The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Discussions in this subforum are hidden from search engines.

However, they are not hidden from automobile engines, including the newer, more "environmentally-friendly" electric and hybrid engines. Also, please note that this subforum is meant to be used for discussion of the actual biographical articles themselves; more generalized discussions of BLP policy should be posted in the General Discussion or Bureaucracy forums.

5 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Sex by surprise
Ottava
post Tue 7th December 2010, 10:13pm
Post #21


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I guess he is happy he didn't either pregnant, or that surely would be the death penalty.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Tue 7th December 2010, 10:58pm
Post #22


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 7th December 2010, 1:30pm) *

Having sex with an unconscious person amounts to rape.


So I take it you don't agree with Linda Ellerbee's solution on how to handle a marriage where both partners are employed in wage-earning jobs?

"Sex: the rule is that both of us don't necessarily need to be conscious at the same time."

With my unconscious body, I thee worship....

Hmmm. I can only conclude that this second babe must be a VERY heavy sleeper, since it was morning and no allegations of drugs or alcohol are involved. Or else she is not a very anxious type. Or maybe she has narcolepsy? ermm.gif

Good God, I've slept with women who normally woke up enough to comment, when *I* woke up quietly to do something as unbothersome as reach for a empty bottle of wine "Mmmm, sorry I drank the last of it..." Then go right back to snoring. So where the hell do they get these zombified Swedish babes? Not that any of this interests me very much, but it sure is not anywhere near any of my own experience with women. Men, by contrast, do sleep like the dead. Not that I've ever tried to violate one to put this to the ultimate test.

See, this is why we need human juries, and computers will never work. ermm.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
anthony
post Wed 8th December 2010, 2:16am
Post #23


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 1:31am
Member No.: 2,132



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 7th December 2010, 7:26pm) *

Both "in their 20's" says The Daily Mail. Presumably, in Sweden, old enough to know better. The sweet victimized ladies threw themselves at Assange when was making a speaking tour, and both of them, erm, stuck.


I read they were wearing sexy clothing too.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Wed 8th December 2010, 2:54am
Post #24


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(anthony @ Tue 7th December 2010, 7:16pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 7th December 2010, 7:26pm) *

Both "in their 20's" says The Daily Mail. Presumably, in Sweden, old enough to know better. The sweet victimized ladies threw themselves at Assange when was making a speaking tour, and both of them, erm, stuck.


I read they were wearing sexy clothing too.

Woman #2 took the guy home on the train to her appartment to have sex with him. Then complained that the second time they did it, he didn't use a condom. She was so upset that she cooked him breakfast. And made him promise to call her. Then when he didn't, she called the police and had him arrested in another country. All this made possible courtesy of the US government, behind the scenes pulling strings. Don't imagine not.

Now, do I need to explain the Facts of Life, here? This sex was at the end of a long trainride back home, not a long passionate kiss. It was, as they say, premeditated. If you are relying on a condom to protect you from HIV because you're having carefully planned and paid-for sex with people you just met a few hours before, then you are being stupid. The government cannot protect you from stupidity that gross, and I'm not even sure the government should try to. It sounds like more of a tort or civil damages sort of thing, at worst, in the absense of some kind of enforceable agreement. We really don't know what kind of agreements or promises were made in this case, but some things speak for themselves. In absense of reliable agreements, the general common law is that you get what you ask for, as is, and there is not necessarily a guarantee on all items, just because you think there should be. hrmph.gif

You know, in my day we walked ten miles through the snow to school, and the TV was black and white. And when we met somebody new, we sometimes had to wait for days and days for the antibody enzyme immunoassay blood test to come back, before we could give our passion full reign. That took iron determination, I tell you, as there was no rapid SUDS HIV Test. But it was Victorian Times, and we did as expected.

This young generation, these days, with their dang antiretrovirals, are all going straight to the devil, I tell you. I wouldn't give a dental dam for most of 'em. oldtimer.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
anthony
post Wed 8th December 2010, 3:08am
Post #25


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 1:31am
Member No.: 2,132



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 8th December 2010, 2:54am) *

Woman #2 took the guy home on the train to her appartment to have sex with him. Then complained that the second time they did it, he didn't use a condom. She was so upset that she cooked him breakfast. And made him promise to call her. Then when he didn't, she called the police and had him arrested in another country. All this made possible courtesy of the US government, behind the scenes pulling strings. Don't imagine not.

