User talk:Wiki-is-truth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Keep grinding that axe, bud. We know Pete Townshend admitted to viewing child porn on the internet in 1999, when viewing was not even a crime. Only downloading was. There is zero evidence that Pete Townshend downloaded any such images. We do, however, know that Pete Townshend contacted an Internet Watch foundation to report what he had found. We also know he campaigned against the proliferation of child pornography on the internet. These facts are relevant and should be part of the bio. You seem to want to paint this episode in Pete Townshend's life as negatively as possible. Why? What is your problem? Has it ever even occurred to you that you may be castigating a man who was motivated by outrage when he visited that website? Why do you want to stand in the way of an objective and fair look at his arrest that acknowledges that there is more to the story than just the arrest? By wishing for only the arrest and caution to be mentioned, and none of the extenuating circumstances, you're doing nothing more than demonstrating that you want this to be a black stain. Pete Townshend wouldn't even have been arrested if someone in the police hadn't leaked his name to the press. His limited access simply didn't fit the profile of a pedophile. But the tabloid frenzy forced their hand. You're contributing to the witch hunt. Clashwho 10:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Townshend admitted to viewing child porn on the internet in 1999: Townshend admitted accessing a child porn website
• viewing was not even a crime. Only downloading was: Do you know how the Internet works? Do you know what the law says? Your comments here suggest the answer to both questions is "no".
• There is zero evidence that Pete Townshend downloaded any such images: therefore, Townshend's admission must be that he "incited others to distribute child porn"; or, as the police know it, paid for children to be raped. Do you prefer this implication?
• We also know he campaigned against the proliferation of child pornography on the internet: we know he made a claim to have done this; what he actually did was access child pornography websites.
• These facts are relevant and should be part of the bio: I believe the bio makes statements about Townshend's charidee work
• Why do you want to stand in the way of an objective and fair look at his arrest that acknowledges that there is more to the story than just the arrest? a) you could not carry out such an objective look, and b) Wikipedia does not tolerate original research. The only objectively verifiable facts are those that appeared in the news, and those that were published by Townshend. The article contains both.
• Townshend wouldn't even have been arrested if someone in the police hadn't leaked his name to the press: you work for the police now?

[edit] The "new words" comments on Talk:Pete Townshend

I've removed the "New words" section from the talk page, to which you commented, as off-topic and inflammatory. --Tony Sidaway 10:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)