Earle Martin wrote:
On 21/10/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)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