptions about a passage in a book for which you have no foundation for making the claim. The paragraph did not say THEY called it the Age of Pisces.

1: Other passages in her book did.

2: If they didnt understand that it as the AGe of Pisces, then why woudl they need an avatar for th age of Pisces? THis si what seems to evade you.

OK, her book claism the Jesus Charecter, pur Pagan myth retotld, wa the Avatar for the Age of Pisces. The Mythmakers supplied the GOspel tale with fish imagry because Jesus represents the Age of Pisces. Even by not claing it the Age of Psices, they surley undrstood that it eas the time-frame, or Zodiological era, or Pisces, or else they woidltn have needed an avatar for it.

Jeus was to eb here till the end og the age of pisces, as he si heavatar for hte age of pisces.

so, what your syaign is that they didnt clal i th age of psoces, and dint knwo of the duvisions of constellaitosn and ages, yet came up wirh an avatar for the age of pisces anyway in complete ignroacne of the age of pisces?

ZAROVE 15:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

-

It is amazing how you are able to read minds. What was it you said? Bullies feign victim hood? All this crying of woe is me? I did not attack you. I did not call you names, you engaged in name calling even as now you continue to do. Warping the alternatives with made up qualifiers that were never discussed or posted by me is typical of your tactics. You have dug your own grave and trying to shift blame for that onto others is dishonest. If the charges against you are unfounded and not documented, you have nothing to worry about. Where did I say your agenda was to smear Acharya? You made reference to James digging up dirt on you and called me "Wizard" as though I were someone else... my statement was, "what are you talking about, what dirt from what past, who is wizard... I think you are becoming paranoid and seeing ghosts under the bed. It was an appropriate observation given your response. The fact that you have never posted anything else other than refutations of her books and their ideas has a lot to do with saying that is what you do. Now it's Orwellian? Ha ha... that is too comical to warrant comment.

All this whining about how everyone is out to get you is no different than what you are accusing Acharya of. Using someone's family to diminish their reputation is sleazy. Claiming you know what her motives are is mind reading to support your own position. Accusations and name calling is one of those tactics I told you were predictable of your behavior. A zealot is known by their actions whether stated or not. By rejecting the premise of the books, you defend the doctrines of religious beliefs. You trashed her books and you know it. Now, the list of son's of god is on page 105... and it looks nothing like the list you posted. The list from "the Son of God is the Sun of God," is not copied from the book, page 155, as it is not the same as the book... you can go to hell for lying, same as stealing the tell me. YOU say she said she was banned from wikipedia, prove it. Nothing of the kind exists in the "mailing list archives". That's not what you said... you said you got her name from Robert Price and you did not. Any background check you run will not show that particular discrepancy.

69.19.14.25 17:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 12:28 PM EST

-

So, the edit wars continue... end this charade, quick delete this article. Put an end to the obvious pain it is inflicting. It will never be accepted as a simple presentation about an author and her books. The book's ideas have to be refuted, belief demands it.

66.174.79.229 22:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 04:32 PM CST

-

nOW NOW.

Simly sayign this si all abotu beleif hindgin truth is just absurd. You have thusfar omited links, critism, and actusl content of her beleifs, as wlel as slantign the content that rmeians in Acarya S's favour. All the hwile, James Digs up dirt on me in an attewmtot o smear my good name, and show popel hwo rotten a personaI am. ( FOrgetitgn that the enture litigaiton on WIkipeida is baout my use of informaiton I gained (Legally) to silence her use of force on wikipeida via her minions.) This is done for the osle putpose of pbscurign the isuse and villinisimg me.

The reality is htis. THe artilce is baout her, not her books, and shoudl eb rpesented neutrlaly, not as an advertisement. What you present is not Neutrlaity, but rather a diliberate attempt at silencign her critcs and removing vital informaion while pursuadign the reader to her owrldview. This is why "BEleif demand s it." Your blidn belekif in these ideas prevents you form dougnanyhtign but open endorsement and outright hostility is given toany who oppos your propoganda mission.

ZAROVE 02:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am back and I see that Zarove is still in his whining and endless circular mode of argumentation. Why aren't you blocked while your arbitration goes on? You have made a mockery of just about everyone and everthing to do with this article and making an embarrassment of Wikipedia. Your arguments and tactic continue to be empty futile attempts to distort the article according to your own fashion. No one can sustain you foolish arguements or accept you as a credible source for doing impartial editting. Nor can you be forgiven for the numerous sliming you have caused at this talk forum and of Acharya herself. You are just plainly a disturbing nuiscance and any discussion with you about the article is not worth the effort. Leave the article be as it is and let someone else enter the project with real talent.--Skull 07:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

-

Who said it is about belief hiding truth? No one has said that... but now that you mention it, it appears that underneath the veneer, it is recognized. Thank you. You say on the one hand that, "You have thusfar omited links, critism, and actusl content of her beleifs" and in the next breath say the opposite... "The reality is htis. THe artilce is baout her, not her books". The books are waht constitute her ideas... you don't know about her ideas without the books. Your entire stance is based in the refutation of what the books say and you are so blinded by your own ideas that you cannot see the contradictions you present spoken in the same breath.

66.174.93.103 12:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 06:15 CST

-

Skull, you make cheap eprsonal attacks tht are unfounded. You acuse me of distorting the aritlc ein favour of an attakc on ehr and support f my worldview, this is a lie.

Lobo, you also lie. You distort what I actually say, and twist it into an attakc ehn none is made.

The article isabot her, not her books. Informaiton on the books is given as a courtesy because of your useless whining and simplering complaints.Much liek Skulls useless, hypocritical complaints.

The reality is, RPSuger,Jamesd, Lobo, all of you, your just here to force your worldview on WIkipeida and speew vehnom onto others itll you get your way.

Im not blocked for arbitraiton, and arbitration has notporcceeded, because everyone has begun to see throgh htis CHarade. Heck, James evidence page alone vendicates my claim that this is rellay a plot to distroy the neutrality of IWkipeida in faovur fo supporitign Acharya S and her beleifs, and the attacks on my CHarecter alone revealthis.

In short, yournot relaly here to defned truth , and Im not a vandal. You guys vandalise the aritcle to bais it, while I, and others, have defended its neutrality.

