Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:39, 22 July 2004

OK, talk about what I do here. I'm afraid I will be mostly a lurker! Samboy

Is there a page out there which is a reference for all the "secret" ascii sequences, that explains things like the format for a link and what not, and how to escape any magic ASCII characters?

Childlove images

Samboy, I understand why you are offended by the images, but Misplaced Pages tries to cover many subjects that many, including me, find offensive. In relation to the specific subjecr, the images (which I posted) and are mild compared to many and are important to the topic of the article.

Anyway, welcome to Misplaced Pages. Since it seems you haven't been welcomed yet, let me do so now. You may especially want to see the welcome section if you haven't already. Cheers! Cecropia | Talk 19:46, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I have a somewhat flameful comment in the talk section for, what is to me a (and probably 99% of people) rather disgusting page. I am all for NPOV, but in my opinion, in Pir's opinion, in Mark's, and in Danny's opinion, those images just don't belong here in an online encyclopedia.

Child molestation is one of those horrible and evil things which damages a person for their entire life, and, quite frankly, having these kinds of images in this encyclopedia can easily be viewed as an endorsment of pedophilia.

Hi Samboy, you've hit on the point. The entire subject is disgusting. How long ago did you first come upon the article? Until I and GBWR and Ed Poor happened on it, it was a surreal apology for pedophilia, which essentially said: "We are your friends and neighbors. Most of us mean no harm to your children except that we want to change the law, society, education, and parental rights so that we can liberate them and incidentally allow us to have sexual access to them."

Misplaced Pages standards do not allow the article to be deleted (you could try listing on VfD, but I'm afraid you might be shocked by the response). What we do is try to move it to NPoV. That means that, if the article accurately reflects what people in the movement say and advocate, it is appropriate material. That does not mean it can be posted without balance and criticism. As to the specific pictures, let me tell you why they are important. The article attempts to make pedophilia seems like just another sexual preference which should not be controversial. The images, from the movement's own literature, shows what advocates really do. Delete the images, and you delete an important perspective for the non-pedophilic reader. The images are not pornographic and not, in and of themselves, disgusting. It is what they accurately imply that disgusts people. That is why it is so important they remain in the article. -- Cheers! Cecropia | Talk 20:11, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I hit the page by hitting on "Random Page", which is my home page in Firefox. Can NPOV articles be hit by the "Random Page" link? I am, of course, a little hurt that an edit of mine was reverted, but I try to be balanced about it by putting up a relevent paragraph on the talk page in question. In a case of an article like this, I think the only real NPOV is to say, in polite terms, "This is a bunch of BS abusive people use to justify their behavior". Considering that four people, including myself, have deleted these images in just the last week, it is obvious that these images strike a very discordant chord with many people. My first reaction was, "My God, Misplaced Pages has pedophiles who get off on pictures of little kids and revert people's attempts to remove such images". Again, thanks for you POV. Samboy 20:23, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, compromise edit. I've moved one of the images down, and added a warning at the top. Samboy 20:48, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

gedday guys... sorry for any terseness... this shit doesn't leave me in a good mood... tommorow I may be a bit more chipper. The images are a kick in the guts aren't they? I guess i'd say I was 'strongly ambivilant'. user:ratgurl definitely thinks they should go though... Erich 13:09, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have a feeling that certain pedophiles are constantly editing this horrible page. Samboy 20:39, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Micronations

You need to review your opinions concerning both Nova Roma and Empire of Atlantium because they are incorrect.

Nova Roma has some 2000 members around the world, many of whom are respected academics, archaeologists, linguists and students of history. That is hardly a 'small hobby group'.

Atlantium is a large global organisation with around 1000 members in dozens of countries,including serving and former diplomats, senior government officials, scientists and political activists. It has received extensive press, radio and TV coverage - including by Reuters (worldwide), ZDF TV (Germany), BBC Radio (worldwide), The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), The Guardian (UK) and many, many others. Furthermore its representatives have been officially received by the UN's High Commissioner for Refugees' Working Group on Indigenous Peoples in Geneva, by the President and former Vice President of Brazil and by the former President of the Dominican Republic - amongst others. To describe it as 'a group of friends' is wildly incorrect.--Gene_poole 11:40, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can you back this up with references? And, oh, coupld you please not be so hot-headed; I know you're hurt that people want to delete a page you created, but I don't think being hot-headed does much to resolve the issue you have, nor endear others to agree with your point of view. This is Misplaced Pages, not Slashdot; flaming is actually bad form over here.  :) Keep in mind that a number of people feel that micronations are essentially a silly fantasy gone awry. Samboy 11:46, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You have just demonstrated why I often get frustrated by the lack of basic intelligence people display on Misplaced Pages - particularly in relation to micronations; you have obviously not looked at the Atlantium website at all - or even the previous interminable article talk page discussions - yet you were quite prepared to suggest the article was suitable for deletion. Can you explain such behaviour? I can't. If you conduct some research on the site you will find pdf copies of many newspaper articles and photographs supporting various of my contentions in the relevant sections. Finally, please don't lecture me on appropriate online behaviour. I suspect I've been online for somewhat longer than you, and I know what constitutes acceptable behaviour and what does not. I do not apologise for holding strong opinions, nor in communicationg them with eloquence and conviction.--Gene_poole 12:01, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I asked for light, not heat. In other words, you would help your cause a lot more if you provided actual references, instead of flaming everyone who disagrees with you. Samboy 12:15, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how long you've been on Misplaced Pages, but I've been around since late 2002, and I've provided "references" time after time, in discussion after discussion. My view these days is that there is a huge volume of data in support of whatever assertions I make that is freely available in the public domain to anyone willing to make the slightest effort to find it. It is not my job to drive myself insane repeating the old arguments to people ad infinitum. I do have a busy offline existence and I need my sanity intact if I am to manage it properly :-)--Gene_poole 12:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)