Bishonen indef-blocks FT2, Holy crap, he hasn't been desysopped by Jimbo Options

[FT2]

(Snip)

Which is odd since in simple terms, I'm the one citing the mainstream sources, while you're the one basically implying that we shouldn't reflect science here (and that anyone who would want to report the science honestly and in full rather than "what everyone knows" is evilnezz, because it's a horrible subject).

As I said, since the entire article is about the ''practice'', we either change the title to 'bestiality', or we accept the definition.

Would you rename homosexuality to anal sex (a common misconception) or men who have sex with men? I thought not. There is a subject covered by significant reliable sources called zoophilia, and it is not just about sex. There is also a somewhat narrower topic about bestiality that is all about sex, but is also covered by zoophilia as well and currently handled in the same article.

If you want 2 articles, Wikipedia could do it, but it's probably not needed. There's only so much one can say about sexual acts at the best of times, and a second article on the actual mechanics is pretty unnecessary. Documenting the article subject is one thing but should not need to descend into gratuitous discussion of the actual physical actions. Covering zoophilia generally as an umbrella article (including both practitioners and fantasizers per mainstream definitions), animal sexual abuse, and health aspects (human and animal, no article really covers the latter well yet), are probably more useful ways to do it than trying to split into 2 articles as zoophilia vs. bestiality.

This from the man who forged a quote to make it look as though premier linguist George Lakoff had endorsed Neurolinguistic programming.

This is one mis-citation (someone else's writing about Lakoff, misread as a quote from Lakoff himself). It got immediately corrected at the time (at least one mention, not sure about the other), and I've openly said "yes, it was a citing error". It's rare.

This post has been edited by FT2: Sun 25th January 2009, 12:30am

[GlassBeadGame]

(Snip)

Which is odd since in simple terms, I'm the one citing the mainstream sources, while you're the one basically implying that we shouldn't reflect science here (and that anyone who would want to report the science honestly and in full rather than "what everyone knows" is evilnezz, because it's a horrible subject).

Bullshit you are doing a vanity piece on a topic that you are obsessed with and Wikipedia, in it's typical inability to show restraint, is indulging your irresponsible and disgusting behavior. If you need help locating the needed depictions of people thinking about having sex with animals to round out your Valentine a good starting point might be hivemind.

[One]

As I said, since the entire article is about the ''practice'', we either change the title to 'bestiality', or we accept the definition.

Would you rename homosexuality to anal sex or men who have sex with men? I thought not. There is a subject covered by significant reliable sources called zoophilia, and it is not just about sex. There is also a somewhat narrower topic about bestiality that is all about sex, but is also covered by zoophilia as well and currently handled in the same article.

If you want 2 articles, Wikipedia could do it, but it's probably not needed. There's only so much one can say about sexual acts at the best of times, and a second article on the actual mechanics is pretty unnecessary. Documenting the article subject is one thing but should not need to descend into gratuitous discussion of the actual physical actions. Covering zoophilia generally as an umbrella article (including both practitioners and fantasizers per mainstream definitions), animal sexual abuse, and health aspects (human and animal, no article really covers the latter well yet), are probably more useful ways to do it than trying to split into 2 articles as zoophilia vs. bestiality.

This is an interesting discussion. I just noticed PD's participation on Talk:Pedophilia, where he made a clear distinction between the act (which would be abusive--covered at child abuse or something similar) and the desire, which [[Pedophilia]] is apparently about. I guess he thinks that Zoophilia should have a similar structure.

Given that, I guess he would ask you whether [[Child sexual abuse]] should be likewise merged into pedophilia.

[Sorry to butt in here, but I literally looked at Talk:Pedophilia two minutes ago.]

[Bottled_Spider]

If you want 2 articles, Wikipedia could do it

All this one article or two, or seven ......... it's all so unnecessary. Why not just redirect all that animal-shagging crap to this? Tells it like it is, that does, and some will like the pic.

