--- "John R. Owens" <jowens.wiki(a)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(a)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] JohnQ / MaryMary - the
clitoris guy
--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)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.