Slim Virgin wrote:
On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
jayjg wrote:
Regarding the "rape" posts, some people think they were inappropriate, some people think they were not (as evidenced by various comments on this thread). I'm not taking a stand, as, frankly, I still haven't read them.
You should read them now, as they have been posted from your account and you recognize that controversy has arisen over them. "I haven't read them" isn't a valid excuse at this point.
Bryan, stop attacking people, please.
Heh. This in a thread specifically about how it's wrong to blame the victim, no less.
This was in response to an email where I was analogized quite graphically with an apologist for rapists. I think I've been quite restrained.
Your plea that we need to avoid drama would be more convincing if you yourself would stop creating it, and if you hadn't simultaneously gone and restored the Daniel Brandt talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Brandt&action=hist... which had previously been deleted for good reason by two admins.
Take a look at the history and/or undeletion log. I didn't restore the talk page's history in any way, I just put a list of the deletion debates there. It's the only revision. This is standard practice on any page that's had past deletion debates, and I did it at this particular time because this kerfuffle had reminded me of something only very tangentally related that I wanted to look up in one of them.
Can you point out any way that this caused drama, or was intended to cause drama? I do have a life and Wikipedia activities outside of this thread, you know. I've also been converting a bunch of navboxes over to the {{navbox generic}} template and arguing an annoying fair use rationale case as well, in case you're concerned about what else I've been doing in the background.