ZAROVE 02:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

-

You cannot fake your way past this one... I have, several times, challenged you to post in this discussion forum exactly what you would have the article look like without mention of the books or thier ideas. You have not done it because what you say and what you do are two different and conflicting things. You define what you are by what you do... this audiance does not need anyone to inform them of what they can perceive simply by reading what you say and comparing that to what you do. No one has to point out the obvious. Calling me a liar for it only bolsters the lack of credibility you yourself engender.

66.174.93.105 04:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 10:46 PM CST

-<<<Yes Zarove--keep repeating your mantras of persecution in the hope your thinking will stick with us (or someone on this planet). You have certainly convinced yourself. Aye, we are all ignoramuses not worthy of reproching your evidently Superior status. None of us recognise your genius and are only jealous. We are all liars out to get you (and you bear no responsibilty for any of it!). You are a totally innocent person devoid of having commitited any shameless, sliming, lying, or such other untethical practices.

Your intellect and virtuosity is unimpeachable. We are just Acharya worshipping zealotes out to "Keep you from dong the RIGHT thing, which only you are qualified to do. Yes, we are all here to force our world view on Wikipedia (as if you know what any of our worldviews are). Your reasonbleness and ability to reach consensus, to negotiate reasonble compromise on an equal basis with others is beyond commendable. Your art of persuasion and influence as an interesting dialogist is superb! I can see why you have so many admirers in Wiki and elsewhere! I wished I were blessed with your faciities!

On the other hand, you better see about that persection complex and your paranoid delusion that has you ranting about others conspiring against you for merely being the most gracious and sensible person on wiki or anywhere on the net. All those people in other forums were just plain wrong for washing their hands of you for no good reason. They are all liars, stubborn ingrates unapreciative of such a humble talented soul! The disease must be catching wherever you go! It's all their fault--they are all conspiring against you, wether it your my superior wisdom on Acharya, or any other thing you dare to assert is the right way--your way alone! Oh, I have distorted this too--another mark on the persecution tally for you to whine about. Might as well discuss the merits of this page with the ingenious lunatic wandering the streets for all the inpirational mutual dialogue you have contributed about how it should be composed.

Go away all you evil Achary supporters and Zarove demonisers! Quit sliming this poor fellow so audaciously! Have you no shame--no ethics, so sense of decency! Cease and desist in muckraking this genius' talent an character. How would you like that done to you?!--Skull 05:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

-

Admin's... dispatch this article. Quick delete it and be done with all this nonsense including having to deal with these people.

66.174.92.168 13:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 07:44 AM CST

-

Skull, Lobo...

You both prove me right here. You ar eboth makign cheap personal attakcs that lack substance, after manipulatinb the text.

In short, while you reinscert odd quotes to supprot her ( Form an internet essyaist) remove all refenece tothe fac thtat her credentials arent rlelay bse don Academic merit, insist that her list of inflated credentials be in their int he first palce, omit all facts baotu he rlife not aimed at sales of her books, omit critism, and make changes that make her sound much more acceptbale to the mainstream, you come here and shoot vitorol and hatred at me.

This is childish and absurd.

As to my internet past, you exagerate, as your wont to do. ( After all, I frequent many forums where no one has washed their hands of me. And htose htta have owe it all to OutlawStar.Net, who intended ot ruin my reputaiton. Its thnaks to their tactics that I recognise yours and hwo to deal with it. See, I left OLS.Net and htey follwoed me around and ruine dmy good name no matter where I went. Because htye liked the power kick. And here you ar using thier tactics and now using them as proof that Im hated wherever I go. Nice. If I did the ame to Acharya S, Id be smearign her... Hypocracy is a nice thing to be able to use though I suppose.)

I will now resume editign the artilce, as Arbitraiton has not rlelay moved forward and liekly wont in suhc a case.

I was never under anyhtign but self imposed restriction, because peopel relaise what you guys are doing.

This is a sham, you wan tot ban me to have your way. Nothign more.

The John Komanski quote exists soely to promote her, and doesnt rlelay give anyone any viable informaitonabout Acharya S. It exists soely to show that shes "A religiosu thinker with recignistion." PEopel arent even told who Komanski is.

Likewise, omitign the fact ( and I do mean fact) that her "Credentials" arent base don acadmic standards is low. You simply want peoep to beelive she rlelauy is a Historian, rleigiosu scholar, Linguist, and arhceologist, wihtout rlelay queasitonig it. ( I knwo I know, By dictionary deifnitonn she is, she says so in her own Rebuttal to Wiipeida... and you parrot it. But you wont let that absurd reaosnign int he aritlce itsself.)

Now, lets be more reaosnable. STop revertign the article.You have not given a reaosn to do so, and do nohtign btu attack pepel who you do nto agree with.

As for yor worldveiws, I knw them, as you have both made them manifest here.

ZAROVE 20:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

-

Again, this is a perfect example of why this article should be removed. No matter what fact, logic or reason is presented, nothing matters except the dogma being hidden behind. It is a constant repititionon as though mantra spoken in a ritual. Quick delete this article. Nothing is going to change to allow a concensus because belief simply cannot allow it. Administrators... remove this article.

66.174.93.105 12:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 06:25 AM CST

-

nOT MORE COMPLAINTS.

Again, this is a perfect example of why this article should be removed. No matter what fact, logic or reason is presented, nothing matters except the dogma being hidden behind.

No gdogma beign hidden behind here. An dno reaosn either. Using my internet past, selectivley I may add, to hslow how a gorup of stalkers ruine dmy reputaiton abotu 4 years ago is not rlelay evidence as to anythign pertainign to this page. ( Hey, I coul have used a new username you know. Im not stupid.)

Likewise, saying that htis is abotu beleif not allowoing truth in itsslef is an accusaiton you cannot support. Show me wher eint eh actcle that I revert to any rleigiousbeleif is promoterd. In yours, you omit uncomfortable facts about DOrothy that you dont want the world ot know, and present the res tin a spin.

You also minimalise critism to her works.

Reason? You dont use reaosn, logic, or facts, you use accusaiton, threat, and harrasment. Liek any Bully you try to win by putitng up enough fuss.

It is a constant repititionon as though mantra spoken in a ritual.

Your the one dpign all the repetition. "Zarove is evil, and hates Acharya, and want sot SMear her." and " Beleif wont let truth in" and " This is abotu DOgma blidnign people". Rhetoric with no evidnece.

