Reply #27: Actually...

[arwalden]

<< I think you may be reading my post the wrong way. >>

Perhaps, but I don't think so. Could be my mood, but it could also be your delivery.

<< I didn't suggest that nothing be trusted from wikipedia. >>

True, you didn't use those exact words. But what you were implying seemed to be pretty clear and easily understood. Namely, that because entries could be edited at the "drop-of-a-dime", then the implication was that *this* one (that you happened to disagree with) also can't be trusted.

<< What I DIDN'T say was you can't believe "anything" you read there. Big diff. >>

You're splitting those hairs very carefully now... which only serves to convince me that I was probably correct the first time. I'm willing to concede this minor point to you... but only after I point out that whether or not you originally intended it to sound that way, your dismissive remarks certainly conveyed that impression.

Rather than making specific arguments that refuted the information contained in the Wikipedia entry, you just took a wholesale swipe at how questionable Wikipedia information is because it could be so easily edited.

Not that anyone could fault you for doing that... especially since doing so would tend to be the easiest way to give more credence to the explanations that had been passed down by your community-elders.

>> <<Hmmm. Do you think that this is a controversial subject?>>
>>
>> Yes. I do.
>>
>> 'According to the police incident report,
>> one of the men, Sidney Swift, boasted:
>> "Yes, I beat that mother-fucking faggot up."'
>>
>> http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/03/030706gaMilitary.htm

By "controversial subject" I was referring to the etymology and origins of the word. I wasn't talking about how bigots use the word as an epithet or in a pejorative manner.

<< Oh come on! Just re-read the subject line from my other post. "I read that some time ago on wiki." >>

My sarcasm is frequently difficult to spot when someone is wound-up too tightly.

<< But you seem really defensive of wikipedia, just because I disagree with something I read there. >>

I do? I have no particular affinity for or dislike of Wikipedia. I'm neither for it or against it.

I found it odd that someone would be so dismissive of the information because of the source, especially in light of the fact that--as far as I'm concerned--the origin of the word "faggot" is really not a controversial topic. And as such, its entry is not very likely to be one that's subject to vandalism or extreme bias.

<< My problem with this particular entry is that, once again, being gay is sexualized, instead of concurring with my frame of reference, which humanizes being gay. >>

Huh? I really don't follow you there. But that's okay.

I did read the entry again to see if I could find anything particularly biased or offensive or one-sided, but I'm not seeing the same thing you're seeing.

Either you're much more delicate and sensitive than I am, or I'm just a heartless, de-sensitized, and uncaring oaf.

<< Ever since I came out 10 years ago, I've read everything about my community's history, from books to the internet.>>

It's good that you've taken such an interest in the subject.

<< This was the first time I've ever come across this historical reasoning for the origins of this word. So I disagree with it. >>

Ahh... okay.

~Allen :hi:


edit: typo