Herostratus LIVES!, (you won't believe this) Options

[EricBarbour]

Despite being banned from Wikipedia (and computers generally) by court order, notorious pedophilia editor Herostratus (T-C-L-K-R-D) is still able to edit WP.

How? By getting his court-appointed minder to edit for him, apparently.

Check his edit log for proof. He's doing it, even while being banned from watching TV or listening to the radio. Mentioned here.

Why is his account still active?

[Peter Damian]

The sad thing is that the ultra-libertarian people on Wikipedia see no problem with pedophile editors as long as they are building the encyclopedia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

The only problem I have with paedos is when they are molesting kids. I don't have any problem with them when they are editing WP.

The only reason pedos edit Wikipedia is to justify and normalise their view of themselves. They are incredibly persistent and tenacious and have a store of arguments that they will edit into any pedophilia-related subject. That pedophilia means simply liking children, not wanting to have sex with them. That violence committed by pedophiles is no different from violence committed in adult heterosexual relationships. That different cultures (ancient Greek, and Islam supposedly) have had a tolerant and benign attitude to pedophilia. That pedophilia is bad, but 'pederasty' is perfectly OK.

Anyone who tries to put in material that casts any negative light upon their practice, such as th idea http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=215154288 that "the production, possession, and distribution of child pornography are deeply interwoven in the activities of pedophiles, pederasts, and those involved in rings, sexual trafficking, child prostitution, and, more recently, the Internet" is instantly reverted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=215206918 ("Inappropriate material removed to 'child abuse' page").

They combine and plot with others to get action from administrators http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222250643 (now oversighted). This procures the removal of anyone who opposes their perverted and abnormal views http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=User%3APhdarts . Or block anyone who complains about it ("harassment").

[Web Fred]

The sad thing is that the ultra-libertarian people on Wikipedia see no problem with pedophile editors as long as they are building the encyclopedia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

The only problem I have with paedos is when they are molesting kids. I don't have any problem with them when they are editing WP.

The only reason pedos edit Wikipedia is to justify and normalise their view of themselves. They are incredibly persistent and tenacious and have a store of arguments that they will edit into any pedophilia-related subject. That pedophilia means simply liking children, not wanting to have sex with them. That violence committed by pedophiles is no different from violence committed in adult heterosexual relationships. That different cultures (ancient Greek, and Islam supposedly) have had a tolerant and benign attitude to pedophilia. That pedophilia is bad, but 'pederasty' is perfectly OK.

Anyone who tries to put in material that casts any negative light upon their practice, such as th idea http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=215154288 that "the production, possession, and distribution of child pornography are deeply interwoven in the activities of pedophiles, pederasts, and those involved in rings, sexual trafficking, child prostitution, and, more recently, the Internet" is instantly reverted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=215206918 ("Inappropriate material removed to 'child abuse' page").

They combine and plot with others to get action from administrators http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222250643 (now oversighted). This procures the removal of anyone who opposes their perverted and abnormal views http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=User%3APhdarts . Or block anyone who complains about it ("harassment").

I like kids, I don't want to have sex with them (or anyone under 35 for that matter) does that make me a paedophile?

You give the kiddy-fiddling brigade too much credence, and Joe Public too little. They can make their little proclivities sound as positive as they like it's never going to become mainstream, it's never going to be accepted by the world at large. There is no danger whatsoever of their POV ever becoming accepted, and if you ask me, if they're busy typing then they aren't busy fiddling.

By all means bring in the NPOV squad when they try to twist things to their own advantage, but why worry if he/she is a pervert if he/she is editing a 'normal' article.

I still think that all this wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth every time the "p" word is mentioned is overkill and will ultimately have more of a detrimental effect on society than the kiddy-fiddlers themselves.

Meanwhile, back on the farm, the erstwhile regulars of WR go into paroxysms of outrage every time someone edits a paedophile-related article and then accuses them of being at the very least a latent paedo or even a supporter. These threads are absolutely drenched in lynch-mob adrenalin, moral indignation and holier than thou attitudes.

It seems that these days over the top paedo outrage is as fashionable as lipstick lesbianism.