[GlassBeadGame]

If you want 2 articles, Wikipedia could do it

All this one article or two, or seven ......... it's all so unnecessary. Why not just redirect all that animal-shagging crap to this? Tells it like it is, that does, and some will like the pic.

It seems to me likely that some people will edit these articles as a way of focusing attention upon the subject matter and obtaining erotic satisfaction. The article become a kind of fetish trophies. Continuous edit wars, revision, discussions and multiplication of articles provide an ideal canvas for this type of purpose.

[wikiwhistle]

If you want 2 articles, Wikipedia could do it

All this one article or two, or seven ......... it's all so unnecessary. Why not just redirect all that animal-shagging crap to this? Tells it like it is, that does, and some will like the pic.

Wtf? lol. We could redirect all of this to [[Sick fuck]]. Just joking

It seems to me likely that some people will edit these articles as a way of focusing attention upon the subject matter and obtaining erotic satisfaction. The article become a kind of fetish trophies. Continuous edit wars, revision, discussions and multiplication of articles provide an ideal canvas for this type of purpose.

My mate thinks it's gross that I'm involved in these articles now, and is mocking outrageously. He keeps saying, "research purposes," that's what they all say" as I'm forced to read stuff about this.

[tarantino]

You're not going to win this argument in this forum, FT2. It's probably best if you leave it with your last statement.

I might add that I find it disturbing that the number one search result for bestiality or zoophilia is a Wikipedia article that is effectively influenced by a 22 year old college student who's been having sex with dogs since he was 15 and jumps fences to satisfy his illicit desires.

[wikiwhistle]

jumps fences to satisfy his illicit desires.

As a pet owner, I have to say that's absolutely sick. It's bad enough if he rapes his own pet, let alone someone else's that's just pottering round its garden innocently chasing a butterfly or something. I imagine most owners would give him a slap if they saw him at it with their pet. They are our babies.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Sun 25th January 2009, 1:10am

[victim of censorship]

(Snip)

Which is odd since in simple terms, I'm the one citing the mainstream sources, while you're the one basically implying that we shouldn't reflect science here (and that anyone who would want to report the science honestly and in full rather than "what everyone knows" is evilnezz, because it's a horrible subject).

As I said, since the entire article is about the ''practice'', we either change the title to 'bestiality', or we accept the definition.

Would you rename homosexuality to anal sex (a common misconception) or men who have sex with men? I thought not. There is a subject covered by significant reliable sources called zoophilia, and it is not just about sex. There is also a somewhat narrower topic about bestiality that is all about sex, but is also covered by zoophilia as well and currently handled in the same article.

If you want 2 articles, Wikipedia could do it, but it's probably not needed. There's only so much one can say about sexual acts at the best of times, and a second article on the actual mechanics is pretty unnecessary. Documenting the article subject is one thing but should not need to descend into gratuitous discussion of the actual physical actions. Covering zoophilia generally as an umbrella article (including both practitioners and fantasizers per mainstream definitions), animal sexual abuse, and health aspects (human and animal, no article really covers the latter well yet), are probably more useful ways to do it than trying to split into 2 articles as zoophilia vs. bestiality.

This from the man who forged a quote to make it look as though premier linguist George Lakoff had endorsed Neurolinguistic programming.

This is one mis-citation (someone else's writing about Lakoff, misread as a quote from Lakoff himself). It got immediately corrected at the time (at least one mention, not sure about the other), and I've openly said "yes, it was a citing error". It's rare.

BLA BLA BLA BLA...MORE BLA BLA BLA BLA ...Drama and other minutia Ad nauseam (this spelled correctly see Websters, larua. The little realized fact by the typical Wikipediot, is; if it was not for the google juice and the high search engine placement of Wikipedia, Wikipedia would but just a self generating drama engine for Sociopaths, Napoleon complex sufferers. This will go on, endlessly unless Wikipeida is discredited and dismantled.

[Jon Awbrey]

Well, you have worked very hard trying to bring sanity to some of the darkest corners of Wikipedia. You are our Van Helsing.

A bit too bitten to make a good Buffy.
More slayin' and less parlayin' please!