Now, do I need to explain the Facts of Life, here? This sex was at the end of a long trainride back home, not a long passionate kiss. It was, as they say, premeditated. If you are relying on a condom to protect you from HIV because you're having carefully planned and paid-for sex with people you just met a few hours before, then you are being stupid. The government cannot protect you from stupidity that gross, and I'm not even sure the government should try to. It sounds like more of a tort or civil damages sort of thing, at worst, in the absense of some kind of enforceable agreement. We really don't know what kind of agreements or promises were made in this case, but some things speak for themselves. In absense of reliable agreements, the general common law is that you get what you ask for, as is, and there is not necessarily a guarantee on all items, just because you think there should be. hrmph.gif


Maybe I'm just dense, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I thought the details of what happened were disputed.

This post has been edited by anthony: Wed 8th December 2010, 3:12am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Wed 8th December 2010, 3:11am
Post #26


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(anthony @ Tue 7th December 2010, 8:08pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 8th December 2010, 2:54am) *

Woman #2 took the guy home on the train to her appartment to have sex with him. Then complained that the second time they did it, he didn't use a condom. She was so upset that she cooked him breakfast. And made him promise to call her. Then when he didn't, she called the police and had him arrested in another country. All this made possible courtesy of the US government, behind the scenes pulling strings. Don't imagine not.

Now, do I need to explain the Facts of Life, here? This sex was at the end of a long trainride back home, not a long passionate kiss. It was, as they say, premeditated. If you are relying on a condom to protect you from HIV because you're having carefully planned and paid-for sex with people you just met a few hours before, then you are being stupid. The government cannot protect you from stupidity that gross, and I'm not even sure the government should try to. It sounds like more of a tort or civil damages sort of thing, at worst, in the absense of some kind of enforceable agreement. We really don't know what kind of agreements or promises were made in this case, but some things speak for themselves. In absense of reliable agreements, the general common law is that you get what you ask for, as is, and there is not necessarily a guarantee on all items, just because you think there should be. hrmph.gif

Maybe I'm just dense, but I have no idea what you're talking about.

Link is given in the posts above. And if that doesn't help, then don't know what YOU'RE talking about. I thought you were satirizing rape defenses that suggest a woman was "asking for it." Well, sometimes people ask for it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TungstenCarbide
post Wed 8th December 2010, 3:14am
Post #27


Allegedly shot down by stray Ukrainian missile
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,405
Joined: Sat 14th Mar 2009, 6:12am
Member No.: 10,787

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 8th December 2010, 2:54am) *
Woman #2 took the guy home on the train to her appartment to have sex with him. Then complained that the second time they did it, he didn't use a condom. She was so upset that she cooked him breakfast. And made him promise to call her. Then when he didn't, she called the police and had him arrested in another country. All this made possible courtesy of the US government, behind the scenes pulling strings. Don't imagine not.

Now, do I need to explain the Facts of Life, here? This sex was at the end of a long trainride back home, not a long passionate kiss. It was, as they say, premeditated. If you are relying on a condom to protect you from HIV because you're having carefully planned and paid-for sex with people you just met a few hours before, then you are being stupid. The government cannot protect you from stupidity that gross, and I'm not even sure the government should try to. It sounds like more of a tort or civil damages sort of thing, at worst, in the absense of some kind of enforceable agreement. We really don't know what kind of agreements or promises were made in this case, but some things speak for themselves. In absense of reliable agreements, the general common law is that you get what you ask for, as is, and there is not necessarily a guarantee on all items, just because you think there should be. hrmph.gif

You know, in my day we walked ten miles through the snow to school, and the TV was black and white. And when we met somebody new, we sometimes had to wait for days and days for the antibody enzyme immunoassay blood test to come back, before we could give our passion full reign. That took iron determination, I tell you, as there was no rapid SUDS HIV Test. But it was Victorian Times, and we did as expected.

This young generation, these days, with their dang antiretrovirals, are all going straight to the devil, I tell you. I wouldn't give a dental dam for most of 'em. oldtimer.gif


Assange barged into the world of espionage, war and global politics, and started throwing rotten eggs. I wonder if he's stupid enough to expect fair treatment ?



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
anthony
post Wed 8th December 2010, 3:16am
Post #28


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 1:31am
Member No.: 2,132



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 8th December 2010, 3:11am) *

Link is given in the posts above.


