User talk:Matt Crypto/archive5

Re: Kriegsmarine Enigma

Thanks for your comments, Matt. I've got a ton of information to add to the Banburismus page for you sometime soon. Allegedly, nothing is known about that topic due to British Government secrecy.

I reverse-engineered the entire process a couple of years ago from the few sources that are public.

I guess that qualifies me (better than most) to comment on it! :-)

Banburismus has been on my "to find out about" list for quite a while now, so I'd look forward to whatever you had to write. There's a drawback, though, in that Wikipedia articles have to be Wikipedia:Verifiable. Please do add to the article, but if something is conjecture, or something that's not publically known yet which you've deduced yourself through original research, it might be better first published in another forum first (Cryptologia springs to mind). — Matt Crypto 21:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matt. I think I managed to comply with the Wikipedia:Verifiable constraint. I do have a voluminous web page on Banburismus that does contain original research, I assume that such a thing can be mentioned on a Wikipedia page in the "External Links" section? The only problem is that I'm halfway through some edits on that document at the moment and thus it's not ready for public viewing. User:217.140.43.28

Many thanks for expanding Banburismus, although I confess that I haven't had chance to read it through properly yet! By all means add your web page to the External Links section as soon as you think it would be useful (I'd certainly like to have a read of it even before then). — Matt Crypto 21:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unspeakable horror.

Can you believe that these places either have no article at all, or, if they have an article, they have no photos, or inadequate ones?! Neither can I! I promise, if you, on your travels around the city, photographed them and put up photostubs, I would write some purple prose! Trollderella 19:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archaelogical Resource Centre
Assembly Rooms
Bar Convent Museum
Barley Hall
Clifford's Tower
Jorvik
The King's Manor
Merchant Adventurers' Hall
Merchant Taylors' Hall
Micklegate Bar Museum
National Railway Museum
National Centre for Early Music, home of the York Early Music Festival [2]
Saint Mary's Abbey
Treasurer's House
York Castle Museum
York City Art Gallery

That is indeed a travesty of the greatest magnitude. Speak no more of the unspeakable horror, I beg you! No promises, but I'll see what I can do some bored lunchtime... — Matt Crypto 21:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Initially I wanted to create a separate section, but this one has a pretty decent title for some comments regarding the Polish pronunciation ;)

The .ogg files, along with IPA keys are there. Any other requests? It is not a problem for me, really. Don't hesitate to ask for more should you need'em. Halibu tt 19:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for doing these. I've always felt bad at mangling their names, and I've been spending a lot of time recently reading about their work. I'll still mangle them, but at least I've got something to approximate! If it's not much trouble for you, I wonder if you might like to do Biuro Szyfrów and Maksymilian Ciężki. Although we don't have an article on it, I've always wondered how one pronounces Pyry, which was the site of the historic meeting between the Polish, British and French codebreakers in mid 1939, where the Polish revealed their successes to the British and French. — Matt Crypto 18:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done (along with a stub on Pyry, nowadays a part of Warsaw not far from where I live; BTW, my place in Kabaty is only some 15 minutes walk from the military centre in the Kabaty Forest, the same where Cipher Bureau was located in). Any other requests? Recording my voice and providing it to the community is fun, really. Halibu tt 11:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Hogtie bondage

You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Karmafist 02:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pasting the template, but I'm quite aware of the 3RR, and I am in no danger of breaking it. — Matt Crypto 06:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An old wound reopened

I wouldn't have minded never to hear the name "Amalekite" again in my life - but, alas, it was not to be. Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Haukurth - Haukur Þorgeirsson 07:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crypto steps / layers

