User talk:Rossnixon/Archive 3

793:

JEPD existed as complete texts before the redactors existed, whereas he's saying (I think) that the redactor (in abt. 560 BC) had access to early texts, (including the law codes), but that these were not JEPD. To my mind both arguments have strengths and weaknesses. The DH can explain why the stories in Genesis get repeated so often - 2 Creation stories, 2 genealogies, 2 Arks (but only one Tower of Babel), but because it puts the composition of JEP so early - prior to the Babylonian exile - it can't explain why these stories have such strong parallels with Mesopotamian myth. The minimalists can explain the Mesopotamian connection, but by putting the composition so late (560 BC) they can't explain why there are so many coded references to much earlier events (e.g., the prophesy that Esau will break the yoke of Jacob, which the DH interprets as a record of Edom/Esau's successful revolt from Judah in about 800 BC). The Mosaic authorship theory in turn, asks us to believe in Divine authorship, which then brings up some awkward questions about the nature of this divinity, who seems frequently to be cruel and capricious - too many exhortations to kill children for my taste. Still, it's all interesting, and I try to keep an open mind.

1090:

falsely claim Closed P.B. are same group as Exclusive Brethren or Taylorites. Because you are a New Zealander, -by the way an University in your beautiful homeland had a Venezuelan Rector/President-, you must to know by first hand this is simply untruth. New Zealand had many Open, Closed P.B. congregations, and Exclusives are important as a religious (and in lesser grade as a political one also), group there. http:www.cultwatch.org is a ministry by baptists and presbyterians evangelizing to Exclusives. My mother is a Closed Plymouth Brethren, her group NEVER talk on Taylor or teach any doctrine linked to him. I work as columnist/colaborator for a Spanish Closed Brethren Magazine, Gethsemaní, led by Joan Soler i Rius. I have tried to fix it, but many users delete my work, my references to sources and links proving this. I think there are political reasons behind it, because Exclusives- nowithstanding any heresy a Christian can find in them- are supporters and endorsing right-wing politicians and candidates. This situation ofuscate and irritate so much to comunists, that these people tries to create guilt by association on Closed Brethren. Help me with the article please.

1104:

me a "Go study the US court system" response when I asked him about this on the talk page, and I have a feeling there's actually an increadibly easy answer to this question that nobody really wants to tell me. So far, nobody is actually told me why i'm wrong, and i've been getting a feeling that there's some unspoken idea that the Kitzmiller case actually makes teaching Intelligent Design in public schools as an idea on equal footing with evolution illegal in the entire U.S., instead of just the Pennsylvania Middle District, and i'd really like to get to the bottom of this without having to waste the next few days studying the entire U.S. Court System. (The Knowledge (XXG) articles don't seem to have an explanation on where these District Court rulings can apply)

1895:

assertion of causation is "a leap beyond inference". Or Jasen's lengthy historical overview of how Brind is more interested in using ABC as a tactic of his pro-life agenda than he is in actual legitimate science. These are peer-reviewed sources. I'm sorry but I don't think there is a word more suitable than "rejected". It's documented with reliable sources: Jasen, Mooney, Weed and Kramer, the House Committee on Oversight and Governmental Reform, the ACOG, the RCOG, Netherlands Cancer Institute, NCI (US), ACS, the list goes on and on. I'm afraid a few acknowledged pro-life activists don't carry enough weight to warrant subverting documented rejection. I'd like to ask you to stop changing the wording on the associated pages. Thank you.

858:, I was just wondering why you keep removing and reassigning PB members who may have done naughty things - specifically, Adams and Haigh? You give no reasons the latter especially, despite the fact I have multipple sources that state he was PB. You also failed to give a reason for putting back the 'notorious' section and including Adams there. Please give reasons for this - so others can check you are not just acting on a biased whim - which I suspect you are. Why separate 'notorious' people at all? Why are they not just normal members? Laughably, you say there are no 'members' - well all the other contributers to the page are happy with the term - are you suggesting changing it completely or was that just a lapse on your part? 1325:. It's part of a series or group of articles about the Exodus stations. Someone has been going through the whole set replacing them with what he believes to be the truth about the Exodus, which is that it's a historical memory of ancient Egyptian trading routes (or at least I think that's the idea). And so we now have no mention of Moses leading the Israelitesn across the Red Sea, or even through a Sea of Reeds, because he believes they went by boat. And I think Mt Sinai is now located in Jordan. I just don't have the energy to try to keep it on-topic, but you're welcome to try if you think it worthwhile. 376:

they had adopted. The answer was invariably "none." It is hypocritical to urge the banning of abortion without any plan or effort to deal with the consequences. I was pointing out that responsible action to prevent abortion places an onus on the activist to make some plan to deal with the pregnancy and birth. Good medical care should be provided, some kind of financial and perhaps counseling aid for the new mother, and sometimes they try to trace the father and make him help support the baby (a low-yielding effort, however).

1188:. Is this really a sensible category at all? (I have no strong feelings on the subject of whether NA should be ni the cat, and in fact if there were a dozen or so articles in it I'd support the inclusion, but a cat with just two articles, one of them simply the name of the category, seems a bit artificial to me). I put this in your personal page because I don't want to start yet another interminable, pointless discussion on the NA talk page. Cheers, P. 1956: 31: 1869:. I appreciate your efforts. Here's the thing about your suggestion of "fringe"; it basically means "rejected". I think "rejected" is more neutral than "fringe" mostly because for a short period of time there was some question of there being a correlation. But as methodology advanced, the science clearly refuted a correlation (and therefore a causal relationship) between abortion and breast cancer. What are your thoughts on this? 1635: 650:. I would suggest that you don't make an another revert to your edit. It's in the discussion page, everyone is discussing it. If there is consensus, which there is not, I will agree to your changes. But right now, you are on a one-man (or woman) revert war, and I won't personally participate. Let's come to a consensus, which is much more acceptable to the community. 1561:

Calvinist church, they teach Covenant Theology, which is really 'Replacement Theology'. They may also be Amillennial in their outlook. I'm going to change some of the wording back to 'some christians' as, let's face it, if you're Dispensational in your thought, then you have to see a creeping Apostasy, as do I here in the States.--

1792:...a brief story about the great god El becoming drunk at a feast and having to be carried home by his sons. This atypical myth is followed by a prose recipe for alcoholic collapse that features the first known connection between drunkenness and the "hair of the dog": "What is to be put on his forehead: hairs of a dog. 1787:

Ross, I thought I'd share with you this very strange story that I came across. It comcerns the god El getting drunk and having to be carried home by his sons - shades of Noah! Even more interesting is how El deals with the morning after. Here's the account of the tale from the archaeologist in charge

866:

raised as PB - and others included in the list also fall under this category. Basically Ross, you are adding and removing based on PB propoganda criteria - anything that is good for PB stays, all else is whitewashed. This site is for those who want to find out info with a NPOV - please try to respect

792:

I'm not sure he means it was all written "de novo" in 560 BC - I think his meaning is that someone at that time took existing texts and stories and wove them into a single set of connected books running from Genesis to the end of 2 Kings. But it's not quite the same idea as the DH - the DH says that

737:

Hi, you recently deleted some info in the Abortion article about the POV of a footnoted pro-life source. I agree with you that the article should not have POV info about pro-life sources, without POV info about pro-choice sources. Both should be included, whene relevant. I've started a Request for

1512:

I realized you are a creationist so I just thought you might be interested in reading my rebuttal to talk origins on my myspace blog. /nothingwilldie . There doesn't seem to be many creationists around here, yet you seem to have been here a long time. I'm new to wikipedia, so sorry if I broke any

375:

Well, I think it is relevant. My wife and I adopted babies born out of wedlock, and so did some friends of ours. Sometimes when we encountered people with "Adopt, don't Abort" bumper stickers entering or leaving their cars in a parking lot, we'd say how nice that was and ask them how many children

222:

Had a thought abt the original Ark while in the bath: Creation was vegetarian from the beginning up till the animals got off the Ark, which means that Noah didn't have to worry about providing, e.g., mice for the 2 cats - which is just as well, as that would have broken the "only-2-of-each" rule. On

157:

the difference between "literal" and "historical-grammatical". A person who is a "literalist" does not believe that Jesus is a door when he said "I am the door". A literalist *does* look at context. A literalist looks at the "plain meaning" of the text; the meaning which is obvious. I would describe

1287:

To expand on what Filll said, the reason peer review works like it does is that often the peers hold contrary views to those of the scientist who wrote the paper (or at the very least are neutral about it). This guarantees that the paper will be held up to a very high standard. What's being done in

1103:

article page that there's a dispute at all about the current, well, dispute i'm in on the Creationism talk page, and I was wondering, do federal District Courts have authority to have their rulings apply throughout the entire United States, instead of just inside their districts? Jim62sch just gave

898:

Re: who should be included, surely the main point is that someone was a PB for a significant portion of their life. Adams and Haigh both qualify. As for Crowley, the information would be of interest to casual readers and can be qualified with a short comment. How can more information be bad (and it

363:

Please try to discuss content, instead of making personal attacks. I don't care if Ross Nixon is Pro-choice or Pro-life, and I am not going to attack his personal life, or question his motivations or personal behavior outside of wikipedia. Your comment is not helpful, and has nothing to do with the

111:

I can protect pages, but in the case of Jesus I was not the one who initially protected it. Someone else did, with a low level of protection. Still, a POV warrior went against consensus and reverted a sensible revert. So I upped the level of protection. Then the internet place I was at (I am in

334:

article. And I noticed that you also were reverted for a claimed NPOV violation. I agree completely with the revert, and am contacting you personally in case you would like to discuss this further. Hopefully this was just a lapse of judgement. If not, feel free to contact me, or start a discussion

237:

The cats (and all other animals) would have been fed vegetable-based food on the ark. I don't discount that Noah could have had supplies of dried-meat as well. There is no problems feeding vegetables to cats, as lions were fed vegetables in London Zoo during WWII when there was a shortage of meat.

1089:

Hello Brother Rossnixon: I´m an Evangelical Baptist from Venezuela, a country in South America, ruled by Dictator Hugo Chávez, a darling from dogmatic communists you fight against; but this time I want to tell you on another completly different issue: An Article in wikipedia on Plymouth Brethren

706:

The article is about Answers in Genesis. What you are including is discussion of a "news" item. An encyclopedia is not a newspaper or magazine. It is fine to mention the controversy, with a link - but the details should not be extensively quoted. That's my opinion, you may want to see what others

339:. Here's a little hint, baby and fetus are only synonymous to a certain POV, kill is very POV, and your version ignores the 'choice' aspect, where the pro-choice movement supports a woman's right to terminate or carry to term (at least on paper), thus making 'control' a much more accurate word.-- 1011:

The statement is not a proclamation of the "Jews not being special to God", as you have mistakenly presumed. By projecting your own meaning onto it you have taken the original statement out of it's immediate context, rephrased it, and transformed it into an inflammatory statement that verges on

1560:

First off, I see that you, as I, am a christian. I would have to say, however, living in the United States and having had dealings with Calvinists (see Dave Hunt's Book listed on my userpage) that it would be better to say 'Some' which I had originally put in. I have found that at least at one

610:

Hi, I see you have posted to Rapture. If you are interested in this article you may wish to help with providing sources and citations where possible and helping delete original or uncited research where citations cant be found. See "Original research not for Knowledge (XXG)" for more specific

540:

Ross, I'm willing to let your deletion of that phrase (in the ark-search section of Naoh's Ark) stand, but you might be interested thast I lifted it almost word-for-word from the ICR site which is quoted in the section - it's their phrase, not mine! (Well, ok, the attention-sekers bit is their

349:

I hope the revert holds. Is this Ross Nixon going to help finance, educate, and provide health care for any of the "babies" he wants to cause to be born? If the mothers are unmarried, can he help them find husbands (if they want a husband, but maybe Ross Nixon does not care about that point.)

142:

in order to be understood correctly whenever there is no clear reason for any other reading." When I click the link to 'historical-grammatical method' I find that what's described is not what I understand as a literal interpretation of the Bible - one based on the idea that God's word does not

1894:

You're welcome. Just because a theory has been rejected doesn't keep people from believing it. "Rejected" in the context of the article means that no reputable scientist or reputable cancer/gynecological organization accepts the theory. Please read Weed and Kramer's discussion of how Brind's

692:(I’m the i.p. address 82.47.208.4. I wasn’t logged in at the time) Why is the quote from the book “irrelevant” to that section of the article? It explains exactly what happened! Plus its Dawkins own testimony. If it is too long, than can it be reduced in size, leaving only the vital details? 625:

OrangeMarlin and Rossnixon. I would like the two of your to file a RfC (Request for Comment) over your ongoing mini revert war. explains what is necessary. This article need work done on it. The revert war is draining scare resources. My guess is that a RfC will lead to a quick resolution.

1224:

I think all of the file formats are listed now. I'll have to move over the MIME types tomorrow, if they aren't done by then. All the other information from the table would have to be added from individual research on each file format, as that information does not appear in the old table.

522:

page. The article contains some good information, and represents an unobtrusive way to present notable minority viewpoints about dinosaurs that cannot reasonably be elaborated on in the parent article. It shouldn't be deleted simply because the viewpoints it presents aren't "scientific."

1243:

This article is an excellent, fair and balanced overview of the DH, as put forward by Wellhausen, plus an examination of what went before Wellenhausen. Naturally I don't agre with his subsequent critique of the DH, but it's a very good article and I could recommend it to anyone. Cheers,

137:

article, I find this sentence at the top of the section on literal interpretations of the story: "Many Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians are believers in Biblical inerrancy, the concept that the Bible, as the word of God, is without error, but must be interpreted using the

695:

I take it, that from your other messages here, that you’re a proponent of creationism? (And probably not a big fan of Dawkins too!) I think that its only fair to leave that quote in that explains exactly what happens with no pov bias (since it comes straight from Dawkins himself)

143:

deceive, and that texts should be taken literally unless some other meaning (poetic, allegoric, etc) is clearly intended. You're far more able than me to judge - would you like to take a look at the sentence and see if this erference to historical-grammatical is justified? Thanks

469:

but continue to add the article into cat:causes of death. Please take part in the discussion and don't revert other's edits repeatedly. Edit warring just fills the article's history with reversions and never establishes a consensus. To make it worse, people could get blocked for

1206:, since no-one else seemed willing to do it. I'd be grateful if you could look at it from your perspective and make any changes or suggestions for change that you think are needed. One aspect I haven't looked at is modern scholars who hold to the MA tradition - I believe 541:

phrase; "mythomane is a word I've ben fond of since I first heard from a Frenchman, and I was thinking of Ron Wyatt - it means someone who makes up his own story, no matter how far it might be at varience from reality, and then quite honestly believes it - that's Ron).

1400:, and he adds an extra, final Chapter (not an Appendix as some inaccurately say); in fact, it's his Chapter XII (12); the material is to short for a regular hardbound book, although it can, and did, get subsequently published, with a preface and/or introduction, in 674:

Not to get into an argument with you, but twice. Others reverted your edit, and no one, but you, reverted those. That kind of indicates there is a lack of consensus to your position. That's kind of small with respect to the huge changes you just made.

112:

Ecuador doing fieldwork) blacked out so I coudln{t change the tag of the protection. I generally do not like to see any page protected but once more than one person starts imposing a non-consensus view, I generally think people need some time to discuss.

1000:

was made to clarify and accurately state the essential core of this theology, and also to provide additional contrast to dispensationalism in a very straightforward and concise manner, which is something that was not present in the original article.

1452:, which is a complex literary compilation over a spread of years. But unlike the bible, we do not much more precisely when the various literary events occurred. And certainly, all three years above are significant, and must be included. The editor, 1650:

prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the

777:

written in circa 560BC. This does not explain the "books of the law" that are mentioned by previous generations going back to David (circa 1000 BC). The "unified theme" and coherence referred to could be due to inspiration of the writers by God.

1254:

From that article, "This critique has been, of necessity, brief." YEAH RIGHT! (I'm a slow reader, seems long to me). I'll agree with the C. S. Lewis quote, "They claim to see fern-seed and can't see a elephant ten yards away in broad daylight."

1535:

Most fundamentalist Christians anticipate that biblical prophecy will be fulfilled literally. They see current world and regional wars, earthquakes, hurricanes and famines as the beginning of the birth pains which Jesus described in Matthew

881:

I am happy for any notorious characters to be included - but only if they were practicing PBs at the time that they achieved their notoriety (otherwise it is misleading to the casual reader). Question: Is Richard Dawkins a notable Anglican?

398:-do you have some other source that backs this up? (I'm wondering because this isn't a solution I've heard before and the older translations I've glanced at such as the Vulgatus don't seem to be very consistent with this translation). 1288:

this case involves papers being sent only to people who hold the same conclusion as the authors, so they're likely to let it pass even if the science is sloppy. They may call it "peer review," but that doesn't make it such. --

594:, however, to account for a fair amount of the diversity seen in today’s cat populations since the creation." This would equate to the "Family" level. I had seen previous quotes mentioning speciation to the "genus" level. 419:

To be blunt it doesn't look very academic to me, it looks like a standard apologetic blog. I don't have the time but I'd tentatively suggest looking up one of the sources that the blogger cites and citing that instead.

408:

I was hesitant because it was a blog, but included it due to the apparent academic flavour of most of the posts, and the fact that many sources were given that apparently were favourable to this "variant translation".

519: 1884:"Rejected" implies no one believes it. One definition of "fringe" is "A social group holding marginal or extreme views". If you still disagree with fringe, I think we should look for another word again. Thanks. 893:

Hi. To be honest, your comments and edits are all made to the benefit of the PB and involve hiding bad PR. You also ignore editing 'harmless' people like Keillor. So all in all, it does seem like you have an

1751:

Well, from my experience, this may be true. If you check out www.RaptureReady.com, you may find articles dealing with same; also try www.thebereancall.org (NOT the DOT COM as this is a completely different

1098:

You seem to be more involved with Creationism related pages than I am, and I was wondering if you could answer a question I have about the Kitzmiller case. Jim62sch won't allow me to even indicate on the

1075:, a free interactive wiki using the same software as Knowledge (XXG). Anyone interested in genealogy should have at least a brief look at that. In some areas it is ahead of Knowledge (XXG) in its detail. 1210:

does, and there are certainly less famous people who do, but I'm handicapped by a lack of knowledge of who's who in that area. If you could look into that it would be valuable). Thanks in advance

1071:

I have recollections of correspondence with one Ross Nixon, genealogist, New Zealander, whose wife has some ancestors in common with me. A few of those common ancestors now have their own pages on

266:"Religous" jumped out at me as an error while I was reading the article. I just wish more people used a browser/editor with real-time spell-checking, then fewer misspellings would be entered. 590:

You may have heard that lion/tiger/lion/leopard/jaguar/leopard can interbreed. And sometimes the offspring are fertile. A creationist quote: "There is enough genetic variability within the

1677:

I've added an edit summary and also a note to the talk page. If my understanding of Knowledge (XXG) guidelines is incorrect regarding vandalism of talk pages, please advise me, thanks.

1352:

Rossnixon (Talk | contribs) (83,602 bytes) (rv, It can't be a 1920 and 1905 book. And it apparently appeared in 1903 which makes both categories wrong, anyone know better?

915: 1040:

I apologise for my edit. I have just realised that you were talking about supersessionism. I had read this too quickly and assumed it was meant to be a dispensationalist view.

630:

03:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Good to see the two of you communicating - I suggeszt that in future you both limit yourselves to 1 revert and then discuss or request comment.

1490:

You are the expert Ludvikus. Put what you think is best. I will not revert you. Obviously all those dates belong in the article, I'm just not sure how the categories work.

93:

was changed from semi to full; however, the semi-protected tag was not changed to fully protected. I merely corrected the tag. I did not change the protection level. —

1773:

are singularly unhelpful. Please comment on the material without flinging accusations at other editors. (For the record, I am by no means a "climate alarmist.")

756:

Ross, you might be interested in this website, which seems (I'm no expert, so only seems) to give a good overview of contemporary scholarly battles over the DH:

902:

Finally, the word 'member' is used by all contributors to the page, and it is used in its least official connotation - ie. that someone subscribed to a belief.

580:

Interested in your comment re speciation. To what level to creationists believe that speciation is possible? To genus, family, or order level? just curious --

1820:. Now I don't know if you're dispensational in your thinking (I am) but this page is very poorly put together and confusing in my opinion. Have a look-see.-- 453:. If you would respond to what I've written there, I'd appreciate it. I won't add or remove the article from the category until we discuss it. Thanks!-- 1008:

is, and therefore should stay, regardless of what your own personal point of view is, or what your own personal agendas or misconceptions may be.

1706:

on the talk page (i.e., why the material is constructive and appropriate for a talk page discussion) after your impending block is lifted. —

1618: 1846:

Okay. I'll just go back over my booklist and, if you're interested, take a look at my userpage, which has a book listing on the bottom.--

647: 511: 504: 1114:

Sorry but as a New Zealander who has never studied the US court system... I don't think I can help. I only know of one US lawyer, see

822:

Please stop disruptively inserting POV-loaded sentences into the GW lede, especially after the talk page discussion covered this. --

558:

You are invited to Auckland Meetup 2 on the afternoon of Saturday February 10th 2007 at Galbraith's Ale House in Mt Eden. Please see

1866: 1307:

now accepted as genuine by everyone - the article misrepresents the current state of play in the "Criticisms" section, to my mind.

832:

If you mean the "59%" quote, quotes are not POV... and as I stated, I put this in before seeing that it had already been discussed.

507:. The article has recently been nominated for deletion from Knowledge (XXG), and there is considerable support for that position. 1277:. That is having a few of your like minded friends proofread it for you. If you want this, make a case on the talk page. Thanks.-- 1027: 503:

Hello, I'm leaving you this message because I notice you've made at least one significant edit to the Knowledge (XXG) article

1659:

from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a

1652: 1647: 559: 551: 1989: 1984: 139: 64: 59: 1656: 563: 330:

I noticed you changed the text "a woman's right to control her pregnancy" to "a woman's right to kill her baby" at the

1919:

One of the articles I started needs a bit more material to flesh it out to keep it. I would welcome your assistance.--

285:

A few websites require IE (e.g. Windows/Microsoft Update). For these, I use an add-on "IE Tab" which renders the page

1963: 1817: 723:

Ross, I'm sure no offense was meant, but I would appreciate it if you did not make personal remarks directed at me.

38: 223:

the other hand, it raises the interesting question of just what the cats did eat? An idle thought. All the best.

814: 697: 1934: 1851: 1825: 1614: 660:

And how many times did you revert my edit? At least I had a "ref". But what do you think of linking "kinds" to

1129: 1055: 1031: 945: 186: 1606: 1322: 158:

the "historical-grammatical" method as the literalist method plus scholarly research and conjecture (i.e.

117: 1699: 1660: 162:

they go too far with their imaginations, reinterpreting the Bible to fit with other so-called evidence).

989:

to clarify this issue, my addition should stay, regardless of what your own personal preference may be.

1913: 1639: 1603:

Thanks for the 'learn'. YOUR COMMENT: (rv to MurderWatcher1 - The Tanach was qritten without vowels)

1321:

Ross, if you're interested and don't fear getting into what might turn into a quagmire, have a look at

1537: 1181: 1076: 743: 581: 336: 1972: 1900: 1887: 1874: 1847: 1838: 1821: 1774: 1753: 1680: 1610: 1590: 1562: 1493: 1258: 1152: 1120: 1043: 885: 835: 781: 710: 667: 597: 490: 432: 412: 377: 351: 304: 292: 269: 241: 165: 47: 17: 877:

I'm trying to be neutral. Re "membership" - there is no joining/signing/paperwork/membership-list.

1865:

Hi, Rossnixon. I'd like to take the time to thank you for offering compromises on the wording of

1796:

I find this most impressive: hair of a dog has an ancestry stretching back to Bronze Age Ugarit!

1541: 1371: 1226: 862:

Finally, whether Crowley reacted or not... bla, bla, bla... to his PB upbringing, the fact is he

478: 457: 243: 233:

Well, Noah was vegetarian. But I believe the animals became omnivorous shortly after "the fall".

227: 1742: 1360: 1203: 1164: 1140: 970: 959: 949: 931: 848: 844: 676: 651: 202: 113: 98: 1702:

doesn't apply in this case. If you want to restore the material, don't edit war, but discuss

1800: 1733:

Dispensationalists tend to be energetically evangelistic, with special interest in the Jews

1643: 1514: 1420: 1409: 1379: 1267: 1687: 911: 759: 640: 471: 1942: 1924: 1549: 1397: 1375: 1207: 1105: 1005: 997: 567: 331: 147: 395: 1896: 1885: 1870: 1836: 1763: 1678: 1588: 1545: 1491: 1453: 1289: 1256: 1150: 1118: 1041: 1020: 883: 856: 833: 779: 708: 665: 631: 627: 612: 595: 527: 488: 430: 410: 302: 290: 267: 239: 163: 1634: 1738: 1482: 1304: 922: 916:

Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 27#Category:Mythological ships

868: 823: 475: 466: 454: 450: 365: 340: 201:

Sorry about that, you're quite right. I forgot that there are two separate articles.

1946: 1928: 1904: 1889: 1878: 1855: 1840: 1829: 1806: 1777: 1756: 1714: 1682: 1671: 1622: 1592: 1565: 1517: 1495: 1485: 1448:(2) Accordingly, this is not a neat, single book event. In fact, it's more like the 1329: 1311: 1292: 1281: 1260: 1248: 1229: 1214: 1192: 1167: 1154: 1143: 1122: 1108: 1079: 1058: 1045: 1034: 952: 934: 925: 887: 871: 837: 826: 817: 797: 783: 767: 746: 727: 712: 700: 679: 669: 654: 634: 615: 599: 584: 570: 545: 530: 492: 481: 460: 449:

I disagree with including the article in that category. I've outlined my reasons at

434: 424: 414: 402: 380: 368: 354: 343: 315: 306: 294: 280: 271: 260: 209: 180: 176:

So I take it you're happy with that sentence? Ok, I'll leave it alone then. Thanks.

167: 120: 101: 1553: 1424: 661: 421: 399: 312: 277: 257: 94: 1185: 910:

Hi! I've transferred your proposal to delete this category to the correct forum,

134: 1971:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1478: 1419:

this matter gets translated in all the major languages of the world; and in the

1389: 1274: 1100: 1015:

Your dispute in this case is effectively baseless, unfounded, and illegitimate.

724: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1745:, but accepted by Hebrew Christians who are often confused with Messianic Jews. 1115: 1004:

The addition that I made is an accurate encapsulation of what the very core of

773:

Thanks. The main problem with the interpretation is the suggestion that it was

1938: 1920: 1708: 1665: 1428: 1278: 1180:

Ross, about NA and this cat: there are exactly two articles in it, one called

974: 646:

You have now made the same revert to an edit over three times in the article

1803: 1464: 1440: 1326: 1308: 1245: 1211: 1189: 982: 794: 764: 542: 224: 177: 144: 487:

Have joined the discussion already; and I only reverted the category once.

301:

Ah, to clarify; the spellchecking is in "forms", not with normal viewing.

1528: 1432: 1401: 1149:

Thanks. Most of my edits are reasonably good. Some of yours are too! ;-)

986: 978: 969:

My addition to the first section was made to rectify the inference that

187:

http://michaelpahl.blogspot.com/2006/06/meeting-god-in-crowded-room.html

1436: 1405: 1527:

I'm disputing some of the wording in this paragraph, contained on the

993:

Regarding your comment; "Dispute that Jews are not special to God. "

1835:

I don't think I know enough about it to do any major edits, sorry.

1449: 499:

Help Prevent Article Deletion: Religious Perspectives on Dinosaurs

465:

Rossnixon, you haven't participated in any of the conversation at

90: 1579:. As far as I know, Calvinists are a smaller grouping than other 1303:

Hi Ross. Of course you're always welcome to comment. I think the

1240: 1026:

You have violated the procedures and guidelines set forth in the

1019:

You have violated the procedures and guidelines set forth in the

510:

I'm hoping you'll help me support the continued existence of the

1472: 1468: 1457: 1416: 1393: 1386: 1367: 1363:

is not A BOOK. It's more like a Literary Event over time/years.

1343: 1339: 1335: 1583:, most of whom accept a plain interpretation of the Bible. The 739: 1950: 25: 1475:, I've not put these dates in as book publication categories. 1072: 1698:(even if you weren't completely wrong about the guideline). 1085:

closed plymouth brethren are no exclusive plymouth brethren

1030:

article. Please review this article for future reference.

1023:

article. Please review this article for future reference.

1587:

became evident since around the times of Charles Darwin.

1460:, is simply mistaken, and we must REVERT his REVERSION. 1012:

anti-semitic; expanding it out to a place not intended.

948:. Help or comment on this concern would be appreciated. 760:

http://www.bibleorigins.net/oneauthorprimaryhistory.html

1770: 1136: 811: 392: 254: 219:

Thanks for the link to the NZ site - it made me smile.

1117:

If you can't find his email address, email me for it.

621:

Religous Perspectives on Dinosaurs: Kinds disagreement

985:. Unless you or someone else can come up with better 1788:

of translating the tablet, which comes from Ugarit:

1423:it takes at and by this time, all three forms: (i) 966:Regarding your comment; "prev version was better." 606:

Rapture; help with uncited and/or original research

1139:. And it reads a lot better too!!!!! Good job. 1239:Hi Ross. I wonder if you're aware of this site - 944:Hello - I've commented on your recent revert in 813:is essentially vandalism - please don't do it 1741:". Dispensationalist beliefs are rejected by 8: 1456:, who insists on picking the earliest date, 1349:A revert has occurred yesterday as follows: 256:what does Firefox have to do with anything? 1544:. They believe that mankind started in the 1135:Thanks. I appreciate your compromise with 445:addition of causes of death cat to abortion 1642:according to the reverts you have made on 1638:You currently appear to be engaged in an 451:Talk:Abortion#Category:Causes_of_death.3F 921:Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. -- 914:. The discussion has been transfered to 733:Your recent edit at the Abortion article 1783:Noah, the god El, and a hair of the dog 918:. Here's the standard notice and link: 688:Answers in Genesis – A Devil’s Chaplain 566:to be informed of future NZ meetups. - 474:violations. Please join the dialogue.-- 1969:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1356:In fact, the situation is as follows: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 7: 1006:supersessionism/replacement theology 998:supersessionism/replacement theology 867:them and the integrity of the site. 394:Blogs are not generally regarded as 89:The protection level of the article 664:. I think it's a helpful solution. 648:Religious perspectives on dinosaurs 562:for details. You can also bookmark 512:Religious perspectives on dinosaurs 505:Religious perspectives on dinosaurs 276:Really? Hmm, I'll have to upgrade. 153:The historical-grammatical article 1816:I'd like you opinion on the above 1392:publishes a Second Edition of his 1028:Knowledge (XXG):Resolving disputes 940:"Everlasting conscious punishment" 24: 1867:Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis 1202:Ross, I've written an article on 752:Documentary Hypothesis and beyond 560:Knowledge (XXG):Meetup/Auckland 2 1954: 1633: 1463:Since the text was published in 536:Attention-seekers and mythomanes 29: 1812:Dispensationalist theology page 1408:form; the whole book is in the 1370:article(s) is/are published in 564:Knowledge (XXG):Meetup/Auckland 185:Here's a good blog about this, 85:Re: Jesus - sprotect or protect 80:Archive 2 (Sep 2006 - Dec 2007) 1799:The site where I read this is 1655:. If you continue, you may be 1552:as the place that the current 1518:01:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 1496:02:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 1486:14:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 1235:Conservative answers to the DH 181:08:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC) 168:02:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC) 148:04:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC) 1: 1947:13:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC) 1929:13:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC) 1807:01:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 531:03:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 493:04:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC) 482:04:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC) 461:10:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 435:08:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 425:03:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 415:00:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 403:01:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 316:05:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC) 307:05:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC) 295:05:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC) 281:04:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC) 272:04:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC) 261:03:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC) 140:historical-grammatical method 121:23:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 102:09:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 1905:03:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 1890:01:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 1879:01:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 1856:17:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 1841:01:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 1830:22:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 1778:01:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1757:20:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 1715:01:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 1683:01:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 1672:01:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 1623:20:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 742:, in case you're interested. 728:09:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 713:00:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 701:01:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC) 680:02:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC) 670:01:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC) 655:17:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 635:03:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC) 381:09:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC) 369:15:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC) 355:07:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC) 344:01:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC) 244:00:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 228:07:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC) 210:09:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 1593:01:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 1566:16:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC) 1330:04:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC) 1312:05:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC) 1299:Doc Hyp & Tel Dan stele 1293:23:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 1282:23:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 1261:01:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC) 1241:Alpha and Omega Ministries. 