Quick delete this article. Nothing is going to change to allow a concensus because belief simply cannot allow it. Administrators... remove this article.

You are quoet fcorrect...YOUR beleifs will no allow a Neutral article. Your blidn devotiontot he CHirst Myt h theory, proppoed up by Acharya S and her books, is why you are demandign the aritlces deletion, or my banning so you can have your way. Even if I am banned, soemone else will notice how bad the artilce is. Thwen you will complain of thm and acuse them of beign zealoted and this being about their beleifs.

In relaity, this Article as it stands as of when I type this is not really in promotion fo any view, does not slander Acharya S, and presents known facts. It must be deleted because it doesnt pomote her ideas,and is htus not Biased in her favour. Relaly that si very pedantic.

ZAROVE 01:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheap personal attacks---say it again. It is something the slinger knows plenty about. Cheap-Cheap! Tit for tat? Worthless talk anyhow. As my last revert stands--those are facts. Don't like the facts--not twisted enough?--Skull 02:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Fatcs? No, promotion.

Below are osme very real problems to the current verison you revert to.

At least one critic and various detractors from the apologetic camp' have claimed her work is based on poor scholarship, with little primary research and heavy reliance on outdated or fringe sources, and shows ignorance of the topics on which she writes, in particular of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions.

The reason this is bad is becausre its Biased. You wan to neutralise Critism by sayign that only relaly one critics has spoekn againt her the rest are detractors, and lump everyoen in the apologist camp. Likewise, you try to steer the reader into thinkign only rleigious perossn object to her owrk, which is patently not true. It also omits fromt he rpeviouis articl the fact that her work is not given sny attention by the Mianstream academic community.

This si done to remove fromt he readers sight the fact thats hes a little-known COnspiracy theorist, not a renown schoalr. And to create the Illusion that her works are profound schoalrly works rejected ot only on rleigiosu grounds.

Below is form the previous edit.In Bold are the sements you rmeove totlaly.

Acharya S has been described, by her own books, and website, as well as the Paranoia Magazine website, as a historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist, archeologist;it should be noted, however, that these claims are not based on Academic merit, rather, her supporters claim she is these things based on her books, which cover these topics. She has no formal training in most feilds, and only moderate undergraduate experience in Archeology.

Slso added is the ststement thT jOHN Komanski said she was the rnakign religous schozlr of our time.

The quote is added to give her wieght and credence. But it is superfluous as it doesnt rlelay tell us anyhtign abotu her or her worlk, or her life.

The omited portions remove formt he aritlce vital informaiton, and the cirrent evrison, presented below, makes her seem as if she is more accredited than she is.

Acharya S has been described, by her own books, and website, as well as the Paranoia Magazine website, as a historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist(she speaks, reads and writes several ancient and modern languages), and archeologist with moderate undergraduate experience in Archeology. Internet essayist John Kaminski describes her as "the ranking religious philosopher of our era".

By remoivng the fact that she holds no formal trainign in the fields she claism expertice in, and by incersion of the unnessisary Kamanski quote, you intordice a Bias designed to promote her, and make her appear great, when WIkipeida shoudl only be informative.

You also remove, once again, the link to an email exchange with her, simply because it doesnt go in her favour.The claim fo superficiAlity doesnt work sicne you seem adament that the Kamanski quote remin, and it serves no real function other than to promote her. At leats the link ( WHich is not part of the main text) has ger direct involvement.

Really, you do nto tine fdoen a vitorolic attack fom a fundametalts CHristain who is threatened by what she says, and hwo savagely attaxks her, rather you remove any fact that isnt approved by your mistress and create an article designed ot further sell her tot he puyblic by pretendign shes omthign other than she is.

ZAROVE 02:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

-

The unchanging chant rings clear... Aum, Aum, Aum, Aum, Aum, Aum... it simply cannot and will not change. Gettimg rid of this thorn in the side of belief will accomplish two things, it will remove an instigation and be rid of this talk page from you. Admin's, quick delete this platform for denial!

66.174.92.168 04:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 10:02 PM CST

Your opinion--not proven fact The reason this is bad is becausre its Biased. You wan to neutralise Critism by sayign that only relaly one critics has spoekn againt her the rest are detractors, and lump everyoen in the apologist camp. Likewise, you try to steer the reader into thinkign only rleigious perossn object to her owrk, which is patently not true. 'It also omits fromt he rpeviouis articl the fact that her work is not given sny attention by the Mianstream academic community.

So are you going to make a list of all the legitmate critics for the article, but love all the Christian apologetics you provide. You taken a poll on the mainstream--whatever that means to you? All is YOUR OPINION

No one said she was reknowned and what the heck does that matter except to you!

---it should be noted, however, that these claims are not based on Academic merit, rather, her supporters claim she is these things based on her books, which cover these topics. She has no formal training in most feilds, and only moderate undergraduate experience in Archeology.---

Academice merit--what is that? Getting passing grades at an approved institution to your liking in every single facet of applicable to her field? Are your critics reknowned experts in all fields of religon and mythology? I doubt it. Is this somehow suppose to demean the quality of her work because that is what you want? It is not important except in her feild of inquiry "religon and mythology", which requires her to be a student of that history, being able to sift fact from fiction, to cross-check the subject matter in original and tranlated materials available, and to have in depth knowledge of all the scholarly material available. That takes scholarly skill for which she is admittedly capable. In total your arguement is futile nonsense.

---Slso added is the ststement thT jOHN Komanski said she was the rnakign religous schozlr of our time.

The quote is added to give her wieght and credence. But it is superfluous as it doesnt rlelay tell us anyhtign abotu her or her worlk, or her life.---

It is a fact that John Kaminski said this and that many others have approved of her thesis. Contrarily, the statement that "mainstream" academics have not given her any attention, other than being beside the point---is not fact, but your opinion

---You also remove, once again, the link to an email exchange with her, simply because it doesnt go in her favour.The claim fo superficiAlity doesnt work sicne you seem adament that the Kamanski quote remin, and it serves no real function other than to promote her. At leats the link ( WHich is not part of the main text) has ger direct involvement.---

How many email links would you like in this article to "demote" her? Shall I include endless emails which "promote" her--ie goes in her favour. Alas, the email link is not only subjectively one-sided and a nit-picking nuiscance by someone too lazy to follow up on their own research. It is trivial to the whole subject.

