Talk:John Kerry/Archive 5

---

Gun politics

I do not quite see why a biography should cover a detailed description of a politician's position on a special interest like this one unless the politician was a backbencher most well known for arguing about this special topic. If you think that is relevant for the election include it at the extra page for the campaign. Get-back-world-respect 22:36, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've decided to "be bold" in my edits and move the gun control info to the John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004 page. I agree that his general bio page is not the place to cover his stance on this specific issue since it's not a "defining" issue for him, a la John McCain's campaign finance reform. Besides, at the top of the article the intended scope is stated to be "Kerry's biography, background and experience." - 216.61.33.185 22:35, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nixon annoyance

"Kerry then stepped up his antiwar activities, becoming a media celebrity for his outspoken opposition to the war, behavior which, according to some reports, served as a great annoyance to the Nixon administration." I might be wrong, but I'm pretty certain that the Nixon tapes that have been released recently from the national archives definitively prove that Nixon was annoyed with Kerry's behavior. this statement leaves doubt.

Notes

To assist in objectifying the entry, perhaps it should be noted that a few of the claims by the Nixon administration (including that Kerry did not sleep on the National Mall) should be flagged as claims, as they were uncorraborated and denied by Kerry and others. This does not, however, make the claims less valid; we should simply allow the reader to decide for him/herself, providing as many facts as we can. -- Sarcasticninja 03:08, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

1971 Meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW)

Section has repeatedly been deleted as irrelevant.
This section has valid information about a national controversy regarding John Kerry. It is written in manner that is NPOV, is historic and encyclopedic and should remain for anyone who is doing resource regarding John Kerry and this subject. Moreover, there is nothing damming about John Kerry in the section and clears his name of doing any misdeeds. --Buster 21:42, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

When and if it actually becomes a "national controversy" we can add it to the article. Whether it clears Kerry or damns Kerry is irrelevant. Spending 5 paragraphs on a meeting he never attended is not relevant or encyclopedic. Gamaliel 21:50, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[User:Neutrality] has rewritten the section and removed questionable links. I am satisfied with the edit. Regardless if its a nation controversy or not John Kerry was involved with the organization and I will bet at the time it was not irrelevant to Kerry. Buster 22:02, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

It was as irrelevant then as it is now. The section is better written and more concise, and improvement, yes, but I still think it doesn't belong. Are we going to document every rumor that's churned out about both candidates in this race? Gamaliel 04:18, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It certainly looks like that is the direction it already took. If it hits a national paper it goes into wiki. This canidate has alot of catching up to do in that area. --Buster 04:50, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well-written it may be, but that doesn't mean it belongs in this article. If, indeed, the section is about "a national controversy regarding John Kerry", then it is a failure because it in no way explains that this is the case. As it stands, it is non-sequitur at best, smear by association at worst, and, in any case weakens the readability and usability of the article. I support deletion of this section. Jgm 12:39, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The pro-Kerry bias of the John Kerry editors shocks me!

Here are some irrefutable facts:

1) There IS controversy surrounding Jonh Kerry's 1st Purple Heart award and his Silver Star. a) The 1st Purple Heart has beeb pulicly cirizied by Kerry's fomer commander: John Kerry's former commander, Grant Hibbard (Kerry Purple Heart in Dispute) disputes Kerry's account of how he received his first Purple Heart. According to Hibbard, the evidence strongly suggests that Kerry exaggerated the source and extent of his injury. Because records also show that Hibbard gave Kerry a positive performance evaluation shortly after the incident, some have questioned Hibbard's motives for coming forward at this time. Hibbard is joined in his criticism of Kerry by approximately 300 other veterans calling themselves Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. b) Kerry's Bother WAS arrested in the basement of a building which housed a campaing HQ for a Kerry opponent election opponent: it was during this campaign that John Kerry's brother Cameron was arrested for breaking and entering into the headquarters building of Kerry's opponent. Though Senator Kerry has in the past tried to downplay the seriousness of this episode, there are many who refer to it as a burglary (Cameron Kerry Arrested). c) Kerry DOES have a published history of re-stating in a diffferent manner, his account of the known-to-have-occured, "medal-tossing" incident:

[On April 23rd, 1971] John Kerry and other veterans threw their medals and ribbons over a fence at the U.S. Capitol building to symbolically protest the war. Later on, during Kerry's political career - in regards to his military experience, this 'medal tossing' incident surfaced as a controversy.

