Talk:Rudolf Steiner/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Horoscope 1.1 Steiner's Natal Horoscope Data 2 cut-and-paste? 3 philosophical community? 4 Pan-Germanism 5 Re: Philosophical community 6 Birth data 7 Eurythmy 8 Photograph of Steiner 9 Revert 10 Philosophical debate 11 Travesty 11.1 no racism in anthroposophy 12 edit wars 13 White wash? 14 Incompleteness is different from bias 15 Lectures 16 Steiner criticism -- NPOV dispute 17 Steiner as a philosopher -- NPOV dispute 18 Weleda and biodynamic farming -- NPOV dispute 19 The Steiner/ Waldorf Schools 20 balance of POV 21 master 22 Problems editing page

Horoscope

I have taken the liberty of including Rudolf Steiner's birthdata in this article. I would like to point out that this information is very hard to find, and I was able to get it from a very obscure peice of literature that a friend sent to me, therefore I would be gratefu if people, regardless of their feelings of astrology, would not edit that information out of the article.

It would be really nice if someone who has the time and the sophistication would kindly run his birthdata up on astrological software and include his chart. I am afraid that I have not got the time or the know-how to embark upon such an endeavour. I had an email from adam, perhaps he would be kind enough to do it.

Regards, --TracyRenee 22:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Steiner's Natal Horoscope Data

Rudolf Steiner was born at 10:17 GMT on 27 February 1861 in Kraljevic, Yugoslavia: 45N16, 14E34

Sun 9 Pisces 21

Moon 17 Libra 42

Ascendant 12 Scorpio 33

Mercury 27 Pisces 27

Venus 20 Aquarius 51

Mars 6 Taurus 58

Jupiter 19 Leo 51 Rx

Saturn 5 Virgo 53 Rx

Uranus 8 Gemini 04

28 Pisces 20

Pluto 47 Taurus 07

North Node 20 Capricorn 22 Rx

That's actually Kraljevica, Croatia, 45°16′N, 14°34′E --Joy [shallot] 00:22, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of which, that is a completely different place from this village called Kraljević in Međimurje. *ponder* --Joy [shallot]

Another alternative birth data is: 25 Feb 1861, 11:15 pm, Kraljevica, Croatia. You can see his astro chart in http://www.astrotheme.fr/en/portrait.php?clef=z8f8GypjNn6U&info=true

cut-and-paste?

Parts of this article have a vague feeling of being cut-and-pasted from somewhere: my Google testing finds nothing -- could other people please check?

From reading it, I'd say it was translated from German by the contributer. I'm pretty sure it wasn't copied verbatim from a copyrighted work due to the number of untranslated figures of speech and such. Mkweise 08:39 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)

Response from Ed: Which parts seem cut and pasted? Could you be more specific? I can answer, for example, for the section on Steiner as a social activist and a couple of other sections. I wrote them. They are neither cut and pasted, nor translated. - Ed

philosophical community?

Who or what is the philosophical community outside Anthroposophy? Can anyone name names? In my experience the whole philosophical community (such as it is) ignores this stuff studiously.

I am not a philosophy scholar so I cannot really answer, but I can name one name due to being indirectly linked to him by personal connections: Reijo Wilenius, retired professor of philosophy at University of Jyväskylä, is in a sense a Steiner scholar. I suppose you could argue that he is not a valid example since he is also involved in Anthroposophy, though. AJK 19:48, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This whole article is infested with people gleefully grinding axes. Why?

kk

Response from Ed: To say "the whole philosophical community ignores this stuff studiously" would be going a bit too far. To say that most philosophers haven't heard of Steiner just might be accurate. I imagine more Continental philosophers know Steiner than do Anglo-Saxon philosophers. But when Steiner wrote his Philosophy of Freedom, he and his work were fairly well known in the German philosophical world. One doesn't have to search far for evidence to amply verify this.

A brilliant philosophy professor of mine in college told me a bit about Steiner and said The Philosophy of Freedom was 'one of the great books of the 19th century'. This was at Eugene Lang College in NYC about 20 years ago.

