On 4/22/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/04/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/21/07 6:38 AM, Skyring at skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
However, in the current AfD discussion, which I acknowledge is trending toward "Keep" again, it is represented that at least one suicidal individual has ACTUALLY consulted this article for information on how to kill himself. This multiplies my concern tenfold.
Heaven forbid that people should consult an encyclopaedia for useful information.
Huh!?!
To every reader his book, and to every book its reader.* I believe Peter's point is that if someone is wanting to kill themselves, then information on how people kill themselves is useful to that person.
Well, yeeees. Information on suicide methods is useful to all sorts of people. Novelists, for example. It's like the writers of romance novels being asked if they base the sex scenes on real life experience. Yeah. Just like the writers of murder mysteries do.
Or, for want of a better word. Morbid titillation. I remember once there was a news item about a couple of people found decapitated in a car and the police stated that there were "no suspicious circumstances".
Huhhh?
Eventually they caved in and disclosed the suicide method. Wind your windows down, get a long rope, tie both ends to stout trees (leaving plenty of slack, pass it through the car windows, wind it around your neck(s), stomp on the gas.
I'm sure that not all readers of Wikipedia articles have serious research in mind. Sometimes we provide fascinating information that beckons the reader on.
-- Peter in New York