On 2/8/06, W. Guy Finley wgfinley@dynascope.com wrote:
I have it, lets form a committee to review all of his edits, maybe even stop by his house and see if he actually IS a pedophile before we do anything! Yes, yes, wonderful idea!! After all, it's far more vital to the project that people be allowed to make bold statements such as condoning or making light of molesting children on their user page than risk losing the incredibly valuable contributions such a person is bound to make to the project.
If such a person was discreetly making valuable changes to pages unrelated to children or pedophilia, yes it would be a shame to lose them under anti-pedophilia hysteria.
I'm sure I'll sooner or later get accused of supporting pedophiles, but I'm just trying to be slightly rational here.
Have I crossed into the frakking Bizarro world here or something? What the hell is this NONSENSE?? The guy puts on his page "I am a pedophile" i.e. "I molest children" and his "joke" is more important than the obvious disruption it causes? More important than the blatant insensitivity to
No, it's not. Disruption is bad.
those who have had someone in their family molested or perhaps even molested themselves? The fact that this has absofrakkinglutely NOTHING to do with CREATING AN ENCYCLOPEDIA???
Yes, by all means, let's protect and hold up this fine example of a contributor to our project, send him out on the press stops with Jimbo!
Not blocking is not the same thing as protecting.
Steve