Changes

Further comments are welcome.

Further comments are welcome.

It appears the only comments ensuing are those of pastordavid whose user page identifies his username representating the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America on Wikipedia. His comments on this article consist of accusations against it as Sockpuppetry. His talk page also cites that while "Wikipedia is not censored, his talk page is", and that any writing he considers to be 'obscene' i.e. 'vandalism', etc. "will be deleted". This together with the automated deletion of articles on Wikpedia, it seems best to provide a link to the original {uncensored?} article here.

It appears the only comments ensuing are those of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pastordavid pastordavid] whose user page identifies his username representating the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_in_America Evangelical Lutheran Church in America] on Wikipedia. His comments on this article consist of accusations against it as Sockpuppetry. His talk page also cites that while "Wikipedia is not censored, his talk page is", and that any writing he considers to be 'obscene' i.e. 'vandalism', etc. "will be deleted". This together with the automated deletion of articles on Wikpedia, it seems best to provide a link to the original {uncensored?} article here.

Rob Davis (usernames Rldavisiv and Daynal)

Rob Davis (usernames Rldavisiv and Daynal)

After examining forty or so of the 'publishing company stubs' in a somewhat random sampling, it was clear that the exception(s) are those citing anything other than their own internal production. While conflict of interest is of concern in any undertaking at anytime, for 'conflict' to exist, there must be present two or more interests in opposition to at least one of the others that is commonplace in competitive settings of any kind, be they academic, commercial, ecclesiastical, or otherwise. Where all such interests share a common goal there can be no 'conflict of interest'. The only 'conflict' then is one always present in human evaluation(s) based as these are upon the 'perceived' merits of any given work.

After examining forty or so of the 'publishing company stubs' in a somewhat random sampling, it was clear that the exception(s) are those citing anything other than their own internal production. While conflict of interest is of concern in any undertaking at anytime, for 'conflict' to exist, there must be present two or more interests in opposition to at least one of the others that is commonplace in competitive settings of any kind, be they academic, commercial, ecclesiastical, or otherwise. Where all such interests share a common goal there can be no 'conflict of interest'. The only 'conflict' then is one always present in human evaluation(s) based as these are upon the 'perceived' merits of any given work.

For this reason, in view of the perceptions of questionable 'intent' behind this article, it appears best to withdraw interest in seeing any such stub or article on the Daynal Institute or its Press unless such may arise naturally from the general recognition of its work. It is just such work that is understood to be an organic process unfolding without the more familiar coercive pressures animating so much trade and academic writing that I know is the shared objective of Wikipedia and countless other initiatives that are germinating throughout this world all too hungry for the "genuine article".

For this reason, in view of the perceptions of questionable 'intent' behind this article, it appears best to withdraw interest in seeing any such stub or article on the [[Daynal Institute]] or its [Daynal Institute Press|Press] unless such may arise naturally from the general recognition of its work. It is just such work that is understood to be an organic process unfolding without the more familiar coercive pressures animating so much trade and academic writing that I know is the shared objective of Wikipedia and countless other initiatives that are germinating throughout this world all too hungry for the "genuine article".

Gratefully,

Gratefully,