[WikiEN-l] JohnQ / MaryMary - the clitoris guy

[John R. Owens]

On Fri, 16 May 2003, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:

> Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 05:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] JohnQ / MaryMary - the clitoris guy
> 
> --- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> > 
> > >You're missing MY point. From a relistic
> > perspective,
> > >sexually explicit images are in a different
> > category
> > >than articles describing christianity in Western
> > >culture. I know it is POV, but I think it is
> > >nessessary in a situation like this.
> > >
> > Each category has its own range for what is
> > objectionable.  "Sexually 
> > explicit" runs from suggestive almost nudity to
> > goatse.cx.  Others might 
> > find the extreme views of "creation science" and
> > "holocaust denial" to 
> > be just as objectionable.
> > 
> > Ec
> 
> Creation science and holocaust denial are
> objectionable, but they are presented as opinion, not
> fact. That is the main difference. You cant make an
> NPOV photograph.
> 
> --LittleDan

So, umm, just what opinions does a photograph have? As long as they aren't 
doctored or staged, photographs are about as NPOV as it gets around here. 
You _can_ make a POV photograph, but you have to try.
The inclusion or not is where the POV usually starts to creep in. And it 
seems to be trying to do so now.

-- 
John R. Owens http://www.ghiapet.homeip.net/
Understanding is a three-edged sword.  
				--Kosh Naranek