Indeed. But here you're simply flipping to a
mischaracterization of the
present state of Wikipedia as "pornographic", which is clearly nonsense.
And you are charactering what your oponets want as bowderised
You wrongly accused me earlier of proposing to speak
for the human race.
This is what you are doing as a matter of fact.
What makes you think that the majority of the human race is revolted by
Kate Winslet's naked left breast? If it's such a problem, why was there
not rioting in the streets at the prospect of children being exposed to
this heinous sight?
Check out the recent history of bollywood
There was a lot of opersition to the banning of fox hunting in the UK.
I don't notice much in the way of rioting in the street
A fork wouldn't be a bad idea in this instance,
because probably people
offended by the sight of a breast would have pretty firm ideas about our
textual content. But a mirror would be adequate for imposing the kind of
grundyism you are defending.
So you view all those with to keep the level of nudity in wikipedia
down to a minium as stupid?
--
geni