On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Fred Bauder <fredb...@fairpoint.net> wrote: >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Ken Arromdee <arrom...@rahul.net> wrote: >>>[...] >>> You can't neutrally discuss how a person is compared to shit. Not in >>> any >>> real-world sense. >> >> I don't agree for a moment that we can't neutrally discuss how a >> person is compared to shit. We can and in my opinion we have and do. >> >> This is not a more sensitive topic than numerous genocides, racism, >> sexism, etc. >> >> Santorum has handled the situation more maturely than several people >> on the list here. He is clearly not pleased, but neither is he making >> any attempt to suppress the incident. >> >> >> -- >> -george william herbert >> george.herb...@gmail.com > > He has no responsibility for using the resources of a non-profit > corporation for political purposes. We do.
We are not using the resources for political purposes. The article is NPOV and does not show Santorum in a negative light. The *term* shows him in a negative light, but the *incident* actually shows him responding maturely and responsibly. The article presents both aspects in a neutral and responsible manner, and in my opinion Santorum comes off well, primarily by having been a mature adult when faced with an offensive insult. Again - the incident is not our fault or responsibility. I understand that several people find the term offensive, but there's a huge difference between an offensive term and libel, slander, or defamation, or Wikipedia being irresponsible. We aren't doing anything wrong here. We could, but the actual coverage in the actual article is NPOV and does not show Santorum himself in a negative manner, because we show Santorum's reasoned and mature response for what it was. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
