User talk:Zeus69962

Zeus, please see the talk page for Frank Herbert to discuss the edit you are trying to make. This is a contentious issue that requires agreement among the people interested in the page, and so far your edits are not meeting with universal approval.

We're happy to discuss it with you and find some middle ground, but continuously reverting and adding to the article is not the preferred Wikipedia way. Justin Johnson 21:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am still willing to discuss the matter of canonicity, but I think we should do it here or at my talk page (in relative "quiet") to keep matters cool. If you state your arguments clearly, I will state mine and we can have a discussion. As I said on the talk page, I am still willing to discuss this, but the abuse and ignoring of my arguments must stop. Oh, and concerning your last edit of the pictures: I am not claiming Brian has falsified any documents. Lundse 21:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About your comment:

I concured to the fact that the movie should not be the basis of canonicity but my point was that if anything IT SERVES TO SHOW THAT BRIAN DID NOT MAKE IT UP! Nor is there ANY reason to assume that he fabricated the notes thereof... That's all I was saying about that!

I never claimed it was Brian who made up that the machines had enslaved men or that the war was between AI and humans, and it is irrelevant. What I claim is that FH did not envisin the Jihad that way. Neither have I ever claimed that he falsified any notes. Please do not make me out to say things I have never done, that is called strawmanning and it is a kind of ad hominem attack, ie. not very NPOV. Lundse 22:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last word from me

I'm no longer going to waste my time engaging you. You don't understand Wikipedia, you don't understand basic logic. We've agreed on things by IM that you deny now. It's plainly impossible to convince you of anything; you're simply not arguing in good faith. Justin Johnson 20:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And from me

The discussion is over. I realize it never really begun and I have only myself to blame for persisting so long. I do not believe there is any way I can convince you, nor get you to respond coherently to my points and arguments. Thank your for resorting to name-calling and completely degenerating the discussion at the end, though, should this come up for arbitration, they should come in handy to show your level of commitment to the discussion. I do, BTW, sincerely hope someone comes along who can argue your case, I would really have liked the the matter to be properly settled.

To your information, FH's view on societies as organism is more inspired by Jung and later thinkers and not so much as Hobbes (whose views of society as a mechanism/body are not so much his as he was an important thinker who explained and utilized that bit of enlightenment thought. And yes, I did quite well on my exam on him, thank you very much so I must have heard something right. I do have one last question: how old are you and what kind of school levels do you have?

One last thing, I absolutely love your quote: "One of the questions the Butlerian Jihad answered with violence was whether the human body is simply a machine that a man-made machine can duplicate. The results of the war answered the question." It in itself proves my entire point - I am sorry that all you see is a Hobbes reference... Lundse 22:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop editing my user:talk page unless you have something new to say. And, BTW, I never claimed FH was only influenced by one philosopher - I have no idea where you got that from, but if you think it was me then I suggest looking at the archive. Lundse 23:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I was the last one to respond to it, thus, it is your turn. new stuff is on the page read it." What part of "I am not going to continue this discussion until you start arguing your case" do you not understand? I am (again) requesting you do not engage me on my talk page until you have something new to say, please respect this. If you think what you said last time is "new", then our understandings of the term are so different that (you guessed it) you might as well not bother trying. Oh, and sorry to hear your sockpuppets were discovered so easily - how about finding some other, real, support for your viewpoints? Lundse 08:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All things in time

It bloody well took you long enough, what? RJCraig 10:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

I believe that your most recent message on my talk page is not the first time you have mentioned "making peace"?

Anyway, would you like to set aside our differences temporarily and work together on something which may eventually become a valuable addition to the information on Dune here on Wikipedia?

I've started a working-page here for a timeline of events mentioned in ALL Dune books irrespective of authorship or canonicity issues. Since you are familiar with the content of the B. Herbert & Anderson books, your contribution to this would be invaluable.

What do you say?

RJCraig 11:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Torkos link. His timeline is obviously a bit heavy with "new material" plot detail, but should prove very useful.

RJCraig 22:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]