Here we go again (wikipedia)

[Adonai One]

40 sources of which some are ungrounded, op-eds on how we are going to ascend to the 4th-dimension on 2012 that interpret Ra's "service-to-others" in the form of any manner of ethical philosophy.

Do you see how it could fall apart rather quickly?

[yossarian]

40 sources of which some are ungrounded, op-eds on how we are going to ascend to the 4th-dimension on 2012 that interpret Ra's "service-to-others" in the form of any manner of ethical philosophy.

Do you see how it could fall apart rather quickly?

1. THEY WERE NOT OP-EDS. AN OP-ED IS A SPECIFIC THING PUT OUT BY NEWSPAPERS. ZERO OF THE SOURCES WERE OP-EDS. YOU *****.

2. THEY ARE NOT UNGROUNDED BY THE HUMANITIES DEFINITION OF UNGROUNDED.

3. THEY ARE RELIABLE SOURCES BY WIKIPEDIA'S DEFINITION OF RELIABLE

4. THEY ARE TEXTUALLY ACCURATE IN THAT THEY ACCURATELY CONVEY NOTABLE PERSONS' INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ORIGINAL SOURCE AND ACCURATELY CONVEY POPULAR INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ORIGINAL SOURCES, INTEREPRETATIONS THAT ARE PRECISELY THE INTEREST OF WIKIPEDIA

5. YOUR OPINION ON THE TRUTH OR FALSEHOOD OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OR THE DISCOURSE COMMUNITY OR THE SECONDARY SOURCES DOES NOT MATTER.

6. YOUR OPINION ON THE QUALITY (IN ANY SENSE OF THE WORD QUALITY) OF THE SECONDARY LITERATURE DOES NOT MATTER BECAUSE YOU ADMIT YOU HAVE NOT READ THE SECONDARY LITERATURE. Q E MFING D.

7. YOU DONT KNOW ******** **** ABOUT ****.

[Adonai One]

In the end, it's subjective. I will continue to cite WP:Questionable for the majority of the sources and insist on their removal based on my judgement that shaky mystical material should not be the foundation of an article.

If people want to restart the article with only that Gnosis article and that one reliable book mentioned in the AFD, then I won't push any further.

However, as the article stands, I will continue to advocate for its deletion.

[yossarian]

In the end, it's subjective. I will continue to cite WP:Questionable for the majority of the sources and insist on their removal based on my judgement that shaky mystical material should not be the foundation of an article.

If people want to restart the article with only that Gnosis article and that one reliable book mentioned in the AFD, then I won't push any further.

However, as the article stands, I will continue to advocate for its deletion.

NO IT'S NOT SUBJECTIVE. THAT'S NOW HOW OBJECTIVE INCLUSION CRITERIA WORKS. IT'S ABOUT AS SUBJECTIVE AS 2+2=4.

YOU DON'T MATTER AND THIS HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH YOU.

YOU'RE JUST A PAWN IN THE ATHEIST/SCIENTIFIC MATERIALIST IDEOLOGICAL BLOCK ON WIKIPEDIA THAT WANTS TO SUPPRESS ALL ARTICLES THAT COVER ALL NON-SCIENTIFIC TOPICS, INCLUDING ALL NEW AGE OR OCCULT OR ESOTERIC TOPICS. NONE OF YOUR ARGUMENTS HAVE ANY VALIDITY WHATSOEVER AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT, INCLUDING THE ADMINS WHO DELETED THE ARTICLE, WHICH IS WHY THEY COVERED UP THEIR ERROR AFTER DOING IT AND MADE COVER-YOUR-ASS PAPERWORK TO PUT THE BLAME ON YOU INSTEAD. YOU ARE LITERALLY BEING BLAMED BY THE DELETIONIST ATHEIST BLOCK FOR THIS DELETION SO THAT THEIR OWN WILL BE SAFE FROM CHARGES OF VANDALISM AND IDEOLOGICAL DELETIONISM.

YOU ARE THEIR PATSY.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Adonai One]

I support the "atheist and scientific materialist" block alongside its anti-thesis. Both enable a balanced encyclopedia.

I am a factual relativist. I like the relativity of things to be in balance.

[yossarian]

I support the "atheist and scientific materialist" block alongside its anti-thesis.

*****

You aren't a spiritual member of the atheist scientific materialist group consciousness. This is obvious to all of us with intuition. You're one of ours. Sorry.

