Earle Martin wrote:
On 21/10/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Jihad is normally associated with religious fanatics.
Only by the ignorant. People who have actually spent any time reading about the subject rather than listening to the spoutings of tabloid newspapers and Fox News pundits will be aware that jihad takes a multitude of forms, the foremost of which is spiritual jihad within oneself, the crusade against sin and sloth. [0] We need a crusade against sloth. Our sloth is sloth of editing, which leads to articles fairly groaning at the seams under the load of their excess verbiage.
I suppose that a crusade is just as socially acceptable among Muslims as a jihad is among Christians. Sloth as one of the [[Seven deadly sins]], dates back to the seventh century, as does Islam. I take due note of your modern seventh-century solutions to these problems.
An encyclopedia that doesn't suck recognizes that different people have different ideas about what is important, and respects them for that. What could be more self-evident than that.
I disagree thoroughly. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, remember?
Our comic book aficionados would disagree that they are indiscriminate in their treatment of the subject.
If we respected everbody's different ideas, it would be.
Wow! There goes a pillar!
An encyclopedia that doesn't suck contains material that has been agreed by consensus to be relevant and useful.
Ultimately, yes.
[1] If only there were some kind of online reference I could point to on this. Oh, wait, there is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad#Greater_and_lesser_Jihad
Excellent! It establishes that you were preaching the lesser jihad whereby thes comic book articles would be conquered by the sword, instead of having people examine their own motivations for expanding these articles.
Ec