---rather you remove any fact that isnt approved by your mistress and create an article designed ot further sell her tot he puyblic by pretendign shes omthign other than she is.---

Again, this shows where you are coming from. This is all your opinion You are just pissed because you have no facts and no legitimate arguments to make, other than to try to make this a "promotion" vs. "demotion" argument with little factual proof from credible sources in your favour. It is fine in your opinion to quote Robert Price, but not Barbara Walker for example--both at least members of this peerage of Christ-myth and religious mythology generally. Nor do you feel inclinde to seek out those "academics" and fellow peers for the favourable statements. You are clearly only concerned with CRITICISM. Your pretence to NEUTRALITY is a farce borne out of innate prejudice against the subject matter--particularly the Judeo-Christian mythological unhistorical theme. There is plenty of links, pros and cons there now for the reader to search, discover and decide for themselves. Amen!--Skull 04:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Now agin intot he frey

Lobo, you didnt even address what I said.

SKull, your makign stupid comments for the sake of denial.

STating that her critics are " One critc and many detractors ofr he apologist camp" is baised. Likewise, it is not my opinionthat htis is baised. PResentign the Critisms placed agisnt her thesis is not a love of CHrisyain apologetics. ITs standard Policy. She has NO acadmeic record in Linguistics, Rleigious STudies, or Hisotry. SHe has only a Classiocs degree, and Minor archeological experince.

Depictign the reality of her credentials is not Biased, and claimign tis all my opinion is just a way to force yo ropinion onto the aritlce.

Im not tryign to demote her, Im tryign to show what she relaly is. THis is why you are so adament here. You wan tot distort the aritlce to make it rea din her faovur and neutralise any claim againt her by pretendign only CHrisyaisn oppose her owrk and by makign things soudn better ofr her than they rlelay are.

As for the sleciton, keep in midn I didnt choose to quote PRice. I was ocntent wth a limited involeemnt wiht her books. And ht eorigional Critism section, which you collectivley complaiend abotu as it was not a direct quotaiton.

As for Barbara Walker, why quot her? SHes not only NOT a Scholar in any feild ( Shes a feminist writter whose "Feminist" theology is well known for its many fantasiical and flase claims.) She has no real bearign on the critism seciton as she is a supporter of Acharya S. The Critism section is designed to show what others disagree iwth in her work. It snot their to debate her work. Her premise is presented fialry, and critism of her premise is givewn to balance the aritlce. Quoting Walker woudl be a ridiculous inclusion, and serve no other reaosn thatn to further turn this artlce into a face. Again, its liek the Kamanski quote, you include it just to make your hero look better. Nothignmore.

WHih bigns htis up.

How many email links would you like in this article to "demote" her? Shall I include endless emails which "promote" her--ie goes in her favour. Alas, the email link is not only subjectively one-sided and a nit-picking nuiscance by someone too lazy to follow up on their own research. It is trivial to the whole subject.

Margionlaising the link is what I said you owiudl do. You add the trivial quote form Kamanski which is nto informaitve but only serves to promote her. I do not recall the email exchange as being within the main aritlce, rather, tis a link in the etenral link section as it is relevant to her.

You only want it removed as it doenst show a promotional stanc of her.But it does prove how little she can defend her claism agaisnt iinquerry, so you want it deleted.

As for this bit of gibberish...

It is a fact that John Kaminski said this and that many others have approved of her thesis. Contrarily, the statement that "mainstream" academics have not given her any attention, other than being beside the point---is not fact, but your opinion

The facthtta he said soemthing doesnt really matter. You want what others said omited because htey dotn agree with what you want peopel to beleive. Your opinion. And they offer actual critiism of her work! On the other hand, you want a useless, irrelevant quote form a fellow conspiracy theorist added, so that she can be made to look good. How is the reader informed o her lie by this quote? HEs not! hes just treated to more "See how wonderful Acharya S is" rubbish.

Hes not mainstream, and hes no schoalr. And as to what Mainstream is, it means what is generlaly accpte din most major recognise dinstitutions. Acharya S is not tagh in University classes.

You will simply reject nayhtign that doesn tuphold your own Bias.

ZAROVE 04:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Stupid is as stupid does. You call me stupid. I can show you stupid--just look in the mirror. However, if you want to meet me face to face, I will make you show how I can enlighten you with civility, by beating that ass that rests on your slimy neck and dress you in your proper attire as a clown. You can take that to the bank. I am not hiding behind the internet. You want to meet to make your insults to my face? You really are a memtal misfit, who would taught humility is short thrift. As far as I can observe you are a mental midget of the lowest quality, for which I have as much tolerance and respect as I due for an insignicant bug. In my opinion from all that I have observed you are a juvenile in all repects, deserving only of discipline of the kind only your cowardly kind are capable of understanding.

Now don't rave on about ad-hominens (one of your favorite juvenile whines), because you started this by calling me stupid. Your arguements are juvenile babbling not worthy of intelligent adults. Go read a comic, because that is your level of understanding. From now on I won't be addressing you at all. I gave it one more stab, to see if I could get any legitimate comprehensible reasoning from you, but that failed as expected. You are even too damn lazy to at least try to make your meanderings readable enough. I don't want to hear any excuses about that either. You are just a self-important smug twerp from the subculture of idiots that are shameless products of the DUMBING down of our educational and societal norms. None of you can think you way out of a paper bag without Maslov training embued with the ethics of borderline savages.--Skull 06:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

-

Zarove. The beauty of all this is, that you claim that any input here other than the view you represent is an effort to sell Acharya's books... what you fail to realize is the old ad game of any publicity is good publicity and the more controversy the more books it sells holds true. By keeping this piece in the lime light, you are doing more for bringing their message to the public than any other effort represented here. You are a greater cause for them than anything anyone else has to say. With the exception of a few minor edits to contribute to the edit wars, you have been virtually abandoned in your efforts here and have been the only input on these pages in months. By the way, responding to you anymore is merely saying the same things over, and over and over (Aum, Aum, Aum). Your rants are unchanged, so responding to their points is useless and just repeating myself.

66.174.93.102 11:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 05:14 AM CST

-

At leats use breakers people...

