343
edits
Changes
→Source for "applied spirituality": You've made me defensive. Now what ?
We seem to disagree about how to handle the "applied spirituality" classification. Can you provide a source for it? Maybe that will help use with the wording. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
We seem to disagree about how to handle the "applied spirituality" classification. Can you provide a source for it? Maybe that will help use with the wording. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
: I am willing to do a good deal. I am willing to verify EVERY WORD of the edits I introduce. I am willing to write an article on Dianetics and more. But unless the article can stand for 5 minutes without bias creeping in, it would make no sense to do so. For example, "Scientology is an applied spiritual philosophy" becomes "Scientology is presented by adherents as an applied spiritual philosophy". An earlier statement, "Scientology, like Buddhism, is an applied spiritual philosophy" was similarly chopped up. Where does the problem lie? Am I to convince Tmtoulouse of the validity of every edit I make with direct quotations for a dozen websites before the least word of my edit can stand for 5 minutes? If it is your intent to make me defensive about perfectly good, substantial, verifiable edits, you have certainly succeeded, [[User:Tmtoulouse]]. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)