On 4/22/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 21/04/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
on 4/21/07 6:38 AM, Skyring at skyring(a)gmail.com
wrote:
On 4/19/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad(a)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