To Skull. DId you even read past the word "Stupid"? You idnt read the sentence correclty but it seems you took ofense at this, and stopped reading. Such is hardly proof of any superiority of your position. Stupid is as stupid does. You call me stupid. I can show you stupid--just look in the mirror.

Actually I called comments stupid. You ar enow degeneratign into further childish personal attacks.

However, if you want to meet me face to face, I will make you show how I can enlighten you with civility, by beating that ass that rests on your slimy neck and dress you in your proper attire as a clown.

This proves you somehow morlaly and intellectulaly superior? This rellay doesnt speak tot he aritlce at hand, and as much as you demean me sayign I refuse dialouge, this rlelay shows no point. You dotn even address hte problems I raise withthe aritlce.

You can take that to the bank.

I doubr it, your just an intenret coward hidign behind a screen, makign Physical threats you dont wven want to remotely se tout to accomodate.

Not that it matters, Iv been shot at Point Blank range and as a result walk with a cane, so your threatenign a cripple. Ooohhh, so impressive!

Now can we tlak on the artilce?

I am not hiding behind the internet.

Yes you are, and I can see you peaking.

You want to meet to make your insults to my face?

I made no insults. Callign your comments stupid is not the same as callign you stupid. DIstortign thigns to make me the bad guy just proves how limited your abulity to cope with raitonal, civilised ocnversaion is.

You arent even addressign the problems withthe Acharya S articld. Yoru makign physical threats gaianrt my person.

You really are a memtal misfit, who would taught humility is short thrift.

Basiclaly, your all mouh and prsonal attakc, and no real result. Power rest sin the truth of the matter, not this useless Ad Hominim Obfusion.

As far as I can observe you are a mental midget of the lowest quality, for which I have as much tolerance and respect as I due for an insignicant bug.

Posturing will win you nohting, and the aritcle you present is stull corrupt and biase din ehr faovur, not neutral, and will still require revision.

In my opinion from all that I have observed you are a juvenile in all repects, deserving only of discipline of the kind only your cowardly kind are capable of understanding.

And yet, we are still not tlakign about anyhtign remotley conencted ott he artile. You ar emakignthis personal.

This is abotu makign me look bad so you can get rid of me and have your way. As I said, a Bully Tactic.

Now don't rave on about ad-hominens (one of your favorite juvenile whines), because you started this by calling me stupid.

Again, I said your comments where stupid. I made no prsonal reference to you.

Your arguements are juvenile babbling not worthy of intelligent adults.

This seems mroe like an attmeot to sidestep them without address, espeiclaly in light of the lenghty ad hom attakcs aboe, and the attmeot at rationalisaiton by claimign I started it by calling you stupid, which I didnt do.

Go read a comic, because that is your level of understanding.

Actually Im in the middle of reading a book on QUantum Physics and three books on theology. Im well above comics.

From now on I won't be addressing you at all.

Lets hope.

I gave it one more stab, to see if I could get any legitimate comprehensible reasoning from you, but that failed as expected.

I gace you comprehensive reasoning, and you lash out with cheap personal insult and distort what I said.

You havnt even addressed the probems I raised.

You are even too damn lazy to at least try to make your meanderings readable enough.

Again.

Zarove.

Is.

Dyslexic.

Mokign soemones condiiton is rather low and immature.

I don't want to hear any excuses about that either.

What you want is remarkabely unimportant. Im not goin to sit here and take abuse either. But at lea I didnt return in kind.

You are just a self-important smug twerp from the subculture of idiots that are shameless products of the DUMBING down of our educational and societal norms.

Yet Im beign consdiered for Cambridge on a Doctoral programme. Not bad.

None of you can think you way out of a paper bag without Maslov training embued with the ethics of borderline savages.

My ethics state we shoudl be fair, shwo no partiality in judgement, and always use reason. Your ethics are to desotry any who oppose toyr worldview.

I think I can say safely mien works better.

Now to Lobo.

Zarove. The beauty of all this is, that you claim that any input here other than the view you represent is an effort to sell Acharya's books... what you fail to realize is the old ad game of any publicity is good publicity and the more controversy the more books it sells holds true.

Actially this sint true or ht eintent. The author is not intereste din money, she snterste din smearign CHristainityh, and if she doesnt seem credible, no oen will beleive her. FUrthermore, you simply edit out anyhtign that woudl challenge her veiws, or at least minimalise them as ebst you can so that she seems unopposed and mainstream, while makign sure htis whole Aritle exists to propote her ideas, and not simply tell of who she is.

By keeping this piece in the lime light, you are doing more for bringing their message to the public than any other effort represented here.

Actay Im maing sure the article remaisn neutral. I doubt reader swill simply flsl for her beelifs, and no one will read the tlak pages unless they do a Yahoo or Google search for Acharya S. She sot that popular.

You are a greater cause for them than anything anyone else has to say. With the exception of a few minor edits to contribute to the edit wars, you have been virtually abandoned in your efforts here and have been the only input on these pages in months.

Im prsistant, what can I say?

By the way, responding to you anymore is merely saying the same things over, and over and over (Aum, Aum, Aum). Your rants are unchanged, so responding to their points is useless and just repeating myself.

In other owrds, you gusy got togahte rin ione of your mailign lists and decide dnot to bother respondign to me. As your all parrotign the same line, now the "I wotn tlak to a looser liek you", whiel closig on condecendign tones, you hope to at leats make me angry, which wont work.

Liekwise, the attmeot at reverse psycology wotn work either.

And Lobo, you didnt address theprobems withthe aritlce.

ZAROVE 16:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

-

The problem withthe article is you and your onesided view. The article has been ok on several occasions until you step in and slant it to show it in a negative manner. This is what you call neutral... but it is an effort to negatively smear the author to make the ideas presented by her books seem unworthy of attention. It's a denial that you have perpetrated from the first version you wrote and continue to perpetrate to this day. What you are doing is defending (denying) your chosen doctrine by negating anything that challenges it. The sad thing is, you don't even seem to know what you are doing. Your responses or drone blind and it is sadder still, that this is typical of religion and is responsible for much of the worlds woes today. Having an understsnding of where religion comes from and that there is nothing divine to it just might relieve us from the murder and mayhem it is responsible for the world over. Unfortunately, when you brainwash a child, it take an act of god to undo it.

