FT2 defends Pedophile's "right" to edit, Uses Meta RfC to intimidate those saying it is wrong Options

[A Horse With No Name]

And burning Young Girls for wearing trousers.

The original hot pants!

By the way, no one ever mentions this:

"In 1455, by the order of King Charles VII of France, who Joan had publicly supported, a rehabilitation trial was opened in the Notre Dame de Paris to investigate the dubious circumstances which led to Joan's execution. The Inquisitor-General of France, was put in charge of the trial. After a careful analysis of all the proceedings, including Joan's answers to the allegations, he pronounced null her condemnation. Joan of Arc was eventually canonized in 1920."

Better late than never?

[Ottava]

"In 1455, by the order of King Charles VII of France, who Joan had publicly supported, a rehabilitation trial was opened in the Notre Dame de Paris to investigate the dubious circumstances which led to Joan's execution. The Inquisitor-General of France, was put in charge of the trial.

Would that be the King of France that was put on a the throne by a girl who heard voices saying that he was the rightful king, who was later condemned by the church for being off her head and partial to trousers? You know, someone that sort of wanted to re-establish that his position was divinely sanctioned and not just some ravings of a lunatic?

BTW we are all fully aware that Joan's condemnation for cross-dressing was just as politically inspired as her later acquittal, and that her canonization was also politically inspired to draw teh French nation together after WWI.

Not many people know of her later acquittal or how immediate it was. That was the point.



SB Johnny

Last I heard, the Vatican opposes executions.

According to the current catechism, it is the act of last resort and to be used "rarely if ever". The quote from John Paul II with the change was dealing with countries that execute political prisoners or for petty crimes.

But this is recent. Here is the 1992 catechism which still is 100% Aquinas:

"2266. Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. For analogous reasons those holding authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the community in their charge.

The primary effect of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment has the effect of preserving public order and the safety of persons. Finally, punishment has a medicinal value; as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.

2267. If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person."

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Personally I thought it might be more illuminating, on topic, and fun baiting homosexuals over homosexual pedophilia (a community less than 3% of the population committing over 25% of child sexual abuse); rather than baiting Ottava yet again over the Catholic Church.

Looking into it, I was surprise to discover the average profile of an online pedophile. It is equates directly to Wikipedia demographics, e.g. white, male, 25 to 45, higher than average education/intelligence, some in position of authority, but what surprised me even more was that most commit their first offense aged around 15 years old. The same age as many of the Wikipedia admins we discuss.

I guess if you must swing this way, this is kind of 'on topic', Milla Jovovich on Joan of Arc and aged 12 years old. They had Jovovich re-doing the Brooke Shield soft porn Blue Lagoon pedo stuff aged 14. What exactly is watching an hour and a half of a 14 year old half naked losing her virginity to a 22 year old Brian Krause?

Lilli awakens in the morning with her first menstrual period, just as Sarah described the threshold of womanhood. Richard awakens in the morning with an erection, and suffers a nasty mood swing, which he cannot explain.

True to form, the Porno-pedia thoughtfully educates us to the fact that whereas,

"The DVD version of this film is reframed to cut out Milla Jovovich's breasts in the scene where she's looking at herself in the mirror ... The older VHS version showed [Milla's] nipples at the very bottom of the screen."

An encyclopedia any pedos can edit. Think about it. I post detailed information on a website about how and where I can see your 14 year old daughter's nipples, what am I?

Of course, it is grossly unfair to say "a community of less than 3% of the population (male homosexuals) commits over 25% of child sexual abuse" because not certainly all homosexual men are pedophiles. The real figure would be a tiny % commit 25% of the 'male on male' child sex crimes but that is the problems with "communities". Every "community" wants its rights but few are willing to own up to, accept and resolve its negative responsibilities.

As to the Papistry ... God save us, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Mon 18th October 2010, 4:11pm

[Sxeptomaniac]

Here's the part to which you should pay close attention: WP has identified and banned paedophile advocates for on-site activities. One banned user, who used the pseudonym User:Tony Sandel, returned as User:MatthewOsborne and edited for over 6 months using that account. User:PseudoAnoNym was recently blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user User:Tyciol. That one only lasted a month and a half, but I have no doubt that Tyciol has a new sock active on one project or another. Having identified paedophilia advocates, does WP not have a responsibility to take steps to prevent them from continuing to edit?

