Slim's New Twitter Pic, with extra added Brandt, Slim, and Martin Luther! Options

[Daniel Brandt]

NEW FACE ALERT

SlimVirgin just changed the pic on her Twitter account. The previous pic was the one on the right:

The new pic is this:

A day later: Well, well, Photobucket feels that Slim's mug is too profane to grace this thread! That pic is also here, by the way.

And here's another pic for Photobucket to censor, with a copy here in case you need it:

I didn't create it on Google, I merely found it. Google Profiles — an entirely new sandbox for teenagers!

[dtobias]

NEW FACE ALERT

SlimVirgin just changed the pic on her Twitter account.

I didn't actually know she had one (Twitter account, I mean). But reporting breathlessly on every move she makes on other sites is just the sort of obsessiveness about SV that people (including but not limited to SV herself) have been criticizing people like you for.

[Jon Awbrey]

NEW FACE ALERT

SlimVirgin just changed the pic on her Twitter account.

I didn't actually know she had one (Twitter account, I mean). But reporting breathlessly on every move she makes on other sites is just the sort of obsessiveness about SV that people (including but not limited to SV herself) have been criticizing people like you for.

Hence the humour.

And I kinda like the early Sarah Bollocks look.

Reminds me of what The Net was all about.

Ja Ja

[Daniel Brandt]

NEW NEW FACE ALERT

By golly, she just added more makeup and reprotected her tweets from casual eyes:
—> You can't make this stuff up! I still prefer the one I made for her three years ago:

[EricBarbour]

SlimVirgin just changed the pic on her Twitter account.

Please Daniel, we beg you, fer crissakes.............
DON'T TURN THE CRAZY WOMAN INTO A CELEBRITY.

[gomi]

SlimVirgin just changed the pic on her Twitter account.

Please Daniel, we beg you, fer crissakes.............DON'T TURN THE CRAZY WOMAN INTO A CELEBRITY.

I agree with Eric and Lar and others, but in Mr. Brandt's defense, he may not stop in here often enough to notice Slim's propensity to take over any thread she chooses to inhabit. Perhaps we could highlight the issue by starting to refer to her as She Who Shall Not Be Named, or NAMBLA for short. Whaddya say?

[Daniel Brandt]

Please Daniel, we beg you, fer crissakes.............
DON'T TURN THE CRAZY WOMAN INTO A CELEBRITY.

I have to do it; it's a question of self-respect. I may be an atheist, but my father, grandfather, and brother were/are Lutheran ministers and I was taught that Martin Luther was a decent sort of fellow. And so was Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

When the Martin Luther article no longer mentions Hitler or the Nazis, maybe I'll reconsider.

By the way, a leading expert on Martin Luther, and the head of a Lutheran publishing house, User:Ptmccain was banned from Wikipedia because he tried to bring some common sense to that article. SlimVirgin would have none of his nonsense.

(Later edit: I changed the link because it led to a page that requires a login. Now it leads to a list of SlimVirgin's involvement with Ptmccain, aka Paul McCain, Concordia Publishing House.)

[Doc glasgow]

Please Daniel, we beg you, fer crissakes.............
DON'T TURN THE CRAZY WOMAN INTO A CELEBRITY.

I have to do it; it's a question of self-respect. I may be an atheist, but my father, grandfather, and brother were/are Lutheran ministers and I was taught that Martin Luther was a decent sort of fellow. And so was Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

When the Martin Luther article no longer mentions Hitler or the Nazis, maybe I'll reconsider.

By the way, a leading expert on Martin Luther, and the head of a Lutheran publishing house, was banned from Wikipedia because he tried to bring some common sense to that article.

For once, you've got a point.

I'd say not mentioning the use the Nazis made of Luther would be a bit too much. But not in the lead. And, if "the influence of Luther on Hitler's thought" is worth discussing, so is "the influence of Darwin on Hitler's thought".

Funny, that's not mentioned on Darwin's bio.

[Daniel Brandt]

For once, you've got a point.

I'd say not mentioning the use the Nazis made of Luther would be a bit too much. But not in the lead. And, if "the influence of Luther on Hitler's thought" is worth discussing, so is "the influence of Darwin on Hitler's thought".

Funny, that's not mentioned on Darwin's bio.

No, you're not quite there yet. As Somey mentioned recently, any mention of Hitler or the Nazis in Martin Luther's article is inappropriate. If you want to write about Nazi appropriation of Martin Luther's writings, then it should be in an article about National Socialism.

I have it on good authority that Martin Luther did not belong to the Nazi Party, and should not be blamed for starting it.

[Lar]

For once, you've got a point.

I'd say not mentioning the use the Nazis made of Luther would be a bit too much. But not in the lead. And, if "the influence of Luther on Hitler's thought" is worth discussing, so is "the influence of Darwin on Hitler's thought".

Funny, that's not mentioned on Darwin's bio.

No, you're not quite there yet. As Somey mentioned recently, any mention of Hitler or the Nazis in Martin Luther's article is inappropriate. If you want to write about Nazi appropriation of Martin Luther's writings, then it should be in an article about National Socialism.

I have it on good authority that Martin Luther did not belong to the Nazi Party, and should not be blamed for starting it.

What? Next you're going to claim that the article on Aristotle shouldn't mention Ayn Rand or the article on Archimedes shouldn't mention Milton Friedman or something... that's crazy talk.

