[WikiEN-l] Robert Brookes

Fri Sep 10 08:33:53 UTC 2004

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Bauder [mailto:fredbaud at ctelco.net] 
Sent: 09 September 2004 17:47
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Robert Brookes

>I think referring to him as "this prick" is not cool despite his
referring
>to you as part of the "lunatic fringe".

>Fred

Of course you are right and I apologize. I just got very irritated over
the smegma article. Because of edit warring this article had around 100
edits yet still remained stubby. My first edit was to try to a
compromise wording to try and satisfy both sides of the argument. RB
reverted. I tried to reason with him. RB insulted. So I stopped talking
to him but instead tried to work on expanding the article. There was a
phrase that said smegma contained antiviral and antibacterial agents and
also protected against irritation from urine. I could find no evidence
to support the antviral or protection from urine claim so I removed them
(Presumably RB would have been pleased with this) However there was
evidence of antibacterial properties so I wrote.

"Smegma contains the enzyme lysozyme which attacks the cell walls of
many Gram positive bacteria causing them to burst. Presumably this
prevents the massive build up of harmful bacteria in what would
otherwise be an ideal environment for them. Lysozyme is only able to
lyse certain Gram positive bacteria. Some are resistant. The
non-pathogenic mycobacterium M. smegmatis is not affected by lysozyme
and grows rapidly in smegma."

RB wrote on the talk page:

"What a lot of garbage. What has this to do with smegma? Give me one
good reason why this rubbish should remain in the smegma article? -
Robert Brookes 04:39, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) 
Interesting to see another anti-circumcision activist come to Theresa's
assistance. I hope no one asks what has all this business of lysozyme
got to do with circumcision. Give it a little time and a few tweeks and
all will become apparent. - Robert Brookes 05:01, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)"

GRRRRRRRR!!!!!!! The fact that my writing had bugger all to do with
circumcision is seen as evidence that I am a sneaky activist trying to
insert anti circumcision POV "by stealth". 

Anyway that's why I was annoyed. That and the fact that my lasted edits
have all been to do with penis related articles so I've got pricks on
the brain ;-)

Theresa