I absolutely agree that pro-pedophile activists and admitted pedophiles should not be allowed to have accounts on WP. I just found some of the "shoot them on sight based on any evidence that can be found" types of comments a little troubling. I'm not saying that off-site information should be ignored, but only that it should be taken with a grain of salt, especially if the hypothetical editor-in-question's behavior were not a problem.


I am abundantly aware of the need to protect kids from strangers. However, high-profile abductions by strangers or internet predators may get the news, but (as Carbuncle mentioned previously) the vast majority of sexually abused children were victimized by someone they knew and trusted, often family.

WP has been ridiculously reluctant to take appropriate measures, but I would not want to see things swing the opposite direction, which would cause another set of problems. Right now, over-reactions that probably don't actually help protect kids are pretty common.

[A Horse With No Name]

"The DVD version of this film is reframed to cut out Milla Jovovich's breasts in the scene where she's looking at herself in the mirror ... The older VHS version showed [Milla's] nipples at the very bottom of the screen."

I am damn glad that I never got rid of my VHS player.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Mon 18th October 2010, 6:42pm

[GlassBeadGame]

Here's the part to which you should pay close attention: WP has identified and banned paedophile advocates for on-site activities. One banned user, who used the pseudonym User:Tony Sandel, returned as User:MatthewOsborne and edited for over 6 months using that account. User:PseudoAnoNym was recently blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user User:Tyciol. That one only lasted a month and a half, but I have no doubt that Tyciol has a new sock active on one project or another. Having identified paedophilia advocates, does WP not have a responsibility to take steps to prevent them from continuing to edit?

I absolutely agree that pro-pedophile activists and admitted pedophiles should not be allowed to have accounts on WP. I just found some of the "shoot them on sight based on any evidence that can be found" types of comments a little troubling. I'm not saying that off-site information should be ignored, but only that it should be taken with a grain of salt, especially if the hypothetical editor-in-question's behavior were not a problem.


I am abundantly aware of the need to protect kids from strangers. However, high-profile abductions by strangers or internet predators may get the news, but (as Carbuncle mentioned previously) the vast majority of sexually abused children were victimized by someone they knew and trusted, often family.

WP has been ridiculously reluctant to take appropriate measures, but I would not want to see things swing the opposite direction, which would cause another set of problems. Right now, over-reactions that probably don't actually help protect kids are pretty common.

At the end of the day I can only think of a few courses of action that would amount to an appropriate level of response, including:

• Prohibit child editing and require credit card level age verification;
• Require credit card level age verification and allow children to edit with parental approval and allow their interaction only with adults that have provided police clearance and monitor the interaction by staff, or;
• Enforce strict anonymity, disallow any identifying information and disable all forms of non-public communication. In effect this segregates wiki activities from IRL existence. Although this would address the child protection issue it would aggravate other problems and encourage even greater irresponsibility in areas such as BLPs and POV pushing.

These option are either expensive of require changing the way things are done in a manner that the faithful would describe as "constructing barriers to participation."

[lilburne]

"In 1455, by the order of King Charles VII of France, who Joan had publicly supported, a rehabilitation trial was opened in the Notre Dame de Paris to investigate the dubious circumstances which led to Joan's execution. The Inquisitor-General of France, was put in charge of the trial.

Would that be the King of France that was put on a the throne by a girl who heard voices saying that he was the rightful king, who was later condemned by the church for being off her head and partial to trousers? You know, someone that sort of wanted to re-establish that his position was divinely sanctioned and not just some ravings of a lunatic?

BTW we are all fully aware that Joan's condemnation for cross-dressing was just as politically inspired as her later acquittal, and that her canonization was also politically inspired to draw teh French nation together after WWI.

Not many people know of her later acquittal or how immediate it was. That was the point.

And why did Charles VI require a heroine in 1455? You'd really have thought that he might have gotten something sorted out before 24 years were up. Hmmm? Think it might have had something to do with the other trial concerning a plot by his bodyguard to kill him?



If I hadn't of screwed it up this would have been have a photo of the Duke of Bedford's tomb in the crypt of Rouen Cathedral. As it is you'll have to settle for Louis of Luxembourg's tomb. He was the brother of John of Luxembourg who sold her to the Duke of Burgundy. Louis conducted the sale of Joan between the Duke of Burgundy and the English and was present at her trial and execution. He was made Bishop of Rouen in 1336 and made a Cardinal by Pope Eugene IV in 1440.