12.203.133.224 21:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 03:16 PM CST

-

Manner most NEgative.

The problem withthe article is you and your onesided view. The article has been ok on several occasions until you step in and slant it to show it in a negative manner.

By "OK" you mean, slanted in ehr faovur. By "S:anted to show a negative view" you mwan Balanced andnot simply in existance ot promote her ideas. Say what you will, but your edits omit criisism, omit links , omit facts, and present her work as more mainstream than it is.

This is what you call neutral... but it is an effort to negatively smear the author to make the ideas presented by her books seem unworthy of attention.

No, it simply presents what others have said and the general receptin the book has thusfar enjoyed. If mainstream academia had accepted it, Id write that it was accepted by Mianstream Academia. They havent. If it was well known, Id say it was. All Ive said is that its not been recognised by any knwon instotution and is larlgey ignroed, a fact even admited ot by Acharya S herself, and that peopel have critisised it, which su true, an dlited htis, while at the tsame time presenting the list of SImilarities from her book and presentign her side.

But, thats only int he book ection which I tried ot make even shorter, and tried to extend the life section, which tou fidn unimportant as you dont care baotu her, just the ideas she endorses.

It's a denial that you have perpetrated from the first version you wrote and continue to perpetrate to this day.

Evidenced by...what? SHow actual Bias, please.

What you are doing is defending (denying) your chosen doctrine by negating anything that challenges it.

No Im not. And never have. In my day Ive defended Catholsiism.Im nt Cahtolic.Ive defended Mromonism.Im not mromon.Ive defended Christain Yahwism.Im not a Yahwist.Ive even defended an Ahteist vies.Im not an Ahtiest. On the message baord I administer, which James uss as evidence agsitn me, I acutlaly go out of my way to provide fair and equel treatment of all sides, never favourign any veiw above another. Even when I disagree.

So, this is simply an attmot to make me seem biased.

All this said, one cannot present Acharya S in a fair and balanced way, sicne she will insist that her veis be prsente din a watered down fashion as she knwos her veiws wont be accpted if given in full. Liekwise, critism cannotbe presented as it speaks agisnt her.Much liek in a Communist COuntry, she wants ot congrole what peoepla re otld in order to secure her position.

The sad thing is, you don't even seem to know what you are doing.

Oh I know quiet well what Im doing. I have proven myself time and again.

Your responses or drone blind and it is sadder still, that this is typical of religion and is responsible for much of the worlds woes today.

See, this is why you shoudlnt edit the article. Your baised agsint rleigion, and cnanot see pas thtis bias into reality. You must prsent an article that speaks ill of rleigiosu beleif, depicts it as controlign and desturctive, and prevents the truth form comign to lighg while caisugn the worlds woes. Meanhwile, tyou trumpet Acharya S's ideas.

In short, you must have the aritlce written in yor own Favour.

Having an understsnding of where religion comes from and that there is nothing divine to it just might relieve us from the murder and mayhem it is responsible for the world over. Unfortunately, when you brainwash a child, it take an act of god to undo it.

So lets see.

1: You havent relaly addresse dmy problems with the Acharya S Disiple varient of the artilce.

2: You have made acucsaiton that I am baised, due to my rleigiosu beleif, and am blidn and brianwashed, and slant the aritlce to smear her. No evidence is offered to affect this.

3: If evidence is offred, I suspect it will eb liek James evidence. Uttelry absurd and distroted.

4: Furthermore, you pretend that havign a striogn bais agiont rleigion makes you neutral. THis stretches credulity. How can you sy you ar ebign fair and baalced whn you speak fo rleigion in this way? Keep in midn this si Wikipeida. If I said "All Atheists ar emorons who cannot think and know nothing" this woidl be good reason for me not to edit an article relatign to Atheism. You arent spekaign the truth abotu rleigion, you ar pseakign your personal Point of Veiw. This POV is the problem withthe aritlc eint he irts palce. You want her ideas advocated, and want to silence any who oppose her viees so as yto further your own worldveiw. THen you make out as if anyoen who disagrees with you has soemthign worng with them.

CLealry you dotn care abotu NEutrlaity, you care abotu peopel thinkign rleigion is bad and shoudleb doen away with.

WHich, of couse, is no more hte prividence of WIkipedia than promotion of religion.

NEutrality, not baus, belongs here.

ZAROVE 02:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

-

And so it goes on, and on and on...deny, deny, deny, aum, aum, aum. I have posted a simple version describing her books with a simple typical author's bio and provided numerous examples of other like wikipedia articles of other authors. It was neither negative nor was it an ad. You couldn't handle it and pointedly stated that it did not show what you felt about her or the books. You cannot stand to have a benign article and are driven to have your negative criticisms (while filtering out positive statements), exposing private info and ridiculing her credentials. Your response? The same one you've been handing out since the first time you were chalenged. To repeat, you are the problem with this article and its removal would set us all free from your apologetics. Admin's, quick delete this artoicle and set Zarove free to go somewhere else to harrass.

66.174.93.99 03:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 09:36 PM CST

-

Drop the act, lobo.

OK, so in this day and age its easier ti beleiv the CHristyain cannto stand to se ehis faith critised, and thus the "Brilliant Schoalr" is beign hounded. Its a lie though. Ive not made htis persnal, and Ive not made this about my beleifs.

Nor am I denying anyhting.

However, saing " At leat one Critic and a few detractors form the apologist Camp" is Bias. It slants the article and renders all oposiiton as CHristain only, which it is not. Liekwise, the Quote form Kamanski exists soley to promote her viw of herself. The removal of the link to King David's website shows that you dont want the image of her as a reaosned, intelelgnt schoalr undermined by the fac thtat she cant answr a simpel email, and saying that its his fault for not chekcign facts doesnt rellay address the problem that you rmeove th elink for no reaosn. ( Had it been an e-exchange iwht a supporter you owdl kep it no matter how superfluous.)

Omitign that she has no acadmeic qualificaiton to warrent her assertions abotu herself only demonstrates further your need to obfusiacte the issue, justa s your constant attacks on me do nothign btu obfusiate.

Its clear on this matter. You are opposed ot rleigion, and so, you attack it, and this bais prevents you from objectivly givign facts. On the other hand, dispite constantly stating so, you havent shown me to be anywhere near Biased, as Ive not broguth up my beleifs in the aritlce or even the talk page.

