User talk:ForesticPig

Watch out, Alfred Kinsey ~

		The Human Sexuality Barnstar
		Thank you for contributing to the Sexology and Sexuality Wikiproject! Atom (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clinophilia source

Wiktionary has an entry for Clinophilia

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/clinophilia

Thanks. I clarified that it is sometimes defined as a love of beds. Most of the work I could find classified the condition in behavioural terms, and not as a philia. forestPIG 04:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Self

Starting today by re-inserting reliable sources where they were removed because of offensive ELs in the references. forestPIG 21:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the Dallam refs in Rind et al are available from the leadership council; I was meaning to put those in myself, but you are welcome to it. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do find it a shame that we cannot link to a live copy of Rind et al. I am not aware of any freely available copy other than that hosted by IPCE. If Rind himself published the paper online, instead of relying on the pedophiles at IPCE to do that for him, we could count it as RS. forestPIG 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction

PetraSchelm deleted the following from her Talk Page:

[in] Again, I will stress that I intend no hostility. Most of the users in the AN/I thread seem to agree with me, especially the outside voices.

What I can do for you, is help delete links to IPCE if you provide a list for me. This, only if you promise not to delete refs where pub info is available in the footer or some easily retrievable source. forestPIG 22:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what has made this person so hostile to others. forestPIG 22:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's Petr for ya! I suspect that she is a SqueakBox recruit to help fight the evil-doers. Ain't she a peach? ^_^ --Dragon695 (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive since early June, though. Have there been any similar editors created in this time? forestPIG ^(grunt) 16:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SRA

Have you seen the recent edits in Satanic ritual abuse? The Skepticism section has now been tagged as a pov section! I believe that User:WLU has (1) excellent scholarly knowledge about SRA, (2) the willingness to discuss his sources at length and (3) he's a WP policy expert. However, the SRA believers certainly make it very hard for WLU to edit the article. —Cesar Tort 03:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not child advocacy. As you can see in my user page, it's my main interest. The problem are people who cannot distingush between real abuse and unreal abuse (SRA, sexual abuse during UFO abductions, etc.). Some advocacy of children's rights is counter-productive since false memories and bizarre claims abound in the field. My educated guess is that many survivors are displacing the abuse they suffered in childhood and become pov pushers in the wiki. Unfortunately I'm really busy for the moment and am only reading the exchanges between the pov-pushers and his critics in several talk pages. —Cesar Tort 17:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Petra, who also edits in SRA, eliminated recently a phrase in the Pedophile article claiming it was OR (actually, it was a clarifying phrase). I didn't revert because our little affair in SRA, where she said I was harassing her (I wasn't). I would never dare to edit that article, Pedophile. It's perhaps one of the most trolling places in Wikiland. —Cesar Tort 20:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything CT says is untrue - I have minimal scholarly knowledge (but a good library), minimal willingness to discuss sources (if they're reliable, they stay; if they're not they go; though I am willing to discuss what can be justified by sources), am very far from a policy expert (with probably hundreds of policy pages, I don't see how anyone could be; though I do know the basics and shortcuts) and finally, it's really, really not hard to edit the article - there's only one real 'believer' now, and they're not contributing that much to the page proper; also since the standard for sources was driven up, much of the nutter literature that strongly supports SRA is being culled. Contributions from all camps have been workable. Tsk, CT, I don't know whether to call you a liar or blush for your shameless flattery :P

Anyway, my real reason I'm here is regards this edit - you wouldn't happen to have Memory, trauma treatment and the law, would you? My libraries are lacking and I'd like to mine it for what it says about SRA. I've seen lots of praise for in in reviews, which makes me suspect it's got far more to say about SRA than 'it might be true' and what it does have to say is probably more nuanced than a floppy 'some people say'. I'd also dearly love to see what sources it is using to claim as evidence for "[a range of] poorly and loosely organized practices of individuals and families, to organized cults and larger social networks, a part of which may be connected to Satanism". WLU (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The campaign at Pederasty