None of which are very reliable. A lot of parties are obviously going to great lengths to try to spin this case one way or the other. It is, after all, quite literally a battle of information warfare. As such I'm quite hesitant to give any credence to third and fourth-hand accounts, and even first and second-hand accounts have to be taken with a large dose of skepticism.

This post has been edited by anthony: Wed 8th December 2010, 3:30am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
anthony
post Wed 8th December 2010, 3:22am
Post #29


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 1:31am
Member No.: 2,132



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 8th December 2010, 3:11am) *

And if that doesn't help, then don't know what YOU'RE talking about. I thought you were satirizing rape defenses that suggest a woman was "asking for it." Well, sometimes people ask for it.


Sometimes people ask for what, exactly?

What I'm talking about is that a woman "throwing herself" at a man doesn't justify the man raping her.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Wed 8th December 2010, 3:29am
Post #30


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(anthony @ Tue 7th December 2010, 10:22pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 8th December 2010, 3:11am) *

And if that doesn't help, then don't know what YOU'RE talking about. I thought you were satirizing rape defenses that suggest a woman was "asking for it." Well, sometimes people ask for it.


Sometimes people ask for what, exactly?

What I'm talking about is that a woman "throwing herself" at a man doesn't justify the man raping her.


Somebody is just getting nervous about those young girls at Burning Man.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
anthony
post Wed 8th December 2010, 3:49am
Post #31


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 1:31am
Member No.: 2,132



On a completely unrelated note evilgrin.gif , anyone know where I can go to place a wager on Time's 2010 Person of the Year? When is that person chosen, anyway?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lar
post Wed 8th December 2010, 4:08am
Post #32


"His blandness goes to 11!"
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,116
Joined: Wed 26th Dec 2007, 6:04pm
From: A large LEGO storage facility
Member No.: 4,290



QUOTE(anthony @ Tue 7th December 2010, 11:49pm) *

On a completely unrelated note evilgrin.gif , anyone know where I can go to place a wager on Time's 2010 Person of the Year? When is that person chosen, anyway?

I thought Ladbrokes would take a punt on anything?

Why, yes, you can.

http://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/awards/t...year-e214560865
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
anthony
post Wed 8th December 2010, 4:15am
Post #33


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 1:31am
Member No.: 2,132



QUOTE(Lar @ Wed 8th December 2010, 4:08am) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Tue 7th December 2010, 11:49pm) *

On a completely unrelated note evilgrin.gif , anyone know where I can go to place a wager on Time's 2010 Person of the Year? When is that person chosen, anyway?

I thought Ladbrokes would take a punt on anything?

Why, yes, you can.

http://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/awards/t...year-e214560865


Unless you want to wager on Assange. Odds: Susp.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lar
post Wed 8th December 2010, 4:17am
Post #34


"His blandness goes to 11!"
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,116
Joined: Wed 26th Dec 2007, 6:04pm
From: A large LEGO storage facility
Member No.: 4,290



QUOTE(anthony @ Wed 8th December 2010, 12:15am) *

QUOTE(Lar @ Wed 8th December 2010, 4:08am) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Tue 7th December 2010, 11:49pm) *

On a completely unrelated note evilgrin.gif , anyone know where I can go to place a wager on Time's 2010 Person of the Year? When is that person chosen, anyway?

I thought Ladbrokes would take a punt on anything?

Why, yes, you can.

http://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/awards/t...year-e214560865


Unless you want to wager on Assange. Odds: Susp.

Which seemed terribly unfair to me but I was so excited at finding the answer and posting first (bad habit, I know, but with Miltie around, can you blame me?) I didn't comment. Maybe they're going to want to resolve the 'will he be convicted' question first?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Wed 8th December 2010, 4:27am
Post #35


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(anthony @ Tue 7th December 2010, 8:22pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 8th December 2010, 3:11am) *

And if that doesn't help, then don't know what YOU'RE talking about. I thought you were satirizing rape defenses that suggest a woman was "asking for it." Well, sometimes people ask for it.


Sometimes people ask for what, exactly?

What I'm talking about is that a woman "throwing herself" at a man doesn't justify the man raping her.

I'm curious as to when you assume that consent is "automatically" withdrawn when a man and woman climb into bed to have consensual sex. Presuming nobody ever says "no" or "stop."

In any case, this is not a rape case, as rape has not been alleged by anybody. That is a fact.

