User talk:ForesticPig: Difference between revisions

Clinophilia source

Wiktionary has an entry for Clinophilia

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/clinophilia

Thanks. I clarified that it is sometimes defined as a love of beds. Most of the work I could find classified the condition in behavioural terms, and not as a philia. forestPIG 04:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summaries

Edit summaries such as "Happy now?" and "However unfortunate it may be for some..." are not particularly civil or collaborative. In addition, argumentatively addressing other users in edit summaries instead of using the talkpage isn't very helpful either. -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider them uncivil at all, but I shall adjust my style for the sensitivities of others. Is that OK?

In the meantime, maybe we should all learn better to practise as we preach? forestPIG 19:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anyone but you and some Tor sockpuppets using such edit summaries at pedophilia. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but why do you think that this matters? Someone complaining about it could be seen as worse than even your interpretation of my edit summaries. I suggest that we all chill out here - the pace of editing on that article is stupendously fast, and it appears to be studded with advocacy from either side. forestPIG 21:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Time to turn on the air conditioning then. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would actually prefer a cold shower after today. The level of editing on these articles is absolutely furious. forestPIG 21:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thus is the world of pedophilia on wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Tiptoety just reinstated the semi-protection, that will keep the Tor socks out and make things calmer. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To Self

Starting today by re-inserting reliable sources where they were removed because of offensive ELs in the references. forestPIG 21:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

All the Dallam refs in Rind et al are available from the leadership council; I was meaning to put those in myself, but you are welcome to it. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I do find it a shame that we cannot link to a live copy of Rind et al. I am not aware of any freely available copy other than that hosted by IPCE. If Rind himself published the paper online, instead of relying on the pedophiles at IPCE to do that for him, we could count it as RS. forestPIG 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Reproduction

PetraSchelm deleted the following from her Talk Page:

[in] Again, I will stress that I intend no hostility. Most of the users in the AN/I thread seem to agree with me, especially the outside voices.

What I can do for you, is help delete links to IPCE if you provide a list for me. This, only if you promise not to delete refs where pub info is available in the footer or some easily retrievable source. forestPIG 22:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what has made this person so hostile to others. forestPIG 22:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

SRA

Have you seen the recent edits in Satanic ritual abuse? The Skepticism section has now been tagged as a pov section! I believe that User:WLU has (1) excellent scholarly knowledge about SRA, (2) the willingness to discuss his sources at length and (3) he's a WP policy expert. However, the SRA believers certainly make it very hard for WLU to edit the article. —Cesar Tort 03:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not child advocacy. As you can see in my user page, it's my main interest. The problem are people who cannot distingush between real abuse and unreal abuse (SRA, sexual abuse during UFO abductions, etc.). Some advocacy of children's rights is counter-productive since false memories and bizarre claims abound in the field. My educated guess is that many survivors are displacing the abuse they suffered in childhood and become pov pushers in the wiki. Unfortunately I'm really busy for the moment and am only reading the exchanges between the pov-pushers and his critics in several talk pages. —Cesar Tort 17:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Petra, who also edits in SRA, eliminated recently a phrase in the Pedophile article claiming it was OR (actually, it was a clarifying phrase). I didn't revert because our little affair in SRA, where she said I was harassing her (I wasn't). I would never dare to edit that article, Pedophile. It's perhaps one of the most trolling places in Wikiland. —Cesar Tort 20:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything CT says is untrue - I have minimal scholarly knowledge (but a good library), minimal willingness to discuss sources (if they're reliable, they stay; if they're not they go; though I am willing to discuss what can be justified by sources), am very far from a policy expert (with probably hundreds of policy pages, I don't see how anyone could be; though I do know the basics and shortcuts) and finally, it's really, really not hard to edit the article - there's only one real 'believer' now, and they're not contributing that much to the page proper; also since the standard for sources was driven up, much of the nutter literature that strongly supports SRA is being culled. Contributions from all camps have been workable. Tsk, CT, I don't know whether to call you a liar or blush for your shameless flattery :P

