Meta:Historical/Humor and General Interest
All kind of pages kept around for humor and rubbernecking value. This may have to be split into a number of pages, as the bulk of dated content on Meta: falls into this category.
Campaign Against Covert ActionEdit
What a man hears he may doubt.
What a man sees he may possibly doubt, but
What a man does, he may not doubt.
"Can" is a simple matter of ability. Whether the doubt itself is emblazoned with integrity, or not, does not matter. If you were to change that to "What a man does, he may not doubt.", then you'd be presenting a matter of conjecture (methinks) and raising up a Campaign Against Thought Police! :-7 (tongue in cheek emoticon) --Grant
Good point...Changed...What I am aiming at is covert action by Powers That Be...Asking them to be upfront about their actions. Can't say more:-).
(Wikified from w:talk:Ronald Reagan)
w:Theodore Roosevelt would be a great drinking-partner; think of the stories! w:Andrew Jackson would have been a lot of fun, too. w:Thomas Jefferson could play fiddle, so it's safe to say he would have been a good drinking-partner.
Of course w:George Washington grew hemp and w:Bill Clinton didn't even inhale, so those who occasionally partake of a w:jazz woodbine should lean towards George. Plus, I'd imagine the conversation would be better.
Amongst modern presidents, Reagan would be best.
Clinton would be best to go to a wwf wrestling event with.
George HW Bush would be best to tour aircraft carriers with for the actual war stories.
Andrew Jackson - whoah, nelly! He's a type I'm familiar with from my youth, and you don't wanna get 'em drunk! Argumentative Scots-Irish upcountry boys. Yikes! --w:user:MichaelTinkler
- Hmmm. I've seen the statue in Buffalo. He does NOT look like the kind of fella to take to the Anchor Bar for wings and beer. But then maybe that's memorialization.... --w:user:MichaelTinkler
w:Lincoln! The scrappiest president ever wins hands down in any barfight. And, he's probably much cooler than he looks. I dig that awsome facial hair.
Talk:List of famous people who had sex with animalsEdit
My goodness what a useless page. Of all the worthless lists of whatever happened on a wednesday, this one takes the prize. I think someone needs to register smutipedia.org.
Famous gay lesbian or bisexual people is just ar useless. maybe the people there should register with a gay porn site.
Your comment is ignorant and offensive to gay people. Homosexuals comprise of an estimated 10% of the worlds population.
- Hate to break up the party, but the estimate is more like 1% to 2% -- the 10% figure is wishful thinking and not backed up by any reputable statistics.
- Even if you're right, and I disagree a great deal, 2% of human population is a signifigant amount of human life.
It is important, as homosexuals strive more and more for acceptance and respect (not to mention the right to not be beaten to death,) that they establish a history of their culture.
- Homosexuals don't have a "culture" - they are part of the cultures they live in.
- Your statement is ignorant. There is something known as the gay sub-culture, or the gay culture. I know. I'm part of it. I refute your attempt to demean me by stripping away my right to claim my own identity, and I step out in defense of all other homosexuals who feel the same way.d
This history includes a record of the people who have fought for those same rights and that same respect in the past. The list is important, if not to you, then to them.
- That's odd, when I asked before about why there was a "list of famous gays" I was shouted down and told there was no particular reason, just listing facts. Now I find (*big gasp*) that my guess was right: someone is trying to promote homosexuality via publicity.
- Oh, get off your freaking agenda you jerk. If someone said this was "just a list of facts," it wasn't me and they are obviously of a different opinion. I've said it before and I'll say it again: it is important to young people of any type to have a group of respected people to look up to, people who fall into a category that those young people also identify with. Be that Asian, Black, Gay, Jewish, Pagan, disabled. And no, Im not comparing those things, simply stating that they are all minority groups. I don't know how you "promote" homosexuality. That would indicate that I was trying to say it was better than other lifestyles, or essentially that I was saying "look how good and neat homosexuality is! Everybody should try it!" And that's a blatant lie. I don't care if you like homosexuals, or homosexuality. But I demand that you respect my right to be one, and to praise and acknowledge the established people in human culture who are identified as such.d
And as stated in the gay and bisexual famous people talk page, there is a difference between people who commit bestiality and gay people. I will reiterate it here:
It has been determined by the mental health community that homosexuality is not a mental health issue because it does not compromise a person's ability to function.
- No, it hasn't. There was a politically-motivated vote taking homosexuality out of the DSM. It was because of lobbying, not because of science.
- That is also an outright lie. In order for something to be classified as a mental-health disorder, it has to disrupt a person's ability to function in a normal and mentally healthy life. As homosexuality does not do so, it was removed from the DSM.
Gay people have healthy, long term loving relationships.
- Not on average. The rate of suicide and STDs (some deadly, like AIDS) is much higher among gays. The statisticial significance of the rate difference is a lot higher than that claimed for secondhand smoke causing cancer.
- On who's average? First, the rate of STD infection among homosexuals has lowered drastically over the last five years. But you're correct, the suicide rate amongst homosexuals is very high. Not because of the fact that they are homosexuals, mind you, but because of the societal influences that makes them believe they are not worthy to live. It is not the mere fact that they are homosexual that drives them to suicide, as you seem to want to imply.
The fetish of bestiality prohibits the participant/interested human party from forming normal functional romantic relationships, and it is deemed a mental health issue.
Further commentary comparing homosexuality from bestiality in any way will be removed, and the a request for a temporary blocking of the user will be made. It does not express a NPOV, as the facts of the matter are clearly stated here in my post. It is offensive, it is factually inaccurate, and it will *NOT* be tolerated in the wikipedia. -EB-
- Lighten up! This was only a talk page comment, and not something in an article. I do agree that the porn site reference is unnecessarily provocative, but I also agree with him that that article is useless. Who gives a damn about these famous people being gay; that's not what they're famous for. Sexual preference is only an incidental factor in their private lives. Eclecticology
- I have already stressed, as seemingly the only openly gay voice in this debate, that it is not useless to *ME* or to the millions upon millions of homosexuals who might view it. *I* give a damn that they're gay. *I* give a damn that I can say "look, Ellen Degeneres was a successful comedienne, actress and writer. And she was a lesbian! You can be gay or lesbian and still succeed in the entertainment industry. You are not less-than because you're gay." If you don't get it, you just don't get it, and I pity you.
Despite my unsigned interjections above, I remain devoted to neutrality when writing on moral or political subjects -- as much as on any other valid Wikipedia topic. I think whoever started this "sex with animals" list may have been mocking the "list of famous gays" page. --Ed Poor
- Although Caligula has long been recognized as weird, this sort of allegation about Alexandra is questionable. There is no mention of this in the article about her. I'd be inclined to delete anybody from this list unless a credible information source is cited. Eclecticology 17:52 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)
This page seems to have little point. It seems to have been started as a joke. I vote we delete it. -- Tarquin 20:02 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)
- Now that there's nothing on it, I second Tarquin's vote. In fact, I would delete it right now except (A) I'm afraid it might delete the talk page too and (B) I'm afraid someone like Axelboldt or Brion or Cunctator will scold me for not waiting for consensus. --Ed Poor