" 

  

 :::::: Fordfox12/Ajaxfiore, it would be nice if your Mexican history professor can provide 2 things: 1) a reference to what exactly she is not fond of in regards to La Revista Academica's publication on Islam (was it because it explored potentially taboo topics like extremism and Islamic feminism?), 2)what exactly (in her opinion) would deem this publication 'non-academic'?  

 :::::: So the difference is that Eusebio registered himself as the child's father, and it is noteworthy that this occurred exactly during the culmination of the investigation of sexual abuse. Your grandmother, on the other hand, can claim you as her 'legal guardian', but she cannot register herself as your mother. There is a clear distinction because firstly, your grandmother did not register herself as anyone's birth mother, and secondly, I'm sure she was not being charged with rape (I pray to God she wasn't) during the time she claimed legal guardianship. 

 :::::: This is an excerpt from the article: ""Aarón Joaquín, eventually recognized the infant and registered him as his own son"". I don't make any 'leaps' when I say Eusebio was illegally having sex with women other than his wife (specifically underage women). His admission of guilt for any wrongdoing is only compounded when he registered himself as the father. There are no false implications in what I just wrote, and if I make a mistake, however obvious it may be, I ensure to acknowledge it. But in this case, I made no leap.   

 :::::: Also, who says that a newspaper or two can't point to facts? You mean to say that you're against what academians use on a daily basis for their research?! So long as it's not a fictional tabloid, it's perfectly reliable. Keep in mind the painstaking work and oversight of researchers, writers, editors, senior producers, and other staff that goes into publishing every newspaper, journal, and book. In actuality you're confusing ""bias"" for ""validity"". Simply because a publisher focuses their work on taboo topics does not mean it is unreliable. As anthropologists, it is important to cover every aspect of their subject matter, regardless of how unacceptable their publication may sound to you or anybody else. 

 :::::: As for the Protocols of Elders of Zion, there's countless books that refute and prove the fraudulent nature of it. I do agree that ANY predisposed beliefs based on intolerance of others' race, religion, and beliefs, not just against Jews, but against all minorities, are false. 

 :::::: Now that we're on the topic of intolerance, this brings me nicely to my last point. It seems to me that you may be finding ways to discredit any claims made against the church founder because, frankly, I believe you to be a member of the church (which I frequently encounter on wiki lldm, but that's okay). This could potentially become a huge problem when you edit the controversy section because of the following: 

 :::::: The basis for your arguments against those updating and protecting the ""Controversy"" section becomes flawed because any argument that is contrary to members of lldm's beliefs is ""intolerable"" to you (to see what I'm referring to please read or google Genetic Fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy ). Even the La Revista Academica is somehow distasteful to you. Thus your arguments become based on a discreet dislike of people who are not on your side of thought (just like Protocols of Elders of Zion was intolerant of Jews, you're now intolerant of scholars who want to give light to the personal lives of church leaders), and that becomes a catatlyst for you try to remove as much content from the controversy section (which is impossible by the way). Do you believe that Samuel Joaquin is the Apostle of God? ~V3ritas 
 ::::::: 2:28, 07 February 2012"