Talk:Jimmy Savile

I'd like to put in a line saying that he was a great loss to the priesthood but I'm not sure that it's the place for jokes.--Weirdstuff (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

There is always a place for jokes on RW however this joke isn't that good...this is in no way a reflection on you as a person. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Masonic/Satanic graffiti

Not sure if this is worth mentioning just yet, but David Icke's groupies are having fun with it. Balaam (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The vandals had a black car. What more proof do you need? Sophie^Wilder 14:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

How is this "missional"?

He is just a run-of-the-mill celebrity pedophile. I agree he is a horrible person, but if you look at this site's "mission statement":

1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

He's not a crank, he's not anti-science, he's not an authoritarian (not any more than any other sex offender is) or fundamentalist, he's just a celebrity pedophile. No doubt some pedophiles use religion or ideology as cover for their offending, but he is not some priest or cult leader, he's just a dead celebrity DJ and television presenter who molested lots of children. It's awful, but what has this got to do with the "mission"? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

It's missional allright. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

If the argument is "It is missional because David Icke claims Jimmy Saville was a member of the Satanic Illuminati conspiracy", it would be a better argument if the article actually mentioned that. But, moreover, people like Icke will claim just about any celebrity guilty of sex crimes is a member of the Satanic Illuminati conspiracy. Saville is not really special in any way; he just fits the schema "If X is a celebrity sex offender, then Icke will claim X belongs to the Satanic Illuminati conspiracy" (oh, I think he makes the same claim for non-sex-offending celebrities and non-celebrity sex offenders too.) Hence, I'd argue, this isn't really about Saville at all, it is about Icke and his kindred conspiracy theorists, and hence belongs at an article about them, not a standalone article on Saville. Saville is just a fungible and contingent instantiation of a conspiratorial schema. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)