Posted on 02/13/2006 6:24:53 PM PST by Lou Franklin
I thought about that myself... we'll see.
It's Open Source fact. Many here embrace that. No ownership, no fees, no worries!
Wikipedia is pretty good for current pop culture, but if someone is using it as a reference site, well that's just dumb. I've already talked to my kids about Wikipedia's accuracy and the potential to support biased positions.
So if a majority of contributers entered that members of the Homosexual community like to run gerbils up their butts, Wikipedia is OK with that?
You are quite correct. Anyone not recognizing this is either liberally biased or ignorant...
Welcome to FR!
;^)
Wikipedifile Gay Jihadists
Here's another comment:
http://mrmeangenesnews.blogspot.com/2006/02/lay-off-boy-scouts-ive-had-it-with.html
Lou, you disgust me. Over on Wikipedia, you outright called everyone disagreeing with you over there gay. Now, I was over there, and I disagree with you. I am not gay. My wife, who I have been married to for over 14 years, can attest to the fact that I prefer the fairer sex. I am also quite politically conservative on many issues.
What you did, going over there, pulling that sort of third-rate editing, using the worst biased hit-piece sources you could find and then attacking everyone who called you on it as gay, was an infantile stunt. Coming running to FreeRepublic whining about how everyone on Wikipedia hates you for being an ass is pathetic.
You're giving conservatives a bad name. You're giving STRAIGHT PEOPLE a bad name. Knock it off, and grow a spine. If you can't make a point without flailing on about a vast left wing homosexual conspiracy supressing your precious bodily point of view, you don't belong out there advocating anything in public. Stay home and learn to cook or something.
ib4tz
Societal attitudes towards homosexuality
"This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion."
Yes, ya did. You assumed everyone who opposed you had to be gays, and you said so, and you were wrong. You tried to tar everyone opposing you with a wide brush, and that was simply wrong and grossly offensive.
I do not disagree that most of the people arguing to keep the article are gay. That doesn't automatically make them wrong in everything they do. In this case, they're right.
The article is moderately biased. Introducing reasonable counterpoints would be constructive.
What you did was attempt to introduce unreasonable counterpoints. Unreasonable includes trying to equate adult homosexuality with pedophilia. That particular tactic is an abusive and scientifically unsupportable tactic used by fringe homophobe groups.
No reputable scientific study has correlated adult homosexual sexual attraction with pedophilia. This is not "gay agenda". If you believe that, and are promoting that, you are beyond the mainstream conservative beliefs regarding homosexuality into fringe homophobia. Period.
Mainstream conservatives, and a majority of Americans, are opposed as a rule to gay marriage. Mainstream conservatives, and a majority of Americans, also know better than to think that gays tend to abuse children. In trying to go beyond opposing a political agenda, into unfounded accusations of widespread clearly criminal conduct against gays as a group, you "out" yourself as a crank and fringeist.
You have a right to your opinion. You do not have a right to imply that extreme an opinion is what mainstream conservatives do, or should, believe. You do not have a right to insist that your extreme opinion is neutral or belongs as the standard material in an encyclopedia of any sort.
When you came here and posted about the incident on Wikipedia, you lied to the Free Republic members by implying that you were trying to put mainstream conservative values comments into the Wikipedia and being rebuffed by a crowd of gay activists. In truth, you're being rebuffed by a wide spectrum of people including at least one conservative, who feel that you're simply a crank extremist homophobe.
That most of those opposing you are gay doesn't make you right.
Every time fringe right wing cranks stand up and identify themselves as mainstream conservatives, it makes it that much harder to defend mainstream conservatism. You're not our friend. You're another enemy.
If you'd just tried to change the natural disasters entry, nobody would be arguing with you. After the flames die down, I'm going to go after fixing that one.
I am curious as to what developed country doesn't accept same-sex relationships? One can argue that "accept" is a loaded word; it might imply legal acceptance a la marriage. Rephrasing that so that it doesn't imply encourage, or legally acknowledge, would be reasonable. But it's not like homosexuals are arrested for doing so.
Violence against homosexuals does remain common. There are plenty of statistics on gay bashing. It is both well documented and offensive, unacceptable homophobic behavior, regardless of one's political beliefs. Violence against minorities you disagree with is barbarism.
Regarding the curing homosexuality paragraph, I have seen mental health organizations and professionals make that statement. I do not believe that "all" have that stated policy belief; the statement has a non-neutral point of view and needs correction and specific references.
These are not controversial edits you're aruging for here and now. What you're doing here, is trying to red herring the point I brought up, which is that among other things you suggested, you also attempted to combine homosexuality and same-sex pedophillia and thus label gays as child molesters. That tactic, by itself, is clear evidence that you are the extremist homophobe. Period, end of conversation. You repeatedly attempted to make, and advocated making, that editorial change.
Regarding my conservatism and slandering me by comparing with Ted Kennedy; I have voted for Bush-Bush-Dole-Bush-Bush for president since I turned 18, I've never voted for a Democrat for US Senate, only when no repub opposed for US House, never voted for a Democrat for Governor of California, helped found the First Berkeley Rifles shooting club at UC Berkeley while I was there (and man, if you think being a Republican at Berkeley is going to get you hated, try advocating the second ammendment publically...). I both support and have worked on a strong US military and strong US foreign policy. I muchly prefer tax cuts and small government.
And, I am convinced you're a homophobic bigot, by your actions on Wikipedia and here.
If that makes me a Democrat.... You, sir, have a Problem.
If you really truly aren't a homophobic bigot, you need to work on your people skills.
The homo clique at wikipedia goes to the highest levels of the site's sysop pool as well. I was just telling another freeper about one of the worst.
There is an administrator there named Will Beback who controls all the homosexual and child paedophilia articles like NAMBLA with an iron fist. Will Beback is a homosexual activist and he makes sure that all those articles include pro-homo and pro-paedo viewpoints. (Note: he recently changed his user name from Willmcw to hide from criticism that he is pro-pederasty).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.