On 2/8/06, W. Guy Finley <wgfinley(a)dynascope.com> wrote:
I have it, lets form a committee to review all of his
edits, maybe even stop
by his house and see if he actually IS a pedophile before we do anything!
Yes, yes, wonderful idea!! After all, it's far more vital to the project
that people be allowed to make bold statements such as condoning or making
light of molesting children on their user page than risk losing the
incredibly valuable contributions such a person is bound to make to the
If such a person was discreetly making valuable changes to pages
unrelated to children or pedophilia, yes it would be a shame to lose
them under anti-pedophilia hysteria.
I'm sure I'll sooner or later get accused of supporting pedophiles,
but I'm just trying to be slightly rational here.
Have I crossed into the frakking Bizarro world here or
something? What the
hell is this NONSENSE?? The guy puts on his page "I am a pedophile" i.e.
molest children" and his "joke" is more important than the obvious
disruption it causes? More important than the blatant insensitivity to
No, it's not. Disruption is bad.
those who have had someone in their family molested or
perhaps even molested
themselves? The fact that this has absofrakkinglutely NOTHING to do with
CREATING AN ENCYCLOPEDIA???
Yes, by all means, let's protect and hold up this fine example of a
contributor to our project, send him out on the press stops with Jimbo!
Not blocking is not the same thing as protecting.