This post has been edited by lilburne: Mon 18th October 2010, 7:32pm

[SB_Johnny]

I absolutely agree that pro-pedophile activists and admitted pedophiles should not be allowed to have accounts on WP. I just found some of the "shoot them on sight based on any evidence that can be found" types of comments a little troubling. I'm not saying that off-site information should be ignored, but only that it should be taken with a grain of salt, especially if the hypothetical editor-in-question's behavior were not a problem.

"Pro-pedophile activists" (in scare quotes because frankly it's just freakish that there would be such activists, but here we are) should be excluded, and the WMF should have paid professionals to do the investigating. The problem is that they rely on "the community" to do this, which pretty much opens the door for people like Ottava to take on the task (because sane and rational people don't do that unless their paid to such an unpleasant job).

Personally I thought it might be more illuminating, on topic, and fun baiting homosexuals over homosexual pedophilia (a community less than 3% of the population committing over 25% of child sexual abuse); rather than baiting Ottava yet again over the Catholic Church.

I suspect the fags among us are perfectly happy to ignore bait from idiots like you.

At the end of the day I can only think of a few courses of action that would amount to an appropriate level of response, including:

• Prohibit child editing and require credit card level age verification;
• Require credit card level age verification and allow children to edit with parental approval and allow their interaction only with adults that have provided police clearance and monitor the interaction by staff, or;
• Enforce strict anonymity, disallow any identifying information and disable all forms of non-public communication. In effect this segregates wiki activities from IRL existence. Although this would address the child protection issue it would aggravate other problems and encourage even greater irresponsibility in areas such as BLPs and POV pushing.

These option are either expensive of require changing the way things are done in a manner that the faithful would describe as "constructing barriers to participation."

Sorta with ya, but I don't think #3 works. WP is not a good place for kids, period.

[EricBarbour]

• Enforce strict anonymity, disallow any identifying information and disable all forms of non-public communication. In effect this segregates wiki activities from IRL existence. Although this would address the child protection issue it would aggravate other problems and encourage even greater irresponsibility in areas such as BLPs and POV pushing.

Some people are already trying to enforce anonymity. Been going on for a while.

WP is not a good place for kids, period.

Oh? What about Anonymous Dissident? Became an admin at age 12. Even managed to score bureaucrat power.
(Despite posting a resignation note in March, he's still doing admin work.)

If pictures of naked boys really bother you, perhaps you would be smart to avoid this and this
on Commons. They're old photos, thus out of copyright, thus acceptable to the Wiki-Church.

Feel free to share those links with your neighborhood busybodies.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Mon 18th October 2010, 10:45pm

[SB_Johnny]

WP is not a good place for kids, period.

Oh? What about Anonymous Dissident? Became an admin at age 12. Even managed to score bureaucrat power.
(Despite posting a resignation note in March, he's still doing admin work.)

And that's a good thing?

[wikieyeay]

I suspect the fags among us are perfectly happy to ignore bait from idiots like you.

well sure, but I think the point was re the Catholic baiting, no?

[Milton Roe]

"In 1455, by the order of King Charles VII of France, who Joan had publicly supported, a rehabilitation trial was opened in the Notre Dame de Paris to investigate the dubious circumstances which led to Joan's execution. The Inquisitor-General of France, was put in charge of the trial.

Would that be the King of France that was put on a the throne by a girl who heard voices saying that he was the rightful king, who was later condemned by the church for being off her head and partial to trousers? You know, someone that sort of wanted to re-establish that his position was divinely sanctioned and not just some ravings of a lunatic?

BTW we are all fully aware that Joan's condemnation for cross-dressing was just as politically inspired as her later acquittal, and that her canonization was also politically inspired to draw teh French nation together after WWI.

Not many people know of her later acquittal or how immediate it was. That was the point.

Whereas, one supposes if she'd actually been a cross-dresser in circumstances that didn't require it, it might have taken Galilean amounts of time for the RC church to apologize for the Big Barbecue.

Yes, Horsey, it's not only the original hot pants, but the original lack-of-slack(s).

Lady Godiva was a freedom rider
She didn't care if the whole world looked;
Joan of Arc with the Lord to guide her
She was a sistah who really cooked!


(And then there's Sue...)

