Wikipedia is not a place to discuss views. It is an encyclopedia, with pages where we discuss how to create good encyclopedia articles. If this page doesn't serve that purpose, delete it, please. --LDC
- Let it persist for an hour or so, maybe we'll get a convert from "vandalism" to cooperation. My own style of participation has changed somewhat, hasn't it? --User:Ed Poor
Anything which is the "best conceivable example" should be kept around, much as drunks were paraded on stage during old-time temperance meetings. An example of what not to do, like an article on grammar mistakes stating the broken rules ungrammatically:
- You ain't supposed to use slang in formal prose.
- It's best to rarely if ever split infinitives.
- Ending a sentence with a preposition leaves readers unsure what you're referring to.
- How many times have I told you to avoid rhetorical questions?
- You get on my nerves when you depart from the third person.
Let me suggest that we decide on the basis of (a) what is more likely to discourage vandalism rather than (b) evaluation of the viewpoint itself. But it's up to y'all. --User:Ed Poor
Deleted version a la tripe. --User:Dmerrill
I believe women have equal value, but I don't think they should be treated equally in all respects. This may either inform my article's NPOV or sabotage it beyond repair with bias. Thus, I hesitate to begin. But, I'll venture a few points:
- no objection to women getting maternity leave, but men not (or getting less time). I want women to have superior rights in this respect, because I'm prejudiced (?) in favor of motherhood.
- women should not be drafted into the infantry (not sure I have a reason for this, it just feels right).
Much debate has surrounded feminism in its history. Some critics called feminism anarchic, claming that it struck at the foundations of society.
Others fear that feminists will not be content to assume equal rights but will claim superior rights. I guess Mr. xxx's rant [1] went along these lines. -- User:Ed Poor
- I'll vote for "sabotage it beyond repair with bias". BTW, the US federal family leave law has equal leave for men and women. I can't wait to hear all about your views of homosexuals, blacks, transgendered people, atheists, and so forth. GregLindahl
Okay, here goes:
- On homosexuality I lean toward Richard Cohen's views at [2]. He calls homosexuality a Same-Sex Attachment Disorder (SSAD) and says transitioning to heterosexuality is possible for those want to change.
- I think blacks are just fine and dandy. My church, being founded by a Korean, sees racial reconciliation as a crucial part of world peace.
- Transgendered people. That sounds weird to me, like the 50 boys raised as girls (which I read about right here on wikipedia, I think).
- Atheists are okay, just a little close-minded. Atheism is not falsifible, so it's not "scientific".
I'll try to keep these views from "infecting" my contributions. When in doubt, I will propose a change on a Talk page first. --User:Ed Poor
- What's your opinion on sarcasm? Do you think you could detect it if you were hit in the head with a baseball bat? A 1MT nuclear weapon? GregLindahl
LOL, not sure that would get my attention, but your choice of metaphors is stunning, if not devestating. I respond better to praise, reason and pizza (not necessarily in that order). --User:Ed Poor
- I guess this means you still don't understand that I wasn't really asking you to expound your views on homosexuality, etc. GregLindahl