User talk:Atomist

__________________________________________________________

NOTE:

AS OF JULY 16TH, 2006, I WILL NO LONGER DO ANY EDITING ON WIKIPEDIA, AND MY I WILL NOT ALTER MY TALK PAGE. --Jeffrey Grupp (Atomist)

__________________________________________________________

Sorry Wiki-masters. I did not mean to promote myself (maybe I was inadvertantly doing so, but that's not my overall goal at all); I was just meaning to try to add to some of the missing areas on Wiki's philosophy part of the encyclopedia. (If I can make one comment though, your 'analytic' part of the time page, which you changed after I altered it, is not representative of what is actually going on in the analytic philosophy of time--but hey, it's your enclyclopedia.)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Glowimperial 13:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2/06/2006. EEK! Sorry Wiki masters! I am not sure what you are referring to that is "vandalism," as I had no intention to do anything of that sort. But whatever it was, sounds like you caught it, and good thing so that you could change it. I will be more careful in my general alterations of Wiki pages--more careful than before. I am making doubly sure to be as professional as possible in my changes, and also to avoid any 'vanity' alterations, as I (inadvertantly) carried out before (December, I think that was, if I recall correctly). Also, apologies for adding a link to Dreyfus's book at amazon on the Buddhist atomism page. I will go and put up his academic website there instead, as he is more than relevant to Buddhist atomism. Thanks again, and keep up the stellar work!

Nuclear program of Iran: let's try to find a NPOV way to document US situation?

Hi Atomist,

I cannot agree more about everything you added to the Nuclear program of Iran article, but I (mostly) reverted it nonetheless because we need to find an encyclopedic way of stating your point(s). Despite the horror and fear that the topic casts into my mind, I try to keep faith in the virtue of facts calmly and rationally laid out for others to form their own opinion. Therefore I try to achieve neutral point of view in the article, but without downplaying the responsibility that the US bears in the current crisis. There was already a mention of the operation Merlin story in the “US are at fault” department, BTW. What do you think of my edits so far (in the introduction and first § of History section)?

As regards your point of the US being just as big a nuclear bully as your usual middle-eastern dictatorship (if I understand you correctly :-): could you find another Wikipedia article that discusses this? If so, I think the best is to make a link to there. I've started a topic in the article's talk page.

Please help me (and the other contributors to the page) to reach a consensus about how to state the point of US responsibility in an encyclopedic, factual and NPOV fashion. Regards, DomQ 18:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Atomist 2/22/2006. Thanks DomQ for your message. I was very pleased that your message involved the thoughtfulness it did, and that your message does not involve any intent to suppress information--holding true to Wikipedia's democratic processes. I will work over the next week to construct an encyclopedic-natured entry on 'U.S. abuses in its nuclear arsenal', as you nicely put it in this quote to me on the talk page: "What about finding/writing an article about the way the US (ab)uses its nuclear arsenal in international diplomacy, and linking from there? What Atomist says certainly has encyclopedic value (especially given his citation), it is just not in-context for this article. Regards, DomQ 19:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)." I will include a short, relevant citation from Caldicott's book, and in general do my best to compose a nice, impartial entry for others to work on. Thanks again. --Atomist

Dear Professor...

While I find your politics are abhorrent (no offense intended, I just disagree with them vehemently) but your academic interests are absolutely fascinating. I studied Buddhism as taught by Stephen K. Hayes and some of his writings/interpretations paralell yours vis-a-vis Buddhist philosophy and physics. I love the syllabus for your P-334 class and wish I was taking it. I will definitely start reading the books it mentions. Have you considered adding Groundhog Day to your course's study list? I was surprised it wasn't listed. P.S. - Do you teach anything regarding the Kongokai and Taizokai mandalas? I was obsessed with them at one point. Lawyer2b 23:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and no offense taken (I can understand your position). I will check out Groundhog Day for the class (I have not seen it). Thanks for the tip. Atomist