I am working on a cryptographic article that covers something I think is missing both on Wikipedia and in most crypto books. An article that briefly explains which steps one does in which order when encrypting a message. That is, make/exchange IVs, perhaps compress the message, MAC the message, encrypt the message etc. Since I have not come up with a good name for the article yet and it only is a very rough draft I have put it under my user page for now: User:Davidgothberg/Crypto_steps I would love to get some help to brush it up to an acceptable level and to figure out a good name for it. --David Göthberg 15:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I've taken ages to get back to you. An article such as you suggest is a great idea. In Niels Ferguson and Bruce Schneier's Practical Cryptography, they address essentially the same question under the title of "The secure channel"; perhaps you could merge your work into that article (which could do with an overhaul in any case)? An alternative is cryptosystem, but that would seem to be a wider scope than you seem to be describing (key management, for example). I'll try and help out if I get chance. One potential pitfall is that there's lots of ways of going about encrypting a message, and we need to balance explaining the various options against giving some concrete examples of what people do in practice. — Matt Crypto 10:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solicitation to vote

Please vote and ask others to vote. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Ramallite

It's not really a good idea to ask people to vote for someone they have had no prior contact with. — Matt Crypto 18:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question

You're the resident crypto expert so I thought I'd ask you this. Do you think it makes sense to merge and redirect Le chiffre indéchiffrable to Vigenère cipher(which I have been trying to improve)? Neither one discusses Vigenère's autokey cipher in any detail, so they both discuss the same thing. (Perhaps I just should have done it, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that there was a difference between them) Broken S 23:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Nice work on Vigenère cipher, and I agree entirely about merging Le chiffre indéchiffrable. To be honest, there doesn't look to be much to merge; perhaps a simple redirect might suffice? (BTW, I'm not the only resident crypto editor; check out all the fine people on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptography, although it's true only some of them are regularly active) — Matt Crypto

WP:RD/M#Code

Any idea on the code in this reference desk question? - Mgm|^(talk) 17:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Attribution

Hi, first of all, thank you for your politely style and attention.Sorry,if I skipped that attribution of your article.But I clarified on bibliography section ( Kaynakça )that my article is translation by wikipedia english.If you send me the details about this subject,I will be pleased to publish them.

best regards..

tr:User:Devrim

Rex curry

Thought you might want to know about this... :-) Lupo 10:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

opinion sought

Judging by your nationality and areas of interest you are probably qualified to indicate whether ISP Review is a legitimate stub for a notable site or a spam posting. I'm just afraid if I {{afd}} it, somebody's gonna yell "zOMG systemic bias!" — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 23:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prussian Blue

Hi, Matt. I want to get some edits in on Prussian Blue (American duo) as I note on that talk page. Could you check the case and see if you find that unprotecting the article would be justified? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 03:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibu tt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Marian Rejewski FAC

Thanks for your note. Please see Marian Rejewski discussion page, "Possible FAC." logologist 16:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:cryptography

Category:cryptography is getting too big. I'd suggest a project to move articles to sub categories where possible and maybe add some categories as necessary. Perhaps trim the text on the category page too.--agr 18:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it needs sorting out. The thing that puts me off is that you can't edit categories directly; you have to change tags on each individual article, which makes it cumbersome to maintain. Maybe there are bots which can help? — Matt Crypto 11:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how they could help. I'm thinking more of a manual effort, perhaps beginning by coming up with a few more sub categories. --agr 16:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:bot problem

Hi, there seems to be a problem with Mathbot; e.g. [1]. I've blocked it for now. — Matt Crypto 01:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, thanks! I was adding birth/death categories to mathemticians, and at some point added a "feature" which actually screwed things up. I was peridocally checking the output of the bot, and I would have detected that bug eventually, but probably more would have slipped through without you noticing that. Gosh, never happened to me before, I will put much more care.

Anway, I reverted all 32 articles corrupted by my bot. I also checked a good chunck in the past, and it looks that those other 300 or so articles are OK. Thanks a lot again!