1184:(figures), and the other is 906:Category:Mythological ships 616:03:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 600:08:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 585:02:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 571:06:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC) 546:14:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC) 2015: 1818:Dispensationalist theology 1249:09:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 1230:03:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 958:Your recent revert of the 827:11:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 818:11:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC) 798:04:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 784:03:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 768:05:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 747:02:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC) 1215:04:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1193:05:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC) 1168:02:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC) 1155:02:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC) 1144:01:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC) 1123:01:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC) 1109:02:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 1059:07:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC) 1046:07:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC) 514:article by registering a 214: 1935:Walt Brown (creationist) 1080:12:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC) 1054:Apology humbly accepted. 1035:11:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC) 953:13:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC) 935:19:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC) 888:02:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 872:10:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 1130:Young Earth creationism 946:Talk:Answers in Genesis 926:17:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 838:01:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 554:Scheduled - Feb 10 2007 387:Use of blog as a source 1558: 1323:Passage of the Red Sea 1317:Passage of the Red Sea 996:My addition regarding 518:vote on the article's 311:Thanks for the input. 1967:of past discussions. 1762:Your recent edits on 1533: 1163:LOL. I think?????? 42:of past discussions. 1094:A question, if I may 815:William M. Connolley 698:Simpsons contributor 520:request for deletion 364:disputed content. -- 337:Talk:Abortion debate 1073:the Genealogy Wikia 738:Comments about it, 128: 18:User talk:Rossnixon 1663:among editors. — 1372:Znamya (newspaper) 1273:Sorry that is not 289:Firefox using IE. 2002: 2001: 1979: 1978: 1973:current talk page 1914:Christian Answers 1743:Messianic Judaism 1727:Your comment to: 1723:Messianic Judaism 1694:, which trumps a 1653:three-revert rule 1648:three-revert rule 1625: 1609:comment added by 1585:creeping apostasy 1523:The End Time Page 1374:- "related name" 1361:Protocols of Zion 1204:Mosaic authorship 1198:Mosaic authorship 1056:WikiMasterCreator 1032:WikiMasterCreator 971:Dispensationalism 960:Dispensationalism 849:John Bodkin Adams 845:Plymouth Brethren 552:Auckland Meetup 2 326:NPOV and abortion 100: 77: 76: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2006: 1998: 1981: 1980: 1958: 1957: 1951: 1737:they are "God's 1713: 1711: 1670: 1668: 1646:. Note that the 1644:Talk:Creationism 1637: 1604: 1599:RE: Your Comment 1421:English language 1410:Russian language 1380:Russian language 1268:Creation science 810:Stuff like this 719:Personal remarks 396:reliable sources 215:Noah's Ark again 207: 97: 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2014: 2013: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2005: 2004: 2003: 1994: 1955: 1917: 1863: 1814: 1785: 1767: 1725: 1709: 1707: 1666: 1664: 1631: 1601: 1581:fundamentalists 1571:I have changed 1548:, and point to 1525: 1510: 1398:Velikoe v malom 1376:Pavel Krushevan 1353: 1347: 1319: 1305:Tel Dan steleis 1301: 1271: 1237: 1222: 1208:Kenneth Kitchen 1200: 1182:24th Century BC 1178: 1133: 1096: 1087: 1077:Robin Patterson 1069: 964: 942: 908: 852: 808: 754: 735: 721: 690: 644: 623: 608: 582:Michael Johnson 578: 556: 538: 501: 447: 389: 332:Abortion debate 328: 251: 217: 203: 199: 131: 109: 87: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2012: 2010: 2000: 1999: 1992: 1987: 1977: 1976: 1959: 1916: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1862: 1859: 1848:MurderWatcher1 1844: 1843: 1822:MurderWatcher1 1813: 1810: 1784: 1781: 1775:Raymond Arritt 1766: 1764:Global warming 1760: 1754:MurderWatcher1 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1724: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1630: 1627: 1611:MurderWatcher1 1600: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1563:MurderWatcher1 1546:garden of Eden 1524: 1521: 1509: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1476: 1454:User:Rossnixon 1446: 1445: 1444: 1413: 1383: 1351: 1346: 1333: 1318: 1315: 1300: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1270: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1236: 1233: 1221: 1218: 1199: 1196: 1177: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1158: 1157: 1132: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1095: 1092: 1086: 1083: 1068: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1049: 1048: 1021:Help:Reverting 1018: 992: 963: 956: 941: 938: 907: 904: 899:is relevant)? 896: 895: 879: 878: 860: 859: 851: 842: 841: 840: 807: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 787: 786: 753: 750: 734: 731: 720: 717: 716: 715: 689: 686: 685: 684: 683: 682: 643: 638: 622: 619: 607: 604: 603: 602: 577: 574: 555: 549: 537: 534: 500: 497: 496: 495: 446: 443: 442: 441: 440: 439: 438: 437: 388: 385: 384: 383: 378:Carrionluggage 373: 372: 371: 358: 357: 352:Carrionluggage 327: 324: 323: 322: 321: 320: 319: 318: 299: 298: 297: 250: 247: 235: 234: 216: 213: 198: 197:Pastafarianism 195: 194: 193: 192: 191: 190: 189: 171: 170: 130: 127: 125: 108: 105: 86: 83: 75: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2011: 1997: 1993: 1991: 1988: 1986: 1983: 1982: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1965: 1960: 1953: 1952: 1949: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1931: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1915: 1912: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1888: 1886: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1860: 1858: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1842: 1839: 1837: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1811: 1809: 1808: 1805: 1802: 1797: 1794: 1793: 1789: 1782: 1780: 1779: 1776: 1772: 1765: 1761: 1759: 1758: 1755: 1744: 1740: 1739:chosen people 1736: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1722: 1716: 1712: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1681: 1679: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1669: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1636: 1628: 1626: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1598: 1594: 1591: 1589: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1564: 1557: 1556:will finish. 