User talk:Asoane

Hello, Andrew! Welcome to the Wikipedia.

The easiest way to include your signature after your contributions at talk pages is to write ~~~~ (that is, 4 "tildes"), which gets transformed into your username and the UTC time of your edit.

BTW, it is common here to add comments at the end of the talk page, though this may seem strange at the beginning, it is the natural way to read them in our languages (discussions tend to have long threads and it is easier to get acquainted with them if one reads them top-to-bottom).

Thans for your help. Pfortuny 19:22, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I saw your comments in the Talk page of the Opus Dei article and you were once active in editing it. Can you please give me any feedback on the present state of article. Thanks. Rabadur 14:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rabadur, and sorry about the delay. I worked on the article for a while but was eventually put off by the polemics. Perhaps the ground rules currently being laid down for both parties will lead to a better outcome for the present article. Asoane 10:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Asoane! I have just seen your comments in my message board. The question you ask is key: "Opus Dei was over-represented" (me) versus "members of Opus Dei were over-represented" (you). I agree that the most correct is the second one. None the less, as far as each individual member was not representing himself, the correct sentence would be something like "membership of the Opus Dei was overrepresented in the government", although it is an odd sentence.

However, and I think this is important also, an organisation is made by its members. And this is specially important when there are few members and when its organisation tries to be "reserved". I accept that an organization is something different and, in some way, more than the sum of its individual members. That's why I can accept that Opus Dei, as an organisation, did not explicitly supported Francoism when some of its members entered the cabinet in the late 1950s. But I cannot accept that those unlikely coincidences (the proportion among the members of the cabinet, first, the proportion among the higher staff and proprietors of Spanish banks, secondly, the proportion of journalists and journal owners, thirdly, and the proportion of middle-upper and upper classes in their firsm members, finally) does not mean purpose. And thus, I underline these "coincidences", first. And I analyse the kind of people was recruited in the very firs years of Opus Dei (around the Civil War), and why. Aand, as far as we cannot resolve if most of historians lie (or are wrong), I prefer to believe the history those eminent historians told, first, and to rely on reliable knowledge such as statistics, secondly.

And, if you don't mind, I prefer to make these discussions publicly. --Uncertain 13:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]