I don't like the OSM story on the front page.

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.

Poll

Votes: 22

I don't like the OSM story on the front page.

Author:

perdida

Topic:

Diaries

Posted:

Jan 17, 2002

Comments:

I like a lot of OSM's other stories, but not this one.

This is not to say he doesn't have a right to post it, which he certainly does.

More diaries by perdida

	Me the crack whore.
	Git
	Penis Cheese
	Hi Catfish!
	Sorry, Wil
	Hey Nobby
	job
	worthy link
	This is a message for anyone in CLEVELAND.
	damn
	Got a great scoop

It is interesting to see that almost nobody has anything to say about the article.

What point is it making? I sure can't see one, except the spurious pleasure of titillating perverts.

Of course, OSM brings a lot more readers to the site than I do. So who am I to talk?

	I am inclined to agree with you (none / 0) (#1)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 17th, 2002 at 03:09:40 PM PST

	I did not particularly enjoy the story either. However, my opinion matter even less around here than yours does. -qp

	Sure osm has the right... (none / 0) (#2)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 17th, 2002 at 03:23:26 PM PST

	I somehow came upon this site after reading another message board that had a copy of T Reginald Gibbons's post "Is Your Son a Hacker?" linked(though not to this page) to a site. I found the topic of his post was considered 'Internet Idiocy', which I can see in his (blatantly?) slanderous and untrue 'guide' about computing. I also noticed his replies to people whom were skeptical were, well, filled with idiocy, too. And this guys just doesn't stop. Now, I go to the front page, and come on to this article about 'pedophilia' and how the US is so bad about it's sexual sitution. Just saying that the US doesn't go about addressing sexuality correctly is obvious and observable. But all of that which osm has posted? Blaspheme. What's next?

	I've got a modest proposal for you. (none / 0) (#3)
	by nathan on Thu Jan 17th, 2002 at 04:03:55 PM PST

	Ever hear of Johnathan Swift? Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Ms. Swift (none / 0) (#7)
	by MessiahWWKD on Thu Jan 17th, 2002 at 04:33:04 PM PST

	I prefer the works of Stephanie Swift. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	What's Next? (none / 0) (#6)
	by doofus on Thu Jan 17th, 2002 at 04:11:25 PM PST

	Who knows? Maybe a post about open source hackers using Linux?

	Just curious (none / 0) (#4)
	by eMan on Thu Jan 17th, 2002 at 04:09:21 PM PST

	Out of curiosity, why didn't you post your opinion on the story itself? I'm sure a strongly worded comment might lead to a nice fat thread.

	thread? (none / 0) (#8)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 17th, 2002 at 04:38:02 PM PST

	Pedophilia is not something most people want to talk about except in the right forum. Why start a thread except about something that you want to talk about? Personally, I think I should get a different anonymous login because I don't want to be associated with some of these comments later in life. People can take anything you say out of context, misquote it and use it against you.

	I think it's not the subject so much (none / 0) (#5)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 17th, 2002 at 04:10:14 PM PST

	As the way he did it. Chris Morris did it so much better in his Paedogadden program last year on UKian TV. He concentrated on the media's sensationalism rather than saying paedophilia was right... I am not suprised no ones replying to it as it's not really a subject that people find comfortable discussing nor one where they're going to feed the trolls. I was wondering how long adequacy would resist doing a pro-pedophilia article as it's so 'contreversial'. Actually quite a long time so there's hope for you yet...

	It's a bit like passing by (none / 0) (#9)
	by chloedancer on Thu Jan 17th, 2002 at 05:56:27 PM PST

	a bad car accident, a train wreck or some other unexpected disaster scene: you tell yourself you're not going to look, then you hate yourself for looking, nonetheless. As far as I can tell, the point of posting the article was simply to offend as many people as possible. To do something outrageous for the purpose of being sensational is of little merit; I'd hold osm's effort in higher esteem if it weren't all just so many words aimed to provoke indignation and "moral" outrage.

	in defence (none / 0) (#10)
	by jsm on Thu Jan 17th, 2002 at 06:42:41 PM PST

	I liked it. It's satire of the best kind. It's a mixture of obviously outrageous suggestions with the worrisome hint of a genuine point behind it. It unsettles people precisely because it makes them think about things that they'd rather just label and write off. It's exactly what adequacy ought to be about. And if it loses us some of the readers the hacker story attracted and thus speeds the site up, so much the better. ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

	Yeah. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
	by hauntedattics on Thu Jan 17th, 2002 at 07:15:41 PM PST

	And if it loses us some of the readers the hacker story attracted and thus speeds the site up, so much the better. I heartily second that idea. Besides, I like osm's point that our family pets should be neutered. It's pretty important.

	Meta commentary? Yuck. (none / 0) (#12)
	by zikzak on Thu Jan 17th, 2002 at 08:10:24 PM PST

	Taking on topics where people have deeply held opinions that you disagree with is all fine and good, but doing the same on subjects where the opinions deeply held belong to you is to be discouraged? Sorry perdida, but I strongly disagree. Although I do hope this disagreement between us hasn't changed your mind about bearing my children. I promise not to massage their genitals while you're in the room.

	Hm.. (none / 0) (#14)
	by Vanetiahime on Thu Jan 17th, 2002 at 09:18:33 PM PST

	I think the point was to piss off enough people to make a nice long thread about it. shrugs It's actually getting quite a few replies (one from me..I can't resist an argument when I feel like arguing, lol) It's just proof to this site's slogan: "Most Controversial Site on the Internet"

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.