And, can you please unblock my bot now? :) I don't plan to use it today, but it does some batch housekeeping own its on from time to time (those are foolproof, they've been running for months). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I saw your post at Wikipedia talk:Bots. I will wait till the block expires by itself. Again, thanks. I would have checked the stupid bot more often than that, but at some point I got distracted with something else (meaning the bot was not making new edits, but neither was I checking its older ones). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matt. I just wanted you to know that I removed your block on User:Mathbot. I hadn't read the above remark from Oleg, but I read both User talk:Oleg Alexandrov and Wikipedia talk:Bots and your comment on the latter page implies that you wanted this as soon as Oleg can deal with the problem. By the way, I don't think I knew you were an admin. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, yeah, I was going offline, and I didn't want the block to stay there longer than was needed to alert Oleg. — Matt Crypto 18:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Entry ring

Please see my note, "Entry ring," on the "Marian Rejewski" discussion page. Rejewski's statement makes it quite clear that he did guess the (alphabetical) order of wiring of the keyboard keys to the entry ring, aka entry wheel, aka entry drum. Regards, logologist 14:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

deeceevoice rfc

Would you take part in an rfc about deeceevoice's conduct? I found your comment below on his talk page (which has now been removed). As far as I can tell deeceevoice has attacked many users, but to file an rfc there need to be at least 2 users that have tried to resolve the same issue.

[2]

-Justforasecond 15:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I think an RfC is probably warranted (sigh). Would you mind if I authored it? I posted a note to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, but nobody has commented. Wikipedia needs more users like Deeceevoice (i.e., competent editors that reduce systematic bias), but she needs to tone down the aggression a notch. — Matt Crypto 17:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Matt. How do you post things on two talk pages at once?

Go ahead and author the RFC. I'm not sure how to phrase those things -- I can add diffs later if you need help digging through the archives.

I'm not sure we need more like deeceevoice. She can write well enough, contributes voluminously, and definitely makes the place a more diverse, but the aggression and also the disregard of other policies (NOR and cite sources) are pretty over the top. She also appears not to care about NPOV, but that's more subtle. Unfortunately she turns off a lot of editors and, it looks like, draws the few others that are African-American into conflicts they wouldn't otherwise care to be in. -Justforasecond 20:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for filing. I added my certification. -Justforasecond 17:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

evil conspiracy

You may or may not be thrilled to discover that you have been named as part of a Villainous Clique of Leftists by a certain individual! [3] Paul B 18:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stable versions

What approach? It's simply a nomination of an article for a process that does not yet exist. The nomination gives us very little guidance as to how we might proceed, and seems to me to serve only to try and rush things. How, in un-vague terms, does this help us move anything forward? Ambi 12:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You speak of it as if it's an actual nomination in a live process. But I see it as merely a proposal of how such a process could work, specified as a worked-example. It is explicit that this is not yet a "real" nomination. Your criticisms about it being premature might be valid (I would probably disagree), but there's little harm that can come from it. — Matt Crypto 12:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polak

Yes, it's recently published, kind of memorial edition to commemorate centenary fo Rejewski's birth, hardcover, thick paper etc. There are two language versions of the book. In fact it's a collection of papers by various authors and the quality varies. I believe some of them were translated from Polish into English while some others the other way round. Most of the authors are Polish. I have a copy in English that I could send you if you email me your posting address. --Lysy ^(talk) 22:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another recent publication that probably you're aware of is the joint report by Polish and British archivists on British-Polish military intelligence collaboration during WW2. I have a copy in Polish only but I think it's been also published in Britain. --Lysy ^(talk) 22:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...

...to run off on you on this conversation. Professional duties call. =) --Dvyost 17:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

In spite of the ongoing debate I wish you a very Merry Christmas. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deeceevoice

Matt, it's not mainly you who I'm bothered at, and I'm sorry if you are getting lumped. There is a certain element of "lie down with dogs, get up with fleas here". As far as I can tell, you are not particularly racializing the context, your own comments have been basically reasonable, and unlike some people you don't seem to be trying to turn this into a kangaroo court. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the RfC has been hijacked to an extent. I've a feeling that a number of votes on both sides are simply just "friend" and "enemy" votes, and that for some it seems to have become a battleground over "is Deeceevoice good", which was not my intent — I tried to state clearly that Deecee is, at least in my view, a valued editor. At any rate, I think the RfC would be uglier still if User:Justforasecond had filed it (he let me file it instead). — Matt Crypto 19:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add my voice to JMabel's, Matt, and I'm sorry if I've been snappish with you at any point. Even if I'm not sure this RfC was a wise idea, your evenhandeness on its talk page is, and your efforts toward Wikiquette and Wikilove are much appreciated. Way to keep yer cool. Cheers! --Dvyost 21:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with both Matt's and Dvyost's last comments. But sometimes in these matters, it is best to let people show their true colors. I have to say, I have some regrets that back in 1973 or '74 (I forget which) when Alan Hollander was trying to frame a student referendum at Wesleyan University against what he perceived as reverse discrimination in admissions policies, I worked with him on the language of it, toning way down his original position. Instead of just saying, in effect, "affirmative action is anti-white racism", it ended up saying that race was being used inappropriately as a unifactorial proxy for determining who was disadvantaged. And it nearly passed. In retrospect, I wish I'd let him go out there with his own rather extreme statement of the matter and get trounced.