This 'tossing' of medals is controversial because it ultimately turned out that Senator Kerry keeps a display of medals at his home, which, if they are his original medals, proves that what he 'threw' that day were not his own personal medals. When questioned about this in 2004, Kerry said that he threw medals which belonged to other veterans who asked him to throw them over the fence.

Even so, for a considerable period of time, most people who knew of the medal incident believed it was his own personal medals which he threw. However, Kerry now (denies) this and states that he only threw his "ribbons". Kerry has recently again faced criticism for a WRC-TV "Viewpoints" (interview) he gave in 1971 stating he did indeed throw away his medals.

Kerry's political opponents suggest that by changing his story about the medals, John Kerry is revising history to make himself more appealing. On the other hand, Kerry's campaign staff makes it known that he is proud of his military service and dismisses complaints about his 1970's anti-war activity as being not germane to the current political debate.

For those persons unfamiliar with (US Military Ribbons and Awards), the distinction is subtle and not obvious. This is because civilians are not generally aware that "ribbons" are the small colored bars one wears on the uniform on a daily basis, and "medals" are larger with matching ribbons which are only worn on special occasions.

Of dogs and doves

I removed this sentence from the article:

Kerry was known to broadcast the words "Kennedy for Senate" from a loudspeaker in his Volkswagen Beetle, adding the words "And Kerry for dogcatcher!"

This is one of those heart-warming gee-what-a-self-effacing-regular-guy-the-candidate-is items that could have come from the campaign's spinmeisters. It is one of those embarassing non-responsive anecdotes like "George Washington never told a lie while cutting down cherry trees" and "Abraham Lincoln was born in a log cabin which helped his father to build."

The origin of the story is a Washington Post article by Laura Blumenfeld which was published at a time when Kerry was trying to show he wasn't a Massachusetts weinie like Dukakis but a real man. This was the story where he was introduced as an avid hunter and includes this:

John Kerry eats dove. Even better, he shoots them. From behind the stalks of a Southern cornfield, he'll watch them flutter and dart, and fire.

"You clean them. Let them hang. It takes three or four birds to have a meal," said the Massachusetts senator. "You might eat it at a picnic, cold roasted. I love dove."

Dove, quail, duck, deer. Kerry described how to hunt and gut them, talking as he sliced through a steak at midnight after campaigning all day in Iowa for the Democratic presidential nomination. Carve out the heart, he said over dinner, pull out the entrails and cut up the meat. Bad table manners, perhaps, or good politics. After Sept. 11, 2001, some Democrats argue, they can't take the White House if they sound like doves. That is not a problem for the dove hunter. Kerry, 59, is the only combat veteran in the field. He stands 6-foot-4. He rides a Harley, plays ice hockey, snowboards, windsurfs, kitesurfs, and has such thick, aggressive hair he uses a brush with metal teeth.

I don't think anyone wants the macho-man dove story, which I personally find disgusting. I've been a shooter but not a hunter, and doves are some of the nicest, most gentle creatures there are and I wouldn't want to proclaim my manhood by telling how I shoot and tear out their hearts and guts. He don't need the "dogcatcher" quote, either. -- Cecropia | Talk 01:45, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree about the hunting thing, but I think the dogcatcher quote added some color, and I think it deserves to be here. Should I put the dogcatcher story back in with proper attribution? --Neutrality 01:56, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since I took it out, obviously I don't want it put back in. It's campaign puffery, and possibly not even true. If we put in the colorful "dogcatcher" then I say we put in the colorful dove item from the same article, which puts a different color on the issue. This is an encyclopedia, not color chat over a sports event.