[Peter Damian]

I like kids, I don't want to have sex with them (or anyone under 35 for that matter) does that make me a paedophile?

You give the kiddy-fiddling brigade too much credence, and Joe Public too little. They can make their little proclivities sound as positive as they like it's never going to become mainstream, it's never going to be accepted by the world at large. There is no danger whatsoever of their POV ever becoming accepted, and if you ask me, if they're busy typing then they aren't busy fiddling.

[...]
I still think that all this wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth every time the "p" word is mentioned is overkill and will ultimately have more of a detrimental effect on society than the kiddy-fiddlers themselves.

Meanwhile, back on the farm, the erstwhile regulars of WR go into paroxysms of outrage every time someone edits a paedophile-related article and then accuses them of being at the very least a latent paedo or even a supporter. These threads are absolutely drenched in lynch-mob adrenalin, moral indignation and holier than thou attitudes.

It seems that these days over the top paedo outrage is as fashionable as lipstick lesbianism.

"The reason I spend so much time at Wikipedia is that their Paedophilia article is the top result for that term on Google, making it an important platform for us." (quoted from a pedo message board).

By all means bring in the NPOV squad when they try to twist things to their own advantage, but why worry if he/she is a pervert if he/she is editing a 'normal' article.

I have already said that it works the other way round. Those who try and impose neutrality are quickly hounded and blocked.

Unfortunately this has now been oversighted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222250643

But I can tell you what it says. It is a discussion where two SPA's are discussing how to prevent an 'attack' on one of their favourite articles. One says "I think that matters have gone beyond personal intervention - however well-authenticated - and now demand third-party intervention (as before). "

An indef block of the anti-SPA followed within hours.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Web Fred]

I like kids, I don't want to have sex with them (or anyone under 35 for that matter) does that make me a paedophile?

You give the kiddy-fiddling brigade too much credence, and Joe Public too little. They can make their little proclivities sound as positive as they like it's never going to become mainstream, it's never going to be accepted by the world at large. There is no danger whatsoever of their POV ever becoming accepted, and if you ask me, if they're busy typing then they aren't busy fiddling.

[...]
I still think that all this wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth every time the "p" word is mentioned is overkill and will ultimately have more of a detrimental effect on society than the kiddy-fiddlers themselves.

Meanwhile, back on the farm, the erstwhile regulars of WR go into paroxysms of outrage every time someone edits a paedophile-related article and then accuses them of being at the very least a latent paedo or even a supporter. These threads are absolutely drenched in lynch-mob adrenalin, moral indignation and holier than thou attitudes.

It seems that these days over the top paedo outrage is as fashionable as lipstick lesbianism.

"The reason I spend so much time at Wikipedia is that their Paedophilia article is the top result for that term on Google, making it an important platform for us." (quoted from a pedo message board).

"Platform"? So what? They are the most hated sub-species of human on the planet. What do they need a platform for? And even if they do get one who the fuck is going to vote for them?

Frankly I'd far prefer they out themselves attempting to gain a "platform". I'm all for people knowing who their local paedo is, what I'm against are the low-brow, mouth-breathing fuckwits camping outside their doors with banners and broken bottles.

If there's a paedo living in a house on my street and I know he's there, then that works for me. I want to know where the fuckers are, not frighten them underground where they'll get up to god knows what.

By all means bring in the NPOV squad when they try to twist things to their own advantage, but why worry if he/she is a pervert if he/she is editing a 'normal' article.

I have already said that it works the other way round. Those who try and impose neutrality are quickly hounded and blocked.

Unfortunately this has now been oversighted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222250643

But I can tell you what it says. It is a discussion where two SPA's are discussing how to prevent an 'attack' on one of their favourite articles. One says "I think that matters have gone beyond personal intervention - however well-authenticated - and now demand third-party intervention (as before). "

An indef block of the anti-SPA followed within hours.

I can't say I disagree, but that's just as likely to apply to, say, a Croatian as it is to a paedophile POV pusher.

I still think that it tickles me how upset people get when an paedo-related article is tweaked with a POV slant. What the hell difference is it going to make? It's their balls and brains that make them do what they do, not badly written prose in a dying online encyclopaedia.