Anyway, my real reason I'm here is regards this edit - you wouldn't happen to have Memory, trauma treatment and the law, would you? My libraries are lacking and I'd like to mine it for what it says about SRA. I've seen lots of praise for in in reviews, which makes me suspect it's got far more to say about SRA than 'it might be true' and what it does have to say is probably more nuanced than a floppy 'some people say'. I'd also dearly love to see what sources it is using to claim as evidence for "[a range of] poorly and loosely organized practices of individuals and families, to organized cults and larger social networks, a part of which may be connected to Satanism". WLU (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The campaign at Pederasty

Thank you for your offer to pay attention to the article, and I would like to take you up on it. The fact is that the best way to deal with the imposition of a reductionist interpretation (pederasty=anal sex with kids) is to gather some more evidence of the polyvalent nature of the term. Lots of stuff out there, I just never bothered bringing it in. It will be slow, since I am busy with other things right now and I cannot compete with this gang of users who seem to be taking advantage of summer vacation and much idleness, but it will be done. As far as their gutting of the article on modern pederasty, I believe that they took advantage of an article written before the new standards of documentation took hold here at Wikipedia, and of the fact that I am simply unable to jump up and run around looking for references at the drop of a hat, all the more at this particular time, and all the more when the "opposition" is organized and numerous and in a big rush. Haiduc (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is on my watchlist now. I share your feelings - and what I think would be good is that any reasonable editors share a watchlist for child abuse related (or in your case, non child abuse related) articles that are being "vetted" in such a way. forestPIG 12:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've put my 2 cents in that talk page. But given the anti-pederastic Zeitgeist in today's times (I'm talking about the unrecognized, legal side of pederasty) I will avoid those articles like the plage. I greatly admire, however, Haiduc's efforts in trying to balance those articles. The pushers don't know that teens were more abused in the present, Puritanical times than in, say, Pericles' Athens. I am working in a psychohistorical book in wich I theorize that the childrearing methods of Greece were far less abusive than those of medieval Europe, where the erastes/eromenos institution was abolished by a Christian emperor. This is a huge subject and I cannot advance it here even if I get my stuff published. At any event, thanks Haiduc et al for dealing with the pov-pushers (take a look at User:WLU's recent contibutions and see how to respond Socratically to these people). —Cesar Tort 14:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. There has been much interesting stuff published recently on the constructive side of Greek pederasty. See my post here as well as James Davidson recent tome on Greek love. Haiduc (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I could go further but we are already cluttering FP's talk page. I'll respond in your page. —Cesar Tort 14:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

An error?

[1] --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well spotted. forestPIG 22:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it if I were you

ForesticPig, compared to you, I am a hapless, mentally deficient, addled brained drudge - please don't concern yourself with my cryptic messages. I hadn't taken my thorazine that day. Now I bid you adieu forever, as I spend the rest of my life showering off the moral and psychic stench of dealing with people such as yourself and AnotherSolipsist. The former editor known as Googie Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.197.194 (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think they will unblock you, if you promise not to take part in discussions that would lead you to make the accusations and implications that you were banned for. You were a perfectly OK editor before you did this. forestPIG 21:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well blow me down ForesticPig, I was wrong about you. Accept my apologies then. My issues are this - I can't stand people treating me like a jerk if I've done nothing wrong to them. I'm a fighter in real life, and just don't like taking anything off anyone, ever. And, I hate hate HATE with a passion, misinformation. I'll discuss anything with anyone about any topic, as long as its respectful. But that doesn't happen anymore. So, I get pissed off when I make a 2 hour trek to the library, find a journal, edit in some information, then it's taken out 10 minutes later simply because it doesn't jibe with someone's agenda. As you've seen, I get a little unhinged. So thanks for the olive branch - I will always at least acknowledge that in anyone. I should probably go now....The former editor Googie Man.