BTW, Neutrality, while I have your ear, mass reverts are frowned upon (make it better, rather than revert). Some of the material you reverted is inappropriate, but other material is accurate or even important. Kerry is running as war hero. I saw an ad for him spelling out: "Silver Star. Bronze Star. Three purple hearts." Details of Kerry's service are no more sacrosanct than Bush's. If he's running on his medals, it's fair to ask how he got them, and some are controversial, especially seeing as they got him out of 'Nam after four months. -- Cecropia | Talk 02:03, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Awards and Vietnam

Just a note for the curious. During Vietnam medals and rank were given out much more liberally than before or since. I'm not saying the awards were bogus, just that, when considering whether a particular action or injury merited an award, the issuers were inclined to err on the side of generosity. This was not inappropriate because it was a thankless war, and not being tight-fisted with the medals was a small measure of thanks, all considered. It seems that only the top awards (like the Congressional Medal of Honor that BOB Kerrey won) and oddly some merit awards (like the Army Commendation Award) were hard to earn.

Same with rank. Some more rank was some more pay. You could get two waivers in promotion, and they waived Time in Service and Time in Grade, so that almost everyone made E-4 (now Specialist or Corporal) in a two-year hitch. I made Sergeant in 15 months, fast but not extraordinary, and one guy I knew made Staff Sergeant (E-6) in just 18 months, and never left Long Binh Post (by his own description). (That was extraordinary ... he was the only guy I knew who made E-6 in a two-year tour).

I particularly note that, while (IMO) Kerry was brave and performed well, Bob Dole was an infantry commander in Italy for more than a year in WWII and was grievously wounded, but never got more than a Bronze Star, while Kerry got a Bronze and Silver Star and never did worse than shrapnel in his butt. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:25, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for sharing that with us. I think the Bronze and Silver Stars had less to do with his (relatively minor) injuries than with his rescue of that Green Beret and how he saved his crew from the guy with a grenade launcher. --Neutrality 04:31, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But isn't this true with every major U.S. war prior to the "professionalization" of the military into an all volunteer force? I've been taken to understand that promotion and citations accelerate with combat experience. --Mt2131 08:41, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes and no. Promotions are always easier to get in wartime (including battlefield commissions) simply because the soldiers are doing more that gets them recognized for promotion, especially command positions (sergeant and up, all regular commissioned officers). And of course it's hard to get a combat award in peacetime. But my point is that it was an open secret that they were much more generous during Vietnam than previous wars (my Dole example in WWII) partly because it was such a totally thankless war, so they needed to keep morale up and give military recognition to soldiers who were getting none from the folks back home.

Because of the generosity they had to put in certain controls after they detected problems. For example, if you received a waiver for promotion (I had to have the maximum two to make Sergeant) you were given a "temporary" grade and a "permanent" grade. Once hostilities ended, they had the option of busting everyone with a "temporary" grade to their "permanent" grade if they hadn't fulfilled the conditions for the higher temporary grade. IOW, I was a Sergrant but could have been busted down to Private First Class (two grade reduction) if hostilities ended before I had completed the necessary time in the service to keep my Sergeant stripes.

A similar things happened with purple hearts. Everybody knew that three purple hearts got you home, so they reported everything to try to get a purple heart. I blame noone for this--I would have taken advantage of it if I could have, but it happened so much that they changed the rule (in 1969, IIRC) that you could keep your purple hearts, but you had to have three significant injuries to get the early out. Without bias, from what I've read, only one of Kerry's purple hearts would have qualified if he had received them a year or so later. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Cecropia, for a well explained discussion. My question is, given that those awards may or may not have been easier to get, does that deserve to go on the John kerry page, or perhaps Silver Star or Bronze Star. If it does go on the JK page, how, exactly? I don't think it's appropiate to go into a large diatribe explaining that it may or may not have been easier to gain awards then ( I personally think it was, but I was not around then either, so I don't have first hand knowledge), or comparing Kerry to other people who have recieved those awards. He did, which is the fact. Where would you suggust putting the information on the relative ease of gaining vietnam medels in? Controversies over Vietnam Military Medals? Lyellin 12:07, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

