Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Samboy (talk | contribs) at 20:23, 21 July 2004 (How I found the !@#$ childlove page.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 three 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".