[WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

[Chad Perrin]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 05:50:26PM +0200, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> > It's pretty clear that Kevin's statement isn't factually supportable
> > with evidence at hand, but that doesn't change the fact that what could
> > easily be a mere bit of sloppy phrasing was instead treated by Tony as a
> > deliberate and specific accusatory attack.  As I've tried to convey,
> > more than once, I don't think that Kevin's statement provides a very
> > realistic impression of events at hand, the evidence to support Tony's
> > accusations of bad faith on Kevin's part is simply lacking.
> 
> You missed my point. Kevin "realized" that people who uploads nudie
> pics are trying to stir up trouble - aka trolling. Therefore, if you
> defend the uploading of nudie pics you are therefore defending
> trolling - aka trolling. Therefore, those who defend displaying
> undressed images in wiki-en are at a disadvantage since they become
> associated with trolling.

It seems that it is you that has missed my point: He may simply have
phrased that poorly, failing to specify the status of that "realization"
as arising from a personal perspective, perhaps because he simply didn't
take the time to consider other possible perspectives.  Nothing in his
mails to the lists that I've seen have indicated that he is intractably
unwilling to rephrase or retract that statement if asked, but I find
the attempts to back him into a corner where he has to defend something
that would be better recanted or rephrased to be, frankly, odious.  You
are making a declaration of his intent without bothering to ask him.
You assume bad faith.

You also assume absolutist applications of what was presented as only a
trend.  He never "realized" that ALL people who upload nude images are
trying to stir up trouble -- only that there (seems to be / is) a
pattern of such behavior arising recently.  Therefore, if you defend the
uploading of nude images WHERE APPROPRIATE, you are NOT defending
trolling, but if you defend it where they are INAPPRPOPRIATE you may
very well be trolling.  THAT is the impression I got from his
statements.  Your assumption that he thinks all nude images are
inappropriate under all circumstances does not seem reasonable to me,
nor does your assumption that, even if did think all nude images are
inappropriate, he couldn't admit the possibility that some people are
merely "misguided" by his standards.

Assume good faith.  Please.  Try it on for size.  You might like it.


>  
> > more likely to be definable as paralepses.  In particular, you present
> > as a given the notion that Tony's statements constitute an objection to
> > the use of paralepsis when, in fact, they simply accuse Kevin of making
> > wild accusations.  
> 
> Yes, we have all heard Tony accusing Kevin of making wild accusations.
> But it's pretty clear that Kevin's statements isn't factually
> supportable. :)

True.  That doesn't alter the factual accuracy of what I said one whit.
Is there a purpose to bringing up this point again?  Are you perhaps
agreeing with my own statement to that effect?


> 
> > opinion).  Anything else that either you or Tony has said about Kevin's
> > perfidies seems to this reader at least to be nothing but unfounded
> > speculation.
> 
> I don't know what perfidies mean. I'm not associated with Tony so
> please do not lump me together with him. I have not as far as I know
> speculated about anything. It was "literary analysis" as someone else
> called it. Speculation would be something along the lines of: Why is
> someone complaining about two pixels of nipple on one (1) breast on a
> 200x150 pixels wide screenshot from a PG-13 rated movie? Is the nipple
> even visible from a distance of more than 20 cm? Is this person
> objecting to this image to try and stir up trouble? Doesn't anyone
> have any sense of proportions?

Are you going to start accusing me of things for which there's no
evidence now?  I didn't "lump [you] together with him" at all.  I simply
made reference to the fact that you and Tony have both had some harsh
things to say about Kevin's motivations.  Surely you must admit that
there is at least that much in common between what you have said and
what Tony has said here.

I do indeed see "speculation" in what you've been saying, because you
are making statements that pertain to Kevin's motivations and state of
mind.  Since you are not privy to Kevin's motivations or state of mind
any more than allowed by his own statements about such things, any
statements you make on the matter are nothing but speculation.


> 
> Sorry to Kevin and everyone else who got "offended" by this image. But
> I really don't think Wikipedia should cater your very speciail needs.

Nor do I, put that way.  I agree that, if appropriate to the subject
matter as a helpful illustration of the article, it should be included.
I do not, however, think that your reaction to Kevin's comments is
strictly reasonable.

--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]