Now, your verison is baised, flawed, and terribl. It omits informaiton whiole misleadign the reader. It omited a link for no real reason.

This fact will not change , and Ive not denied anythign in the above, ecfore you slam me again.

Address the problems withhte artcle, and cease the personal attacks.

ZAROVE 18:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Jame's new Paragrpah

This paragrpah is clear vnadalism.

She has received rave reviews from readers across the spectrum, from those on the edge of doubt about their religons to those having some familiarity with the unhistorical nature of religon generally. Her books have become popular with avid "truth-seekers" from around the world, eliciting interest from the average person to the professional and academically trained thinkers.

It not only exists soely to promote Acharya S, and is obviosuly POV, but it also contians a vlaue judegement, that rleigion is base don unhistoricaty. ( In shrot, tis not Hisotircal, but myth.) This is NOT the job of WIkipeida to decide.

Its clear tha tyou want me banned, so tyou cna distort this aritlc einto a press release for her all the while pretendign that you want Neturlaity, and blaming beleif with obsturctign you.

THis paragprah shwos the truth.

ZAROVE 20:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

-

Zarove, regards "saing " At leat one Critic and a few detractors form the apologist Camp" is Bia",

if what is said is fact... then your saying otherwise is lost to your own bias. What yopu seek is to dslant it in your fashion to meet your beliefs. The books stand on their own merit or they fail. What are you afraid of? Why can't you have a simple article describing tewo books on the same theme with a brief bio of their author? Why can't you leave the judgment of them up to the audiance that reads them? I think it is because you cannot help yourself... you are so brainwashed by your beliefs that you absolutely must deny and confront anything that challenges them. You are the problem with this article and the primary reason it should be deleted.

12.203.133.224 22:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 05:17 CST

-

I didn't write that paragraph, Zarove. I clearly wrote 'rv' in the history comment. ^^James^^ 23:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well.=

Sorry James, hwoever, it did show up in yor last revision. You say things ar emien that I didnt write.

Now for all. Ive mentioend probelms with the aritlce you have rpesented, and you show no real argument agaisnt my claims.

IE, you remove the link to King Davids page, this is because you dislike the ocntent.

You also make the aritlce extremely POV by sayin g" At least one Critic and Several Detractors fromt he APologist Camp".

The "Rave Reviews" paragrpah is POV, and innaccurate. ( No verifiability.)

The inclusion of new sentences and links bakc to Acharya S's website show that this aritlce exists to promote her ideas, nto tell of her. And is not Neutral.

Now, for Ragib and Charles Matheews. Im sorry if you think Im the one beign a vandal here. Im the one with Arbitration, but if you notice, Jame's "Long list of evidence" laegely is irrelevant tot he case of my supposd vilation of her provacy an is basiclaly a long list of thigns I said he didnt like.

Likewise, my supposed threat againt her was limitd ot me postign an old aritlce I wrote on her and writtign then publishign a new one. This was because htye objected ot the existign soruces.

Currently you have allowed the Acharya S disiples ot edit the page unhaulted. THey took ot form a Biased, POV distorted page, to an even worse Bias, POV DIstorted page. And will continue to till all Critism is neutrlaised and Acharya S is presented as a BRitlliant Schoalr who has presented the truth abotu CHrustendom.

Its not that their are two extremist camps here, oen Anti-Acharya and oen pro. I havent writtena POV Verison yet. THey have. I want to trea thtis owman fialry even after hse called ame a Pychotic. On the other hand, James, El Lobio, and crew simply wan tto defame me, usign open smear tactics, while lying about me usign smear tacitcs on them. THe aritlc e clealry fdoesnt fit WIkipedia guidelines when their done with it, and is obviosuly Vandalism.

Before bannign me, at leats look at this. I knwo that the Disiples create an image of me as a disruptive toruble maker. Im not.

they compalin hat I make pesaonal attacks. I dont. They comaplin endlessly. But had I left, and if I am banned, they will do this to anyoen that dopesnt agree with their agenda. Lust as they will say they are justified as the person is "Attackign" Acharya S.

tHIS SI NOT AN EDIT WAR, THEY ARE HERE FOR THE SOLE REAOSN TO SUPPROT aCHARYA s AND TO DISCREDIT cHRISYAINITY. wIKIPEDIA NEEDS OT REMAIN NEUTRAL, AND NOT CATER TO SUCH AGENDAS. If I am to be banned, it will be at leats for doign the right hting, and the nessisary thing. Im supportign the truth and fasir play, over agenda and bias.

Yet, Im betitng Im banned and Acharya S disiples will get htier way.So, at the very least look at the version I have up, agaisnt the versiosn they generated this week.

ZAROVE 00:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

-

I agree, the article is a joke... with reason. Admin's, quick delete this article, you will never get those of Zarove's mind set tpo ever admit they are culpable. They do not require fact or truth to wave their flag and taike their stand on in a sea of denial. They cannot help themdelves and thus this article will forver be mired in the quicksand of thie belief. Every challenge to them to show proof, or evidence of their claims has been ignored. This article is a joke. Be rid of it and delete it now.

66.174.93.99 13:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 08:21 AM CST

-

Now again.

I agree, the article is a joke... with reason. Admin's, quick delete this article, you will never get those of Zarove's mind set tpo ever admit they are culpable. They do not require fact or truth to wave their flag and taike their stand on in a sea of denial.

Actually this is what your doing, El Lobo. I presented very real problems wihtthe aritlce. The one you guys made int he week I was gone was just mor Anti-Christain gibberish. Its obviosuly POV, and clealry Vandalism. The factthat you ruine dmy rpeutaiton by leis, deceit, and accusation will not negete the problems wihthte aritlce, which I listed above.

1: the statements in which yoy minimalise her critics shows bias and exists to olour the rreaders views on those hwo oppose her works.

2: The paragrpah tellign of the "Rave rviews" is actually POV. Its not supported naywhere.And it makes value-calls on religous beleifs, clalign all rleigion ahistorical myth. Thats harldy neutral. It also doesnt say thigns like " Her boosk also rcieve poor reviews." After lal, you want the article o read in her faovur, so the paragrpah exists soley to make it appear as if shes accepted and even admied byt he masses. Its to sell her ideas.