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 7th December 2010, 8:29pm) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Tue 7th December 2010, 10:22pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 8th December 2010, 3:11am) *

And if that doesn't help, then don't know what YOU'RE talking about. I thought you were satirizing rape defenses that suggest a woman was "asking for it." Well, sometimes people ask for it.


Sometimes people ask for what, exactly?

What I'm talking about is that a woman "throwing herself" at a man doesn't justify the man raping her.


Somebody is just getting nervous about those young girls at Burning Man.

Shows how little you know about Burning Man. But enjoy your ignorance.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Wed 8th December 2010, 4:31am
Post #36


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 7th December 2010, 11:27pm) *


Shows how little you know about Burning Man. But enjoy your ignorance.


Oh yeah man, it was like... spiritual.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
taiwopanfob
post Wed 8th December 2010, 5:20am
Post #37


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri 26th May 2006, 12:21pm
Member No.: 214



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 8th December 2010, 4:27am) *
Shows how little you know about Burning Man. But enjoy your ignorance.


He's probably looking at the current state of the Burning man article and getting excited.

It is interesting, but of course completely Wiki-SOP, that the picture of the naked women is not properly copyright tagged at all. Maybe someone can create a small quantum of drama and nominate it for deletion-by-copyright-violation, as it most certainly is.

The other images there are "allowed" under Wiki-law's version of "fair use". However, there is this discussion from five years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burning_...pump_discussion

Are the Burning Man people monitoring Wikipedia's use of their imagery?

Of course, the situation on Commons is the normal clusterfuck of complete stupidity. Example:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...953%29_crop.jpg

With few exceptions, they are all a bunch of fucking idiots.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Wed 8th December 2010, 5:27am
Post #38


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Wed 8th December 2010, 12:20am) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 8th December 2010, 4:27am) *
Shows how little you know about Burning Man. But enjoy your ignorance.


He's probably looking at the current state of the Burning man article and getting excited.

It is interesting, but of course completely Wiki-SOP, that the picture of the naked women is not properly copyright tagged at all. Maybe someone can create a small quantum of drama and nominate it for deletion-by-copyright-violation, as it most certainly is.

The other images there are "allowed" under Wiki-law's version of "fair use". However, there is this discussion from five years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burning_...pump_discussion

Are the Burning Man people monitoring Wikipedia's use of their imagery?

Of course, the situation on Commons is the normal clusterfuck of complete stupidity. Example:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...953%29_crop.jpg

With few exceptions, they are all a bunch of fucking idiots.



My ignorance on the matter is completely independent of Wikipedia.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Wed 8th December 2010, 7:20am
Post #39


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 7th December 2010, 8:31pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 7th December 2010, 11:27pm) *


Shows how little you know about Burning Man. But enjoy your ignorance.


Oh yeah man, it was like... spiritual.
I find myself gripped by an uncontrollable impulse to reprise this video:

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
anthony
post Wed 8th December 2010, 1:45pm
Post #40


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 1:31am
Member No.: 2,132



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 8th December 2010, 4:27am) *

I'm curious as to when you assume that consent is "automatically" withdrawn when a man and woman climb into bed to have consensual sex. Presuming nobody ever says "no" or "stop."


Why should I presume nobody ever said "no" or "stop"? I'm not on a jury. In at least some accounts of the story I've read, someone did say "no" or "stop". Yes, there is another story that this is merely a case of a broken condom, and nothing more. But that's only one version of the story, which seems to have been put out there by the lawyer of Assange, and is highly unlikely to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Consent to what? What manner of consent? Even if I do make presumptions, your question is far too open-ended.

I presented a scenario above which I would consider assault. Tricking a woman into believing that you are wearing a condom, when you actually are not. I'd say it's akin to slipping roofies in someone's drink, or giving someone pot brownies and not mentioning the "pot" part. Fine if there was consent. Assault if there was not.

Whether such assault amounts to "rape", I don't know. I guess it depends a lot on the specific statutory definition of "rape". But it's assault. A criminal manner, and not merely a breach of contract.

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 8th December 2010, 4:27am) *

In any case, this is not a rape case, as rape has not been alleged by anybody.


Do you have (a) link(s) where I can confirm this?

I thought rape had been alleged by at least one prosecutor.

This post has been edited by anthony: Wed 8th December 2010, 1:47pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th 5 17, 7:10am