User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Comstockians

I know the Comstockians over at WWem are abusive in their edits, and annoyingly belligerent. But however badly they act, you should refrain from stooping to the same level. Specifically, it was wrong to mess with the membership list by striking out other user's names or changing their membership comments. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:16, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

I did not strike any members names. I'll refrain from doing anything but reverting the members list from here on in. The nazi comment pushed me right over the edge, and I no longer assume good faith from any of them, evidenced by the fact that they are happy to accuse others of disruption but totally unwilling to admit their motives. I'm there to keep people from deleting all the nekkid people, as I've been perfectly clear all along. They're there to delete nekkid people, but they won't admit it. It's transparent disrespect for consensus. Hipocrite 11:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It is wrong to say that I am favor of eliminating images of naked people. I am favor of suggesting that, hey, I don't think that images of overt sex acts belong. The thing you guys are fighting over is a project page, not a policy page. When I see commentary about the troll nomination for Vfd of the project and Hipocrite's response ""Speedy keep" wait two weeks and try again.", I can see nothing but a concerted effort to bring the thing down. Furthermore, Lulu, I see you are a Dr., congrats. I have a masters in behavioral and social sciences, U. of Maryland, emphasis, forensic anthropology, human osteology. If the resume you have posted is accurate and that displays your phone number and address, you absolutely must white that part out my friend. I am absolutely not a troll, do not use sockpuppet accounts and have created numerous articles, albeit short, but they filled gaps in areas of interest to me. Neither myself or Noitall have ever said, and if I did, it isn't a fact, that we are opposed to images of nudity...we are opposed to images of overt sex. I inserted Wales' comments merely to assist us in defining if that is also his vision. I requested you contact him. I havebn't bothered as I think his message was fairly clear, without much room for ambiguity. Now, I certainly don't take his word as being law, unless he tells me I have no choice, but I do respect his opinion. Perhaps I do so because it supports my view as well.--MONGO 15:45, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? I wrote speedy keep, wait two weeks and try again because I see 14 days as the minimum safe time for another VfD after the first resulted in no consensus. You assume everyone is out to get you. As usual, you are wrong. You assert you are not opposed to naked people and that you just want obscene images censored. We differ as to what is obscene. This means that you compare people to nazis and try to kick them out of projects, accuse them of being disengenuous and generally attribute evil motives to them. Somehow, I don't respect people that do that kind of thing. Hipocrite 15:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I was reading a discussion (can't locate it now) that any attempt to nominate this project (or most articles) in less than 6 months is not a good thing...it wasn't on a policy page, but it was on a discussion page. So, when I see you suggest trying again in 2 weeks, it appears from my vantage point that you are in favor of deletion. Anyway, I do not think that pictures of "overt sex acts" help Wikipedia become a more credible enterprise. I think they help to impede that effort adn In think Wales feels the same way. Again, not that his opinion is any more important than any other editor, but his opinion is noteworthy due to who he is. Just so you know...I get paid to be curious when there is nothing to be curious about. With that in mind, perhaps I am a bit paranoid. The articles I write take me back to a place I wish I could be...maybe nobody will read them, but I hope they do.--MONGO 16:15, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I believe that pictures of "overt sex acts", if used in appropriate (and therefore limited) article contexts, do help Wikipedia become a more credible enterprise. Although it is of far less importance than MONGO imagines, everything I've seen (including the letter cited by MONGO) suggests that Mr. Wales concurs with me. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:13, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Then, again, you are reading between the lines, and or suffer from selective recitation.--MONGO 20:45, August 29, 2005 (UTC)