Ja³

[tarantino]

jumps fences to satisfy his illicit desires.

As a pet owner, I have to say that's absolutely sick. It's bad enough if he rapes his own pet, let alone someone else's that's just pottering round its garden innocently chasing a butterfly or something. I imagine most owners would give him a slap if they saw him at it with their pet. They are our babies.

From his website, All about Zetawoof.

[wikiwhistle]

I think he will be here soon. If any of you banned users are on the article, do you think you are improving or worsening the unbanned one's attempts to improve it? Or does it make no odds?

jumps fences to satisfy his illicit desires.

As a pet owner, I have to say that's absolutely sick. It's bad enough if he rapes his own pet, let alone someone else's that's just pottering round its garden innocently chasing a butterfly or something. I imagine most owners would give him a slap if they saw him at it with their pet. They are our babies.

From his website, All about Zetawoof.

I can't get those webcite urls to work. I found a copy of the page though. Won't link as it reveals more personal info than he'd probably want to share. At least there aren't any pics of people in action.

[Cedric]

You're not going to win this argument in this forum, FT2.

I already said that over 100 posts ago. As ever, he's not listening.

FT2's increasingly shrill justifications remind me of the advice that an old trial attorney once supposedly gave to a new attorney: "When the law favors your case, expound upon the law. When the facts favor your case, expound upon the facts. When the law and the facts favor your case, expound upon both. And when neither favors your case, pound on the table."

[GlassBeadGame]

jumps fences to satisfy his illicit desires.

As a pet owner, I have to say that's absolutely sick. It's bad enough if he rapes his own pet, let alone someone else's that's just pottering round its garden innocently chasing a butterfly or something. I imagine most owners would give him a slap if they saw him at it with their pet. They are our babies.

From his website, All about Zetawoof.

What I find most striking about "Zetawoof" is from the earlier link you provided, tarintino. In it a fellow traveller says:

For the past several months, I have been looking at certian aspects of my life. I have finally come to the conclusion that I have wasted basically the better part of 30 years in a sexuality/choice that has led me nowhere.

and Z is not upset at the loses this guy suffered by not forming a caring relationship with another person, be it heterosexual or gay. No he is most concerned that this devastated person has responsibly put his former victims beyond further abuse by neutering:

Same story, different name. I've not heard from (redacted) since, so I can only assume that he followed through with his plans. Again, I was as shocked by his choice as by his methods; it seemed to me, as well as a number of fellow denizens of the talker, that mutilating his animals was not only unnecessary if he'd really made up his mind to leave zoophilia behind but also cruel to the animals.

Such are the twisted, selfish and uncaring views of this abusive and exploitative bastard. Presumably this is the kind of advice he would impart to the young person that FT2 is so very proud to have turn to Wikipedia for advice on these issues.

[luke]

....<snip>.... "When the law favors your case, expound upon the law. When the facts favor your case, expound upon the facts. When the law and the facts favor your case, expound upon both. And when neither favors your case, pound on the table."

yea ..........ad hominem posts do get rather tiresome, and most often contribute more heat than light

[EricBarbour]

From his website, All about Zetawoof.

Ugh. Damn.

Last night I saw the documentary Manda Bala. It spent a lot of time talking about the prominent Brazilian politician Jader Barbalho. A more corrupt man you won't ever meet, at least according to all the Brazilian police and prosecutors the film trotted out. Yet Barbalho had managed to fight off every legal challenge. He even was prosecuted and jailed, yet he managed to get the charges dropped by appealing to friends in the superior court. He used his massive media empire, including the primary newspapers and broadcast outlets in Belem, to get himself reelected to the Senate--after resigning in shame.

There's also the matter of billions of dollars that Barbalho managed to launder and make disappear....not to mention a long list of people who were jailed or "disappeared", to make Barbalho look good.

They even managed to get Barbalho to show up for an interview. He talked to the filmmakers for a few seconds, realized they were out to document the truth, and left in a huff.