The Wikipedia article itself gives a strong example of Steiner's place in the philosophical community, under the "Philosophical Debate" section. There, one can find a quotation from Richard Tarnas that situates Steiner philosophically near the forefront of philosophy's historical development to date. One can obviously disagree with Tarnas' evaluation of Steiner, but Tarnas' book won rave reviews from such people as Joseph Campbell. Steiner is not a nobody in the philosophical world, even if he is not well-known.

Pan-Germanism

Steiner's autobiography expressed his interest and participation, as a young man, in the German cultural and social revivial of the 1880s and later -- called Pan-Germanism. The current Wikipedia article gives information about Steiner's pre-occupation with famous German philosophers, but says nothing about Steiner's participation in Pan-Germanism as such. This seems an oversight, since it may well be that some attitudes and aims in the Pan-Germanic attitude may have influenced his thinking and work.

This article mentions Steiner's brief involvement with Theosophy, a community of thought and aspiration with roots in Russia, New York, India -- but Steiner ultimatelyleft and rejected it. Was there an ethnocentric element in Steiner's perspective and aims? The point would not be to discredit the man but to understand him more fully.

M.C.

Bear in mind though that Pan-Germanism wasn't always what it became under the Nazis though. --MacRusgail 11:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Steiner left Theosophy because Krishnamurti was declared by Theosophical leaders to be the reincarnation of Christ. Steiner disagreed. He thought Christ's incarnation was a one-time event.

Re: Philosophical community

I can't say anything about European philosophical communities, but in America, anyway, I'm pretty sure there are none. I studied philosophy as a graduate student at the University of Montana, and my thesis advisor for a while was Albert Borgmann, a well known Heidegger scholar and philosopher of technology. Together we read some Owen Barfield (an English apologist for Steiner), and I also reported to Borgmann on my reading of Steiner's The Redemption of Thinking. Borgmann was born, raised and educated in Germany, before coming to the States. His one comment about Steiner that I remember was that 'he was a wacky genius.'

I'd say from my own limited reading that the nearest one gets to Steiner in American/English philosophy is in phenomenology, and perhaps deep ecology (which itself has a phenomenological strand), and maybe the philosophy of science.

Birth data

I have corrected Steiner's birth data, first of all, from February 25th to the 27th, and secondly, from Donji Kraljevec to Murakirály. My sources in support of this correction were as follows: 1. Steiner's Autobiography (book); 2. The Rudolf Steiner entry in the Hungarian version of Wikipedia, more specifically the clarification given by one of his students (Mária Göllner), in the second paragraph, set in italics; and 3. The DONJI KRALJEVEC website, second paragraph for the Hungarian name of the village, fourth picture for Steiner and the house he was born in. According to these sources, it is clear that Steiner was born in a place that was part of Hungary at the time, so I think it is prudent to use the official name of the village from that time.

Eurythmy

I decided to add that the Art of Eurythmy is actually only half completed (something that I liked to inform my school doctor when he prescribed extra Eurythmy for me!). Please feel free to edit it if the language isn't suitable, or if you can word it better, but please don't cut it out all together because I think it's an interesting bit of information!

Photograph of Steiner

At one point, this page had a photo of Steiner at the top. Then, over time, there were (one too many, in my opinion) photos of the Goeteanum structure. Now there are none. At the very least, I think the photo of Steiner should be restored - is there a reason it was removed? Seems silly to not have it there. --Apostata 16:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Revert

There was an inappropriate entry paragraph added by an anonymous user; this now been removed.

How's mentioning Steiner's "temperament"-based psychology "inappropriate"? I'll get back to this as soon as I've registered myself and thus cease to be an "anonymous user". As it is, this article is simply not neutral, and the criticism-section does not fulfill its function, but basically just adds to the praise that dominates the rest. Yes, Steiner *was* a genius, but that doesn't make him any less controversial, and critical voices shouldn't simply be dismissed as "not getting it right".

The addition seems to be limited to a series of opinions. This isn't a chat room, it's an encyclopedia. If you'd like to bring some of these topics in, it is possible to in an informative way. For example:

Information about the temperaments would probably be useful under Waldorf Education, but I would suggest starting with a factual description of Steiner's theories about temperaments and of the ways they are used in Waldorf schools. This should be more specific than 'pupils are treated according to this'...how? in what way? Temperaments are a tiny part of the education; so this should be one section among a number of others dealing with other relevant areas. This kind of treatment provides a balanced presentation, giving an accurate picture of the topic.

Another important theme you mention, the scientific nature of anthroposophy, is dealt with on the anthroposophy page. I would suggest you look at the treatment of this issue there, which has been worked on by various contributers and is probably pretty balanced now. It is also more descriptive than simply expressing unattributed opinions (or statements like 'in my opinion').

Wikipedia has a policy against saying things like 'has received heavy criticism' without attribution; it is necessary to state who criticised him for this (and preferably - but not necessarily - provide a link or reference to where this can be found). It should be an authority on the subject who is being quoted. Hgilbert 21:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Philosophical debate

I have moved the section titled philosophical debate here; it seems a bit academic and inappropriate for a general biography. Anyone want to weigh in on this? Should we have a link to this from the main page? Hgilbert 10:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Travesty

A complete whitewash of Steiner and his ridiculous teachings! Where is anything about Steiner's racist reincarnation ideas (blacks to Asians to Aryans)?!? where is anything about his learning about Atlantis -- and numerous other of his "teachings"-completely through his clairvoyant powers?!? Where is anything about how Steiner advocated high fevers in children, said left handedness was a "karmic weakness," or that breast milk was bad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.127.170 (talk • contribs)

If you would like your additions to be kept, then please don't blank sections of text when you type in your edit. Also, sourcing your claims to a verifiable reference would be nice (as would using standard written English). — goethean ॐ 18:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Steiner wrote nearly 40 books and his lectures fill 300+ volumes. This is primarily a biography and overview of his thought. Further sub-articles on themes such as the anthroposophic view of reincarnation (that we reincarnate in every race and historical period to become well-rounded individuals) would be great. Anthroposophic medicine deserves its own complete article. Editors, help!! Hgilbert 18:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

no racism in anthroposophy

An anonymous editor keeps making accusations of racism. For his or her benefit:

The Netherlands Commission that investigated charges that anthroposophy included racist ideas
finds again that any suggestion that racism is an inherent part of Anthroposophy,
or that conceptually Steiner helped prepare the way for the holocaust,
has proven to be categorically wrong. As a matter of fact,
the investigation of the Commission shows that, beginning in the year 1900, 
he clearly spoke and wrote against the dangers of anti-Semitism,
including in the periodical of a then existing
German association against anti-Semitism.

Hgilbert 10:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor claims there were passages in Steiners work that were rascist. Encyclopedidic practice is to cite those sections but not to editorialise. If there are critismisms then reference them. Jefffire 12:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

is this also the anthroposphical commission, and you don't even mention it here, that's pretty unconvincing. i don't know if i'd call steiner a racist, but i know that he made pretty racist statements. as aquainted as you seem with anthroposphy as you seem i imagine you know them too. for instance there is a anthroposophical publisher (flensburger hefte) that devoted a whole book to steiner and racism. trueblood 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The Anthroposophical commission's conclusions are of no consequence. It would be like asking Christians to testify against Christ. I have added a not-too-damaging quote from Steiner that demonstrates his racist comments for the benefit of readers. If these are unsatisfactory, I have 24 pages of others. --Pete K 00:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

edit wars

This article has been extremely Steinerfriendly, so I am not surprised that antisteiner editing turns up. However wikipedia should be unbiased as far as possible, and therefore should present both pro-steiner and anti-steiner arguments in a balanced way. Some of the recent antisteiner stuff is heavily unbalanced. The previous steinerfriendly information, was at least based on knowledge of steiner and the steinermovement, and not only on hostile selections of misunderstood details. --Vindheim 13:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

White wash?

Anonymous alledges a white wash in this article. Please contribute comments here. Please verify anything that you want to go into the article. If there is sufficient evidence then the NPOV tag would need to be put back up. Jefffire 14:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Jaffire -- It is a whitewash. I just added a number of Steiners works to the site. Strangely, there were only a few or Steiner's works mentioned and they had none of the stuff that thousands of Waldorf schools and Anthroposophists use everyday. I went to a major a Waldorf site and put in all of Steiner's work they linked to. Considering Waldorf schools are Steiner's most prominent contribution to the English-speaking world, I thought it would be a fair place to start to let people read for themselves about Steiner. Scroll down through the titles, follow a few links and read a little, and you tell me if what is written about Steiner in this page even reflects what STEINER wrote about himself and his anthroposophy. (This anonymous comment was added by User:69.129.127.170

The following works by Steiner were already listed before this anonymous user made this comment: Truth and Science (doctoral thesis) Philosophy of Freedom (1894) Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World-Conception (1886) How to Know Higher Worlds (1904-5) Theosophy (1904) The Education of the Child (1907) An Outline of Esoteric Science (1913) Four Mystery Dramas - The Soul's Awakening (1913) Study of Man (1918) Practical Advice To Teachers (1919) Toward Social Renewal (1919) Man as Symphony of the Creative Word (1923) Anthroposophy and the Inner Life (1924) An Autobiography (1924-5)

These are considered his major works. The complete works include 350 volumes; not all can be included. This is carping to say that this is not a fair selection; it has aspects of all of his work included.Hgilbert 09:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Um... none of his clearly Christian titles are mentioned here. How about adding "Christianity as Mystical Fact", "The Bible and Wisdom", "The Fifth Gospel", "Christ and the Spirit World", "The Apocalypse of St. John", "Rosicrucianism and Modern Initiation", "The Archangel Michael", and stuff like that? It seems the titles are hiding Steiner's esoteric Christian writings. --Pete K 00:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Pete...look at the actual list in the article, which has been totally revised since 5 May. Christianity as... appears under his books, and there is a whole section of lectures about Christianity. Feel free to add anything to that section, however; please remember that we can't list the complete works here, however, and the total number of listed lecture series for any given field should be proportionate to its representation in his complete works. OK? Hgilbert 11:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Harlan, I missed that list. I didn't mean to suggest that anything sinister was going on, only that it seemed to me a portion of his work was missing. --Pete K 06:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Incompleteness is different from bias

The objection that the article does not include all aspects of Steiner's thinking is unfair given the extent of his work; it would take a book, not an article to include these all. It also is not a NPOV objection, but one of completeness. The two are different. It is an ongoing project to make all WIKIPEDIA articles more complete; they do not for that reason represent a single POV.Hgilbert 09:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the issue is selective incompletness. Did Steiner have beliefs on the races that might not look so good in modern times? If so they do need to be included, but only as he stated them am and without the editorialising of describing them as "rascist" (except possibly in the critisms section). Jefffire 09:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If Steiners theories on race are similar to Blavatskys (which I believe they are) it is incorrect to link them to racism or even to the popular ideas of human races. The Theosophical concept of human reaces spans time and space, and includes evolution through a series of seven rootraces each consisting of seven subraces.The earliest "races" in this concept are supposed to have been immaterial and sexless. All of present humanity is supposed to belong to the fifth of these "rootraces", and all human reincarnating souls are supposed to pass though different racial groups and sexes. It is true that some i.e. protonazi groups (ariosophists) delevloped these theories into ugly racism, but the track record of mainstream theosophy and antroposophy proves consistent efforts to improve relations between racial groups. Theosophy was instrumental in strenghtening Indian selfconfidence, religious and otherwise, in the nineteenth christian century. ( The Indian national Congress was actually founded at a Theosophical gathering). Waldorfshools in Soutafrica and other places have been multiracial even under apartheid etc. etc --Vindheim 10:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added a link to a new page summarizing Steiner's view on race. I am removing the NPOV label, as all points of view are freely editing these articles, and I see no points of dispute here unaddressed. Hgilbert 21:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Lectures

I have ordered the lectures thematically according to the publisher (Rudolf Steiner Verlag)'s catalog. I have replaced individual lectures with collections or cycles where possible. Hgilbert 07:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Steiner criticism -- NPOV dispute

Re. Steiner criticism:

(From the article)

There are scientists acquainted with the topics Steiner touched upon who regard his methodology as irreproducible and thus unscientific, and therefore completely disregard his works

This is a serious understatement. First of all, most scientists are probably completely unaware of Steiner's musings. Second, those so "acquainted" are most likely antagonistic. I suspect the pro-Steiner scientist phalange to be mostly negligable.

Steiner frequently asked his students to test everything he said, and not to take his statements on authority or faith. He also said that if it had been practicable, he would have changed the name of his teachings every day, to keep people from hanging on to the literal meaning of those teachings, and to stay true to their character as something intended to be alive and metamorphic.

If he really said that then all is good but I really think that needs some references. However, there remains the question whether students really do challenge Steiner's teachings to any degree. For instance it seems to me that the obvious un-"PC" material is commonly explained away as "difficult", tacitly promoting an ugly kind of anti-intellectualism.

Also, regarding Steiner's teachings I think it's quite uncontroversial to categorize him as pro pan-German, based on his earlier writings. This is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with.

Certainly by the time of his anthroposophical work, Steiner differentiated sharply between being an advocate for the importance of German culture, which was international ('pan-German'), and a critic of the German Reich, and indeed any barbarization of the cultural impulse into a nationalistic movement. (See for example his appeal to the German citizens, 'An das deutsche Volk und die Kulturwelt!' I am aware of one early writing praising Bismarck and the Kaiser upon the succession of the latter to the throne, but this hardly qualifies him as pro pan-German. Do you have quotations that you can share?

The Russian poet Andrej Belij spoke of Steiner's attitude during WWI:

The outbreak of the war brought Steiner new, special problems; he had to guide the outbreaks of nationalistic sentiment into sensible directions. Three weeks [after the outbreak of the First World War] the first momentum of our spontaneous solidarity was quite evidently broken. All through September and through all of October the storms in the canteen did not abate: the British and the Russians gathered together in little groups, the Germans insisted very tactlessly that the war had been instigated by the provocative attitude of England; the Russians countered with the statement that a breach of neutrality amounts to barbarism. Soon, theoretical debates changed to concrete incidents and endangered the whole life of Dornach. Schuré's withdrawal from the Anthroposophical Society, the nasty rumors that filtered out of France via the French part of Switzerland, the duplicity of some Poles - all this had very negative effects. All eyes were on the Doctor; one secretly hoped the he would at least state: "Germany is in the right!" or "Germany is to blame for all the catastrophes!" However he did not accuse a single country, only the mendacity of the press; and he recommended that one not believe the sensational news reports and instead work undauntedly on the aspect of true culture.. Everybody waited tensely for an unequivocal gesture.

One such gesture lay for me in his five lectures concerning the essence of culture which he held in our Schreinerei in November. They contained living representations from Italian, French, English, and German culture Campanella, the 17th century in France, the German "Frenchman" in Steiner's depiction, Leibnitz, Shakespeare, Newton, Schiller and Goethe. An image of Russia arose - the Russia that is striving towards the future, the kingdom of the spirit. Everyone was enthused - the French, the Austrians, the Germans and Russians. The Doctor had succeeded in smoothing the waves of nationalistic passion by pointing out the unity that all great culture has in common. In light of his words we once again turned to one another; the oppressive atmosphere was transformed. Later on other infections appeared, but the nationalistic fever was once and for all overcome; from then on, the members of the various nations at war with one another lived in peace.

