User talk:Firewheel

Welcome
I'm pretty open to discussions and questions. I'm more into talking than editing at this point, but I'm sure I'll jump in with both left feet sometime soon.

Here's what I'm currently watching.


 * BDSM
 * Consent (BDSM)
 * Dissociative identity disorder
 * Domination and submission (BDSM)
 * Recovered memory therapy


 * Repressed memory


 * Satanic ritual abuse

The three marked in red are, IMHO, entirely questionable from a POV standpoint. I'm willing to discuss this, and I'm assembling more current data as I have the time, which will appear here first.

Satanic ritual abuse
Isn't it nice? The same people shout witch-hunt/conspiracy whenever it does or doesn't suit them. The "conspiracy" is the strawman they put up to beat it down, and the rest is discrediting or disbelieving plus a few non sequiturs (if one trial in court was overthrown later, it proves that all cases were false - if in several cases people where convicted and that is still upheld by the judicial system, this proves nothing). Believing in the overall idea of Wikipedia I have invited the two to come to my userpage if they'd like to find a wording which suits their "scepticism" (or "true disbeliever") POV but also aknowledges that there are books, articles, witnesses and websites to the contrary - even if those, on the background of the earlier US hysteria, should be taken with a grain of salt. Do you think, from the talk page and the edit history, that a consensus with this people is possible? I'd like to see your comment on that - perhaps on my user-page as well, if that suits you. Gwyndon 00:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Response and Clarification


 * Hm. I see I must clarify. That which is arguable is not always incorrect. There are issues - and the abovementioned red-letter examples are three - in which there are various sides that primarily support themselves upon the discrediting of the evidence used by the other side and the demonization of the proponents of the other sides.


 * I've noticed, with no little disgust and annoyance, that these topics are subject to ongoing "editing wars," which have little respect for persons or evidence. You may take the fact that I've not bothered to log in and check messages since January as my respose. I do not cope well with such purely political nonsense, nor am I willing to allow my efforts to be subjected to such questionable self-appointed authorities.


 * Oddly, I see I have taken no evident position on any of the above viewpoints. I do have opinions, of course. But without evidentiary support, I think of those as "bias." I believe reason should also be considered, especially reasoning from first principles involved in the discussion, but that is also met with rejection - instead of a proper critical review. Bob King 16:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Firewheelvortex.jpg


The file File:Firewheelvortex.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused personal photo. Out of scope."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 03:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)