[Home]H. Jonat/Talk

HomePage | H. Jonat | Recent Changes | Preferences

Showing revision 15
I am happy to report that after initial messages I can now remove my "answer" to the back page of /Talk

"Nasty mean spirited messages are not welcome . If you are one of those
who just can't help it , bite your tongue." (I can thankfully say, that I can now take this comment off my main page. H. Jonat)

Hi- I'm definitely not trying to be mean spirited, but I am confused as to what is going on with the horse breed pages. You have several copies of the pages with various sorts of links. You mention redirecting but they don't appear to actually be redirected. Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious or jumping to conclusions, but it appears that you are unclear on the correct method of redirecting. You need to use the #REDIRECT command as described in How does one edit a page. I was going to fix it myself but I am not sure which of the pages you intend to be the main one. Thanks. --Alan Millar


Hi, that message was for some earlier people, not for you. You did ok with the horse pages. But someone took something off in the meanwhile (the split Horse breeds), which I had not put on). I added Horse Breeds on the Horse page. H. Jonat


Regarding your question in Berlin/Talk: I'm too old for techno (35). I edited the paragraph a bit, but the techno reference wasn't mine. But even if you aren't into dance music, Berlin is a great city :-) --Tsja


To Tsja ,Ok, I was just wandering ,who would put that up near the top ? Had to be someone very young. Ich bin ein Berliner,geb. Belziger Strasse Schoeneberg , I Block von Rathaus-Schoeneberg. H. Jonat

Let me give you a general pointer on Catholicism -- no Catholic priest speaks for the whole Church (no matter HOW much he wants to). He can speak on behalf of the Church only insofar as he speaks in union with his bishop and the teaching tradition of the Whole Thing, not just his own local prejudices. So, for instance, I can believe that plenty of individual Polish priests said things about language. They were wrong if they said 'God only understands Polish.'). If, however, they said 'I only understand Polish and refuse to hear your confession,' they were perhaps correct, but they had a duty to make sure that non-Polish speaking parishoners could make confession at least once a year. That is kind of the bare minimum. If they *did* speak German and refused to hear confessions in German, they are in the wrong. On the other hand, they were entirely within their rights to preach in another language - that has always gone on, that preaching is required in a national language. In fact, that was a big problem in the Austro-Hungarian empire. In contemporary America the Catholic Church has a major problem finding enough priests who can handle Spanish. It's fairly easy to learn enough Spanish to say the Mass - which essentially only involves reading out loud, not necessarily understanding every syllable. It's harder to preach. Hardest of all is confession. In fact, Catholic priests very frequently are given permission by their bishop to *only* say Mass in certain languages, but *not* to hear confessions, since that involves a higher standard of language knowledge. Of the 2 priests in my very small city in New York State they both are allowed to say Mass and preach in Spanish, but only one hears confessions. I don't know what the circumstances are which you are representing, but you are not giving enough information in your one-sentence statments about language supression. --MichaelTinkler


Hi Helga -- just some English info for you --

I know that in German, you'd just write erst(e), zweite, dritte, usw., like this : 1., 2., 3. Unfortunately, that doesn't work in English. The ending you write depends on what the number is, so 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. After that, unless the number ends in a 1, 2, or 3, it ends in 'th'. JHK

But note that 11th, 12th, 13th and 111th 112th, 113th, etc. are correct. -- Derek Ross

D'oh! I forgot those, thanks Derek, and sorry Helga for the slight misinformation! JHK

Thanks a lot JHK for trying to further confuse me and thanks Derek Rossfor setting the numbers straight. H. Jonat
Hi Helga --

Please believe that this is not meant in a mean-spirited way. You seem to be getting into another of your "add as many articles as possible as quickly as possible" rolls. Unfortunately, what you're adding is just a bunch of genealogical entries. They aren't well-written, and they don't have any information other than the "father of, husband of, wife of" type. Moreover, it seems that, in your rush, you're not really thinking about the titles you give to your entries, even though you have had ample opportunity to read all the talk on nomenclature. Finally, you don't seem to be doing any editing or proofreading before you post. This is really frustrating, because there are a lot of us who actually do write in whole sentences and try to include information about WHY they person is important enough to deserve an article. (I don't know if they are frustrated, too -- I'm only speaking for me). Could you please consider writing one good article instead of five that others will have to come along and fix? You've written a lot of extensive stuff, so I know you know how to do it! ;-) JHK

To JHK I get the most important basic facts, such as BD , marriage death of a person in. That has on this list started ,so far been missing, as well as on many other lists. Then I or anyone else can add any other information they have. We have been getting a lot of information together that way. It does not say anywhere that it has to be a complete article, or does it ? At least I have not seen that. H. Jonat


HomePage | H. Jonat | Recent Changes | Preferences
This page is read-only | View other revisions | View current revision
Edited December 6, 2001 9:19 am by H. Jonat (diff)
Search: