[WikiEN-l] JohnQ / MaryMary - the clitoris guy

Fri May 16 19:54:00 UTC 2003

--- "John R. Owens" <jowens.wiki at ghiapet.homeip.net>
wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2003, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> 
> > Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 05:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] JohnQ / MaryMary - the
> clitoris guy
> > 
> > --- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > > Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> > > 
> > > >You're missing MY point. From a relistic
> > > perspective,
> > > >sexually explicit images are in a different
> > > category
> > > >than articles describing christianity in
> Western
> > > >culture. I know it is POV, but I think it is
> > > >nessessary in a situation like this.
> > > >
> > > Each category has its own range for what is
> > > objectionable.  "Sexually 
> > > explicit" runs from suggestive almost nudity to
> > > goatse.cx.  Others might 
> > > find the extreme views of "creation science" and
> > > "holocaust denial" to 
> > > be just as objectionable.
> > > 
> > > Ec
> > 
> > Creation science and holocaust denial are
> > objectionable, but they are presented as opinion,
> not
> > fact. That is the main difference. You cant make
> an
> > NPOV photograph.
> > 
> > --LittleDan
> 
> So, umm, just what opinions does a photograph have?
> As long as they aren't 
> doctored or staged, photographs are about as NPOV as
> it gets around here. 
> You _can_ make a POV photograph, but you have to
> try.
> The inclusion or not is where the POV usually starts
> to creep in. And it 
> seems to be trying to do so now.
> 
> -- 
> John R. Owens 

Sorry, I misphrased myself. What I mean was that you
cant take a photo and make it unobjectionable.

--LittleDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com