--- "John R. Owens" jowens.wiki@ghiapet.homeip.net wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2003, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 05:38:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] JohnQ / MaryMary - the
clitoris guy
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@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
Sorry, I misphrased myself. What I mean was that you cant take a photo and make it unobjectionable.
--LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com