David Gerard wrote: > On 17 July 2010 12:40, <wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> John Vandenberg wrote: >>> in the article about Jesus. > >>> If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles >>> relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much >>> free time on their hands. The images of Muhammad that we use are >>> images of an object which is held in a university library or museum, >>> _because_they_are_important_. > >> Those don't appear to be the ones that are being complained about. Its >> the Baby Jesus Butt Plug style ones that they have issue with. > > > This turns out not to be the case. In practice, anything that is even > *purported* to be an image of Mohammed is condemned. >
When why aren't they linking to the Mohammed article rather than the specific articles that have piss taking images, or images of him trampling on the 10 commandments, or being tortured in hell? Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to believe that *you* have taken a knee jerk islamaphobic stance climbed up a flag p[ole and are currently waving your knickers in the air. I'm interested to see just how you are going to get yourself back down with a modicum of dignity. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
