Slim Virgin wrote:
On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)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=his…
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.