[Home]History of Lucifer/Talk

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences

Revision 30 . . December 8, 2001 5:55 am by (logged).128.91.xxx [Reply to MichaelTinkler]
Revision 29 . . December 7, 2001 5:42 pm by Arcade [* added a couple of extra links to the discussion.]
Revision 28 . . December 7, 2001 1:48 am by Ed Poor [agree]
Revision 27 . . December 7, 2001 1:43 am by Arcade [*humm, but!]
Revision 26 . . December 7, 2001 12:44 am by Ed Poor [me, too]
Revision 25 . . December 7, 2001 12:01 am by Arcade [* much better. :)]
Revision 24 . . December 6, 2001 11:58 pm by Ed Poor [moving draft to article]
Revision 23 . . December 6, 2001 11:46 pm by Ed Poor [whitespace tweak]
Revision 22 . . December 6, 2001 11:42 pm by Ed Poor [final draft]
Revision 21 . . December 6, 2001 11:33 pm by Ed Poor [second draft]
Revision 20 . . December 6, 2001 11:29 pm by Ed Poor [proposed draft]
Revision 19 . . December 6, 2001 11:24 pm by Ed Poor [re-ordering?]
Revision 18 . . December 6, 2001 11:18 pm by MichaelTinkler
Revision 17 . . December 6, 2001 11:17 pm by MichaelTinkler [moving Ed's (entirely correct) comment to Talk, where it belongs.]
Revision 16 . . December 6, 2001 10:28 pm by Arcade [*answer again.]
Revision 15 . . December 6, 2001 10:20 pm by (logged).153.24.xxx
Revision 14 . . December 6, 2001 10:17 pm by (logged).153.24.xxx
Revision 13 . . December 6, 2001 9:41 pm by Arcade [*added a link and some comments]
Revision 12 . . December 6, 2001 9:13 pm by Arcade [*answer.]
Revision 11 . . December 6, 2001 9:09 pm by MichaelTinkler [notes on the last link. YIKES!]
Revision 10 . . December 6, 2001 9:06 pm by MichaelTinkler
Revision 9 . . December 6, 2001 9:03 pm by MichaelTinkler
Revision 8 . . December 6, 2001 8:56 pm by Arcade [* answered, and added my nick below my arguments.]
Revision 7 . . December 6, 2001 8:38 pm by MichaelTinkler
Revision 6 . . (edit) December 6, 2001 8:30 pm by Arcade [*added an enter. :)]
Revision 5 . . December 6, 2001 8:30 pm by Arcade [* added some interesting links to read.]
Revision 4 . . December 6, 2001 8:16 pm by MichaelTinkler [on translation and commentary]
Revision 3 . . December 6, 2001 8:07 pm by (logged).109.250.xxx [why i still disagree]
Revision 2 . . December 6, 2001 7:32 pm by Arcade [*explanation.]
Revision 1 . . December 6, 2001 7:13 pm by (logged).109.250.xxx
  

Difference (from prior major revision) (no other diffs)

Added: 184a185
:Hmm. I know it's bad form to feel as angry as I do right now, Dr. Tinkler, but I'll try to hold back my ready-to-erupt bile and talk reasonably about the GLBC page which you refer to as "an apologetic site ditancing [sic] Freemasonry from accusations of Satanism." First, the site is not an apology, at least as defined by the dictionary I checked. It is not an excuse or explanation for behaviour, but rather shows people that the supposed behaviour never existed in the first place. You seem to have a distinct hatred for any work of scholarship related in any way to esotericism. Admittedly, there have been quite a few of these works in the past which have been poorly done. I'll concede "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail," and "The Hiram Key," for example. You're not really answering any argument whatsoever when you claim that a GLBC page about anti-masonry is "not the kind of place to find a dispassionate, scholarly discussion..." why not? Or are you using rhetoric in the absence of facts to get across an argument you "know" to be right? That sounds a lot like the academic sin of which you claim the GLBC is guilty.

Added: 185a187,189
:I have no qualms whatsoever about (what appears to me) your enthusiastically-held Catholicism. You have the right to worship whatever Supreme Being you wish in whatever fashion you wish. Yet, on the Freemasonry/Talk? page, you presented a letter from the very anti-masonic and frankly libelous Cardinal Law as a resource for information on Freemasonry. Which way should we have it, Dr. Tinkler? Shall we accept anyone's opinion, based only on their ability to back up that opinion with evidence (a position I would be glad to agree with), or shall we accept only the word of "experts" when dealing with their field? You can't have it both ways. Or perhaps you think we should accept the word of Catholics, but not people of other faiths?

:Since I have started contributing what I can to Wikipedia, I have had nothing but the utmost respect for your dedication to your field, although I have argued with you about a number of points... in many cases, you have been correct, and I incorrect. But in this case, it seems to me that your bias has gone too far, and that you have lost that passion for understanding that no doubt informs both our lives. I hope that I have merely misinterpreted what you have meant, because I shudder to think that an educated individual could be as bigoted as you appear to be. --[Alex Kennedy]

Changed: 429c433
Both seems to be christian resources.
Both seems to be christian resources.

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences
Search: