User talk:Tannhaus

I am still strugling to understand how the so called Creators plan on drawing from Crowley without involving Thelema. If you read the statement they made "The religion we have created for this series is entirely fictional. It is as much related to fictional Christian cults and secret societies as it is to Thelema." it does not actually say it has nothing to do with Thelma. It only says that it draws from other influences as well as possibly Thelema. I know that Gemma said its not.......but we cannot really believe her. Now, I totally understand your point that a Thelamite would not force someone to do something (i have been reading up on free will).--modelmotion 13:09, 30 November 2006 (CST)

Well, the real idea is that it is not a real religion. Yes, it borrows from Thelema (only in very vague ways..nothing actually said in the videos is very thelemic in anything but a very remote sense), but it also borrows from Christianity. It probably borrows from many other religions and secret societies as well. But, I don't think focussing on Thelema solely or even predominantly is the way to go about things. You might as well focus equally on the Plymouth Brethren (which might be a good place to start....since they DID mention Christian cults and the Plymouth Brethren could be considered cult-like in some aspects) since it was also alluded to at the bottom of the homepage right across from Thelema.

Again though, trying to pin this on any one religion is an insult to that religion and its followers because of the criminal and dark aspects of the storyline. --Tannhaus 13:20, 30 November 2006 (CST)

I totally agree. I think we have made a good start to correcting that impression of LGpedia. I have not been able to come up with a lot of information on Christian cults that can be tied to LG. I believe the reference to Plymouth Brethren was removed during the "redesign" but if i am wrong about that let me know. Still, its probably worth taking a look at the Brethren. I think the issue of force vs free will is a critical one and one I would like to see further develeoped. Do you know of any connection to Libertarians because they also stress free will in the context of not harming anyone else.--modelmotion 13:45, 30 November 2006 (CST)

I'm sorry that you feel insulted. You have every right to feel that way -- the insults that have been lobbed at you were completely inappropriate behavior on a wiki. I have asked Modelmotion repeatedly to please show respect to other editor's of the wiki. This situation will be addressed. You've done nothing wrong, and I sincerely apologize for the way you've been treated, and I hope you continue to contribute! I don't see anything "fascist" about your edits, nor do I see you proposing to delete pages for any reason other than their complete irrelevance to Lonelygirl15.--JayHenry 14:38, 1 December 2006 (CST)

Thank you. I was under the impression that a wiki's point is to create factual pages. There is a point where including too much extraneous information actually defeats that purpose and muddies the water. In a lot of instances, I don't know how something fits into the LG15 storyline, but I do know about the information being presented. If you check out the discussions of the articles, I've said exactly that on several occasions. Basically, I can go in and edit out misinformation, but then leave it to someone else to actually tie the information into the LG15 storyline.

But, I don't see how just someone mentioning something in a video's comments is grounds for creating a whole new wiki page discussing their idea, however erroneous. Does Lovecraft fit in with the LG15 series? Probably so. Did it fit in the way it was portrayed? Did "Kathulu Majik" fit in? No. If someone says Crowley had a dog named Bree in a short story he wrote, does that deserve a mention in the wiki? I really don't see how. If, however, it is a common conception of Crowley and/or Thelema, it may indeed deserve to be mentioned, even though it is erroneous. In those cases (such as the reference to the cakes of light containing the blood of a child), I left the original statement, but qualified it.

I think some people take things too personally. If I edit something out or change something, I'm not doing it on a whim. I'm doing it because it isn't factual. My goal isn't to portray Thelema and Crowley in a positive light, but in an accurate light. I have done and continue to do my research...and I try to point out WHY I've changed or deleted something....such as the assumption that Anton LaVey and Aleister Crowley were associates, but Crowley died when LaVey was just a teen...or the statement that Crowley translated the Egyptian Book of the Dead when Crowley couldn't even translate the Stele of Revealing himself, paying to have the curator of the Bulac museum in Cairo to do it for him. --Tannhaus 16:07, 1 December 2006 (CST)

I believe it is the content of the page that he feels insulted by. I believe I have been respectful of him, welcomed him to discuss points, ask for his assistance in drawing relevance to the LG story line. What i object to is the simple deletion of pages I free are relevant......especically since the person who removed the relevance in the first place was himself! If there is an error i will be the first to change it but if i feel its an open issue I will put it back on the page and argue why it should be included. That is my right. I feel like I am being railroaded here. I dont dispute his knowledge but there needs to be room on the wiki for other peoples opionions if they can back them up. Therre is a lot of information on the internet. Some of it is disinformation. Its our job to clarify what is what and we do not accomplish that by simply deleting it and sending the user back to wilds of the internet.--modelmotion 14:51, 1 December 2006 (CST)