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

[Peter Damian]

That said, Zetawoof is a polite and conscientious editor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zoophilia

and (you may be surprised I am saying this) the subject is a lot more complex and difficult than you would believe I have represented it. I just think that if Zoophiles are going to be editing Wikipedia articles, they should declare this up front (as he, to his credit, has done).

Actually there are a few socks on that page now.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 24th January 2009, 1:26pm

[GlassBeadGame]

That said, Zetawoof is a polite and conscientious editor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zoophilia

and (you may be surprised I am saying this) the subject is a lot more complex and difficult than you would believe I have represented it. I just think that if Zoophiles are going to be editing Wikipedia articles, they should declare this up front (as he, to his credit, has done).

Actually there are a few socks on that page now.

But that polite and conscientious editor re-added the the complete nonsense you removed and restored the article to it's Valentine status. Now there is that awkward impasse status where nobody wants to do what is clearly needed. All it needs now is an embedded ogg file of Barry White playing in the background. I worry about you Peter, you accept too much of the culture of Wikipedia. Sometimes disgust is more appropriate than AGF.

[Peter Damian]

That said, Zetawoof is a polite and conscientious editor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zoophilia

and (you may be surprised I am saying this) the subject is a lot more complex and difficult than you would believe I have represented it. I just think that if Zoophiles are going to be editing Wikipedia articles, they should declare this up front (as he, to his credit, has done).

Actually there are a few socks on that page now.

But that polite and conscientious editor re-added the the complete nonsense you removed and restored the article to it's Valentine status. Now there is that awkward impasse status where nobody wants to do what is clearly needed. All it needs now is an embedded ogg file of Barry White playing in the background. I worry about you Peter, you accept too much of the culture of Wikipedia. Sometimes disgust is more appropriate than AGF.

Yes but then I reverted some of it back and changed the intro and he has kept to the etiquette and presented a reasonable argument and defence on his talk page. He also provided a useful link to the Kraft-Ebing.

And what am I supposed to do?

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

And what am I supposed to do?

Quit wasting your time on wikipedia and go write a book?

Discredit wikipedia from outside of its control structure, maybe?

[GlassBeadGame]

Yes but then I reverted some of it back and changed the intro and he has kept to the etiquette and presented a reasonable argument and defence on his talk page. He also provided a useful link to the Kraft-Ebing.

And what am I supposed to do?

Not edit Wikipedia? Nothing is worse to your long term well being than to work in an environment that is incapable of making distinctions on this level. Of course "sex with animal" POV pushers are all polite and "helpful." They have found a home in which there disgusting ideas are welcome. You validate and legitimize them. Better to criticize from outside Wikipedia.

And what am I supposed to do?

Quit wasting your time on wikipedia and go write a book?

Discredit wikipedia from outside of its control structure, maybe?

Well we certainly seem to agree.

[wikiwhistle]

And what am I supposed to do?

Quit wasting your time on wikipedia and go write a book?

That's what I just did lol and it was so much more fulfilling! I doubt Peter would have to publish via lulu.com though. However while I'm researching the next one, it's th perfect excuse to be on WP.

[Peter Damian]

Not edit Wikipedia? Nothing is worse to your long term well being than to work in an environment that is incapable of making distinctions on this level. Of course "sex with animal" POV pushers are all polite and "helpful." They have found a home in which there disgusting ideas are welcome. You validate and legitimize them. Better to criticize from outside Wikipedia.

I am hopelessly addicted, as I have mentioned before, re the need for rehab or recovery or something like that. This site is like methodone.

Yes as I have said I am writing a book but I have a substantial block at the moment and Wikipedia is displacement for that.

[GlassBeadGame]

Not edit Wikipedia? Nothing is worse to your long term well being than to work in an environment that is incapable of making distinctions on this level. Of course "sex with animal" POV pushers are all polite and "helpful." They have found a home in which there disgusting ideas are welcome. You validate and legitimize them. Better to criticize from outside Wikipedia.

I am hopelessly addicted, as I have mentioned before, re the need for rehab or recovery or something like that. This site is like methodone.

Yes as I have said I am writing a book but I have a substantial block at the moment and Wikipedia is displacement for that.

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

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

Yes as I have said I am writing a book but I have a substantial block at the moment and Wikipedia is displacement for that.

s/displacement for/an obstacle to/g

Wikipedia is ultimately disempowering for the majority of its users - even those nincompoops who believe they attain positions of power or leadership through their titles in the wikipedia structure. Looking around the wikipedia/wikia landscape, I see much independently-produced content lifted and stuffed into a monolithic block, where every piece of information is force-fit to a corporate form and ideology.

I encourage you to make your escape.

[EricBarbour]

You are our Van Helsing.

And he needs a weapon more powerful than a crossbow.

Quit wasting your time on wikipedia and go write a book?