Go talk to the Ra Social Memory complex and let them know that you just turned-coat because you have decided to support the scientific materialist ideological initiatives. If you read the collective unconscious of the atheist soul-group you see very clearly the kind of world they want: the kind of world where people like you would be locked up in mental asylums for your entire life.

***

---

"I am a factual relativist. I like the relativity of things to be in balance."

Which is why you want to see your own team be snuffed out of visibility? The atheist soul-group is doing just fine without you helping their most destructive elements--their elements that want to snuff out all coverage and discussion of spiritual topics as a whole.

[Adonai One]

Ra can go ***k themselves alongside every purported entity, existent and non-existent. I played around in the metaphysical, indulged it, found it unprovable and impractical. Some things messed with my head in the process, myself or something else, but I am over it.

I play with what works and that is real life knowing of the self.

[yossarian]

Ra can go ***k themselves alongside every purported entity, existent and non-existent. I played around in the metaphysical, indulged it, found it unprovable and impractical. Some things messed with my head in the process, myself or something else, but I am over it.

I play with what works and that is real life knowing of the self.

Telling yourself to go f*** itself. Never ceases to be hilarious.

Whatever bro you'll grow up and then laugh at this, just as I am laughing at this right now.

Just because you can't handle it without going ****** doesn't mean it should receive no coverage on wikipedia. In fact, wikipedia regulations say that it should receive coverage.

---

P.S. you're not fooling anybody. We are all psychics here who can see right through you. Go ahead and say that's unprovable. Of course it is. So are most things in life. Entities can't be trusted at face value, neither can anyone else.

But just for fun, let's all go tell Ra to f*** itself.

HEY Ra: GO **** YOURSELF!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

(Guess what: they aren't offended)

[reeay]

Who's version is used right now?

[yossarian]

Who's version is used right now?

THIS GUY doesnt have his own version. He advocates for 100% deletion of everything. He never wrote a single sentence. He just vandalized the page by deleting all the sources and then nominated the page for deletion. A lazy atheist admin saw the unsourced page, deleted it, realized that the page had been vandalized, put the blame on THIS GUY, then buried the discussion so that it wouldn't come up again.

If someone decides to fix this it's going to take literally weeks of work, and THIS GUY has already pledged to be as destructive as possible in that time.

So.... I don't recommend anyone waste their life on trying to fix this. I've wasted enough of mine.

[Adonai One]

My version:

"The Ra Material, also known as the The Law of One, is a series of five books reputedly authored by a non-human intelligence named Ra via their questioner, channel, and scribe, through the process of channeling. It was published between 1982 and 1998 by Schiffer Books. The publishers attribute some or all of the authorship to Don Elkins, Jim McCarty, and Carla L. Rueckert who acted as the channel for Ra.

References:

The Law of One"

[yossarian]

My version:

"The Ra Material, also known as the The Law of One, is a series of five books reputedly authored by a non-human intelligence named Ra via their questioner, channel, and scribe, through the process of channeling. It was published between 1982 and 1998 by Schiffer Books. The publishers attribute some or all of the authorship to Don Elkins, Jim McCarty, and Carla L. Rueckert who acted as the channel for Ra.

References:

The Law of One"

Guess what ******? I WROTE THOSE WORDS THAT YOU ARE SAYING ARE YOUR VERSION.

****. YOU.

---

THIS GUY takes an article, deletes 98% of it, then says that the 2% remaining is HIS VERSION!?!?!?!?!?

*** THE **** OFF!

**************

[Adonai One]

Wikipedia revisions are under a Creative Commons license.

[yossarian]

Wikipedia revisions are under a Creative Commons license.

I

WROTE IT.

NOT

YOU.


That's my version. With 98% of the rest deleted.

---

And anyway, that 2% does not appear, because 100% got deleted, not 98%. Because this is how the atheists want it. They want 0% coverage.

C'est la vie.

[Adonai One]

If I believe the universe is only elementary particles, do I qualify to be an atheist? I want to be one too.

Anyways, it's your version too. I just put the work of deleting all that text into it.

[yossarian]

Well I'm officially bored of yelling at this jerk. But it is cathartic, for sure.

I suppose I should have expected that it would be one of our own who betrayed us. The irony is so very delicious, and funny!

Hundreds of hours of work down the drain because this guy DOES NOT APPROVE and his opinion is MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE REST OF US.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

---

If I believe the universe is only elementary particles, do I qualify to be an atheist? I want to be one too.

You'll never be an atheist. Go ahead and try to join them. You'll be back.

MARK MY WORDS.