Thank you for your offer to pay attention to the article, and I would like to take you up on it. The fact is that the best way to deal with the imposition of a reductionist interpretation (pederasty=anal sex with kids) is to gather some more evidence of the polyvalent nature of the term. Lots of stuff out there, I just never bothered bringing it in. It will be slow, since I am busy with other things right now and I cannot compete with this gang of users who seem to be taking advantage of summer vacation and much idleness, but it will be done. As far as their gutting of the article on modern pederasty, I believe that they took advantage of an article written before the new standards of documentation took hold here at Wikipedia, and of the fact that I am simply unable to jump up and run around looking for references at the drop of a hat, all the more at this particular time, and all the more when the "opposition" is organized and numerous and in a big rush. Haiduc (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is on my watchlist now. I share your feelings - and what I think would be good is that any reasonable editors share a watchlist for child abuse related (or in your case, non child abuse related) articles that are being "vetted" in such a way. forestPIG 12:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put my 2 cents in that talk page. But given the anti-pederastic Zeitgeist in today's times (I'm talking about the unrecognized, legal side of pederasty) I will avoid those articles like the plage. I greatly admire, however, Haiduc's efforts in trying to balance those articles. The pushers don't know that teens were more abused in the present, Puritanical times than in, say, Pericles' Athens. I am working in a psychohistorical book in wich I theorize that the childrearing methods of Greece were far less abusive than those of medieval Europe, where the erastes/eromenos institution was abolished by a Christian emperor. This is a huge subject and I cannot advance it here even if I get my stuff published. At any event, thanks Haiduc et al for dealing with the pov-pushers (take a look at User:WLU's recent contibutions and see how to respond Socratically to these people). —Cesar Tort 14:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. There has been much interesting stuff published recently on the constructive side of Greek pederasty. See my post here as well as James Davidson recent tome on Greek love. Haiduc (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could go further but we are already cluttering FP's talk page. I'll respond in your page. —Cesar Tort 14:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An error?

[1] --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well spotted. forestPIG 22:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about it if I were you

ForesticPig, compared to you, I am a hapless, mentally deficient, addled brained drudge - please don't concern yourself with my cryptic messages. I hadn't taken my thorazine that day. Now I bid you adieu forever, as I spend the rest of my life showering off the moral and psychic stench of dealing with people such as yourself and AnotherSolipsist. The former editor known as Googie Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.197.194 (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they will unblock you, if you promise not to take part in discussions that would lead you to make the accusations and implications that you were banned for. You were a perfectly OK editor before you did this. forestPIG 21:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well blow me down ForesticPig, I was wrong about you. Accept my apologies then. My issues are this - I can't stand people treating me like a jerk if I've done nothing wrong to them. I'm a fighter in real life, and just don't like taking anything off anyone, ever. And, I hate hate HATE with a passion, misinformation. I'll discuss anything with anyone about any topic, as long as its respectful. But that doesn't happen anymore. So, I get pissed off when I make a 2 hour trek to the library, find a journal, edit in some information, then it's taken out 10 minutes later simply because it doesn't jibe with someone's agenda. As you've seen, I get a little unhinged. So thanks for the olive branch - I will always at least acknowledge that in anyone. I should probably go now....The former editor Googie Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.197.194 (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment therapy

Was that a compliment? Expression of amazement? Disbelief? Cynicism?Fainites ^barley 15:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the rest of my edits. Do you really think that I would be of the mind to compliment a toad like Dr Becker-Weidman? forestPIG 17:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No no! Perish the thought! Fried toads for supper. Fainites ^barley 20:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reactive attachment disorder

Bit puzzled by your edit here FP. Don't get the NPOV point. Also - what psychiatrists? Also - its more than one disorder of attachment. Not sure what you were trying to do here or am I missing something? Fainites ^barley 19:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get a little disturbed when I see Psychiatric Disorders described as whole or absolute - out of their context of being theoretical/conceptual and somewhat subjectively defined. I see this as at least a very mild form of unwitting POV (where Psychiatry is seen to be 100% authoritative). I have replaced the note about psychiatrists. forestPIG 22:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I much prefer this version. Thanks! Its a tricky one I know, particularly when simply being in the DSM/ICD doesn't mean its universally accepted within a profession. Its on the cards this one will appear a little differently in the next version of DSM anyway. Its an area with plenty of research still to do. (this is aside from all the attachment therapy stuff of course. They used to diagnose 'attachment disorder', which doesn't exist as such but adopted 'RAD' when DSM gave the term respectability I think. But its a very different diagnosis to theirs.) Fainites ^barley 09:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fleshlight