Better yet, write a book on the evil implications of Wikipedia......

For example: whenever someone asks on Yahoo Answers or similar sites
whether bestiality is legal, the answer is usually no......but the Wikipedia
zoophilia articles are frequently quoted.

It's not specificaly "illegal" on a national level in the US. Many states have outlawed it but not the feds. Zoophilia is rarely acepted as legal but is mainly "not illegal" in most countries.
Check out this site for more specific information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoosexualit...
And YES as a zoophile myself I belive it should be better accepted than it is.

What a clever and sneaky way to indoctrinate the sexually-confused adolescent
into the Animal-Sex Club. Nice going, FT2 and Zetawoof. Bastards.

[FT2]

Yes but then I reverted some of it back and changed the intro and he has kept to the etiquette and presented a reasonable argument and defence on his talk page. He also provided a useful link to the Kraft-Ebing.

And what am I supposed to do?

My advice would be to engage in serious and thorough research before touching a subject like this. Knowing the basic definition of the subject and avoiding treating your own personal views as fact, would help:

• Merriam Webster - "an erotic fixation on animals that may result in sexual excitement through real or fancied contact"
• Campbells Psychiatric Dictionary 6th ed. - "Sexual excitement caused by the stroking and fondling of animals; zoolagnia (qv). It does not [emphasis added] refer to sexual intercourse with animals, which Krafft-Ebing termed zooerasty (qv)"
• DSM III, American Psychological Association - "The act or fantasy of engaging in sexual activity with animals is repeatedly preferred, or the exclusive method of achieving, sexual excitement." (DMS III-R and DSM-IV didn't contain a detailed definition)

Your definition (roughly: "it just means sex with animals") is incorrect both clinically and by dictionary. In fact, if you can find an authoritative source in the clinical world in the last 10 years and evidence this is mainstream, let me know. You had to actually degrade a more accurate definition (removing "or being aroused by") to create it.

This post has been edited by FT2: Sat 24th January 2009, 10:20pm

[GlassBeadGame]

Yes but then I reverted some of it back and changed the intro and he has kept to the etiquette and presented a reasonable argument and defence on his talk page. He also provided a useful link to the Kraft-Ebing.

And what am I supposed to do?

My advice would be to engage in serious and thorough research before touching a subject like this. Knowing the basic definition of the subject and avoiding treating your own personal views as fact, would help:

• Merriam Webster - "an erotic fixation on animals that may result in sexual excitement through real or fancied contact"
• Campbells Psychiatric Dictionary 6th ed. - "Sexual excitement caused by the stroking and fondling of animals; zoolagnia (qv). It does not [emphasis added] refer to sexual intercourse with animals, which Krafft-Ebing termed zooerasty (qv)"
• DSM III, American Psychological Association - "The act or fantasy of engaging in sexual activity with animals is repeatedly preferred, or the exclusive method of achieving, sexual excitement." (DMS III-R and DSM-IV didn't contain a detailed definition)

Your definition (roughly: "it just means sex with animals") is incorrect both clinically and by dictionary. In fact, if you can find an authoritative source in the clinical world in the last 10 years and evidence this is mainstream, let me know. You had to actually degrade a more accurate definition (removing "or being aroused by") to create it.

DSM III, which is far more definitive than either a dictionary definition or one purported (I have no interest making my own determination of his bona-fides) researcher's distinction, includes in your own quote, the completed act of having sex with an animal. You want to ignore this and retreat into the justification of "just thinking about sex with animals" as some kind of mitigation. You are creepy beyond belief.

[wikiwhistle]

My advice would be to engage in serious and thorough research before touching a subject like this. Knowing the basic definition of the subject and avoiding treating your own personal views as fact, would help:

• Merriam Webster - "an erotic fixation on animals that may result in sexual excitement through real or fancied contact"
• Campbells Psychiatric Dictionary 6th ed. - "Sexual excitement caused by the stroking and fondling of animals; zoolagnia (qv). It does not [emphasis added] refer to sexual intercourse with animals, which Krafft-Ebing termed zooerasty (qv)"
• DSM III, American Psychological Association - "The act or fantasy of engaging in sexual activity with animals is repeatedly preferred, or the exclusive method of achieving, sexual excitement." (DMS III-R and DSM-IV didn't contain a detailed definition)

Your definition (roughly: "it just means sex with animals") is incorrect both clinically and by dictionary. In fact, if you can find an authoritative source in the clinical world in the last 10 years and evidence this is mainstream, let me know. You had to actually degrade a more accurate definition (removing "or being aroused by") to create it.

DSM III, which is far more definitive than either a dictionary definition or one purported (I have no interest making my own determination of his bona-fides) researcher's distinction, includes in your own quote, the completed act of having sex with an animal. You want to ignore this and retreat into the justification of "just thinking about sex with animals" as some kind of mitigation. You are creepy beyond belief.

