--- Rebecca <misfitgirl(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Because the Christian culture, at least in the
> United
> > States, DEMANDS, that ONLY their particular
> cultural
> > sensitivities and prejudices be catered to. There
> is
> > no "If you don't want to see it, don't look at
> it."
> > No, rather, it's "I don't want to see it, so you
> > can't, either."
> >
> > RickK
>
> Rubbish, Rick. What I (who am most *certainly* not
> Christian, or of
> any other religious faith), and others are arguing,
> is that "if we
> don't want to see it, we have the choice not to see
> it". It still
> remains available for others to see - after they
> click a link. What
> you and Tony seem to be arguing for it is "I want to
> see it, so you
> must also". Somehow I think this seems closer to the
> quote in your
> post.
>
> -- ambi
Rebecca, are you really trying to say that the
campaigns to DELETE the autofellatio and Kate Winslet
images are all in order to make them links to the
article pages? Hardly. They are campaigns to REMOVE
the images COMPLETELY from Wikipedia, so that NOBODY
can see them.
RickK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
John Cheese has written to me to thank us for deleting the article.
He also says that he wishes "it didn't happen the way it did". He acknowledges that he had not understood "that there was 5-day voting period" and he thought we were leaving the article there simply to make a point.
He has promised to do his best to ensure that his readers "leave in peace. If you guys ever have trouble with any of my readers, please don't hesitate to contact me, and I'll put a stop to it. I don't foresee anything like that happening, but I'd still like to extend that olive branch just in case."
Theo
--- Joseph Osborne <josephosborne2005(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> We had our Familys watching the super bowl when she
> did that. Also we did not take the children to see
> the Titanic!
And? How does a couple of seconds of bare breast harm
anybody?
RickK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Tony may have confused "garland fig-leafing" with "flat-chestedness":
* The female centaurs in that sequence were originally bare-breasted,
but the Hays office insisted that discreet garlands be hung around
their necks.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g1epc/is_tov/ai_2419100422
(I guess it helps if you've actually seen the movie.)
... Hey, how about the mermaids in Disney's Peter Pan? (And Tinkerbell's
figure leaves little to the imagination; and wasn't there an erotic
spanking
scene, which caused her to shed fairy dust?)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Sidaway [mailto:minorityreport@bluebottle.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 7:39 AM
> To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Titanic, illustrated
>
>
> Poor, Edmund W said:
> >> the semi-fig-leafed scene where
> > Jack draws his new girlfriend, are not central to the movie. Even
> > though they are real crowd-pleasers, the plot would not
> have suffered
> > by editing the car scene so that the frantically-excited couple are
> > merely shown getting into the car and doing some intense necking
> > (leave something to the imagination). And the drawing scene
> would have
> > worked just as well with PG-type fig-leafing instead of the
> > tantalization of "Ohmygosh, is she really showing her wobbly bits?"
> >
>
>
> In my opinion, it would have severely dented the credibility
> of the director to have given in more than he did to the
> puritan sensibilities of the US domestic audience. Further
> fig-leafing would have been as distracting to most audiences
> as those disturbingly flat-chested female centaurs in Fantasia.
>
>
>
--- Theo Clarke <wiki(a)tignosis.com> wrote:
>We seem to have banned one of the
> POTW subscribers because s/he misspelt the name of
> one of our user's on the POTW web-site. (Yep! That
> is right. A user claims that their Wikipedia account
> was blocked because of what that user wrote on
> another web-site). If we so dislike misspelling
> (even if in this case the misspelling yields mild
> profanity and may have been conscious) then we need
> to be very careful ourselves.
>
> Theo
Are we talking about User:Bakudai? I assume he
"misspelled" ClockworkSoul's Username? I don't
believe that was why he was banned, but rather because
of his edit summaries on Wikipedia when he was making
"dare" edits on the VfD page: "cock" and "Lots of Cock
for all of you".
RickK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--- MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> BTW, has anyone seen the message Mr. Cheese claimed
> to have written in
> which he asked for deletion nicely?
>
> --Mgm
The first post SIGNED as John Cheese said, "Delete I'm
1/2 of the PWoT writing team. I'd rather brush my
teeth with a wood-file than have a PWoT entry on this
site. "Deserve" to be on Wikipedia? Please, for the
love of God, delete this retarded entry before I vomit
blood.". Certainly not nicely written.
RickK
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Theo Clarke <wiki(a)tignosis.com> wrote:
> I have just received an e-mail from John Cheese, the
> editor of pointlesswasteoftime.com telling me that
> if we do not delete the [[Pointless Waste of Time]]
> article, he will ask his "80,000 loyal readers" and
> the readers of "somethingawful.com, fark.com, and
> portalofevil.com" "to pour them into that page and
> give them free range on anything connected to it". I
> don't know what his problem is, but it seems
> substantial.
>
> T^heo
What a shame. The article has already been deleted.
If I had known that this threat was out there, I would
have changed my vote to Keep.
We can always restore it.
BTW, who hosts Pointless Waste of Time? We might want
to contact them and let them know what the admin of
that website is attempting to do.
RickK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide
--- David 'DJ' Hedley <spyders(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> Heres a simple question - We've given the cons of
> nudity on Wikipedia, do
> you have any reasonable pros, apart from making
> Wikiporn?
Once again a failure to assume good will from the side
that keeps demanding that THEY be given that
assumption.
RickK
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Now that it's over (mostly), a brief synopsis of what happened:
* A "joke" article was created in the User namespace
* Article was nominated as a FAC for April 1st 2005
* Mailing list, IRC and Cabal members shouted at each other
* Raul, Supreme Overlord of Features, grumpily declared "no"
* More shouting results in Main Page becoming full of silliness
* Many "joke" articles created
* Much concern about cleaning up the aftermath
And now for something completley different:
April 1st, 2006. April Fools Day *next year* (assuming Wikipædia still
exists).
Many people liked the idea of an April Fools Day Wikipedia. Many did
not. Answer: Compromise!
Here is my plan for Supreme Domination and pwnership next year:
* The Main Page and Article namespace as a whole will remain
"sensible". Links to April Fools version /might/ be possible.
* The Help namespace (which AFAIK is protected anyway) will remain
untouched. We need to keep the serious things serious.
* The Wikipedia namespace (except for policy and information pages)
is fair game. However, spurious VFDs (eg. Wikipedia:Votes for
Deletion/Main Page
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Main_Page>)
should *not* be tolerated.
* Templates should be pranked with caution. Examples: VFD Template -
Terminator Edition
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Vfd&oldid=11749823>,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Vfd&oldid=11749823>Wikistress
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/1/19/20050401120959%21Wiki…>
* Things in Mediawiki namespace should be pranked with /extreme
caution/. Only those things visible to Sysops (or at the very worst,
logged-in users) should be touchable. Example: Changing "block" to
"crush by elephant" (but remember, the same joke is only funny once).
* Various other suggestions welcome.
DISCLAIMER: I am a deletionist inclusionist sockpuppet troll. I founded
the Cabal. Jimbo, /I/ am your Father!. Wikipedia is not sane. ALL YOUR
BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
--
Alphax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
> From: Rick <giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Titanic, illustrated
>
> --- Joseph Osborne <josephosborne2005(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> We had our Familys watching the super bowl when she
>> did that. Also we did not take the children to see
>> the Titanic!
>
> And? How does a couple of seconds of bare breast harm
> anybody?
Actually, I'm surprised that anybody would equate these two scenes.
In _Titanic_, Kate Winslet's character Rose asks--practically
demands--that Jack sketch her in the nude. The activity is _very_
clearly consensual, and is initiated by Rose. Although one breast is
exposed, the two characters do not even touch. It doesn't strike _me_
as any more erotic than, say, Burt Lancaster and Ava Gardner rolling
around on the beach in _From Here to Eternity_. One scene has more
taboo skin exposure, but one has more touching and kissing and erotic
body language.
I wouldn't want to have kids see Titanic, but not because Jack paints
Rose in the nude, or because the two of them steam up the window of
that 1912 Renault. I'm more concerned about the passengers falling long
distances and injuring themselves as the ship tips toward the vertical,
the scenes of blue corpses floating in the water, and above all the
scenes of kids being separated from their fathers as they're put into
lifeboats,
Now, apart from the number of exposed nipples, the Superbowl incident
is very different.
Janet Jackson, or Janet Jackson's "character" if you like, voluntarily
chooses to stick around while Justin Timberlake's "character" is
getting all worked up and singing rather aggressively about his
intention to "have you naked by the end of this song." At the end, and
apparently without her permission, he rips off a piece of her costume.
A mini-drama of a woman choosing to stay in an abusive relationship and
getting raped? No. But it's not just a little boy chanting "I see
London, I see France, I see Janet's underpants," either.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
