Talk:Exit to Eden/Archive 1, Dominatrices

Dominatrices
And let's not forget Rosie O'Donnell in her leather outfit. Truly awesome. Wahkeenah 18:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

You may have an appreciation for this, but that doesn't mean it was popular on the internet. At the time of, and recently after the movie release, I observed the materials that were commonly featured on the internet, and photos of Rosie (or other cast) were rarely available. It was mainly Dana Delany in dominatrix garb, partly because there were just more promo photos released of her. I'm noticing you keep trying to endorse you interests, biases, and opinions via Wikipedia, and that's not what it's for.RPHunt 14:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Until they stop allowing a-nones to do anything they want to, and until they get rid of garbage articles like the one about the Apollo "conspiracy", wikipedia remains nothing more than a pretentious weblog, and I will continue treating it as such. I see they now have a "hot chicks" project. Oh, yeh, this is a seriously encyclopedic website, yah, shoor, yoo betcha. Wahkeenah 14:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

And speaking of endorsing personal interests, biases and opinions... it is clear that you have appointed yourself the Sir Lancelot of Dana Delany and of this movie. Wahkeenah 14:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

No, but I will try to reduce the tendency to turn this into a porn blog, or a celebration of misogyny.rphunt 15:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

That's technically known as "spitting into the wind". The founder of the site is himself a purveyor of soft-porn, so you're not likely to get much support there. And if you consider appreciation of the female form to be misogyny, then you're a few fries short of a Happy Meal. Wahkeenah 15:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"The founder of the site is himself a purveyor of soft-porn, so you're not likely to get much support there." That's irrelevant. As for "appreciation of the female form", that's opinion, which is not applicable to a Wikipedia article, and in this case is only a euphemism for objectification anyway.rphunt 16:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You're wrong on both counts. How much is Dana paying you for this Sir Lancelot service? Wahkeenah 16:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If you've actually scanned the Internet on this subject and/or recall from when it was released, you must know that the reviews for this "film" were dreadful. Yet your article somehow makes it sound like worthwhile art. So don't go lecturing me about endorsing personal interests, biases and opinions. This movie is a big joke, and most everyone agrees, except someone like you that gets turned on by the thought of Dana Delany whipping you into submission, not that there's anything wrong with that. And Rosie O'Donnell in leather is such an absurdity that it fights right in. So don't tell me it ain't notable. Wahkeenah 17:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "You're wrong on both counts" Actually I made three points.


 * "How much is Dana paying you " Ahh, ad hom. Good job.


 * "makes it sound like worthwhile art" Hardly, but it is notable for the reasons the article mentions. Whether it's actually good or bad is irrelevant in a Wikipedia article.

rphunt 17:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "And Rosie O'Donnell in leather is such an absurdity that it fights right in. So don't tell me it ain't notable" Strawman. I never said that. I said it wasn't popular on the internet. And the absurdity of it is yet another opinion that doesn't apply to a Wikipedia article.


 * Your "second" and "third" points were part of the same run-on sentence and of the same basic politically-correct premise. If Dana puts herself out there nude, she has only herself to blame for anyone "objectifying" her, which in fact *you* are guilty of, for constantly protecting her when she didn't ask for it, Sir Galahad. You can have your little article and your little fantasies about Dana Delany which found fulfillment in that movie, not that there's anything wrong with that. Wahkeenah 18:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "part of the same run-on sentence and of the same basic politically-correct premise" Not true, they're seperate points with different premises. Sorry if the punctuation confused you.


 * "she has only herself to blame for anyone "objectifying" her" It's not clear how that justifies using the Wikipedia as a venue for indulging in prurient misogyny.

rphunt 21:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "for constantly protecting her" No protection is being done, just removal of material that doesn't apply to a Wikipedia article for previously stated reasons.


 * You're hopelessly in love with Dana. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Wahkeenah 06:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As I was enjoying watching Rosie O'Donnell on the Actor's Studio on Bravo, listening to this self-labeled "total lesbian" talk about having the hots for Tom Cruise, it reminded me to tell you that enjoying a beautiful body is good, and that denying its beauty is evil. In short, I am right and you are a pompous, patronizing pig. Wahkeenah 02:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Exit to Eden
Visual on another website. How cool. not much free time. 10-27.    -DDR

??? -Rphunt 09:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)