Changes
meeting of the minds
How is this statement hinting to set-theory? Could this explained? And did it hint the LIFO principle of queuing theory? For me this seems to be quite a stretch. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:04, 17 June 2012 (EDT)
Yes, could someone offer some explanation. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 08:56, 23 September 2016 (EDT)
There is no credible argument that this has anything to do with set theory, and its inclusion simply weakens the credibility of the article and the encyclopaedia. I'm deleting this example. [[User:Erniecohen|Erniecohen]] ([[User talk:Erniecohen|talk]]) 22:03, 13 November 2016 (EST)
:I would like to hear an argument in support of this, but before someone does, it should not be deleted. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:13, 13 November 2016 (EST)
::I deleted it (before the deletion was reverted) because the original objection to it is over 3 years old, with no responses in favor of keeping it. How long are we supposed to wait before deleting such nonsense? Absurd entries like this just make the page into a joke. I would not be surprised if some of these examples were put in by people trying to do just that. [[User:Erniecohen|Erniecohen]] ([[User talk:Erniecohen|talk]]) 22:26, 13 November 2016 (EST)
:::Thanks for deleting it. There is no need to put in entries which are not clear examples.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:50, 13 November 2016 (EST)
::::My question for [[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] is when is it okay to actually delete it. [[User:Erniecohen|Erniecohen]] ([[User talk:Erniecohen|talk]]) 13:40, 14 November 2016 (EST)
:::::An editor whom I trust has stated that the article is better without it, so I won't object you removing it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:28, 14 November 2016 (EST)
::::::I deleted it (FILO :-) ) - after four and a half year... Success of sorts... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 07:29, 20 November 2016 (EST)
== Pi to one significant figure ==
While Paul enumerates many sins of men in the end times, gaining weight isn't mentioned explicitly. Reading these verses I don't get the image that epidemic obesity is a sign of the end times. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:52, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
::Are you claiming that hedonism is not a major cause for obesity? If so, why? Is the Christian conservative Chuck Norris wrong about obesity primarily being caused by hedonism? See: [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity]] If so, why? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:29, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
:::AugustO, I reread your criticism. It was valid. I removed the material. Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:46, 13 November 2016 (EST)
::::Has anyone in your collective gained weight lately ;-) ? No, seriously, thanks - perhaps you can take a look at the other points I've made over the last five years on this talk-page.... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 07:33, 20 November 2016 (EST)
Your welcome. Second, I don't think me being a mediator between you and the owner of the website would change matters significantly. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:00, 20 November 2016 (EST)
:I'm just happy that you have changed your mind and hope that it wasn't for the last time... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 14:18, 20 November 2016 (EST)
== Seriously disappointed... ==
::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 10:21, 19 March 2016 (EDT)
::::Will it take another eight months? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:12, 28 March 2016 (EDT)
::::::::::'''waiting for {{Days since|2016|3|19}} days...''' --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:33, 10 April 2016 (EDT)
After 40 days and 40 nights just another observation: Andy claims that «''Strong's goes further to admit that "légō originally [means] 'lay down to sleep,'" - which fits perfectly in the calming of the storm.''» and cites as source http://biblehub.com/greek/3004.htm . In reality, Strong doesn't do anything like this. He only gives the '''short definition''': ''I say, speak'' and the '''definition''': ''(denoting speech in progress), (a) I say, speak; I mean, mention, tell, (b) I call, name, especially in the pass., (c) I tell, command.''
So, Strong makes it clear that in the Bible, λέγω is used to denote speech in progress. He doesn't bother with irrelevant Homeric meanings. ..[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 07:48, 28 April 2016 (EDT)
== Perhaps a little more dual attribution ==
;I only read the lead section before posting this comment. I may revise after a more careful reading.
You may want to be a little more careful in the claims made in the lead section and, when appropriate, provide double-attribution. The prophecy of events in the Bible is OK but you should avoid revisionist claims in terms of specific scientific progress. It is sometimes very easy to take credit for specific aspects of scientific progress. I am just recommending caution and editorial review for the sake of protecting the reputation of the wiki as a trustworthy encyclopedia. An example might be a claim that it was G-d's Will that some fortunate historic event came out one way or the other (such as a military battle or potential Act of Nature) but it is more extraordinary to claim that a particular game of chess (or some such) was won through Divine Intervention. There are many scientific discoveries that came about in part because of accidents that can be treated as Acts of God, but attribution to the efforts of the researcher is also appropriate. One example might be the invention of the light bulb that was in part due to the grace of G-d but it was also due in part to Edison's persistence of making many hundreds of tries before he came upon a viable working model. Oh, I now see that my comments might be more appropriate over at [[Essay:Rebuttal to Biblical scientific foreknowledge]]. I am not sure I intend for a direct rebuttal but rather cautious claims and, to some degree, a meeting of the minds.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 18:03, 12 January 2017 (EST)
