User talk:DHimmelspach

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome! I hope you enjoy it here - please ask if you have any questions.

I query your edit to Interurban - while interurbans often used public right-of-way when available, enough had private right of way to be more than 'few', IMO. At least, that's the impression I get from Hilton's book and others. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C)

I will concede that my statement was a little too strong. I was objecting to the prior version which made it seem that interurbans typically used extensive stretches of private right-of-way. Most interurbans died between 1920 and 1940. The few that lasted longer have more living riders to remember them and thus often serve to distort our view of the wider class IMHO. My knowledge in this area is best about the Chicago interurbans (i.e. South Shore Line, North Shore Line, and CA&E). These 3 interurbans survived into the 1950s and beyond precisely because they were atypical, featuring private right-of-way, higher than average freight volumes, and single-seat access to a very large city for commuters. These attributes made them more like the mainline railroads than typical interurbans. DHimmelspach

Age of consent

Hi! You changed "informed" to "reformed" in the section Religious basis. This is a bit nitpicky, but this changes the tone of the whole sentence. Using informed means that the secular influence has imparted knowledge to the Law; whereas using reformed implies that the Law was corrected of corruption or moral abuses (from a dictionary definition). Personaly I'd agree, but in the interest of NPOV I'd suggest that you reconsider your edit. Cheers! --Monotonehell 18:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've compromised by using "modified" instead of "reformed". My dictionary confirmed your definition of "reformed", but I personally don't see the connotation of improvement in the term. In the usage I'm familiar with, "reform" means "to make over in structure or style" which is a neutral statement of what secular influence did to the law. I intended that the statement read that secular influence restyled the law without implying whether the new style was better or worse than that which preceded it. I do not believe that the use of "informed" would accomplish this goal, and indeed it is not neutral. To "impart knowledge" to the law is to imply that the law was ignorant, an opinion I certainly would not agree with. It is my opinion that many changes brought by secular influences have not been for the better. DHimmelspach 16:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Like I said I was being nitpicky. It's hard to get the exact language to not be POV in contraversial subjects. Probably any of the above would work. XD I used 'informed' at the beggining because it's a term that lawyers use when describing legal process. They use it because if one informs someone of something it is then up to them to act upon that information or not. Maybe it's too technical-speak for an encylopedia. Anyway CHEERS! --Monotonehell 20:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)