(Ironic that the Wikipedia BLP about him isn't very detailed, and appears to only cover events up to October 2002--he was jailed shortly after that. I wonder if I just discovered a BLP that was "sanitized" by one of Barbalho's lackeys? Needless to say, type his name into Google, and this BLP is the top hit.)

And guess what, it's supposedly illegal to sell or show "Manda Bala" in Brazil.

Wikipedia is like Brazil. A huge, utterly corrupt country, overwhelmed
with corruption and crime--none of which is obvious on the glossy surface.
And FT2 is like Jader Barbalho, an utterly smooth, serene, lying sociopath.
Like Barbalho, he would have no power, if he didn't have toadies
(like the utterly pathetic Zetawoof) to help him with his dirty work.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sun 25th January 2009, 3:48am

[everyking]

Obviously this thread has become entirely about FT2 and zoophilia, but I need to point out something relevant: Bishzilla's admin rights were transferred back to the Bishonen account a few hours ago, and the account's user page was deleted. As far as I'm concerned, then, this situation was an all-around success: FT2 was forced off the ArbCom and Bishonen decided to stop playing silly games with the responsibility that was given to her by the community four years ago. I recognize that my viewpoint on the latter is not popular, but I don't think you can seriously criticize admin abuse while arguing that Bishonen should be allowed to play games with her adminship. My viewpoint is consistent: adminship is a serious responsibility and it should be exercised only by people who behave like serious adults. I don't much care that Bishonen happened to be on the right side of this wikiwar in political terms; occasionally I can let something slide for political reasons, but the nature and conduct of adminship is central to my criticisms and I won't make any exceptions for that.

While looking at the logs, I noticed this interesting detail: "Bishzilla" actually bestowed rollbacker rights on the Bishonen account last year. It is disappointing that nothing has changed since then to make this account-swapping, self-promotion nonsense impossible. There isn't really anything, aside from shame, to keep from Bishonen from playing this game all over again. You can lose your adminship for political reasons, but not for treating it as a joke.

This post has been edited by everyking: Sun 25th January 2009, 6:35am

[Lar]

Obviously this thread has become entirely about FT2 and zoophilia, but I need to point out something relevant: Bishzilla's admin rights were transferred back to the Bishonen account a few hours ago, and the account's user page was deleted. As far as I'm concerned, then, this situation was an all-around success: FT2 was forced off the ArbCom and Bishonen decided to stop playing silly games with the responsibility that was given to her by the community four years ago. I recognize that my viewpoint on the latter is not popular, but I don't think you can seriously criticize admin abuse while arguing that Bishonen should be allowed to play games with her adminship. My viewpoint is consistent: adminship is a serious responsibility and it should be exercised only by people who behave like serious adults. I don't much care that Bishonen happened to be on the right side of this wikiwar in political terms; occasionally I can let something slide for political reasons, but the nature and conduct of adminship is central to my criticisms and I won't make any exceptions for that.

While looking at the logs, I noticed this interesting detail: "Bishzilla" actually bestowed rollbacker rights on the Bishonen account last year. It is disappointing that nothing has changed since then to make this account-swapping, self-promotion nonsense impossible. There isn't really anything, aside from shame, to keep from Bishonen from playing this game all over again. You can lose your adminship for political reasons, but not for treating it is a joke.

No comment on any of the rest of it, but what's the issue with the alternate account (whichever one it is at the time) having rollback?

[everyking]

No comment on any of the rest of it, but what's the issue with the alternate account (whichever one it is at the time) having rollback?

It's the fact that she bestowed it upon herself. Everybody else has to be approved by an admin; she approved herself.

[Lar]

No comment on any of the rest of it, but what's the issue with the alternate account (whichever one it is at the time) having rollback?

It's the fact that she bestowed it upon herself. Everybody else has to be approved by an admin; she approved herself.

Well, she IS an admin. So theoretically competent to have rollback and competent to decide who gets it.

On the other hand the rule is one admin account per person... no matter how many socks or bots you have, only one can have admin sans special approval (not given by yourself).

It's an interesting conundrum. Is rollback like adminship?