They are appropriate to the John Kerry page insofar as he is running as a "war hero." George McGovern (the liberal "peacenik") was a genuine war hero, but he didn't use it in his campaign, so it would have been unfair to question that status. So since I recently saw a Kerry commercial with the text overlay: "SILVER STAR, BRONZE STAR, THREE PURPLE HEARTS" it is quite appropriate to say, "OK, what did he do to get them." As to an article about award and rank inflation during Vietnam, I have no appetite to get involved in such an article, though I would try to balance it if it were brought up. Vietnam vets have been so spat upon in so many ways for dangerous and thankless service that I don't wish to contribute to an article that might degrade them further. Until they became campaign issues, I have been loath to criticize either Gore or Kerry for what they did or didn't do during Vietnam. For example, Gore had a real creampuff assignment as a senator's son, but he did more than maybe 90% of the youth of the era. GWB did less, remaining stateside, but that was also more than most, and way more than Bill Clinton. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:37, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please study Neutrality's edits on John Kerry, those edits ARE NOT "neutral"

Is he a Kerry campaign troll?

Rex071404 06:38, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What do you not consider neutral? Neutrality has an excellent reputation for, well, neutrality, and I can't see anything wrong with his edits. Your edits, on the other hand, have been strongly POV, which is why they have been reverted.

The most recent neutral version did mention the veterans meeting you continually bring up, but in a neutral fashion. Despite the fact that we're talking about a meeting that may have happened, that Kerry may have been at, that someone may have made an outlandish statement that in any case was immediately shouted down, you have tried to give it excessive prominence and have replaced the neutral wording with one designed to specifically attack Kerry. Ambivalenthysteria 06:43, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is IRREFUTABLE that there are bona-fide, good faith, credible reports that John Kerry was indeed in attendance the meeting where assasinations were suggested.

It is IRREFUTABLE that his initial explaination that he had already resigned by then, DOES NOT comport with facts as reported by no less of a newspaper than the New York Times!

These are Cold, Hard FACTS and yet, you are willing to start from the premise that the meeting only 'may' have happened! Ha! There is NO dispute that the meeting occured, Kerry himself, by denying attending it, implicitly admits that it occured!

The only dispute is that Kerry/Kerry's team deny he was there and/or say he quit in protest of the asasination suggestions.

You need to do a little digging on the web.

Here is the BOSTON GLOBE reporting the meeting AS FACT on 4/1/2004 !

Oregon Magazine has MULTIPLE WITNESS placing Kerry in that meeting!

Based on these two links alone, my edits Kerry have been tame compared to what's already beeen reported !

Rex071404 08:29, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You guys are ganging up on me and are misinformed about Kerry !

Here are some facts for you:

Unlike several of you (who are as you say, Canadian and/or Australian), I do "have a dog in this fight" as I am from Massachusetts.

You guys think I am being harsh or not-neutral about Kerry and you are totally wrong.

I  could  have been MUCH harsher than I have been!

There are SO MANY bad things to say about John Kerry, that I could write 10 times what you all have written and not even touch the surface.

And bearing in mind that I am neither a Republican NOR a Democrat (but I do stay informed and I do vote), here is a BIGGIE about John Kerry:

It is common knowledge in Massachusetts that John Kerry, by virtue of his high profile role in the state and his self-proclaimed Catholicism, was certainly in position to speak out against the Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal, yet at NO TIME did he ever do that to any meaningful or effective extent.