[Ottava]

"In 1455, by the order of King Charles VII of France, who Joan had publicly supported, a rehabilitation trial was opened in the Notre Dame de Paris to investigate the dubious circumstances which led to Joan's execution. The Inquisitor-General of France, was put in charge of the trial.

Would that be the King of France that was put on a the throne by a girl who heard voices saying that he was the rightful king, who was later condemned by the church for being off her head and partial to trousers? You know, someone that sort of wanted to re-establish that his position was divinely sanctioned and not just some ravings of a lunatic?

BTW we are all fully aware that Joan's condemnation for cross-dressing was just as politically inspired as her later acquittal, and that her canonization was also politically inspired to draw teh French nation together after WWI.

Not many people know of her later acquittal or how immediate it was. That was the point.

Whereas, one supposes if she'd actually been a cross-dresser in circumstances that didn't require it, it might have taken Galilean amounts of time for the RC church to apologize for the Big Barbecue.

Yes, Horsey, it's not only the original hot pants, but the original lack-of-slack(s).

Lady Godiva was a freedom rider
She didn't care if the whole world looked;
Joan of Arc with the Lord to guide her
She was a sistah who really cooked!


(And then there's Sue...)

Galileo was "imprisoned" in a cushy palace and done so because he was libelling Jesuits (read the works, about 600 pages wih 500 devoted to mocking and degrading his mathematical opponents who were high up Jesuits).

Joan of Arc was burned at the stake out of revenge for putting the Brits in their place. Two very different circumstances. By the way, Galileo was close friends with the Pope at the time, so that adds a very interesting and complex layer.

[Milton Roe]

Galileo was "imprisoned" in a cushy palace and done so because he was libelling Jesuits (read the works, about 600 pages wih 500 devoted to mocking and degrading his mathematical opponents who were high up Jesuits).

Joan of Arc was burned at the stake out of revenge for putting the Brits in their place. Two very different circumstances. By the way, Galileo was close friends with the Pope at the time, so that adds a very interesting and complex layer.

Galileo was threatened with torture ("Hey, have a look at this table full of thumbscrews and stuff" -- sweet guys, these Catholics) and then put on permanent house-arrest in his own villa. A rather nice one for the time but hardly a palace. And not a place you'd like to be for the rest of your life (which turned out to be 8 years). It doesn't sound too bad unless you've tried not going outside your house for a few weeks, in a time with no radio, TV, internet, phone, modern newspaper, etc. Then you begin to get it. You have to go out to the world in 1634; it doesn't come to you very much. Prison isn't so much where you are, as were you aren't. They let him go into the nearby city (Florence) a couple of times for medical advice, but on the whole, it's a pretty nasty punishment for a mere personal insult. It is an eggregious abuse of power.

He WAS friends with Urban VIII BEFORE mocking his views obliquely, as being those of "Simplicio" (who actually mouths simple standard ideas-- he's not really thickheaded or stupid in the book, despite the name, but merely an average Joe saying average things). Galileo probably thought the Pope would have thicker skin. Hah. Wrong. Urban was the kind of guy who had all the birds strangled in his garden because he didn't like the sound they made. Nice metaphor, eh?

[Ottava]

Galileo was "imprisoned" in a cushy palace and done so because he was libelling Jesuits (read the works, about 600 pages wih 500 devoted to mocking and degrading his mathematical opponents who were high up Jesuits).

Joan of Arc was burned at the stake out of revenge for putting the Brits in their place. Two very different circumstances. By the way, Galileo was close friends with the Pope at the time, so that adds a very interesting and complex layer.

Galileo was threatened with torture ("Hey, have a look at this table full of thumbscrews and stuff" -- sweet guys, these Catholics) and then put on permanent house-arrest in his own villa. A rather nice one for the time but hardly a palace. And not a place you'd like to be for the rest of your life (which turned out to be 8 years). It doesn't sound too bad unless you've tried not going outside your house for a few weeks, in a time with no radio, TV, internet, phone, modern newspaper, etc. Then you begin to get it. You have to go out to the world in 1634; it doesn't come to you very much. Prison isn't so much where you are, as were you aren't. They let him go into the nearby city (Florence) a couple of times for medical advice, but on the whole, it's a pretty nasty punishment for a mere personal insult. It is an eggregious abuse of power.

