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

[Ray Saintonge]

John R. Owens wrote:

>On Fri, 16 May 2003, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
>
>>--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>
Yes the choice of photos can be a POV act.

Consider a penis as a flagpole for the American flag.  Is that POV enough?
Ec