Could he, as a high profile Catholic, have helped push aside sooner, the massive delays in fair settlement, that Bernard Cardinal Law dragged out for years? Indeed, he could have and should have, but didn't.

So then, how does someone from say Portland Oregon, which also has an Archdiocese in scandal, which is now going financially bankrupt, gain sufficient knowledge about Kerry and his cavalier shilling for votes?

Kerry runs around waiving the banner of his so-called Catholic faith, but does not come anywhere close to walking the talk.

Putting the disputes such as abortion aside, how does any Catholic (or anyone who claims to be moral) remain silent in the face of horrid crimes committed by people like Paul Shanley, the corrupt and criminally vile ex-Catholic priest from Boston and one of the founders of North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).

Regardless of anyone's position on the subject of man-boy "love" it is irrefutable that there have been MANY, MANY, MANY young victims of adult sexual exploitation within the Catholic Church here in the Boston Area.

It is COMMON KNOWLEDGE around here that EVERY high profile politician from Massachusetts ABSOLUTELY KNEW of the allegations YEARS before they became public (and were then proven true).

It is not for nothing that a famous (now retired) Massachusetts Senate President (William Bulger) once said that the JFK in Kerry's initials stand for "Just for Kerry".

For example, Kerry goes around expecting us to believe that he only recently learned that he was not Irish.

Why does this matter? Because for years, John Kerry faked around as being Irish so as to appeal to the Boston Area Irish Tribalism mentality that permeated the Police, Firefighters and Courts for many years in the Greater Boston Area.

YOU, my fellow Wikis, may not know how much of a self-serving, two-faced, phoney John Kerry is, but I do. I have lived here for may years and HAVE NEVER received even a single letter back from his office though I've contacted him about various issues no less that 10 times over the years.

My experience with John Kerry is that if he does not agree with your POV, he simply ignores you - even if you are his constituent!

And yet, even so, I have been very muted in my criticisms of him on the John Kerry page.

So please, stop your carping. I only joined up here less than two weeks ago and am still learning the ropes. This means that I will obviously still need to hone my posting techniques.

Even so, I am 100% right about various facts about Kerry:

1) He WAS at the meeting where assassinations were suggested 2) He DID pretend to toss away his medals. 3) He DID exaggerate his 1st Purple Heart "injuries" 4) He brother WAS arrested for misbehavior while working on Kerry's 1st campaign 5) He DID FAIL to speak up a bout the priest abuse scandal.

Especially in regards to the Medal Tossing Incident text which I keep posting and which keeps getting removed, I say HOW DARE YOU!

It is IRREFUTABLE that John Kerry engaged in a stage managed medal tossing event. It is IRREFUTABLE that John Kerry now contends that he never tossed his "medals" It is IRREFUTABLE that John Kerry was previously on TV saying that he did.

If you keep deleting this text, you remove one of the most well documented examples of Kerry two-face-ism that is extant.

You, my friends, may find it hard to believe that someone with such a somber mien cold be so intentionally two-faced.

If John Kerry did not bring the union bosses to his home during his 1st wining election to show off his medals to them, HEW NEVER WOULD HAVE WON THAT RACE!

When John Kerry got started in politics, Massachusetts was (and still is) led by the nose by th power of the Boston Unions (think Police and Firefighters right now in regards to DNC).

And back in the 70's/80's when Kerry started, it was the Boston Irish Catholics from South Boston, who controlled Boston Politics (and hence the state - think William Bulger)

The families from South Boston (known locally as "Southie"), were FIERCELY TRIBAL, very loyal to fellow Southie and Southie-minded Boston Irish Catholics.

This is WHY Kerry faked being IRISH This is WHY Kerry cowed down and did not rebuke the Boston Archdiocese for sexual abuse This is WHY Kerry KEPT is medals to show off to the union bosses. And this is WHY Kerry's phoney medal toss was so disgusting.

If the real truth about Kerry' tossing those medals was known back in Southie in the 70's and 80's, the union bosses would have INSISTED that William Bulger "gut-shoot' Kerry's career back then.