3: The John Kamanski uote is superflous and exists to promote her iamge as well.

4: The rmeoval of the King David Link because she dosnt come off as so great in the email exchange shwos bias.

5: The links ot her website exist to fiurther direct thre reader.

The whoel hing is POV. This isnt so much me beign blinded by beleif, and you defneidng faxt. Nor am I culpabkle of anything. Your the conpsirator s here, tyign to silence all oposition ala 1984.

They cannot help themdelves and thus this article will forver be mired in the quicksand of thie belief.

Whzt beleif? You so far are the only one acutlaly promotign a beleif system. Your beleif tht ll reigion is base don myt hand is opporessive is a bias you cant shake long enough to create a NPOV Artilce.

On the pher hand, my objectiosn arent base don my beleifs. Their obviosu problems wiht POV.

Yoru accusaiton is shallow.

Every challenge to them to show proof, or evidence of their claims has been ignored. This article is a joke. Be rid of it and delete it now.

Actually the oposite is true. Ive listed several problems with the aritcle as it stands when your cdoen with it. You ignroe those claism and continue to make accusaitosn agaisnt 'The beleivers". Your the one whose blidn beelifs have lead to problems, not me.

ZAROVE 13:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

-

Alright, let's do it again. List each objection, specifically (not in genralizations), and let's look at them.

66.174.92.164 15:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 10:40 AM CST

-

Hahaha

I alreayd have. I even quoted them. their above.

from the "At leats one critic and several detractors" line tothe omisison of a link to the new paragrpah which is POV and acutlaly innaccurate.

Read up.

ZAROVE 17:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

-

1 I have not minimalized her critics. I have made factual observations which you consider as minimalizing. It is my contention that both sides of an issue be shown in such a manner as to allow the reader to explore the points made and make their own judgments... you, on the other hand, feel this is coloring their views while seeking to eliminating any view contrary to how you think it should be.

2 So just what do you call the opposing view? Is it not doing exactly what you accuse of? I'll tell you what, I'll entertain any hard evidence you can present that supports your view of it all. I challenge you to present it.

3: By that token, then so are your comments, or the two apologists comments. As much as you would like to slant this article to your views, you cannot have it one way. If you allo a negative, you must allow a positive in refutation. That's presenting a neutral article.

4: This was totaally discounted. It was a piece of fluf with no substance... why would you want it in this article? If anything, it made your case look flimsy at best. The rmeoval of the King David Link because she dosnt come off as so great in the email exchange shwos bias.

5: The links ot her website exist to direct the reader to further informationm. What would have done, reprint the information within the article itself?

What is not POV? The fact that you are driven by a belief (belief requires faith that breats life into that which would otherwise have none) is supplied by you and what you do. Pointing it out out is simply making an observation. I have made every effort to include all detractors and have not removed them. Putting them and the positive comments into links at the bottom the page top allow the reader the discretion to choose which they want to persue is not removing them, it is elinatin the casue of argument and makes the article a simple read telling about two books that have been written with a breif bio of their author.

12.203.133.224 22:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 05:33 PM CST

-

Lobo, your lyuing.

You do minimalise her critics. You are not merley makign observation. Im not 'Driven by beleif" but rathe rby a sence of justice and a desire for true neutralitry.

Look. Tghe links ot her website only direct the reader to her website ot sell he rideas to them. Thier little to no oposiiton in tyoyur verison. Just liek the basis ofr her claism to being a Historian, religiosu schialr, linuist, and archeologist ae missing. ( The same arguments, I may add, you and james use her eont he tlak page.)

The King David Link, if nonthreatenign to her, should remain. Even if threatenign it should. Why? Becuase its relvant. Its not sited int he article itsslef but is needful.

You just wan tto pretend this is neutral so you can sell her ideas ot the owlrd usign Wikipeida as a propoganda tool, an hgen smear me to neutrlaise me.

ZAROVE 00:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

How does this pared down peice look? No criticisms--no flatteries. No saying what she "doesn't have" for credentials--0only what she has. The external links include reviews almost equally of a positive and negative flavor for the reader to check out--including links to responses from the author in fairness. Neutrality. Basic as it gets. It is not up to you and I, the editors, to decide one way or the other (slant) by using unnecessary wording about how the user should think about either the author or the material. I couldn't get the one section on credentials to come out right---grrr. Not wiki-wise yet.--70.73.15.88 01:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)toothfairy

Not to work.

In addition to beign a formatting nightmae, the omisison of the Critiism section is unjust, as it silences her critics. ( A goal of he DIsiples of Acharya S admittedly.) The section about her credentials is still biased, as it stil alludes to her beogn an archeologist with minor ect...

Likewise, the omisison of the King David Link has now been accompanies by the omisison of Tekton Ministies. Acharya S, and by extension her Disiples, hate Tekton, but this is no reason to omit Tekton form the links section.

The article shoudl give the reader all avaiable and accurat einformaiton. Not just the approved Acharya S verison, and not just her arguments with no critism.

It shoudl rlelay deal with her and he rlife, not her ideas. Which shoudl be included mor ein pasing with mention of the critiism.

And again, you link too often to her website. This is unseemly.

ZAROVE 02:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

TO ZAROVE Her critics (like yourself) are hardly silenced! You appear to want to do your best to slant in favour of YOUR critics. Furthermore, you make no attempt to look for supportive reviews---and they are out there. You just don't want to leave it NEUTRAL--period. You know nothing much about her life, so there is nothing much for you to tell, if this is suppose to be a biography. What are you talking about--too many links to her site. You can't have a one-sided argument and be fair--but then that is not what you are after is it?

Shall I bring in a hundred links to others in her favour and demonstrate how former members of religon and some still are--to show how they agree with her on many points. Meanwhile, you can bring out all the King David (nobodies like you and I) to paste up our correspondence. But then again--you say it is about her, not her ideas. Bull TWEET! Whatever, you believe you know about her was proven wrong on several accounts throughout this talk page and you went even further into slandering and otherwise denigrating the PERSON of Acharya S.---that is your only motive--to shoot the messenger (with as little accuracy and slant or downright lies) because you DONT LIKE THE MESSAGE! Really, that is all you have to contribute--YOU DONT WANT NEUTRALITY----70.73.15.88 03:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)JUST SMEAR--70.73.15.88 03:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)toothfairy