User talk:Jamesd1

[edit] thought

We would like perpetual renewal of life and vitality. We would like to feel that dawn is coming with a rush of new benevolent energy. We would be like to be in spirit like the best morning of our life. Today, I reiterate a bit of transpersonal semantics conducive to renewal:

A word is, or might be, sacred.

I do not fancy myself religious in any conventional sense, but there is a good idea in the religious of the world, that of "sacred word." I do not say it is in bibles or churches. But it might be in you. And if we were to meet, I would listen for it. You might not even know you spoke it, but I fancy that I would know.James 00:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Blanking one's talk page to remove criticsm is considered bad form at wikipedia. If it was more then a suggestion, Sethie would revert the changes back... as it is, so be it. Sethie 17:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the criticism; reversion not a big deal either way to me; I read your suggestion and it helped strengthen me in the direction I was already moving toward. My motive in erasing was to avoid stimulating further unnecessary conflict as some reader might waist energy over even so small a thing as your common sense advise.James 00:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No problemo... for example, kwork blanked his page and if he comes back I will revert some of it, because it was me specifically saying, please adhere to WP:CIVILITY. See you on the AAB page. Sethie 00:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] please check recent edit

Hi James, I reposted all of your edits on the Alice Bailey article and hope I didn't inadvertantly delete edits literally made 2 seconds prior to my posting edits. Please reinstate your most recent edits. Thanks, Renee --Renee 23:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etheric Barnstar

Hiya James, pls consider this to be as above-titled for your fantastically balanced and reasoned responses on Talk: Alice Bailey. Great job, keep it up.

But remember, time is usually on our side in these matters... lol. I, for one, have been watching this article (and occasionally helping it grow) for almost two years now...

The tempests may rage, but the ocean merely waves back. :^) Eaglizard 11:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

James, I'd like to second Eaglizard's comments here. I've made the mistake of engaging and responding to one user in particular and I've found that just ignoring the rants and returning to the article seems to draw out more reasonable editors who just want to move forward. Thanks again for your work! --Renee 15:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for all for the on-going comments and critiques.James 12:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey James, You just deleted the link to the whole U of W. Sydney dissertation and left only the 2nd chapter. Did you mean to do this? Here is the link to the WHOLE dissertation which I posted but you deleted.[1] --Renee 00:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Renne, nope, did not intend to; have replaced it with your version.James 14:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, James, I'd like to make a few further comments about our favorite article... lol. In case you missed it, they deleted (apparently, I dint see it) a bunch of your Bailey quotes from the talk page, and I commented that I agree with them. I'll repeat what I said there, my friend: we are not here to decide if Bailey was (or wasn't) anti-Jewish. Our task is to describe what other people think about her. We can only try to keep it as gentle and balanced as possible -- but not more so! And even though I spent years studying her books; even though I am deeply attached to much of the small part of the thoughtform I have glimpsed; even though I admire Alice Bailey to the core -- I'm no more willing than any of the other editors to allow any whitewashing or hiding the truth. Which I'm not accusing you of trying to do, either, but I'm afraid perhaps, in your passion for the teachings, you sometimes lose sight of the goals of Wikipedia, which trump everything else (remember, it's their webserver, not ours :).

Hi, and thanks for your thoughts. As you've probably seen I already responded to you in the discussion forum. I agree with much that you say and am keen on balance. Though you might not get it from the part of me visible in dialog with the she-was-anti-Jewish members in the forum, I do have some distance from the writings and am able to exercise my critical faculties on them. It's in other areas and not on Jewish theme that I find grounds for criticism. And while I have great respect for what I see expressed in the AAB works, I'm no devotee and do not think any embodied teaching through any human agency is without errors and limitations.

Problem is the forum proceeds under a different standard than the article and it gets really wonky. And unfortunately, the not-in-the-letter-or-spirit-of Wiki-rules of the forum spills over into the article. Though as far as I know, I've not done so myself.James 19:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As a further observation for your consideration, please note that, when there is too much fire-by-friction, water produces only clouds of obscuring steam. Have you ever considered the significance of the decided lack of consumer appeal shown in the design of the books' covers, and the "advertising" (so-to-speak) paragraph on the back? Most people never bother looking inside, do they? If everybody thinks Alice Bailey was an evil racist, that's ok, too; her books were never meant for everybody, anyway.

Yes, not meant for everybody, though everybody with a contrary religion or philosophy of their own seems ready to pass quick judgment on the writings; a natural and all-to-human endeavor. It's OK with me if if the defenders of the faith X--Christian, Jewish, Pagan, whatever--want to insert good references saying she was aniti-Jewish etc. But defenders of faith X want wording that is not objective neutral scholarship and don't seem happy with statements from Bailey that contradict.

In fact, they weren't even meant for future generations (not for too much longer, at least). In this connection, recall the function of the 1st Ray energies as Shiva, the Destroyer (or Transformer). The books themselves (like any form, as you know) have a limited span of usefulness; this is all part of the coming and going of things, remember. Neither you, I, Alice Bailey or even her books are of particular importance; that the ancient Wisdom itself be continually evolved and developed in conjunction with the evolving, developing brotherhood of Humanity is what really matters, isn't it? Eaglizard 07:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the future! I've seen it, and it is truly wondrous! About the books limited span of usefulness, I agree. They are already rapidly becoming dated. I've written essays and numerous text saying substantially what you've said above. We are more alike along this line of thought than is apparent in the forum. Still, I'm grateful for the reminders! James 19:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Eaglizard, I also harmonize with your thoughts. Much of what AAB wrote is passing out. And developing Brotherhood is what really matters.Sparklecplenty 19:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I replied...

... to your message on my talk page. --Parsifal _Hello 03:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the note James. I'm busy caregiving for my father who just had surgery so it's difficult with me to keep up with the volume of some of our verbose friends. They're also treating this like a game (of chess here, see last line[2]) which just shows me that this is just game playing to them and there is no serious intent to develop a neutral, balanced article. Any advice? Renee —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reneeholle (talk • contribs) 21:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

We need high level intervention of real Wiki-administrators who will impose Wiki rules on those ignoring them. Currently, they are breaking the rules, while accusing others of it, and while saying they are upholding them.James 14:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rays

Hi James, Just took the rays test on your website -- very cool. I'm sure you can guess which two are almost a dead heat based on my postings? Renee --Renee 15:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha!, you likely overestimate my skill at digital-text-divination! But I guess an AAB student willing to hang around the Discussion for long would have some Ray 1. James 21:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Alice Bailey

James, I'm not familiar with the subject. Also, it takes a while for a newcomer to go through all the discussion that has happened. So, I may not be of help now. Will try to chip in with my comments if/when I manage to understand the issue well enough. Sorry that I couldn't be of help. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dang

I just spent some time clicking through the editing history for Bailey over this month, to see who added what, and I am mighty impressed by your work, James. It seems to me you are the only editor who has researched and added significant and useful information to this article in months. For this, I'm gonna do something I've never done before, and I hereby award you with:

Image:Invisible Barnstar.png

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For keeping your cool while those about you rage, for your continuing improvements to Alice Bailey despite ongoing conflicts, and for never trying to draw attention to your hard work. Eaglizard 21:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

While it still needs work, the article is vastly superior to what it was six months ago, and 90% of the improvements came right outta your keyboard. Thanks very much James. Eaglizard 21:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Dang indeed! Encouragement, just when I was trying to get back to the real world.  :-) James 22:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for discussing things first.

The thing that upsets me the most is that you seem to keep changing your mind after you and the others have agreed to it. When that happens the others seem to change their mind too. Is there a good explanation for this ?

Hi Albion, I may change my mind depending on what others say or as new facts and circumstances present themselves; some others may do the same. Two or three in the forum seem to have ideals similar to my own so its not surprising that we would frequently agree, just as you tend to do with your pro-Jewish brothers and sisters.

On a related note, Philip Lindsay has spent a life time studying the ageless wisdom, as have I, so again its not surprising we agree on many things. In AAB's terms we are part of the same "ashram" or stream of consciousness. I don't know him that well on a personality level, but I do know he is less patient than I, and in an email to me some time ago gave me the impression that he thought I was wasting my time here (I may be over stating his case)James 00:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Is their a way of getting you to keep your agreements other than edit warring with you ? I hope so.  : Albion moonlight 22:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Please quote for me the agreement you think I entered in to if it is other than This aborted one

The "abortion" was not my choice. In this case, someone had proposed a very brief and simple criticism section and three or four of us liked it. I said "yes" to it and let's move on, then suddenly this new simple version was deleted and an old version was resurrected so that we were no longer in the universe under which the agreement was trying to take shape. Even had I signed in blood, I could not "keep" and agreement to a version that no longer existed. Kind Regards, James

[edit] Further comment re: Schnirleman

Hey James, I wrote this on the talk page, but in fear it might get missed, I'm gonna syndicate it over here for you.

Well, I don't know if you'll continue to follow the discussion in this section, but again I beg to differ. Here's what Shnirleman says, with editing for obviousness: "Some groups ... take an extremely negative view... for example, Alice Bailey and her followers ..." What could be clearer than that? As for footnote 108, he's not being contradictory at all; he's referring to a different element, the "... total rejection of Judeo-Christian ideology ...", in which way (his footnote states), Russian Neo-Pagans differ significantly from Bailey (who does not reject it totally, in his view).

Prolly better to respond on the talk page, if you have any comment. Eaglizard 15:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I read the Shnirleman thing again after my post on contradictory part of it. I decided, that though it did suggest something of a contradiction, the issue is very vague. So I did not raise this point again in my further critique of it.James 17:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, User:Parsifal deleted some links of yours, on the grounds of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, but when I read that guideline, I don't see that it applies to those links in any of it's 6 subsections. Otoh, I didn't add the links back in, because the case for their inclusion isn't clear to me. If you really want them there, I'll agree they're not covered by DIRECTORY, at least. But they do seem a bit spammy to me — if you have good reason for including them, I'd like to know it. Eaglizard 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind if we leave the links off. The article is now substantial enough without them.James 17:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is it Ok with you ?

I am thinking about including Ms Lindsay's yahoo comments in the Bailey article. I think he may have learned his racist views from Ms Bailey. Would you have any objections to including those comments he made in Yahoo last February ? Mr Lindsay has written extensively on Ms Bailey : Albion moonlight 06:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight 07:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

We can't use material from a personal web page or talk groups. Material must be from a good quality published source; Phillips books are also self-published. Ironically, Kowork removed the link I had to Phillips site months ago. I did not argue with him about it because personal web sites are not allowed as sources.James 16:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source for Bailey translation & circulation

Hey James, I've looked all over (even emailed to Lucis.org) but I can't find an actual citation for the claim that her books have been translated into over 50 languages. Do you have any idea on where that might be found? Along that line, have you ever seen any citable reference to the actual number of books they've sold? That would make a nice addition, I think.

Btw, are you ok with the lead now? I tried to space it out and format it so that the links and bolding aren't all bunched up and ugly. I think it looks pretty much like every other bio, now. It's certainly a lot prettier than Madame Blavatsky's, for instance. :) Eaglizard 21:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks and links

Hi james, thanks for fixing the links. It looks like two go to the same source. I think things got messed up when I created the archive (and now those links are in the archive). I really respect your knowledge on this issue and your work at keeping things in context. Renee 03:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We are trying to address your concerns

I put the following post on the Bailey talk page and on Parsifal's talk page as well.

I strongly suggest that the introduction of this article includes the fact that Ms Bailey is considered to be a Humanitarian. We mention her racism and her antisemitism in that intro so why not something positive to balance it out. The first few lines of any article tend to paint a picture in the mind of the reader so let us make it balanced from the get go. I will try to come up with something tonight but I am not a writer so feel free to write it yourself or edit anything I may come up with. I think this will help bridge the gap that James complained about. Lets see if we can balance the tone from the onset. : Albion moonlight 08:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm writing from a laptop right now as I am traveling. I will work on the article in more depth when I return. James 13:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great work!!

Hi James -- great work on the AAB page! I think you're right in identifying a key problem is that many of us read bits and snatches but don't really understand the whole literature. I'm impressed with the thorough research you are doing. You should write a book on Bailey! Hope you're doing well. Renee 18:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, speaking of thorough research... James, I just came by originally to mention that I've copyedited the crapola out of numerous sections; you might want to check the accuracy of my work (one or two are marked not as "copyedits" but as "technical", let's discuss those if you disagree, ok?) However, in the course of doing all this copyediting, I realized something important. A while ago, I had stated on the talk page that there just weren't going to be enough citeable references for this article. I really believed that we would have to leave out any mention of her seminal influence on the New Age, for instance. However, I now understand that all we needed here was for some devoted student with access to the proper research materials (and the properly diligent methodology!) to come along and (in my opinion) render a genuinely unique and valuable service — to all who are interested in this subject, and not just at Wikipedia. Thank you, my friend, for all your work. Eaglizard 22:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much; amid all the craziness I did not see your note until much later. Best Thoughts, James 02:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Collapasable-here