The error I am talking about was not immediately 'corrected at the time'. Do you remember this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...deling/Evidence

which you created when I nominated one of your NLP articles for deletion. You said the AFD had been 'created by a user with little knowledge and minimal research, who has recently been proxy editing for a banned user who used to virulently sock war on this topic', and that there were plenty of independent and reliable sources that would prove me wrong. You then proceeded to list all the sources that proved that 'Damian has not done his work'. Among 'serious users of NLP'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-li...r_serious_users

you cite Lakoff. When I first saw that I reacted with shock. Perhaps my whole campaign about NLP had been a mistake, and perhaps we should take it seriously? The other citations were piffle (self-published sources, other forms of miscitation) but if anyone of the stature of Lakoff was endorsing NLP, then we should really be thinking again.

I wondered about this for a few days then decided to do some further research. In fact it was not Lakoff at all.

The other 'citations' about NLP were mostly selective sourcing, usually from self-published non-independent sources. A substantial number of the sources did not mention NLP at all, i.e. were blatant miscitation. If I had not had the charge of harrassment against me I would have taken this to RFC. Persistent and wilful misuse of sources is far worse than any of the bad things we are talking about here (at least, if it is encyclopedias we are talking about).





La la la la Lar can't hear you.

Pedophiles and their apologists justify the splitting of child sexual abuse from pederasty/pedophilia because they claim sexual activity with children is not inherently abusive. See FT2's remark above that 'it's not all about anal sex' (referring to homosexuality).

Similarly zoophiles (of which Zetawoof is certainly one) distinguish between consensual and caring sexual relations with animals (zoophilia proper), and animal sexual abuse, which is forked out to the article 'Zoosadism'.

I'm not sure about this. First, some forms of sexual activity with animals is invariably harmful indeed fatal to the animal. Sex with birds or reptiles. There is some evidence that even with dogs it is harmful (more later, if anyone has the stomach). Animals have a defined breeding cycle unlike humans.

And I'm not sure about this claim about the caring nature of zoophilies. I'm sure some are, but look at the quote below (from a site since taken down). That suggests that there is a considerable amount of abuse out there, directly attributable to the internet:



This suggests (coming from people who have every reason to defend the practice) that there is a considerable amount of abuse taking place within the zoophile 'community'.

Your needle's stuck.


Holy shit. And he and FT2 are pals. What do you do with these people?

Edit : Weird. These were two separate replies which somehow got welded together. Never mind.

Indeed

I'd have more sympathy with "You don't Understand How To Edit" FT2 if he was as vigilant on getting unsourced favourable material out of the article as he was in supporting his supposedly sourced but ultimately suspect viewpoint in. If he was serious, he himself would have deleted the lifestyle section under half a dozen policies. Oddly, he stands by instead.

Ultimately, it is his inability to deal fairly with the topic shows how hollow his words sound as he lectures on the appropriate approach.

Dogbiscuit, I was trying to think of a low-blow "zoo" joke about your user name or avatar, but came up blank.

It's far too depressing knowing that these days you can't admit to being an animal lover without someone checking up what it means on Wikipedia and getting you arrested.

I know! And I don't think I'm ever going to be able to jump over a fence again.

Miss Mary Mack, in the old children's rhyme,

asked her mother mother mother
for 50 cents cents cents
to see the elephants elephants elephants
jump over the fence fence fence

It's unstated what she would do with the elephants after they jumped the fence.

Clearly, going by the logic of the rest of the Zooph article, this is more evidence for the acceptance of zoophilia throughout human history.

Me too. So I decided to think of a low-blow "zoo" joke about FT2's performance in this thread. Bereft of both inspiration and talent, all I could come up with was shaggy dog story.

The Wiki article is relevant - see the sections on War story :-...... and Lengthy :-
Well ....... it's quite low.

Bla Bla Bla <insert wiki drama> Bla Bla Bla <insert more wiki drama> bla bla bal... ad nauseam .

