> >I haven't seen it yet and now you've spoiled the ending!
> >
> >
> >
> It's about the Titanic. It sinks.
>
> AFAIK, the movie is not about the Titanic sinking, it's about the
> aforementioned (hemi-demi-semi)nude Kate Winslet.
>
> --
> Alphax
The movie is less about the Titanic's ill-fated voyage than about the
rich man's fiancee who falls for a poor artist. It's a typical "love
triangle" story. And the signature song is about the eternal, enduring
love between the girl and poor Jack who sacrifices his life so that she
can "go on" with hers.
The steamy scene in the car, as well as the semi-fig-leafed scene where
Jack draws his new girlfriend, are not central to the movie. Even though
they are real crowd-pleasers, the plot would not have suffered by
editing the car scene so that the frantically-excited couple are merely
shown getting into the car and doing some intense necking (leave
something to the imagination). And the drawing scene would have worked
just as well with PG-type fig-leafing instead of the tantalization of
"Ohmygosh, is she really showing her wobbly bits?"
If we write an article on [[nudity in American film]], then the picture
would be an excellent illustration. It's not really representative of
Titanic, as the article stood yesterday. "King of the world" gets my
vote instead.
Uncle Ed
Dear Tony et al.,
I am sometimes clumsy. I generally have a fairly strong grasp of the
English language, but sometimes I pick the wrong words to convey the
sentiments or ideas that I wish to communicate. A reality of language is
that the words we say are not always the words we mean.
I made a statement that several people have gone on and on about. Was it
an accusation, was it an opinion, was it vile, was it insupportable, was
it factual, was it a paralipsis, etc. etc. ad nauseam.
Let me say, once and for all that I am sorry. I am genuinely sorry. I
chose my words carelessly. I never intended to make an accusation,
particularly about any individual people or groups. My statement was an
observation based on a general opinion, which in retrospect was wrong
<strike>not very accurate</strike>(edited).
Again, I'm sorry for any grief that I've caused anyone along the way.
Now, I think it would be ideal if we could move on to something more
productive.
This --will-- be my last post to this thread, so if you want to keep
talking about me I suppose you can, but I won't be involved.
-Kevin
(I sent this once but it didn't seem to go through sorry if you get it
twice but I wanted to make sure everyone got it. Also I edited it for my
second sending as noted above)
Dear Tony et al.,
I am sometimes clumsy. I generally have a fairly strong grasp of the
English language, but sometimes I pick the wrong words to convey the
sentiments or ideas that I wish to communicate. A reality of language is
that the words we say are not always the words we mean.
I made a statement that several people have gone on and on about. Was it
an accusation, was it an opinion, was it vile, was it insupportable, was
it factual, was it a paralipsis, etc. etc. ad nauseam.
Let me say, once and for all that I am sorry. I am genuinely sorry. I
chose my words carelessly. I never intended to make an accusation,
particularly about any individual people or groups. My statement was an
observation based on a general opinion, which in retrospect was not very
accurate.
Again, I'm sorry for any grief that I've caused anyone along the way.
Now, I think it would be ideal if we could move on to something more
productive.
This --will-- be my last post to this thread, so if you want to keep
talking about me I suppose you can, but I won't be involved.
-Kevin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-
> bounces(a)Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Tony Sidaway
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 9:21 AM
> To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture
>
> Chad Perrin said:
> >
> > It's pretty clear that Kevin's statement isn't factually supportable
> > with evidence at hand, but that doesn't change the fact that what
could
> > easily be a mere bit of sloppy phrasing was instead treated by Tony
as
> > a deliberate and specific accusatory attack.
>
>
> It's quite clear that the intent was to discredit those who disagreed
with
> Kevin by questioning their motives and directly attacking their good
> faith. It was a vile accusation, insupportable and unworthy of this
list.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Tony argued that:
> Further
> fig-leafing would have been as distracting to most audiences
> as those disturbingly flat-chested female centaurs in Fantasia.
If you think your taste is representative of "most audiences",
then you'll L-O-V-E this:
http://www.nerve.com/Dispatches/Rogers/japanimation/main.asp
Imagine if the centaurs in Fantasia abandoned their chaste
little picnic and erupted into a wild orgy. The younger, more
girlish colts might not be as into it, so they'd get tied up.
Then a 1,000-foot high robot in samurai armor locked in battle
with an equally huge demon that squirts fire out of tentacles
... might crash into the scene, killing all the centaurs. Or
maybe the male centaurs would all die horribly but quickly,
while the female centaurs would live long enough to be raped
...
(But don't forget the distinction between "if" and "since"!)
Ed Poor
P.S. I found this lovely little snippet of "middle-of-the-road"
fantasy by googling for "female centaurs in Fantasia".
To whom it may concern,
Please see below, an email I sent to Jimbo Wales on 04.09.05
This email may also interest various Wiki Admins.
Any help I can receive with this will be appreciated
++++++++++++++++++++
04.09.05
Greetings:
I am Wiki user 216.153.214.94.
Last year, until I lost interest in logging-in, I edited as Rex071404.
For most Admins I've communicated with though, it's common knowledge that 216.153.214.94 is Rex071404.
Recently, on 04.07.05, I was blocked by IP indefinitely by Neutrality.
Being unable to log in or edit from that IP, I left a message on Meelar's talk page (for reasons that would be made clear if the post were read) from a secondary IP address of 216.153.214.93.
Though I have access to many IP addresses, I have refrained from attempting to use any because, ruckus raising or evasion is not my intent. Rather, my intent has been (albeit poorly executed) to oppose/balance out what I see is a serious imbalance of POV in various USA politics related articles. And, while doing that, I have from time to time added some thoughtful talk page comments and started a few worthwhile pages.