I think your individual intentions are good and I don't think that you and I are a million miles apart. I've suggested before to Deeceevoice that she would do well to tone it down; in my "outside view" in the RfC I acknowledge that "occasionally she takes offense sooner than she might"; and I sincerely wish she would respond to the RfC: I certainly would respond if it was about my conduct. That said, I stand by my view that what she has said is very little compared to what others have said to and about her. Certainly, she could do a better job of assuming good faith; where I believe that you and I differ is that I think she has been on the receiving end of enough hostility a bit much to ask.

I don't know if you've ever been on the receiving end of blind racial or ethnic hatred. I have. As a teenager, I once had to run from a from a gang of other teens throwing rocks and calling me (excuse my language, and you can remove the phrase if you don't want the words on your talk page) a "motherfucking kike". It gives you a very different perspective on these things; from what I can tell in my conversations with my black friends, it is one that they pretty much all have, or at least those roughly my age and older. I believe Deeceevoice and I are about the same age, she might be a trifle older.

The fact that you could tell who I was referring to as "racializing the context" without my naming names speaks volumes, and my only negative comment to you is that you may have accidentally lent moral support to someone with a less benevolent agenda than yourself. And if he wants to consider the previous sentence a personal attack on him, he's welcome to file an RfC against me for it.

If you want to quote this, feel free, but please link back to the full version here so that people can see my whole remark in context. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC discussion

Sorry for replying here but the talk page is mess and I find the enviroment on the RFC increasingly poisonous. What I mean in my post on the talk page is that Peter's comment implies that Encyclopedist has a history of violating civility, which he doesn't and I am assuming good faith that Peter did not mean to imply that. I don't contest that his comments wre not civil, that was inherent in my statment that we all become frustted and may violatte it under high-stress which is what I believe happened with Encyclopedist. I do think that Deeceevoice is a good contributor but and I do have had some concerns about her behavior. However, I did have an altracation with her similar to those described on the page, but we were able to resolve it amicably and therefore I am more optimistic about her. I also regret that the RFC has degenrated to such a vitrolic atmoshpere and I appreciate your fairness. -JCarriker 22:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you pull the RFC?