This makes his war-time attitude pretty clear.Hgilbert 23:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Steiner as a philosopher -- NPOV dispute

I contest the neutrality of denominating Steiner a philosopher. I challenge you to find contemporary, mainstream philosophers who reference Steiner as a philosopher or comment on Steiner's works as a philosophic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by anonymous (talk • contribs)

See Richard Tarnas' *The Passion of the Western Mind* as well as Robert McDermott's introduction to *The Essential Steiner* for an example of just two contemporary, mainstream philosophers who reference Steiner as a a philosopher or comment on Steiners's work as a philosophic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by anonymous (talk • contribs)

Steiner had a PhD in philosophy and wrote a number of books on themes such as epistemology, free will, and the philosophy of science: Truth and Knowledge, The Philosophy of Freedom, etc. I don't know how you could question whether he was a philosopher. At the same time, his philosophical work has certainly not been influential amongst most mainstream philosophers. Those two statements can stand side by side; they are not mutually contradictory.Hgilbert 22:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Steiner definitely qualifies as a philosopher. --Pete K 00:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Weleda and biodynamic farming -- NPOV dispute

(From the article)

Biodynamic farming is not merely organic -- in addition it works with the movement patterns of the stars and the moon, and with the non-physical beings in nature, and seeks to do testable research on how agriculture can produce the best quality food.

Scientifically, why would the movement patterns of the stars have anything to do with the quality of biodynamically produced foods? Biodynamic farming does not seek to do testable research on agriculture and I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary.

Emanuel1972 09:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I do know that Maria Thun (a biodynamic farmer/gardener) has done extensive research (over more than 20 years) on the effects of astrological patterns on different types of plants and on the growth of various parts of plants - root, stem, fruit, blossom etc. Yeah, it does seem pretty mystical but she seems to have found some definite influences and correlations. jarbo 5/14/06

the rationale is not necessarily that the planets influence the plants (though in the case of the moon a direct influence is a possibility), rather that the world moves in rhythmic patterns that are reflected in the growth patterns of plants as well as in the movement of the heavens. --Vindheim 11:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The Steiner/ Waldorf Schools

As a graduate of the Santa Fe Waldorf High School, I approve of this page, and certify that all the information stated in this article is acurate per what I learned in the Waldorf School system. Woot! WALDORF FOREVER!

What a surprise? LOL! --Pete K 00:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

balance of POV

I am removing the NPOV label; there is now an unusual amount of space given to critical views in this article.Hgilbert 14:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

but there is no criticism in the criticism section. for instance there must be a more objective voice on steiner's alleged racism than from an anthroposophical commission. trueblood 18:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a complex topic and grew to a point where it demanded a separate article, Rudolf Steiner's views on races, which is referenced in the main article's criticism section. I'm not sure that the commission's report should be in the main article any more, however. What do you think? Hgilbert 00:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, another user (Jefffire) has said that he is trying to revise the criticism section; see Talk:Anthroposophy.Hgilbert 08:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the commission's statement, which is available in the sub-article, and moved some descriptive content that was sitting in the criticism section to other locations (cross-referenced). Hgilbert 09:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll get on the job soon. I'm just easing myself back into the task after my break from civilisation. Jefffire 11:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

yep, i like this better like it is now trueblood 10:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

master

from the introduction: The herb gatherer introduced Steiner to his master. The master advised Steiner him to study Darwin and Haeckel, Fichte and Schelling that needs a little more explaining. who or what is this master guy? trueblood 10:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have clarified the section as much as possible. The name of the individual in question is unknown. I believe that more accurate would be, "advised him to study Fichte".Hgilbert 20:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

yep, you're devoted, that is a lot better. trueblood 10:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC) )

Problems editing page

The last edit appears to have conflicts with previous edits. I tried to create a merge of the two versions but Wikipedia is unable to save new versions (at least from here). (I get a:

Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again. If it still doesn't work, try logging out and logging back in.

The last version is not completely up-to-date. Hgilbert 11:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)