User talk:69.76.224.95

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have responded to your comments at Talk:Pedophilia. Your reply would be appreciated. 24.224.153.40 22:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Please use the discussion page. Your additions need citations. 24.224.153.40 23:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a policy against self-reference, Wikipedia:self reference. -Willmcw 06:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I have temporarily blocked you for asserting that Wikipedia is about child abuse, as evidenced by [1]. I invite other administrators to review this decision. The Land 18:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't assert that Wikepedia is about "child abuse"'- you said that yourself! I said that Wikipedia is not neutral on the issue of the "child love movement". Well now isn't that ironic that you would jump to that connection? :wink: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.224.95 (talk • contribs)

  • You said "There are other encyclopedias that don't want to get in your pants, or to make money selling illegal child porn showing abducted real children being raped...It is a poisoned apple kiddies- "Stranger Danger" run for your lives!". So you're blocked. The Land 18:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

But..but..isn't that a true statement? LOL There are other encyclopedias that do not do those things... Is there an inference that you made from that statement that you wish to clarify? Otherwise anyone reasonable person reading (and believe you me, they will) this will conclude that you are too cowardly to admit that you blocked me for stating that I believe Wikipedia is not neutral. Like a million people say that everyday and you are gonna block me for that? sheesh A bit touchy aren't we? LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.224.95 (talk • contribs)

  • Your intentions and implications were very clear. The Land 19:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So are wikipedia's LOL At least I have the integrity to preface my comments by stating that it was either a premise or my opinion which ofcourse I didn't misrepresent as NPOV.

I did say "Wikipedia admin and mods are abusing their power over article edits to try to make adolescents believe that child and or adolescent sex with adult strangers is ok. Even though these strangers have no children of their own- they want you or your child to feel safe with them and to be allowed to consent to intimacy and sex with them if you want to. They want parents and children to believe that they mean children no harm and would never ever ever hurt a child even though they are very much sexually attracted to children and they believe that the children will agree with them."


Perhaps I should amend or edit that to say that Wikipedia isn't abusing their power, isn't favoring one POV over another and truly wants children to draw their own conclusions as to whether Wikipedia is neutral and has not distorted or removed any pertinent facts? I am pretty sure Jimbo would agree: that parents are not neutral- that parents are abusing their power by limiting our childrens' and other peoples childrens' rights based upon arbitrary age restrictions? Like a child's right to be exposed to any and all media that claims neutrality and that claims to have no agenda, to limit their right to know things and experience things if they want to regardlessa of the source, to limit their right to decide if they can have sex with anyone thay want to have sex with at any age, or to make it illegal take or buy certain prescription drugs or to drink alcohol or to drive cars and have a drivers license- the children should be allowed to make and draw conclusions on all of these topics at any age that they think that they are ready or want to do so, afterall they do not have the right to vote, they are unrepresented in congress,in government, on school boards,as physicians in emergency rooms, as "legal"porn stars; with so many of their rights violated by their parents and other people who aren't even parents, we should at least make it legal for them to buy and enjoy porn if and when they want to. Ain't that right, Jimbo?

But then again, I did preface that by saying that it was a premise, which ofcourse could never be misconstrued as a statement of fact or an assertion of fact- by defintion it is a call for an examination of an hypothetical when someone makes an assertion. Or did it come across that I was stating an assertion or a belief as if fact? In which case, I really could care less what you think. You've excersized the power to block and/or edit anything someone posts without regard for your own conflicts of interest.It is a poor judge that doesn't recuse himself when he doesn't have the best interests of truth and justice in his heart. What is it they say about absolute power? Many people are discussing in PTA meetings all over the US. Talk is good. Bye4 now.

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi. Welcome back. Pelase be reminded that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and it is particularly not a soapbox for spreading dirst about Wikipedia itself. If you have genuine concerns about Wikipedia or individual wikipedians you should raise them with the Wikimedia Foundation or an appropriate legal authority. Do not do so by editing Wikipedia articles or talk pages. If you do so then you will be blocked from editing again. Regards, The Land 17:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)