YOU WILL NEVER FIT IN WITH THE ATHEISTS

[Adonai One]

I was an atheist before I came here and it seems I am one now. I don't really belong in pantheism as I see nothing divine about the universe enough to consider it theological or god-like. Sure, it's a creator but so is everything else. It's kind of redundant and faux pas.

[yossarian]

I was an atheist before I came here and it seems I am one now. I don't really by pantheism so much as I see nothing divine about the universe enough to consider it theological or god-like.

YOU ARE NOT A REAL ATHEIST. SORRY.

you're just a wannabe. people are defined by their communities. atheists don't like you and you don't fit in with them, because you're just not one. you can entertain your hypotheses all you want but that doesn't change who you are.

your opinions do not determine your identity. you are defined by who you fit in with.

You're one of us.

And with that.... I will take my leave.

Adieu!

[isis]

If someone decides to fix this it's going to take literally weeks of work...

I copied and saved the text of the article (from the edit page to preserve all the boxes and formatting) so that just in case it gets deleted and needs to be remade in the future, we will have something to go on.

Just message me or respond here if you ever need it.

[vervex]

Wikipedia revisions are under a Creative Commons license.

I WROTE IT. NOT YOU.

Are we not all one?

[ScottK]

Adonai - Just to let you know, you've just engaged in a destructive process. Nit-picking, desire for control, confrontational in nature. You forced the destruction. Positive creation doesn't happen in those circumstances.

Creation is a light, happier process. People working together with a spirit of finding common ground, where others opinions are valued, and others are treated as you would want to be treated. Everything becomes much easier then.

In this illusion, we are all separate in the play we are playing, and there's a choice in how we wish to operate.

[Patrick]

:exclamation: CONTROL of information...

We all know where this leads.

[AnthroHeart]

That's sad that the article got deleted. Would liked to have read it with all the references.

[reeay]

Using a website called 'way back when' I compared a cached version of the wikipedia page (cached on November 2013) to the current version. I am now unsure which version is what and who's edits... Here are some subtle differences that I found. Just a few examples:

1. Cached version: The Ra Material, also known as the The Law of One, is a series of five books purportedly authored by a non-human intelligence named Ra and his questioners through the process of channeling.

The current version has changed 'purportedly' (italicized) to 'reputedly'.

Purportedly means to claim something even if it may be false
Reputedly means what people believe. Subtle differences in connotations. Not too much of a big deal but makes slight difference.

2. The cached version changed 'hypnotic state' to 'non-conscious state'... What is a non-conscious state? Non-conscious in psychology may allude to consciousness - for example minerals are non-conscious because they do not have awareness. Non-conscious processes alludes to mental processes that work when we are sleeping or no aware. It does not describe a trance state necessarily as hypnotic state would imply.

And then:

3. Cached version: ' The material in the books conveys an elaborate philosophy called The Law of One having the basic principle that "All is One" or that all things that exist are ultimately the same thing.'

Current version: 'The material in the books conveys an elaborate grand reality called The Law of One having the basic principle that "All is One", or that all "things" that exist are ultimately the same "essence" within many forms.'

'elaborate philosophy' --> 'grand reality'

There is a HUGE difference to claim something is a philosophy and something is a 'grand reality'. This is distorted depiction of the Ra Material to say it is a 'grand reality'. This is what some were concerned about when A1's edits came out.

Have not finished comparing yet tho...

I'm not sure if the November 2013 cached version is what Yossarian wrote last year? Can you confirm this?

[Adonai One]

I would never use the term "grand reality." I have not edited it at all in recent times as far as I know besides questioning sources.

---

You cannot just put your own original research into wikipedia. It must be sourced.

[reeay]

Then who's been editing the page recently?

[Adonai One]

IPs and other users. That goes without saying that I remove content that is questionably sourced, which is reverted.

I work on the macro level here. The details are not my concern at this point in time. The sources are what makes the article.

[reeay]

I'm not sure what the status of this edit-drama/warring is but it's worth having some 'fresh brains' edit this page. To claim something is 'grand reality' could sound very off-the-wall for someone who might not understand philosophical context of 'reality'?

OK Adonai pls feel free to write a literature review on these 30-something resources w/ analytical critique. That way the analysis of the quality of the references cited on page is more transparent. This is what scholars do - they write literature reviews and break apart various studies to make judgments on the quality, validity, reliability, and usefulness of the resources. Annotated bibliography is good, too.

[Adonai One]

I don't think you are familiar with what Wikipedia is about. The article is supposed to be a literature review, not original research.

[reeay]

It's not a scholarly literature review bc it does not critique each article referenced.