[Peter Damian]

I still think that it tickles me how upset people get when an paedo-related article is tweaked with a POV slant. What the hell difference is it going to make? It's their balls and brains that make them do what they do, not badly written prose in a dying online encyclopaedia.

Your argument depends on the assumption that no one is, or can be, persuaded by their arguments on this global platform. My children occasionally repeat very strange things that they have 'learned' from Wikipedia.

If children believe the arguments that pedophiles are not inherently dangerous or abusive to children, that 'pedophilia' simply means liking children, not wanting to have sex with them, and so on, is that not going to make a difference, according to you?

What if the children believe this? What if it leads to an online relationship, and more? Let's not forget 'Anothersolipsist' who was carefully grooming a young editor for RfA until he was blocked.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Web Fred]

I still think that it tickles me how upset people get when an paedo-related article is tweaked with a POV slant. What the hell difference is it going to make? It's their balls and brains that make them do what they do, not badly written prose in a dying online encyclopaedia.

Your argument depends on the assumption that no one is, or can be, persuaded by their arguments on this global platform. My children occasionally repeat very strange things that they have 'learned' from Wikipedia.

If children believe the arguments that pedophiles are not inherently dangerous or abusive to children, that 'pedophilia' simply means liking children, not wanting to have sex with them, and so on, is that not going to make a difference, according to you?

What if the children believe this? What if it leads to an online relationship, and more? Let's not forget 'Anothersolipsist' who was carefully grooming a young editor for RfA until he was blocked.

Actually no, I don't think it will persuade kids that the guy who wants to get his hands down their undies is only wanting to do a good thing. I think it's a fallacy for two reasons. The first being that any kid old enough to maintain a 'life' on Wikipedia is old enough to know better and you don't give them the 'hutzpah' to realise that. The second being that the average age of the kids on WP is much higher than the range that most paedos enjoy.

I could understand, and agree much more, if this were MSN, Facebook et al where there are far easier, and far younger, pickings available. But Wikipedia? Nah! Given the total lack of street cred WP brings, the majority of the youngster element are brainiacs, and I really don't believe that they are so easily led.

This post has been edited by Cunningly Linguistic:

[GlassBeadGame]

I still think that it tickles me how upset people get when an paedo-related article is tweaked with a POV slant. What the hell difference is it going to make? It's their balls and brains that make them do what they do, not badly written prose in a dying online encyclopaedia.

Your argument depends on the assumption that no one is, or can be, persuaded by their arguments on this global platform. My children occasionally repeat very strange things that they have 'learned' from Wikipedia.

If children believe the arguments that pedophiles are not inherently dangerous or abusive to children, that 'pedophilia' simply means liking children, not wanting to have sex with them, and so on, is that not going to make a difference, according to you?

What if the children believe this? What if it leads to an online relationship, and more? Let's not forget 'Anothersolipsist' who was carefully grooming a young editor for RfA until he was blocked.

Actually no, I don't think it will persuade kids that the guy who wants to get his hands down their undies is only wanting to do a good thing. I think it's a fallacy for two reasons. The first being that any kid old enough to maintain a 'life' on Wikipedia is old enough to know better and you don't give them the 'hutzpah' to realise that. The second being that the average age of the kids on WP is much higher than the range that most paedos enjoy.

I could understand, and agree much more, if this were MSN, Facebook et al where there are far easier, and far younger, pickings available. But Wikipedia? Nah! Given the total lack of street cred WP brings, the majority of the youngster element are brainiacs, and I really don't believe that they are so easily led.

If by "brainiac"you mean socially inept... The shared collaborative project is central to pedophile grooming and is available on WP in a way not possible on FB or MySpace etc. The most valuable form of communication a pedophile has to offer how "special" and "more mature than other people your age." WP is a compost heap designed to fertilize this kind of abuse.

BTW comments like " get his hands down their undies" makes me question what secondary gains you get out of this conversation.

[Web Fred]

BTW comments like " get his hands down their undies" makes me question what secondary gains you get out of this conversation.

Go fuck yourself.

[EricBarbour]

BTW comments like " get his hands down their undies" makes me question what secondary gains you get out of this conversation.

Go fuck yourself.

Yep, you're a classic Wikipedian. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)