I'm curious to know what your thoughts about some of the brouhahas I have been involved in might be.
In particular, for an example, please take a close look at the "Killian documents" article or "John Kerry" and tell me if you would, are you in agreement that each and every edit I've tried to make there since basically forever ought to have been reverted (as they have been)? I simply cannot fathom where the depth of opposition is coming from.
Here's a case in point: On the "John Kerry" page, there is a link to the wiki-page of the 'pro-Kerry' documentary of "Going Upriver", but no matter how you try to insert it, a link to the wiki-page of the 'anti-Kerry' "Stolen Honor" documentary gets deleted.
Frankly, I fail to see why the wiki doesn't simply delete "Stolen Honor" if it's not going to be allowed to be incorporated by link reference into articles which pertain to the main subject matter of the documentary itself. Also, take notice that it was me, editing as Rex071404 who started the Stolen Honor page (and defended it from relentless revert and debasement attack).
At this point, I am not sure what to think about your otherwise noble goal of a free encyclopedia. How can an information source be considered valid if opposing views are simply shooed away?
Take a look at some of the talk page dialogs I have engaged in at:
"Lawrence v. Texas"
"Monty Hall Problem"
"Dedham Massachusetts"
"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"
"Killian Documents"
"Axis of Evil", etc.
You may have to look at some last fall entries to get a clear picture. One thing you will notice is that I've never, not once, ever quit a dialog on a talk page with open questions or comments directed at me going unanswered. But, you'll also notice that my opponents such as JamesMLane, Neutrality, Gamaliel and Antaeus Feldspar simply quit trains of dialog when they are boxed in.
For example, it's been almost a year, but JamesMLane has NEVER answered the question which I posed to him on at least 10 occasions; yes or no, is it true that John Kerry's first wound was "minor"? The amount of fighting I was forced to endure trying to get and answer to that (or alternatively, get that word into the article) was enormous. Frankly, I don't see how one can care about all the irrelevant minutiae which is included in the Kerry article, but still be so opposed to allowing the word "minor" in to describe an injury which required no stitches and caused no loss of duty. How much less consequential of an injury can one get?
As another example, at Killian documents, there is no coherent explanation of even the undisputed facts concerning the "provenance" of the so-called documents. Indeed, even getting the word "provenance" into the article required a major fight.
Personally, I feel that on politically related articles, there is too much of a left-wing bias and the "mob-rule" plan of "consensus" gives only the entrenched side with more votes a voice - everyone else is silenced. Certainly, some of the recent comments by users such as Cecropia and 172 cannot be dismissed out of hand.
Jim, I've looked into some of your background edits on the Wiki, you seem to be a very smart guy. But, I am puzzled that you don't seem to have noticed the political bias issue on the Wiki.
I have 3 questions:
1) Have you noticed that political related articles are a bone of contention?
2) Have you lost any editors from the WIki (who you consider good editors) that have cited anything akin to "mob-rule" problems as a reason for leaving.
3) And if yes to #2, are you open to dialoging with me via email various things related to what I have commented on above (or anything else you might feel is germane)?
Please advise.
Warmest Regards,
216.153.214.94
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/2005
--- Kevin Rector <krector(a)Compco.com> wrote:
> The fact that the Wikipedia "community" won't
> resolve these problems,
> and the fact that the community so proudly proclaims
> that "Wikipedia is
> not censored" while ignoring the fact that
> "Wikipedia is quite
> dysfunctional" has made me realize that I need to
> re-evaluate if this is
> a project that I want to be a part of.
The community HAS resolved this non-problem. It has
decided, by consensus, that there is nothing wrong
with having images like this. Just because it hasn't
acceded your point of view on a topic which many think
is much ado about nothing, doesn't mean that the
community is dysfunctional.
Maybe you'd be more comfortable at something like
yahooligans.
RickK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
--- BJ�rn Lindqvist <bjourne(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a bad paralipsis that Tony rightly objected
> to. Kevin IS
> definitely asserting a fact here. He could have
> gotten away with it by
> instead of saying "I've come to the realization
> that..." say "I have a
> feeling that..." or "Someone told me that..." or
> "I've heard that..."
> or "It might be that..." If he would have phrased
> his paralipsis like
> that, Tony would probably appear as a petty
> troublemaker that
> questions something unessential. Still, since noone
> except Tony has
> opposed Kevin's statement, and people have
> questioned Tony's motives
> for "nitpicking," it shows how effective this
> rhethorical trick is.
> Tony has lost, but atleast he got people to question
> the validity of
> Kevin's statement.
Well, no, I've opposed Kevin's statements too, and
have been accused of making personal attacks.
RickK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
--- Kevin Rector <krector(a)Compco.com> wrote:
> The Kate Winslet debacle has been resolved. Please
> see the talk page at
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Titanic_%281997_movie%29.
>
> Compromise happened, my wikistress is down, all the
> names I've been
> called in the last 48 hours are forgotten and life
> is good again.
This saddens me.
RickK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Hi.
Following the example of the German Wikipedia, I have tentatively
created a page for a Spoken Wikipedia project on en:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia
We might need some ideas and discussion to get this going, but of course
the best way of getting it going is to start recording things. :-)
Have fun,
Timwi
--- Tom Haws <hawstom(a)sprintmail.com> wrote:
> Karl A. Krueger wrote:
>
> >Whose workplace? I know a couple who who work in a
> sex-toy shop.
> >
> >
> Enough said.
And what does that mean?
RickK
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com