There is much more to bestiality than that... but I guess it really is determined but what "animal" means.

For example:

NSFW: http://thumbs.bc.jncdn.com/4b0585eaccacf07...721540e8_lm.jpg

and

NSFW: http://na.mo.free.fr/gaza2008/16-01/IMG_1963.jpg

Which some sick mind attempt justify on what exactly are animals. The fact here, before you go off and say I went to far with it, is there is a religion out there that actually does classify those outside their race as animals. (I'll save details to avoid a conflict here.)

Images found here: NSFW: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12012

Those event related to those picture sure do put a new meaning to zoophilia, as one that likes caged animals for exhibition. Uhm.... walled city.


Oh, and the thought that Vegans would naturally think such ways about love.... oh my!

Um, are you trying to drive this thread off into Israelis-killing-babies-in-Gaza territory?

.....well......okay, go ahead.

Ain't Babelfish wunerful? But the last sentence is not intelligable to me. The count of appeal confirmed a stop/stay in a suspended sentence consisting of a one-year ban on keeping an animal? Was the suspended sentence stayed or not, and who cares, if it was suspended?

No, I won't try. Just seems like someone wanted to push the limits on what is acceptable, and well, all things considered then.

Google's translation facility repaces all instances of "zoophilia" with "bestiality". Its version of the final paragraph is :-


No mention of "staying" at all.
A permanent ban on "hold an animal"?! I should bloody well think so.

Bablfish is taking "arret" as meaning "stay" or "stop", rather than, as intended, a decree. It's also buggering up the difference between the cour de cassation (high court), and the district court of appeals. A better translation (well, I hope so, I'm not a native speaker) is something like this:

On the 4 September 2007, the French high court confirmed the 27 Jan 2006 decison by the correctional chamber of the Dijon court of appeals, which condemned an individual to a one year suspended sentence combined with a total and permanent ban on him/her keeping any animal.

"keeping" is not as funny as "holding", though.

f.

I'd hate to hazard a guess what Babelfish does with "Animal Husbandry".

I've got a story for all you "animal husbands" out there......

Moral: NEVER mess with the "Grrbage Cru".

See below. Who is the 'two faced editor in question ? I am assuming not me, as not aware of being nice to FT2 to his face. And who is 88.152.171.109?

Looks like a dastardly dramamonger perpetuating the myth that WR is teh evils.

Actually, under Wikipedian logic, there is no rule against being two faced. If someone's actions on Wikipedia are friendly, then, as we do not need to know anything about them outside the WikiWorld, then they are friendly. It is by your actions on Wikipedia you are judged on Wikipedia.

Indeed, the IP should be blocked for breaking WP:AGF and WP:NPA (though a WikiLawyer would claim that as there is nobody named, it is not a "personal" attack). FT2 is quite capable of monitoring this readily findable thread, though he appears to have got bored of it so the IP should also be blocked for crass stupidity (translation WP:POINT).

It's probably something to do with Batman. Expect to see appearances later from the Joker, the Penguin, and Arnie ("You won't put me in da coolah!)"


You're civil, though, by Wiki standards. Bear in mind that there's a lot of Wikipedo's who would, if given half the chance, scurrilously suggest that he'd shag a bush if he thought a sheep was in it, the pigs. So he could be meaning you, though I personally think he's referring to some (or all) of the Wiki admins who post here. He's probably got a point, mind you.


Based in Germany, so that narrows it down considerably.

FT has been over here quite recently anyway so he knows everyone's opinions. He was replying to us here, so nothing's not been said to his face. He knows how I feel about the bestialism (obviously, as he was actually talking to us about it for a bit) so I don't see how that's two faced as we actually have said it to him personally. That doesn't mean I'm entirely anti FT, he is quite fun to chat to sometimes. He knows everything we've said here (what with him having been here for most of the discussion ) And as far as I know he's still speaking to me.