geni said:
I do not propose any a priori restrictions on access; unlike you I do not propose that we appease the extreme religious right of the USA and one or two less salubrious countries by applying content restrictions motivated by grundyism rather than the wish to improve the encyclopedia. The GFDL already guarantees that content availability is maximized. Those who want a bowdlerized version can adjust their browsers or produce a bowdlerized mirror.
And those who want a pornographic version can also ajust their browsers (by clicking yes everytime something asks to download) and produce a pornifed fork.
Indeed. But here you're simply flipping to a mischaracterization of the present state of Wikipedia as "pornographic", which is clearly nonsense.
I am not trying to appease the relgious right in the US. I am trying to appease the majority of the human population.
You wrongly accused me earlier of proposing to speak for the human race. This is what you are doing as a matter of fact. What makes you think that the majority of the human race is revolted by Kate Winslet's naked left breast? If it's such a problem, why was there not rioting in the streets at the prospect of children being exposed to this heinous sight?
Fianly for pretty obvious reasons we try and avoid forks. I suggest you stop advocating one.
A fork wouldn't be a bad idea in this instance, because probably people offended by the sight of a breast would have pretty firm ideas about our textual content. But a mirror would be adequate for imposing the kind of grundyism you are defending.