I'm not sure the new wording is a significant improvement. I see your point, yet, I think rewording to something like, "Fleshlight is a sex toy designed for use by men". I think some editor will eventually argue that it is not anatomically female, or some other quibble with that wording. Atom (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the sentence ever so slightly, to include the fact that it is designed for males. forestPIG ^(grunt) 13:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch

Thanks for removing these. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The person who was inserting them had actually posted on those boards making it synthesis as well as bad sources. forestPIG ^(grunt) 19:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semen Images

If you have time to participate and offer your honest opinions regarding the images in the semen article, we would appreciate it. Although one editor seems to have the view that having no image would be beneficial for the article, I don't think that he consciously has censorship in mind. Another editor things that four images of semen may be more than necessary -- he may be right about that. Your views likely are different from mine on the images, but a breadth of opinions makes a better consensus. Atom (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move on?

Why don't you do the same? Agreed you have plenty of time to hijack this place and keep it under continuous seize, what makes you think others can't do the same? I don't have as much time in my hands as you do, but at least I may find some time for a quick BBQ given pork is so plentiful and available free here at this place. And I am sure you must be pretty used to getting comments like these wherever you go to take them seriously at all. Given your permission, I would be happy to add some sauce to them so that they become a bit more tasteful for you next time. I9o0q1 (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that next time you bring that kind of petulance to the mainspace, it's sysop time ;) forestPIG ^(grunt) 20:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of young people's rights in the UK

The self-promotional NPIA article states the relevance to children's rights to protection from state agencies. ie "Managing a missing persons and Child Rescue Alert website". You may be aware that child protection measures mooted under ISA have been the subject of delay-after-delay a result of ACPO's refusal to cooperate over data sharing. Originally planed for implementation August 2008, the measures were put back to October 2008, and now to 2009.

Please be advised that I consider your revisions re Bryn Estyn, Sarah Payne and Ampleforth tantamount to vandalism. The inclusion of specific cases demonstrate the atrocities to which children have been subjected, without the protection under the law which a raft of 21st century legislation has sought to introduce. The article as a whole demonstrates this clearly - along with the individual cases cited.

I have removed the purely speculative aspect of the Sarah Payne entry, for good measure. SJB (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPIA information establishes relevance; that's all I'm looking for.

But why vandalism? I don't agree with your edits, or particularly care about your opinions (a change in legislation should be proffered to establish relevance, IMO), but that's a bit extreme. The most I will do here is seek input from other editors. --forestPIG ^(grunt) 16:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you think acts of paedophilia aren't sexually abusive?

[2] Is that what you meant to write, I'm hoping it's some sort of mistake? You think someone having sex with a child is ok? :/ Or is it some sort of grammatical error/typo? Incidentally, there is a thread about your paedophila article edits on AN/I - Wikipedia:ANI#Problems_at_Pedophilia_article.2C_perhaps. Sticky Parkin 03:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing such as an "act of pedophilia". My edit summary was a slightly (but badly) modified cut and paste intended to expose the absurdity of labeling pedophilia as a behaviour at all. forestPIG ^(grunt) 09:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your admin account

In light of the issues raised at the AN/I concerning your actions on pedophelia-related articles, I am going to have to request that you provide me with proof that you are the owner of a sysop account. You may do this by replying to my message here or on my talk page while logged in as your main account, or by sending me an e-mail via the email user function with the name of your account and an identity key for your main account. If you are not forthcoming with this information it will not look good for you. l'aquatique |✡| talk 08:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before, and demonstrated by another administrator [3]. I will mention again that I am not willing to expose my other identity (WP:SOCK#LEGIT) as this would defeat the purpose of this account. I have repeatedly offered to remove this disclosure from my page, only to find that other users are more concerned with attacking me than working with me to modify my account into something they feel comfortable with. forestPIG ^(grunt) 09:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not push the point since it seems this case has been referred to arbcom and will be handled when they return from break. However, you are still welcome to e-mail me or contact at any time with that information if you change your mind. l'aquatique |✡| talk 22:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is your word better than Sade's? forestPIG ^(grunt) 15:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked. Please refer to your email for further information.

For the Arbitration Committee, bainer (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]