[Milton Roe]

For once, you've got a point.

I'd say not mentioning the use the Nazis made of Luther would be a bit too much. But not in the lead. And, if "the influence of Luther on Hitler's thought" is worth discussing, so is "the influence of Darwin on Hitler's thought".

Funny, that's not mentioned on Darwin's bio.

No, you're not quite there yet. As Somey mentioned recently, any mention of Hitler or the Nazis in Martin Luther's article is inappropriate. If you want to write about Nazi appropriation of Martin Luther's writings, then it should be in an article about National Socialism.

I have it on good authority that Martin Luther did not belong to the Nazi Party, and should not be blamed for starting it.

What? Next you're going to claim that the article on Aristotle shouldn't mention Ayn Rand or the article on Archimedes shouldn't mention Milton Friedman or something... that's crazy talk.

I think connections of Earlier Philosophers to later events and Hitler, should go in their Pop Culture References or Cultural Impact Sections, or whatever the hell they're calling this stuff these days in order to keep it out of the hands of the rapid Trivia Section deletionists.

[GlassBeadGame]

(some BS about icons)

[[WP:DGAF]]

Seriously, who cares? This sort of crap gives ammo to those who say that you're a creepy stalker and that SV is a poor hapless victim. I don't think either of those things are true but why play into people's hands?

Concentrate on what edits happen, what blocks get handed out, what BLPs that need to go don't, etc, not on what her twitter icon looks like, FFS.

In respect to Wikipedia I find that I'm not in the shit business works best. This allows for the above the fray "I don't give a shit""but also permits the more aggressive "I don't take no shit." This also reflects balance as it covers both sides of the relevant transactions.

[Daniel Brandt]

What? Next you're going to claim that the article on Aristotle shouldn't mention Ayn Rand or the article on Archimedes shouldn't mention Milton Friedman or something... that's crazy talk.

It's not crazy, and I believe that most Encyclopedia Britannica editors would agree with me. It's really a matter of historical accuracy and cultural sensitivity. You should present a person's life in the context of what that person and his/her contemporaries knew and believed at that time. It's the most ethical way to deal with something of this nature.

If you aren't writing an encyclopedia, then anything goes.

So Lar, either get Jimbo to take the word "encyclopedia" out of Wikipedia's self-description, or stick with something you know — like Legos.

[Lar]

What? Next you're going to claim that the article on Aristotle shouldn't mention Ayn Rand or the article on Archimedes shouldn't mention Milton Friedman or something... that's crazy talk.

It's not crazy, and I believe that most Encyclopedia Britannica editors would agree with me. It's really a matter of historical accuracy and cultural sensitivity. You should present a person's life in the context of what that person and his/her contemporaries knew and believed at that time. It's the most ethical way to deal with something of this nature.

If you aren't writing an encyclopedia, then anything goes.

So Lar, either get Jimbo to take the word "encyclopedia" out of Wikipedia's self-description, or stick with something you know — like Legos.

I need bigger sarcasm tags, apparently, as I was agreeing with you. None of the three modern figures has a place in their historical antecedent articles, regardless of whatever influence moderns may claim. That was my point.

You are a difficult person to communicate with, aren't you, Mr. Grinch?

[Daniel Brandt]

I need bigger sarcasm tags, apparently, as I was agreeing with you. None of the three modern figures has a place in their historical antecedent articles, regardless of whatever influence moderns may claim. That was my point.
You are a difficult person to communicate with, aren't you, Mr. Grinch?

My apologies, I had no idea you were trying to agree with me. I'm not used to that particular experience on this board.

[Lar]

My apologies, I had no idea you were trying to agree with me. I'm not used to that particular experience on this board.

No worries, and me either.

[Doc glasgow]

/me removes all references to Hitler from Martin Luther (T-H-L-K-D) "per remarkable consensus with D. Brandt on Wikipedia Review"

[Lar]

/me removes all references to Hitler from Martin Luther (T-H-L-K-D) "per remarkable consensus with D. Brandt on Wikipedia Review"

Watch out you aren't "proxy editing for a banned editor"

[Milton Roe]

/me removes all references to Hitler from Martin Luther (T-H-L-K-D) "per remarkable consensus with D. Brandt on Wikipedia Review"

Watch out you aren't "proxy editing for a banned editor"

Yeah. Nice to meat you, Doc.

[Cla68]

Please Daniel, we beg you, fer crissakes.............
DON'T TURN THE CRAZY WOMAN INTO A CELEBRITY.

I have to do it; it's a question of self-respect. I may be an atheist, but my father, grandfather, and brother were/are Lutheran ministers and I was taught that Martin Luther was a decent sort of fellow. And so was Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

When the Martin Luther article no longer mentions Hitler or the Nazis, maybe I'll reconsider.

By the way, a leading expert on Martin Luther, and the head of a Lutheran publishing house, was banned from Wikipedia because he tried to bring some common sense to that article.

For once, you've got a point.

I'd say not mentioning the use the Nazis made of Luther would be a bit too much. But not in the lead. And, if "the influence of Luther on Hitler's thought" is worth discussing, so is "the influence of Darwin on Hitler's thought".

Funny, that's not mentioned on Darwin's bio.

I just removed that sentence from the intro. Let's see how long it lasts. By the way, there is a passing reference in the Darwin article about the influence of his eugenics ideas on the Nazis.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Mon 20th April 2009, 11:49pm