User talk:Sdaconsulting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Sdaconsulting, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Lst27 17:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Do you have a source for your addition to Microsoft .NET? I hadn't heard that before and would love to know more. I had a look around and only managed to find articles that mentioned that the bytecode generated by J++ is similar to MSIL. AlistairMcMillan 02:45, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Dan Rather
There was already some stuff about the Killian memos on there. You may wish to clean up/merge/etc. your additions with the original items. -Joseph 03:18, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
- I suggest you go read my latest addition to the Killian memos article. You will get a kick out of it. -Joseph (Talk) 20:53, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
- Well, my beef about the Killian memos isn't the Bush or Kerry part. I actually am not a fan of Bush (or Kerry)...I suppose I might call myself a Theodore Roosevelt Republican. Anyhow, my thing is that I think it's questionable for a "trusted" media outlet (CBS) to behave this way. -Joseph (Talk) 21:00, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)
[edit] a vote you might be interested in
Talk:Links_between_Iraq_and_Al-Qaeda#Requested_move:_Links_between_Iraq_and_Al-Qaeda_.26rarr.3B_Alleged_links_between_pre-invasion_Iraq_and_Al-Qaeda Kevin Baastalk 22:13, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Conspiracy_theory#Voting_.28rename_vs_keep_as_is.29 Kevin Baastalk: new 21:50, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
[edit] Sheldrake article
Thank you for your information about Rupert Sheldrake. It is good to have independent corroboration of Sheldrake's Christian credentials, and I have now restored the link to the category "Christian Scientists". ACEO 11:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dean Radin
Hello Sdaconsulting, It is a cognitive distortion to view criticism as an attack. Things are not black and white there are grays. There is no reason to hide Radin's PSI and the Casino, research. What kind of science is that? User:Kazuba 17 Oct 2006.
==Hello Again== How can such unusual research such as PSI in the Casino be irrevelant, especially when it is Radin's own research? I' m not ranting. I am only suppying information. I do not think it should be over looked. If you do not like the way this was written, I'm only a grunt. Make it prettier, don't delete it. Many years ago parapsychologists were trying to use mind PK to influence the direction in which cockroaches would travel. Do you think that too would be irrevelant? What if you, or an elderly loved one, are supplying the funding for these studies? Wouldn't you want to know how your money is being spent? Someone is paying the bill.User:Kazuba 17 Oct 2006
```See Spoon bending and especially the photos and videos in external links. Fork-you.com is the coolest one. (Personally, just the thought of a critical scientist proving PK by the bending a spoon is scraping the bottom of the barrel). User:Kazuba 19 Oct 2006
```Thought experiment...Look at this way. Imagine you are the president of a university. Madonna writes a will giving you the decision of funding $5,000,000 of her money to only spoon bending research or medical research. Madonna croaks. Now which one do you chose? Are you prepared to make the choice? This is what it really comes down to. Again it is dollars and cents. It's your call. User:Kazuba 20 Oct 2006
[edit] criticism
I read through almost half of Cole's article that you posted. That thing is garbage for several reasons (not just the spelling errors), but I'm not writing you to pick through it bit by bit. I wanted to mention two things: 1) the Baha'i review process and the absence of electioneering are principles laid down by Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha. The House of Justice might remove the review requirement in the future, but until they do it is part of the Baha'i Faith. A criticism of these practices is a criticism of the Baha'i Faith and of `Abdu'l-Baha, not of the current administration. Cole has never understood this, and that is exactly why he was declared not a Baha'i. 2) The removal of administrative rights is clearly discouraged by Shoghi Effendi and only to be used in cases of "public scandal" and only in "very flagrant cases" (Lights of Guidance, p. 52, #185, pp. 368-369, #1230) That an assembly pried into your private life to snoop around to ensure that you were acting correctly is strictly against the Baha'i principles that they are to abide by. But once again, chastity outside of marriage is a Baha'i principle, and living together before marriage is clearly among things that are discouraged. A criticism of the principle is a criticism of the Baha'i Faith. A criticism of an assembly unfairly removing your administrative rights is a criticism of those individuals and reflects their lack of knowledge about Baha'i administration, but it is not a criticism of Baha'i principles. Cuñado 
- Talk 01:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