He WAS friends with Urban VIII BEFORE mocking his views obliquely, as being those of "Simplicio" (who actually mouths simple standard ideas-- he's not really thickheaded or stupid in the book, despite the name, but merely an average Joe saying average things). Galileo probably thought the Pope would have thicker skin. Hah. Wrong. Urban was the kind of guy who had all the birds strangled in his garden because he didn't like the sound they made. Nice metaphor, eh?

Tortured? Where did you get that one?

http://www.msn.unifi.it/upload/sub/img/DSC_0009.jpg

or here for an aerial view of what is left

http://nuke.villagioiello.com/Portals/0/Vi...ioiello_sat.jpg

And your image is misleading. What is -left- is still huge and had multiple homes as part of it. It was also not -his- but owned by an Italian prince. He was also confined to the greater property, not just the one "villa" on the grounds - the grounds included a Monastery and other buildings that were all part of a palace and quite a large one.

This was also not his first place to stay in following the incident - Archbishop Ascanio Piccolomini had him over at his palace (many of these Italian Bishops and Cardinals were of very rich families). Note, this Archbishop also helped Galileo finish his later works.

"mocking his views obliquely, as being those of "Simplicio" "

No, Simplicio was the Jesuit.

What weird source did you get all of that from? Try the The Nature of the Book by Adrian Johns.

http://books.google.com/books?id=zobsj8npW...0jesuit&f=false

That should narrow down the pages. Your view of history seems to be from a really bad source. The matter was all a political dispute following insults and libel against a few Jesuit rivals. It had nothing to do with faith but about one guy wanting to attack some enemies.

An interesting work on the changing views of Galileo can be found in Retrying Galileo, 1633-1992
by Maurice A. Finocchiaro. However, it seems like you got a hold of a source that is more anti-Catholic than historically accurate, and probably also states that Catholics thought the world was flat and was warning Columbus of sailing off the edge (which was a myth promoted by 19th century Protestants in the US).

[Milton Roe]

Galileo was "imprisoned" in a cushy palace and done so because he was libelling Jesuits (read the works, about 600 pages wih 500 devoted to mocking and degrading his mathematical opponents who were high up Jesuits).

Joan of Arc was burned at the stake out of revenge for putting the Brits in their place. Two very different circumstances. By the way, Galileo was close friends with the Pope at the time, so that adds a very interesting and complex layer.

Galileo was threatened with torture ("Hey, have a look at this table full of thumbscrews and stuff" -- sweet guys, these Catholics) and then put on permanent house-arrest in his own villa. A rather nice one for the time but hardly a palace. And not a place you'd like to be for the rest of your life (which turned out to be 8 years). It doesn't sound too bad unless you've tried not going outside your house for a few weeks, in a time with no radio, TV, internet, phone, modern newspaper, etc. Then you begin to get it. You have to go out to the world in 1634; it doesn't come to you very much. Prison isn't so much where you are, as were you aren't. They let him go into the nearby city (Florence) a couple of times for medical advice, but on the whole, it's a pretty nasty punishment for a mere personal insult. It is an eggregious abuse of power.

He WAS friends with Urban VIII BEFORE mocking his views obliquely, as being those of "Simplicio" (who actually mouths simple standard ideas-- he's not really thickheaded or stupid in the book, despite the name, but merely an average Joe saying average things). Galileo probably thought the Pope would have thicker skin. Hah. Wrong. Urban was the kind of guy who had all the birds strangled in his garden because he didn't like the sound they made. Nice metaphor, eh?

Tortured? Where did you get that one?

http://www.msn.unifi.it/upload/sub/img/DSC_0009.jpg

or here for an aerial view of what is left

http://nuke.villagioiello.com/Portals/0/Vi...ioiello_sat.jpg

And your image is misleading. What is -left- is still huge and had multiple homes as part of it. It was also not -his- but owned by an Italian prince. He was also confined to the greater property, not just the one "villa" on the grounds - the grounds included a Monastery and other buildings that were all part of a palace and quite a large one.

This was also not his first place to stay in following the incident - Archbishop Ascanio Piccolomini had him over at his palace (many of these Italian Bishops and Cardinals were of very rich families). Note, this Archbishop also helped Galileo finish his later works.

"mocking his views obliquely, as being those of "Simplicio" "

No, Simplicio was the Jesuit.

What weird source did you get all of that from? Try the The Nature of the Book by Adrian Johns.

http://books.google.com/books?id=zobsj8npW...0jesuit&f=false

That should narrow down the pages. Your view of history seems to be from a really bad source. The matter was all a political dispute following insults and libel against a few Jesuit rivals. It had nothing to do with faith but about one guy wanting to attack some enemies.