Would you please consider pulling the Rfc against Deeceevoice. She seems to have left Wikipedia and the good faith Rfc filed by you seems to be turning into an indictment against other users, namely Jmabel and Justforasecond. As long as the Rfc is live the fighting will continue. If you did pull it, I would be willing to work with you to draft a document that could be signed by as many participants in the RFC as possible and posted on her talk page; thanking deeceevoice for her positive contributions and asking her to remember wikiquette and wikilove. Please feel free to contact me using the e-mail this user option. Thanks. -JCarriker 02:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matt. I also support the proposal by JCarriker to pull the RfC and draft a new document. I agree that the RfC has now drifted too far from its original purpose. My only concern is one of procedure. Since the RfC was properly certified, it should probably return to existing in Wikipedia namespace, instead of user namespace. However, it would still be considered delisted and closed. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 12:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've moved the page back to its original location. — Matt Crypto 12:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support JCarriker's suggestion and would probably sign the document. I have no problem with asking Deevoice to be more civil; what I had a problem with was that the RfC turned into a lynch mob (although that was not due to — Matt Crypto's efforts but other users). For what it's worth, I've also had confrontations with Deevoice but I also found her to be a great editor of articles. The main reason I jumped into this whole thing was the RfC felt extremely unfair and was being pushed by a few users (again, not — Matt Crypto) I had trouble assuming good faith on. --Alabamaboy 13:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, changed my mind. Do whatever all of you want to do but I'm staying out of this from here on. I'm disgusted that Deevoice has apparently left. I used to disagree with her belief that Wikipedia was blatently racist but in light of the actions of this RfC, which seemed like a vendetta to drive her away, I now agree with her. This kind of crap repeatedly seems to happen to anyone who edits any article at all tied in with African Americans. Disgusting. I know some of the editors involved in this tried to moderate the behavior of others but this doesn't change the fact that I believe that several editors did this to Deevoice for racist reasons. In protest of this, I am also leaving Wikipedia for an indefinate period. I'll post more on this on my talk page shortly.--Alabamaboy 18:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saddened that you feel the need to take a break from Wikipedia over this. It certainly wasn't my intent to start something that would generate this much ill will. Moreover, if you're correct about Wikipedia being blatantly racist, then please don't give up Wikipedia to such people. From what she's written on her talk page, I would think (and hope) that Deeceevoice will be back — she seems to be a strong enough character to overcome bad-faith opposition here. In a sense, Deeceevoice's brusqueness makes it difficult to discern how much racism is a factor in people's reactions. That is, which users are opposing her because of her race, and which users are just offended by her sharpness? If she breaks policy — and I assert that she sometimes does — then it gives her opponents a "moral fog" behind which to operate. For example, I first came across DCV when the dispute with Wareware came up. I wanted to get involved because the complaint was about racist attacks, but, if I recall correctly, DCV had also fired back insults, and it wasn't immediately clear who was in the right. Because I didn't want to invest huge amounts of time tracing diffs, I moved on without commenting. (For the record, I want to make clear that DCV's race is of absolutely no concern to me — on Wikipedia, every user is that sort of pale blue colour that you get on article backgrounds.) — Matt Crypto 20:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to thank you a while back for your kind words. Yes, I'm staying on Wikipedia, mainly because I enjoy editing articles. The personal conflict and stuff, as happened in Deeceevoice's RfC and the even worse RfA, that I can do without. Anyway, thanks for the nice words. Best,--Alabamaboy 18:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cypherpunk

If this is not a literary genre why is it listed under the List of punk genres? There are no examples of cypherpunk being nothing more than a term to define a group of individuals. I tried listing several examples of what is considered to be cryptography in fiction however was reprimanded, therefore I believe cypherpunk should be eliminated from the Punk literature list. What do you think? Piecraft 22:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Piecraft, if it came across as a "reprimand"; I just disagreed with your edit. It seems cypherpunk isn't a literature subgenre as opposed to, e.g, cyberpunk/steampunk etc. At least, this is the definition given in the Wikipedia cypherpunk article. I recommend you be bold and try removing it from the List of punk genres, possibly dropping a note on the associated talk page. — Matt Crypto 22:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rfa filed

Hi Matt,

I've filed a RfA against deeceevoice. I'm not sure it is the right thing to do but deecee refused to take part in the RfC and that seems to indicate she has no intention of changing her behaviour.

I've listed it up there and a few users have come to comment (negatively) on it. I don't know the procedure, whether it is appropriate to have comments at all at this point, or whether it needs to be accepted before the commentary begins. Whether you support it or not, your advice on how to conduct it appropriately would be appreciated.

Thanks a lot, Justforasecond 01:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS By the way, both deeceevoice and alabamaboy have returned to wikipedia.

I'm glad Deeceevoice and Alamaboy have returned. I have my doubts that an RfAr would be a productive process, given the general hostility caused by the RfC, and Deeceevoice's apparent total disinterest in dispute resolution. Also, I'd rather avoid being drawn into further acrimony at the moment, to be honest. — Matt Crypto 19:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to a similar matter on my talk page, thanks. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια * (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Responded again. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια * (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why did you edit my talk page? Is this ill will because Go For It introduced the browsebarbetter template? I always welcome comments, but not people deleting other peoples!!!. Tis Christmas, the time for good will to all men and cryptographers Pydos 16:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terribly sorry about that — I rollback'd Go For It's edit to your talk page by mistake, I assure you, not ill will. Have a merry one! — Matt Crypto 17:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Merry Christmas. Pydos 18:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LuxOfTKGL

Since Lux is having problems rate now, I'll answer the comments you left on his talk page.