It appears like backtracking too I have to say.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Sat 24th January 2009, 10:31pm

[Peter Damian]

I agree that the definition is crucial. See the my essay on taboo subjects below (WP:TABOO). If 'Zoophilia' really does not mean the ''practice'' then we will simply change the title of the article to 'bestiality', since it is clear that nearly the whole article is about the practice. E.g the section '''Books, articles and documentaries about zoophilia'' lists books about sexual crimes, case studies of preferential bestiality, 'Sex between humans and animals'. 'Forbidden sexual behaviour' and so on. I have no problem changing the title of the article to 'bestiality' if you or any of the other regulars on that page object to the definition.

The point is, the article is about the practice.

There should be a clear definition of the subject in the introduction. The definition should reflect the modern meaning of the word, as reflected in standard reference works such as a dictionaries, other encyclopedias &c. This is in order to avoid 'fallacy of equivocation': defining the word to mean a practice or condition that is legal, and acceptable to all people (e.g. paedophilia is defined as non-sexual attraction to children), then making statements or claims that are untrue in the normal meaning of the word, and which for that reason would be confusing to uneducated or naive readers who were reading this in an encyclopedia they trusted. (e.g. religion/ethicists/spiritual leaders do not condemn paedophilia, which is true of paedophilia as defined, but not true in the ordinary sense of the word, which connotes the gratification of the corresponding sexual desire).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TABOO

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 24th January 2009, 10:57pm

[FT2]

(Snip)

Glass Bead - the original in DSM-III contains the word "or" (= this or that). The intro correctly contains the word "or" (= this or that). Damian removes the "or" to misrepresent it (= only means this). You get upset when this is pointed out? Go back to Conservapedia and rant there about the evilness of science and how it should be used to prove gays are evil or evolution doesn't work. I'll see you defending Intelligent design next time, right?

You don't have a clue about the basics of neutral citing nor for science or mainstream experts, except when it suits you. And worse, if some other human being does, then they are obviously evil. The whole APA and clinical profession has a view here, and that view includes the word "or".

So stop acting like a prima donna and just say "yes, I agree that edit of Damian's was inaccurate". That was the only point being made.

This post has been edited by FT2: Sat 24th January 2009, 11:03pm

[Moulton]

Mary had a little lamb
Its fleece was white as snow.

The lamb turned out to be a ram
Mary had a little lamb.

[GlassBeadGame]

(Snip)

Glass Bead - the original in DSM-III contains the word "or" (= this or that). The intro correctly contains the word "or" (= this or that). Damian removes the "or" to misrepresent it (= only means this). You get upset when this is pointed out? Go back to Conservapedia and rant there about the evilness of science and how it should be used to prove gays are evil or evolution doesn't work. I'll see you defending Intelligent design next time, right?

You don't have a clue about the basics of neutral citing nor for science or mainstream experts, except when it suits you. And worse, if some other human being does, then they are obviously evil. The whole APA and clinical profession has a view here, and that view includes the word "or".

So stop acting like a prima donna and just say "yes, I agree that edit of Damian's was inaccurate". That was the only point being made.

You are a fringe POV pusher and dishonest hack. WP will shelter you to some extent, much to it's dishonor. PD ought to disengage in any process that permits you an opportunity push this rubbish.

[Peter Damian]

(Snip)

Glass Bead - the original in DSM-III contains the word "or" (= this or that). The intro correctly contains the word "or" (= this or that). Damian removes the "or" to misrepresent it (= only means this). You get upset when this is pointed out? Go back to Conservapedia and rant there about the evilness of science and how it should be used to prove gays are evil or evolution doesn't work. I'll see you defending Intelligent design next time, right?

You don't have a clue about the basics of neutral citing nor for science or mainstream experts, except when it suits you. And worse, if some other human being does, then they are obviously evil. The whole APA and clinical profession has a view here, and that view includes the word "or".

So stop acting like a prima donna and just say "yes, I agree that edit of Damian's was inaccurate". That was the only point being made.

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

Also, can you explain why I've seen several brand-new accounts all trying to make the exact same edit recently? Not accusing, just wondering... Zetawoof(ζ) 22:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Duh.

You don't have a clue about the basics of neutral citing nor for science or mainstream experts, except when it suits you. And worse, if some other human being does, then they are obviously evil. The whole APA and clinical profession has a view here, and that view includes the word "or".

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

To please FT2 I have modified the definition, while still placing emphasis on the practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=266203148

[GlassBeadGame]

To please FT2 I have modified the definition, while still placing emphasis on the practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=266203148

Well then you should add a depiction of someone thinking about having sex with animals for every depiction of someone having sex with an animal to decorate that Valentine.

[EricBarbour]

Mary had a little lamb
Its fleece was white as snow.
The lamb turned out to be a ram
Mary had a little lamb.

Excellent.