1555: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1532: 1530: 1522: 1520: 1519: 1516: 1507: 1497: 1494: 1492: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1484: 1480: 1477: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1461: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1388: 1384: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1364: 1362: 1358: 1357: 1355: 1354: 1350: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1334: 1332: 1331: 1328: 1324: 1316: 1314: 1313: 1310: 1306: 1298: 1294: 1291: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1280: 1276: 1269: 1266: 1262: 1259: 1257: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1247: 1242: 1234: 1232: 1231: 1228: 1227:ColdFusion650 1220:Image Formats 1219: 1217: 1216: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1197: 1195: 1194: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1175: 1169: 1166: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1156: 1153: 1151: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1142: 1138: 1131: 1128: 1124: 1121: 1119: 1116: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1107: 1102: 1093: 1091: 1084: 1082: 1081: 1078: 1074: 1066: 1060: 1057: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1047: 1044: 1042: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1033: 1029: 1024: 1022: 1016: 1013: 1009: 1007: 1002: 999: 994: 990: 988: 984: 980: 976: 972: 967: 961: 957: 955: 954: 951: 947: 939: 937: 936: 933: 928: 927: 924: 919: 917: 913: 905: 903: 900: 892: 891: 890: 889: 886: 884: 876: 875: 874: 873: 870: 865: 857: 854: 853: 850: 846: 843: 839: 836: 834: 831: 830: 829: 828: 825: 820: 819: 816: 812: 805: 799: 796: 791: 790: 789: 788: 785: 782: 780: 776: 772: 771: 770: 769: 766: 762: 761: 757: 751: 749: 748: 745: 741: 732: 730: 729: 726: 718: 714: 711: 709: 705: 704: 703: 702: 699: 693: 687: 681: 678: 673: 672: 671: 668: 666: 663: 659: 658: 657: 656: 653: 649: 642: 639: 637: 636: 633: 629: 620: 618: 617: 614: 611:information. 605: 601: 598: 596: 593: 589: 588: 587: 586: 583: 575: 573: 572: 569: 565: 561: 553: 550: 548: 547: 544: 535: 533: 532: 529: 524: 521: 517: 513: 508: 506: 498: 494: 491: 489: 486: 485: 484: 483: 480: 477: 473: 468: 467:Talk:Abortion 463: 462: 459: 456: 452: 444: 436: 433: 431: 428: 427: 426: 423: 418: 417: 416: 413: 411: 407: 406: 405: 404: 401: 397: 393: 386: 382: 379: 374: 370: 367: 362: 361: 360: 359: 356: 353: 348: 347: 346: 345: 342: 338: 333: 325: 317: 314: 310: 309: 308: 305: 303: 300: 296: 293: 291: 288: 284: 283: 282: 279: 275: 274: 273: 270: 268: 265: 264: 263: 262: 259: 255: 248: 246: 245: 242: 240: 232: 231: 230: 229: 226: 220: 212: 211: 208: 206: 196: 188: 184: 183: 182: 179: 175: 174: 173: 172: 169: 166: 164: 161: 156: 152: 151: 150: 149: 146: 141: 136: 133:Ross, in the 126: 123: 122: 119: 115: 106: 104: 103: 99: 96: 92: 84: 82: 81: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 1995: 1968: 1962: 1932: 1918: 1864: 1845: 1815: 1798: 1795: 1791: 1790: 1786: 1768: 1750: 1734: 1726: 1703: 1700:WP:VANDALISM 1695: 1691: 1632: 1629:October 2007 1602: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1559: 1554:world system 1534: 1526: 1511: 1439:, and (iii) 1425:journalistic 1348: 1320: 1302: 1272: 1238: 1223: 1201: 1179: 1176:24thC BC cat 1165:Orangemarlin 1141:Orangemarlin 1134: 1097: 1088: 1070: 1025: 1017: 1014: 1010: 1003: 995: 991: 968: 965: 950:One4OneWorld 943: 932:Shirahadasha 929: 920: 909: 901: 897: 880: 863: 861: 821: 809: 774: 763: 758: 755: 736: 722: 694: 691: 677:Orangemarlin 662:Baraminology 652:Orangemarlin 645: 624: 609: 591: 579: 557: 539: 525: 515: 509: 502: 464: 448: 390: 329: 286: 252: 236: 221: 218: 204: 200: 159: 154: 132: 124: 114:Slrubenstein 110: 88: 79: 78: 70: 43: 37: 1961:This is an 1933:Please see 1769:Edits like 1752:website).-- 1605:—Preceding 1515:EMSPhydeaux 1479:Yours truly 1390:Serge Nilus 1275:peer review 1101:Creationism 981:, which is 249:Firefox 2.0 155:exaggerates 36:This is an 1937:as well.-- 1465:newspapers 1429:newspapers 1412:of course. 1186:Noah's Ark 1106:Homestarmy 975:Protestant 744:Ferrylodge 576:Speciation 568:SimonLyall 391:Regarding 335:thread at 253:Regarding 135:Noah's Ark 129:Noah's Ark 1996:Archive 3 1990:Archive 2 1985:Archive 1 1897:Phyesalis 1871:Phyesalis 1696:guideline 1661:consensus 1540:and Mark 1441:hardcover 1359:(1) The 1290:Infophile 1137:this edit 1067:Genealogy 983:erroneous 894:agenda... 632:SmithBlue 628:SmithBlue 613:SmithBlue 528:Killdevil 160:sometimes 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 1640:edit war 1619:contribs 1607:unsigned 1575:back to 1529:End time 1508:Polonium 1483:Ludvikus 1433:pamphlet 1402:pamphlet 1342:, & 987:verbiage 979:theology 962:article. 930:Best, -- 923:Kbdank71 869:Malick78 824:Skyemoor 526:Thanks! 366:Andrew c 341:Andrew c 1964:archive 1735:because 1657:blocked 1550:Megiddo 1437:booklet 1431:, (ii) 1415:(c) In 1406:booklet 1385:(b) In 1378:in the 1366:(a) In 806:Warming 707:think. 592:Felidae 422:JoshuaZ 400:JoshuaZ 313:JoshuaZ 278:JoshuaZ 258:JoshuaZ 205:yandman 95:Wayward 39:archive 1692:policy 1688:WP:3RR 1538:24:7–8 1531:page: 1513:rules. 912:WP:CfD 725:Trishm 641:WP:3RR 476:Kchase 455:Kchase 429:Done. 287:inside 1939:Filll 1921:Filll 1801:here. 1710:DIEGO 1690:is a 1667:DIEGO 1450:Bible 1279:Filll 977:only 973:is a 107:Jesus 91:Jesus 16:< 1943:talk 1925:talk 1901:talk 1875:talk 1852:talk 1826:talk 1804:PiCo 1771:this 1615:talk 1577:most 1573:some 1542:13:8 1481:, -- 1473:1919 1471:and 1469:1903 1458:1903 1417:1920 1394:book 1387:1905 1368:1903 1344:1920 1340:1905 1336:1903 1327:PiCo 1309:PiCo 1246:PiCo 1212:PiCo 1190:PiCo 847:and 795:PiCo 765:PiCo 740:here 543:PiCo 516:keep 225:PiCo 178:PiCo 145:PiCo 118:Talk 1861:ABC 1704:why 1467:in 1404:or 864:was 855:Hi 775:all 472:3RR 116:| 1945:) 1927:) 1903:) 1877:) 1854:) 1828:) 1621:) 1617:• 1396:, 1338:, 1975:. 1941:( 1923:( 1899:( 1873:( 1850:( 1824:( 1613:( 1443:. 1435:/ 1427:/ 1382:. 479:T 458:T 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index