An interesting work on the changing views of Galileo can be found in Retrying Galileo, 1633-1992
by Maurice A. Finocchiaro. However, it seems like you got a hold of a source that is more anti-Catholic than historically accurate, and probably also states that Catholics thought the world was flat and was warning Columbus of sailing off the edge (which was a myth promoted by 19th century Protestants in the US).

I said he was threatened with torture, and shown the instruments formally.

I'm under no illusions about flat Earth vs. round Earth. Though this myth that Columbus thought the Earth was flat goes back much farther than the 19th century (at least to Jefferson's notes on Virginia, which is where I encountered it first). I think it is due partly to Copernicus' book of 1543, wherein he pokes fun at an one early Christian theologian for thinking the Earth is flat, knowing (but forgetting to say) that everybody else at the time thought it was spherical. Later readers took Copernicus' argument entirely too literally.

No, the official Catholic position (enforced only after the first Galileo fiasco of 1616) was the the Earth was stationary, and didn't orbit the Sun (rather the other way around). In other words, Copernicus' view. The idea that Galileo was being punished for mocking Jesuits might be true, but the Pope certainly did nothing to stop it at Galileo's second trial. And the matter went far futher than simple action against Gallileo, because the church not only put Galileo's book on the index of banned and prohibited works Index Librorum Prohibitorum, but also (retrospectively) Copernicus's great work, published 1543 (at almost the day he died), but which wasn't withdrawn from circulation by the Roman Catholic church and put on the Index until 1616-- the year the Holy See officially first denounced Galileo regarding heliocentrism. This is more than 60 years later. Copernicus hadn't had problems with the church and certainly not with any Jesuits, but his book stayed on the list pending corrections never made, until 1758. You can read Galileo affair which is pretty good. You can argue all you like about it being a personal thing against Galileo, and you might even be right, but it also went on to Galileo's ideas to those of Copernicus too (though he was long dead). It was a war against a POV, and it included many banned users. Where have we seen that before?

This Holy Congregation has also learned about the spreading and acceptance by many of the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture, that the earth moves and the sun is motionless, which is also taught by Nicholaus Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium and by Diego de Zúñiga's In Job.... Therefore, in order that this opinion may not creep any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Congregation has decided that the books by Nicolaus Copernicus [De revolutionibus] and Diego de Zúñiga [In Job] be suspended until corrected.

As noted, that correction was never carried out. Protestants happily kept publishing the thing, and Catholics (by and large) couldn't read it. Which was the whole idea, of course.

[CharlotteWebb]

I suspect the fags among us are perfectly happy to ignore bait from idiots like you.

well sure, but I think the point was re the Catholic baiting, no?

Təˈmeɪtoʊ, təˈmɑːtəʊ.

[lonza leggiera]

Galileo was "imprisoned" in a cushy palace and done so because he was libelling Jesuits ...

Poppycock. Galileo was prosecuted in 1633 for writing Dialogo Sopra i due Massimi Sistemi del Mondo, in which he defended heliocentrism as a physical possibility (as opposed to a mere convenient mathematical fiction). Catholics had been effectively forbidden to do this in 1616 by a decree issued by the Congregation of the Index, in which heliocentrism was condemned as "false and contrary to Scripture". Even before this decree was issued, Galileo had been informed of its imminent promulgation, and that, as a consequence, Catholics were not permitted to "hold or defend" the condemned doctrine, and he had then promised not to do so himself.

I don't recall reading anything in Galileo's Dialogue that could reasonably be construed as "libelling" or even "mocking and degrading" any Jesuits, and neither have I ever seen such a suggestion made by any reputable authority on Galileo. The works of Galileo's which antagonized the Jesuits were Discourse on the Comets, published in 1619 under the name of Mario Guiducci, one of Galileo's followers—but largely written by Galileo himself—, and The Assayer, published in 1623. The first of these was not particularly disrespectful, though it did contain some slighting criticisms of the Jesuits of the Collegio Romano, which certainly offended them. The Assayer, however, contained quite a savage attack on the Jesuits' reply to Discourse on the Comets and its "anonymous" author, Father Orazio Grassi (writing under the pseudonym Lothario Sarsi). As a result, Galileo's relations with the Jesuits were irreversibly damaged. But nothing in either of those books was ever cited—at least not officially by the Church herself—as doctrinally objectionable, or as providing cause for any action against Galileo. In fact, Pope Urban VIII reportedly found The Assayer quite entertaining and never expressed any misgivings at all about its contents.

