Difference between revisions of "Talk:Magic (card game)"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Removing edits on the talk page)
(OK, seriously now: new section)
Line 39: Line 39:
 
:::I'm sorry that you feel my comment was "pointless posturing." I assure you, there are two sides to the question of Magic's supposed evil influences. A discussion is very much in order before committing to that line in the article, and rather than engage in an edit war in the article itself I think that it can be constructively worked out in the talk page. :::Note that despite your inactivity for nearly a month, I made no move to edit the article without the discussion happening first; hopefully this will convince you of my good faith to hold a forthright conversation on the subject.
 
:::I'm sorry that you feel my comment was "pointless posturing." I assure you, there are two sides to the question of Magic's supposed evil influences. A discussion is very much in order before committing to that line in the article, and rather than engage in an edit war in the article itself I think that it can be constructively worked out in the talk page. :::Note that despite your inactivity for nearly a month, I made no move to edit the article without the discussion happening first; hopefully this will convince you of my good faith to hold a forthright conversation on the subject.
 
:::Again, I'm looking forward to you making the positive case regarding M:tG's occult ties. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:53, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
 
:::Again, I'm looking forward to you making the positive case regarding M:tG's occult ties. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:53, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
== OK, seriously now ==
 +
 +
I feel like I'm getting close to a 90/10 violation. Having waited since the 9th of September for constructive engagement regarding this page, I'm going to start making substantive edits shortly. This isn't a threat, I'm happy to talk about it first, but this is beginning to smell a lot like "if I ignore it he'll just go away." Regards, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 19:09, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 23:09, 16 October 2008

! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Conservlogo.png

Has Dave Hunt written any analysis of this? He is quite good at finding occult influences and mapping them out. - NewCrusader


Wikiproject Religion?

I honestly don't understand how this "game" falls into religion. Would anyone be kind enough to explain it to me? Thank you, JakeM 13:26, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree, and I think the same argument could be made for the "satanism" category. HelpJazz 13:50, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
I don't think that we actually "need" that WikiProject template here. In fact we could probably "remove" it. Sideways 13:52, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
Since Deborah put it there, I would think it should be up to her or another member of the wikiproject to remove it. Or "remove" it, as the case may be. HelpJazz 13:58, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
Speaking of people who make other people laugh... Aziraphale 17:19, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

It might not be Satanism, but surely we have to keep in some reference of its occult ties. --WPalmer 17:28, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Reference, yes (though I disagree that there are any real ties); category, no. HelpJazz 17:34, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
You can disagree all you want; it doesn't make it any less true. --WPalmer 17:56, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
Nor does asserting make it more true... HelpJazz 18:03, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
There are mountains of evidence on my side and nothing but denial on yours. --WPalmer 18:29, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
Then write them; nobody's stopping you. HelpJazz 18:31, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Wow, wait. Mountains of evidence towards what, M:tG's occultism? And no evidence against? Nice, WPalmer, I haven't wanted to post in I don't know how long. What've you got, I will happily share the equivalent evidence against. I promise, I won't leave you hanging in a wasted effort. Lay it out, I'll work with you to suss out the evidence on both sides.

With anticipation,

Aziraphale 18:35, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

FWIW

I'm not messing with Ed Poor's edits, but the actual name of the game is "Magic: the Gathering." "[T]he Gathering" isn't a subtitle, addendum, or anything else, it's part of the title of the game. Yes, it is often called "Magic" for short, but that doesn't change what the name of the thing is. Perhaps someone with some clout would like to change this. Or not... Aziraphale 17:22, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Removing edits on the talk page

Do you have that kind of authority Palmer? --IanG 16:17, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

I am within my rights. I am sure if you want to take it up with Bugler or Aschlafly they will agree with me. --WPalmer 16:53, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
Well Bugler undoubtedly.--IanG 17:03, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
Also, please do not disrespectfully call me "Palmer", that's my last name. You could say "Mr. Palmer" or just "Will" if we're on friendly terms. --WPalmer 16:14, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
It's a military habit. No disrespect intended, it's just the only name I knew to call you by.--IanG 16:23, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
Hello, WPalmer,
I'm sorry that you feel my comment was "pointless posturing." I assure you, there are two sides to the question of Magic's supposed evil influences. A discussion is very much in order before committing to that line in the article, and rather than engage in an edit war in the article itself I think that it can be constructively worked out in the talk page. :::Note that despite your inactivity for nearly a month, I made no move to edit the article without the discussion happening first; hopefully this will convince you of my good faith to hold a forthright conversation on the subject.
Again, I'm looking forward to you making the positive case regarding M:tG's occult ties. Aziraphale 10:53, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

OK, seriously now

I feel like I'm getting close to a 90/10 violation. Having waited since the 9th of September for constructive engagement regarding this page, I'm going to start making substantive edits shortly. This isn't a threat, I'm happy to talk about it first, but this is beginning to smell a lot like "if I ignore it he'll just go away." Regards, Aziraphale 19:09, 16 October 2008 (EDT)