QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 1st December 2011, 1:29pm)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 1st December 2011, 1:06pm)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
Ottava Rima - you said your lines, now stay out of it, you are likely to drive away reasonable voices.
I don't think you grasp what Commons is - there is no such thing as reason or reasonable over there.
What we are is what we see, what we are not, we cannot see.
I was shocked, myself, to see the comment from RD232. Sanity at Commons? Who'd a thunk it? I've been busy in Real Life, or, more accurately, taking care of business that I neglected for way too long, but, hey, I think I'll look at that discussion. I'm not blocked on Commons. Yet.
----
Okay, I looked. Functional discussion, though tending, normal wiki-style, to become convoluted, though, were I In Charge, I'd collapse most side-comments (i.e., threaded discussion of comments), which make the page Forbidding. Funny that I'm Mr. Wall-o-Text , but wall of text is what the
community routinely creates. Still, it's worth reading Ottava running his number, completely standard, but a total distraction from the topic at hand, the category of an image of a woman masturbating with a toothbrush.
Ottava makes a great point, though. How do we know that this is an image of a woman masturbating with a toothbrush? After all, it's a still. Maybe she's just cleaning the toothbrush. Maybe she's scratching an itch. Maybe she likes the taste, or someone else does. Maybe she's just posing for the camera. In fact, if this were a video, how would we know that she was
actually masturbating and not just pretending. Whatever.
And then it's pointed out to Ottava that the photo is "an 'own work' image called File:Masturbating with a toothbrush.jpg, which the uploader gave the caption "masturbating with electric toothbrush" (sic)[3]. On what basis do you claim that the uploader did not intend for the image to represent "masturbating with a toothbrush"?
Ottava
always has a response. "The uploader is someone who cannot be trusted." That's positively brilliant!
He's right. Of course, he's right about every anonymous user, but why be shy about bringing that up? How do we know that the woman is
really masturbating? We can't even say "Woman allegedly masturbating," because, after all, OR, BLP, and we can't attribute the allegation to anyone except an anonymous editor. Wait! How do we know that the woman is living? How do we know that this is a woman and that's a toothbrush? Where is the Reliable Source?
As usual, Ottava brings up points that nobody else would even dream of. That's why he'll be banned. Original thinker. Of a particular kind.
Dedicated to the Holy, Inviolable Principle of
Ottava is Always Right. Q.E.D.