Tortured? Where did you get that one?

http://www.msn.unifi.it/upload/sub/img/DSC_0009.jpg

or here for an aerial view of what is left

http://nuke.villagioiello.com/Portals/0/Vi...ioiello_sat.jpg

And your image is misleading. What is -left- is still huge and had multiple homes as part of it. It was also not -his- but owned by an Italian prince. He was also confined to the greater property, not just the one "villa" on the grounds - the grounds included a Monastery and other buildings that were all part of a palace and quite a large one.

But the Villa Gioiello illustrated in your second link has nothing whatever to do with Galileo's villa, Il Gioiello, where he was kept under house arrest. The developers of your Villa Gioiello tell us on its home page that it's situated on the border between Tuscany and Umbria, overlooking Lake Trasimeno, which is some 120km southeast of Florence. Galileo's Il Gioiello, on the other hand, is in Arcetri in the hills surrounding Florence, and not more than 10km from the city centre. You can get a bird's-eye view of it by zooming in on the satellite or hybrid version of the Google map available on the Galileo Museum's web site. Here is a screen capture of a zoomed-in copy of the satellite map from that site. Galileo's house is supposedly the one with the virtual red pin in its roof.

"mocking his views obliquely, as being those of "Simplicio" "

No, Simplicio was the Jesuit.

No, he was neither. I'm not aware of anyone besides you who has suggested that Simplicio was intended to be a caricature of Orazio Grassi, or of any other Jesuit. Rumours that Galileo had intended Simplicio to be a caricature of the Pope surfaced in December 1635, more than two years after the end of his trial (see Finocchiaro's Retrying Galileo, p.62). I don't know of any modern authority on Galileo who credits him with having actually harboured any such intention, and of the few I am acquainted with, most have explicitly stated that they consider it unlikely. Even Arthur Koestler, who is no great fan of Galileo's, says in The Sleepwalkers that the suspicions Urban supposedly entertained that Simplicio might have been a caricature of him were "of course untrue". In Galileo at Work (p.355 ) Stillman Drake expresses the view that Simplicio was modelled on two of the dimmer of Galileo's Philosophical opponents, Ludovico delle Colombe and Cesare Cremonini, neither of whom were members of the clergy, let alone Jesuits.

What weird source did you get all of that from? Try the The Nature of the Book by Adrian Johns.

http://books.google.com/books?id=zobsj8npW...0jesuit&f=false

But that source says nothing whatever about Simplicio's being an intended caricature of Orazio Grassi or any other Jesuit.


This post has been edited by lonza leggiera: Thu 21st October 2010, 1:07am

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Its Wikipedia Review guys, not Wikipedia Substitute. Please take your 'off topic' witter wars back to the WP talk pages.

What is this to do with FT2 and pedophilia?

The point I was leading on to make is that a lot of what we are talking about here, in general, is really not "pedophilia" but homosexuality.

I spent some time looking into the bigger debate and it seems clear that what the experts and authorities consider to be pedophiles and pedophilia of concern is target infants. Infants who would be too young to use a PC. One source said the average victim was 4 years old ... rather than older queers targeting underage teenage boys or encouraging the acceptability of homosexual experimentation in teenage - that they or their kin might benefit from - in general.

Yes, I can see the much bigger picture of the Wikipedia being used as an opinion forming device or meeting place where they might recognise themselves but I cannot see it as a useful medium for them.

The question I was leading to is where do we/the Wikipedia draw the line between pedophilia and homosexuality? 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... Personally, I do not think it is a nice clear cut line. In one survey, homosexual males were clearly shown to have a preference towards younger males (15 +) whilst heterosexual males exhibited a preference for mid-20 women.

From experience, I would say that because of the precociousness of young males, and the covertness of gay society, older homosexuals preying on younger boys is viewed differently or more leniently (or not seen so much at all) as older heterosexual males preying on mid to early teen females.

[GlassBeadGame]

What is this to do with FT2 and pedophilia?

It's a great distraction from the sad fact that Ottava actual lost the argument with FT2. I figured he could at least tie. I mean horse fucking for Christ's sake.