Here's what prompted the fwd (last) email:
--- Irate wrote:
> You haven't reanabled my WikiMeid a account after
> Anthere corrupt Blocking, and most of you haven't
> replied. That seems a tad uncooperative to me. I
> suggest you block yourself so as not to be
> inconsistent.
>
> If I am blocked Zannerium should defintely be
> blocked. He ignored my request for many times longer
> than I ignored him. I even had to go looking for an
> admin to try and get him to stopped editing my
> comments on my talk page, without signing them.
>
> I now thanks to the activities of one of your admins
> am blocked. The explnation lack of cooperatine is
> false, as people have cooperted with me far less.
> Like people who have received this email but refuse
> to answer or do anything are you and more or less
> guilty of being uncooperative.
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
> From: steve v <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com>
>
> Question: Is it POV to say that a fetus is a "human
> life," and by terminology, thus entitled to universal
> "human rights" and societal "personhood" status?
I think there certainly is a point of view involved here, in the
sense that there is a continuous spectrum of things ranging from
things that few would consider to be "human life" and things that
most would consider to be "human life," and anywhere you draw the
line represents some kind of point of view.
I'm going to list some points in that spectrum. I ask you, _not_
where you draw the line, but whether it is _possible_ to draw that
line anywhere without expressing a point of view.
1) Since a mouse shares about 90% of its genome with humans, wouldn't
a Martian consider that for all intents and purposes a mouse is
practically "human" life?
2) At this point, it has been established that rats dream. Over the
past couple of decades, ethologists have increasingly adopted the,
well, point of view that the concept of "consciousness" has
scientific validity... and that mammals in fact are conscious.
Probably most people, scientists or not, would agree that mammals are
capable of feeling physical pain, and that many of them are capable
of feeling emotions such as grief or joy. By virtue of sharing the
mental characteristics that constitute human personhood, are they
essentially "human" life and entitled to "personhood?"
3) Are the red blood cells in the last blood donation I made, alive?
(They metabolize and do many things but cannot reproduce). If they
are alive, they are certainly human. Are they "human life?"
4) How about cells scraped from the inside of my cheeks, which are a
classic high-school material for studying chromosomes?
5) How about my white blood cells, which have nuclei and contain my
genome and can reproduce themselves, but cannot with present
technology reproduce another human being?
6) How about a human kidney, removed from a car accident victim who
is carrying an organ donor card? That is, there is no reasonable
doubt that the person involved is "dead," yet the kidney is "still
alive," and is certainly "human?"
7) How about my sperm cells, which are certainly alive and certainly
human and can reproduce another human being when combined with
genetic material from an ovum, but cannot with present technology
reproduce another human being _by themselves?_
8) How about a sperm and an ovum, considered together, during the
time period when the sperm has entered the ovum fertilization
membrane has lifted, so that it is all but certain that a) no other
sperm can fertilize that ovum and b) that particular sperm will in
fact fertilize the ovum... but the nuclei have not yet merged? At
this point in time, the probability that a human being will develop
is almost the same as it is just after fertilization, and in both
cases we know exactly "who" it will be (in the sense of knowing the
genetic complement).
9) You use the word "fetus," so I assume you accept the ordinary
distinction between a "fetus" and "embryo" (less than 8 weeks old).
IS an embryo human life? Just like the separate egg-and-sperm just
prior to fertilization, the embryo is pretty much predestined to
_become_ human life, but it doesn't look like a human being and it
doesn't look different from a nonhuman embryo. Is it "human life?"
10) first-trimeter fetuses
11) second-trimester fetuses
12) third-trimester fetuses
13) Newborn infants
14) Toddlers
--
Jean is going to be bicycling 83 miles in the Pan Mass Challenge in
August, raising money for cancer research. Her profile is at http://
www.pmc.org/mypmc/profiles.asp?Section=story&eGiftID=JS0417
Fwd - thought this was on-list.
--- steve v <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: steve v
> Subject: Re: Meta e-mail
> To: Irate
>
> Anthere gives the reason as "uncooperative," and Im
> not going to second guess her decision. If you
> explain
> yourself here, there's a good chance that you can be
> unblocked early. Should "uncooperative" behaviour
> continue, meta's rules for blocking and banning are
> up
> to the sysops there, as they deem someone to be
> disruptive with normal developments there.
>
> IOW, wikis are collaborative web
> communities--cooperation and sense of community are
> necessary, although just plain civility will often
> suffice.
>
> SV
>
>
> --- Irate wrote:
>
> >
> > I have been blocked by Anthere. With no
> explnation,
> > other than Matt Crypto. I want tto be reenabled
> now.
> > and I would like to know why I was blocked.
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
On 7/26/05, andyl2004(a)sympatico.ca <andyl2004(a)sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I really would like to avoid this problem in the future and either have these pipermail entries edited so as to remove my full name or have them hidden from search engines by having a "NOINDEX" command placed in the html codes for those pages.
As list administrators, we don't have a "delete archived message" or
"edit archived message" button. For us to modify the archives, we need
a member of the Wikimedia Technical Support Crew to directly modify
the entries on the server. Which is a hell of a lot of trouble, and is
obviously only reserved for the most serious of breaches of privacy.
If you still wish for them to rectify this, contact them on their
mailing list, which you can subscribe to at the following address:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
~Mark Ryan
I know that there have been discussions about this in the past and that
this subject has been controversial, however for the life of me I have
not been able to find a full discussion on this so I thought I'd ask
here what the whole issue is with subpage and userpage protection and
why is it so controversial and disputed?
-Jtkiefer
I have been blocked by Administrator SlimVirgin for an
indefinate period. The charge is that I have created
Sock puppets to get around the 3RR policy on the Islam
page. I have done no such thing.
Islam page is controversial because Islam is
controversial these days. Islam would not be
controversial if muslim had not gone around beheading
infidels on TV, suicide bombing in London, Madrid,
Kashmir, and today Egypt. I have been advocating
including a link to a Ex-Muslim site directory that
contains links to many anti-Islam sites. Instead of
attempting to discuss this on the talk page, the
action has been to ban myself, who is not an
ex-muslim, and others who are for an indefinate
period.
I am new to the Wiki routine and hence do not know the
proper protocols to follow, but I do know that free
speech dies when attempts to quash criticism is not
given the maximum exposure in every possible venue ...
hence this letter.
I wish nothing but the best for Wiki, and I hope that
this matter will be resolved to the open Wiki
standards.
Thanks for reading,
Nickbee.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Does this mean the pages will be modified or are you suggesting I practice some trancendental
meditation?
A
> From: steve v <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com>
> Date: 2005/07/25 Mon PM 09:14:01 EST
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Pipermail Privacy Concern
>
> Don't worry about it.
>
> SV
>
> --- andyl2004(a)sympatico.ca wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm a bit concerned because two wikien-l emails
> > contained in the online archives at pipermail have
> > my full name and I believe these pages have been
> > "googled" in the past by individuals angry at the
> > content of articles. I've been harassed as a result
> > by two individuals in the past few months.
> >
> > I really would like to avoid this problem in the
> > future and either have these pipermail entries
> > edited so as to remove my full name or have them
> > hidden from search engines by having a "NOINDEX"
> > command placed in the html codes for those pages.
> >
> > The pages in question are
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-April/012194.html
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-April/012194.html
> > (previous entry title)
> >
> > If this can be attended to I would be very grateful.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > AL
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> From: "Charles Matthews" <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
>
> "Dan Grey" wrote
>
>> "Consensus" can only mean everyone agrees - and when the hell that
>> does that happen? Next to never.
>
> Consensus may be a slightly fuzzy term, but it doesn't mean that.
> In fact
> WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of
> what it does
> mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely
> agreed, some
> who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those
> who don't
> agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree
> strongly
> but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that
> level,
> some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the
> law'. You
> find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try
> to build
> on it.
>
> Charles
Well said!
--
Jean is going to be bicycling 83 miles in the Pan Mass Challenge in
August, raising money for cancer research. Her profile is at http://
www.pmc.org/mypmc/profiles.asp?Section=story&eGiftID=JS0417
On 7/24/05, steve v <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Is it just me, or is this thing just plain overused?
> Make a nice "pruning project" maybe?
Generally, series boxes are limited to articles within that series (as
defined by inclusion in the box). That may be a good direction here.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Libertarianism
>
> SV
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
Frank (User:Wikiacc)
--
Double-ROT13 Encoded - circumvention will be prosecuted.