I never said he MUST be very religious, only that he MIGHT be, because you had said that the nick was obviously offensive.

Zoe

 james duffy <jtdirl@hotmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Brion,

I understand your argument more fully now. I was somewhat surprised to find
myself 'acting' as a voice for people offended by the usernick chosen. But I
thought it important to let people know some people were unhappy but felt
uneasy about expressing their views, fearing they would not be taken
seriously. Re Zoe's observation that the person responsible for the
complaint must be very religious, there were a number of people, some
non-religious, some religious, but all felt that the name CrucifiedChrist
was offensive to religious believers and those sensitive to the beliefs of
christians.

Regards,

JT

>From: Brion Vibber
>Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org
>To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Why is 'CrucifiedChrist' less offensive than a
>punon oral sex?
>Date: 28 Jan 2003 14:08:50 -0800
>
>On mar, 2003-01-28 at 13:51, james duffy wrote:
> > Brion,
> > I'm puzzled at your reply, particular about your 'effective opening
> > argument' comment.
>
>Allow me to compare, using an exaggerated form purely for rhetorical
>effect:
> "I'm the only person ever to complain about how
> offensive this is! Ban it now!"
>with
> "Wikipedia has lost access to a valuable resource
> because this user name made the project look
> extremely unprofessional."
>
> > The loss of those pictures was a result of the use of a
> > clearly offensive name, CrucifiedChrist. But that name has already
>caused
> > offence to Wikipedia users and contributors. Yet you seem to be only
> > bothered by the loss of the pictures, and not by the unambiguous
> > offensiveness of the user nickname, which with a logic I cannot fathom,
>you
> > regard as a 'huge improvement'!!!
>
>Offense is only taken, not given. There is no objective measure of
>offensiveness that I can perform; actual reactions and quanitifable
>results as to how the project is affected are much more convincing to
>me.
>
> > People who complained to me said they would not complain publicly
>because
> > their views would not be taken seriously. I've been sending messages
>back
> > telling people that it is OK to complain, that their views will be taken
>as
> > seriously, and they will be shown the same respect as everyone else.
>
>Thank you for doing so -- we can't take seriously a complaint that is
>never received!
>
> > Your
> > continuing inability to see any problem with this nickname makes me
>think
> > that maybe they are right; that mocking their beliefs is OK, because
> > religious believers are perceived as second class citizens in terms of
> > causing offence. Poor and corny sexual puns are 'of course' offensive.
>But
> > mocking someone they regard as the Son of God isn't. Is this the latest
> > political correctness?
>
>You clearly have misunderstood my position. I am offended by neither
>corny sexual puns nor by co-opting of religious terminology, but I
>consider both to be in the category of things that make the project look
>bad, along with silly usernames in general. If they make the project
>look bad enough, or they provoke enough trouble within the ranks, that
>it is detrimental to the project, I'm all in favor of kicking them out
>and letting us all get back to work.
>
>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
><< signature.asc >>




_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l