Tim, that's great to hear ... [re. the Anglican Church]. I'll be interested to look at it. --LMS
Don't hold your breath :-). But that's what /Todo is for. I have to tell you, Larry -- you and Jimbo have launched something historic here. I'm so slow on Anglican stuff because I keep getting distracted by other topics. And I just can't wait for my sons to get old enough to use Wikipedia and then to be the second generation to contribute!
Hello Tim, I hope I haven't been treading too heavily on your toes with my changes to the Anglican Church and Episcopal Church pages. I tried to access http://anglican.swiki.net/ but Netscape 4.76 (Linux) choked on it.
--Claudine
Is it possible to "tread" in the Wikipedia? :-) I place no exclusive claim on Anglican topics. Re. the swiki -- try again. http://www.swiki.net/ is notorious for going up and down a lot.
Tim & Claudine - take a look at the monastic resources here. The article for "Abbot" looks to be from an Anglican encyclopedia at the turn of the century - it's certainly Anglo-centric. Put some Anglican monastic orders into the entries, if you like.
Thanks. I'll have a look.
The entry for "abbot" is almost certainly from the encyclopedia brittanica's 1911 or 1913 edition, I can't remember; it's now passed into the public domain and is available from project gutenberg; we can use items from that text here but must not mention P.G. or E.B. in the article b/c of the trademark of E.B. and the licensing terms (I think that was the reason?) of P.G. Anyway, using items from the text is a pain because it requires careful updating since almost everything has changed--boundaries of different countries, knowledge of various fields, political climate.... Anyway if the text needs updating or realigning, by all means feel free to do so. --[[Koyaanis Qatsi
Thanks. Maybe someday...
The 'Abbot' entry is so long and S O O O O England-centered that one hardly knows where to start. -- Anonymous
Well, at least it's a professional entry.
That's a fascinating article you found on the capitalization of E. E. Cummings' name, Tim. --KQ
Thanks.
Tim, are you familiar at all with Sir Thomas More? There are some bits on its Talk page; I'm having problems finding if they are incorrect or just poorly explained. Just curious. --KQ
Sorry, KQ. You obviously have mistaken me for someone who actually knows something :-). Seriously, I'm merely an amateur Anglican historian. My own lack of formal education notwithstanding, I do have contacts. I've added your issue to my todo list.
I hope you do not mind my emphasis on creation science in Haeckel sources? I just thought that would be fair to truth. Cheers -- Piotr Wozniak
So kind of you contact me, Piotr. I look forward to ongoing dialogue, beginning at Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny/Talk.
Tim, I thought you might find this interesting (assuming you haven't heard about it already): http://www.anglicanjournal.com/127/07/canada01.html. -- STG (who happens to be fairly new Canadian Anglican)
Thanks for the heads-up, Stephen. I'm most troubled by the looming bankruptcy of the diocese of Cariboo. Do you follow news at Classical Anglican Net News?
What can you say about being a "fairly new Canadian Anglican?" (I enjoy sharing stories about how God changes lives.)
It's a long story. I've been a Christian for about seven years. and was preparing to become a United Baptist pastor when things went a little nutty. I'll drop you an email with the whole story sometime, if you like. And no, I haven't heard of CANN before, but thanks for the link. -- STG
I noticed this in Rules to consider:
I invite you, then, to ponder the existence of me, LDC, an INTJ and dedicated anti-intellectual-property open-borders anarcho-capitalist libertarian.
Howdy, Tim. First of all, thanks for the President of the United States of America/religious affiliations - I've been wanting to find this info but been too lazy to do so. Secondly, thanks for your other contributions. I should tell you that I'm on the opposite side of the fence from you on the "existence of God" and "divinity of Jesus Christ" issues, but I think we should be able to discuss these respectfully. So far, I've kept my Wikipedia contributions and discussion fairly anonymous - we'll see how this changes. Have a good one! – AnonymousCoward 200.255.83.xxx
Re. "I'm particularly curious to know what Wikipedians think about [intellectual elitism]." I think the page won't load on my machine. I'd be interested in seeing it. – AnonymousCoward 200.255.83.xxx
- OK. See /Intellectual Elitism
More later: Tim, identities of some posters to Deism/Talk have been scrambled. Please keep your eyes open re any deliberate attempts to sow confusion.
---
Re The Cunctator/Talk: Thank you. For some reason, I've been starting to get a persecution complex. --TC