First of all, I'm an atheist so please excuse any mistakes I make.

Everyone sins; it is not avoidable. No one could ever possibly be perfect in God's eyes. (For example, God would most definitely, according to the Bible, disapprove of hating pedophiles, which is a very common transgression.) Premarital sex is of course a sin (attraction to someone who is not your wife is not a sin, however). Lux agrees (quoted from tkGL):

For a Christian, pedophilia is much more like normal heterosexuality. Sex outside of marriage is wrong, be it adult/adult or adult/child. Sex is not a main purpose of life. The main purpose of life to Christians is to serve one another.

The Bible does not mention pedophilic attractions at all. The Talmud specifically allows marriage of 3-year-old girls, so we can assume from that its author did not see age as quite a big issue.

Thus we can treat pedophilia as we do heterosexuality or homosexuality or bisexuality. We all sin, but He is merciful. Lux is is no way held up to some higher standard for supressing his attractions than anyone else should be, according to the Bible. Someone can be a Christian and still sin.

Purely from a Christian point of view, you would have to conclude that anything besides asexuality is a disorder, right? // paroxysm (n) 19:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what you're saying. The Christian POV is that sex is exclusively for marriage, wherein it is good and proper. I'm curious as to how someone could agree with that view on sex, yet argue that pre-pubescent pedophilia is not, at the very least, a disorder. — Matt Crypto 00:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sex != sexual attraction. Perhaps you've mistaken pedophilia (sexual attraction to children) for child sexual abuse (sexual activity with children)..? // paroxysm (n) 00:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you really understand what I'm saying. — Matt Crypto 12:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then what are you saying? The Bible says lust is a sin, but then heterosexuality is just as much a sin as pedophilia. It does not say anywhere that you shouldn't be attracted to little girls -- that you can't have sex with them if you're not they're marriage partner, yes, just as would apply to a normophilic person with adults. How is pedophilia more of a sin..? // paroxysm (n) 19:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that mere attraction to pre-pubescents (as opposed to lust) was necessarily sin. I'm saying that pedophilia, from a Christian POV, must be a disorder: that is, a mental illness. — Matt Crypto 23:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But pedophilia is attraction to prepubescents. !?

Do heterosexuals not lust? I don't get it. Lux said he was attracted to "non-adult females" and not much more. // paroxysm (n) 01:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been arguing that, from a Christian viewpoint, attraction to prepubescents (pedophilia) is, at the least, a psychological disorder or mental illness. I was asking Lux whether he agreed with that. I haven't said that such attraction is necessarily sin. Of course, lust, whether directed at a child or adult, would be sin, but I would distinguish between lust and simple attraction. — Matt Crypto 14:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that pedophilia would be a disorder from a Christian perspective because God gave us sexual attraction to find marriage partners and prepubescent children can not be married off? // paroxysm (n) 19:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was the thrust of the argument. — Matt Crypto 20:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But age restrictions of marriage are a modern invention. Back in those days, children could be married off. You could argue that it is only today's society that is the problem. // paroxysm (n) 20:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, would Lux then argue that it is acceptable for pre-pubescent children to enter into marriage? — Matt Crypto 22:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Lux would argue. I'm just saying that from a (worldly unaffected) Christian perspective, pedophilia is not a problem. Society, not religion, introduces the barriers. // paroxysm (n) 22:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV/NPOV

We've hit upon a difficulty of magnitude. How large does a group have to be for their idea to override another, contrasting and generally held idea? For instance, there are a lot of people who don't agree with the idea that evolution has occurred at all, let alone within a strictly naturalistic framework, apart from any outside influence. Does this then make "Evolution" a POV sort of claim? DRJ 19:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr for AustinKnight

Your input would be appreciated.[4]Cognos 15:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]