[WikiEN-l] Sorted

[Rich Holton]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:47 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 22/02/2008, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:34 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  > On 22/02/2008, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
> >  > > > On 22/02/2008, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  > >  >> Are any of the depictions based on actual likenesses? Or even
> on a
> >  > >  >> detailed
> >  > >  >>  description of the man? If not, then the depictions are not
> >  > >  >> educational with
> >  > >  >>  respect to the man, on with respect to how the man has been
> >  > depicted.
> >  > >  >>
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  > By this point you should be familiar with the Charlemagne
> counter
> >  > >  > argument. Dito Macbeth of Scotland.
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > Images of those men are simply false, they do not give form to the
> >  > sacred
> >  > > as an image of Muhammad does.
> >  >
> >  > Muhammad is sacred? Doesn't that rather run into the do not worship
> >  > prohibition? You also appear to be rejecting the divine right of
> kings
> >  > thing.
> >  >
> >  > Still if you want a more exact equiv
> >  >
> >  > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster#Place
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > > Removing information we know to be false is not censorship.
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  > We don't pretend the image is historically accurate.
> >  >
> >
> >
> > Then why is it there? What actual purpose does it fill?
>
> To show this particular general/religious leader has been historically
> depicted.
>
> We don't even mention that say the image in Pope Linus is somewhat
> unlikely to be historically accurate (the history of the early popes
> is somewhat historically problematicalical). Saul of Tarsus would be
> another one who throws up this issue.
>

So, your argument is that because we do it wrong other places, we should do
it wrong here?