Talk:Gliding action/Archive/1

message: Looking closely at the current status of this article:  existence of any such a gliding action is an important component of the anti-circumcision argument.  I can't envision a purer example of pro-mutilation filth that has polluted wikispace.  Instead of treating this article with equal respect as other article, it has simply become a political toy for vile pro-circumcision hate speech.  For that reason I am reverting many of the judgemental changes and hope you folks can discuss this rationally. DanP 19:43, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You might have a point on "for what it's worth", Dan, but a hypothesis is a hypothesis. It is inappropriate and POV to describe something as factual that has not been established. - Jakew 19:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right.  But why is "hypothesized" and "theoretically" blended in the same sentence on different verbs?  And it is not the "motion" that was hypothesized, but it's effect or potential benefit.  If you want to use these qualifiers, use them correctly instead of fraudulently applying them.DanP 19:24, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I approve of your change to the wording in the introduction, so I've kept it. I disapprove of your revert, so I haven't. And if you read this very page, you'll find out that even the motion is hypothetical. - Jakew 19:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  My revert is due to the "anti" prefix under Loaded words.  Are you suggesting that the foreskin doesn't move?  This debate is about it's effect or benefit, is it not?  Perhaps in your loose-skin, British, adult-chosen circumcision, skin might be mobile.  American-style, it's often not and only a tube of KY jelly does the job, especially with some older guys.  DanP 19:49, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You need to justify your hatred of the 'anti-' prefix. It has not been proven that the foreskin moves - that's the point. My own experience tells me that in men with a long foreskin, it does move to the extent shown in the diagram, but these are in a minority. When I had a foreskin, there was a little movement when erect, but not much more than the skin on my arm. As for my circumcision, I assure you that there is no movement of skin. - Jakew 23:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: *Oh Jake! Now you are putting a few facts in the way of a cute little "fantasy" some promote. How unkind. - Robert the Bruce 04:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jake, I have no hatred of the anti- prefix per se.  Only the alleged opposition to adult circumcision which you imagine exists among groups who are anti-circumcision only regarding involuntary practice.  Even with my limited restored foreskin there is some "give" making penetration possible.  So how can you claim there is no gliding action for any man at all, especially given that you admit its existance for long foreskins?  DanP 23:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: O'Hara's "explanations" are more accurately termed "hypotheses". The source is nothing more than her imagination. After she had formed her opinions, she performed her "study", essentially asking other activists whether they agree. Unsurprisingly, they did. Now, obviously it is possible for a hypothesis to be correct by accident, and it is possible that proper research may yet validate her theories, but to point to her as some kind of authority on the subject is utterly laughable. You do understand the difference between science and fiction, don't you? - Jakew 16:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: *Yes isn't she just the most horrible person. Nowdays she is all over the web trying to sell her book ... smacks like money grabbing to me. Disgraceful. - Robert the Bruce 16:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Jakew, while I respect your right to object to OHara's work, you should do so by citing criticism of it.  Not by inventing criticism and dropping it here.  That is not a valid contribution in Wikipedia according to our policies.  DanP 18:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Such arguments are invalid because they are arguments against the person. If one wants to provide an alternative POV one has to come up with evidence to support an alternative POV.  So far this has not happened. There are now three book references to support gliding action. Let us have a  book reference to show the non-existence of glding action if you have one or a medical journal article to support the non-existence of gliding action. If one can't do that perhaps one should simple concede that gliding action does exist so we can get on to other things. 
This article is getting better and better as more data are added. Simply deleting data that one does not like is unacceptable. Robert Blair 12:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm unconvinced that references to books written by authors who invariably cite the same damn sources is helpful. What does it prove, other than the fact that the authors have all been duped? Can we prove that the world was created in 4004BC by some guy with a really cool beard by citing lots of books? - Jakew 00:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheer vandalism of this article 

message: DanP, in your most recent edit, you have removed the TotallyDisputed tag from the beginning of the article. This was the only change made in your edit. However, in your edit summary, you misleadingly claimed "rv due to POV edit and uncited sources".
Would you care to explain how inserting a tag that states that "the neutrality and factual accuracy of this article is disputed" is described as a "POV edit and uncited sources"?
Please justify your attempt to censor the fact that the article is disputed, or restore the tag. - Jakew 19:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? - Jakew 23:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of TotallyDisputed tag 

message: Robert Blair, you've removed the disputed message and have once again failed to explain your revert. Please? - Jakew 23:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted but preseved the disputed message.  Jakew, your version is mostly a subset of Robert's.  That is why I used Robert's for now until we can remove what we agree is non-relevant. DanP 23:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More reverts