Kerry is, was and always has been a phoney!

And to top it off, he wasn't even helpful in finally getting rid of William Bulger.

You non-Massachusetts Wikis have NO IDEA how corrupt politics has been in this state and how ineffectual Kerry has been as a senator.

Having said all that, please don't make it seem like I am posting screed to John Kerry, for I am NOT doing that!

On the other hand, these comment may be verging on screed and I DO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE!

You may want to read these links #1 and #2

Final note: Southie suffered a VERY HIGH casualty count in Vietnam, but still had a VERY high volunteer rate.

If Kerry didn't show "his" medals to certain union bosses during that 1st critical campaign, HE NEVER WOULD HAVE WON.

Personally, I think that Kerry did indeed toss away his medals, and only realized later that he needed some for display. My guess is that the ones he has at home are replacements he acquired somehow.

And THAT is some of the stuff I have NOT been posting.

Therefore, please be kind enough to leave what I do post undisturbed.

Thank you!

Rex071404 08:10, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As with any other Wikipedian, if you post on this site, you are required to conform to the NPOV policy. So far, your edits have failed to do so, which is why they have been reverted. But I thank you for taking these issues here to discuss.

I hate to say it, but your opinion (and my opinion) of Kerry is not relevant here. Neither of us are in a position to say whether he "would have won" if things were different, neither of us are in a position to why he did not speak out against abuse (and he was far, far, far from the only one), neither of our thoughts on his "phoniness" are relevant, and neither of our thoughts on his term as Senator are relevant. However, if you have cited facts about that period, and are prepared to write them in a neutral style, feel free to add them here.

Now, lets look at the five points you brought above.

1) He WAS at the meeting where assassinations were suggested

That is not confirmed, and thus we cannot claim it as fact. Neutrality's last version mentions the incident, and reflects this. Unless you can provide sources otherwise, I suspect this section is likely to get reverted.

2) He DID pretend to toss away his medals.

As it stands, I don't object to your changes here, though I would like to see a citation for the number of veterans in that group. However, I would like to see more reliable evidence that he's changed his story on this. Ambivalenthysteria 09:07, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

3) He DID exaggerate his 1st Purple Heart "injuries"

I believe that is already appropriately dealt with in Neutrality's last version. He mentioned how easy it was to get a Purple Heart in some detail.

4) He brother WAS arrested for misbehavior while working on Kerry's 1st campaign

Then put that in an article about his brother.

5) He DID FAIL to speak up a bout the priest abuse scandal.

Do we put this in an article about almost every politician in the Western World over the last century? I didn't see large amounts of action from Bush as Texas governor either. I don't see how this is specific (or relevant) to Kerry.

Now, let's look at what a couple of other your changes in your latest edits. I might add that they seem to have improved, but could still do with a little NPOVing.

1) The mention of that hoax and its debunking. You took it out without providing any justification.

2) You keep changing the Second Tour of Duty heading to a more POV wording.

Otherwise, I thank you for turning down some of your POV in earlier edits. Oh, and just a note...the sort of behaviour you showed on Neutrality's user page is considered vandalism, and isn't exactly the way to win friends and influence people around here. Ambivalenthysteria 09:07, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here is some material on that November 1971 meeting. Kerry says he can't recall being there. The FBI says he was there. Here is some narrative:

[Kerry] says he had emotionally checked out of V.V.A.W. after St. Louis and until recently said he had left the organization at that point.

But several news organizations, including The Kansas City Star and The New York Sun, have recently reported that Mr. Kerry also attended the meeting of the group in Kansas City, Mo., in late 1971 where killing opponents of the war was discussed.

Mr. Kerry says he still has no memory of being there but does not dispute the F.B.I. files. They describe the November meeting as tempestuous, with a showdown between Mr. Kerry and Mr. Hubbard, who it turned out had lied about his rank, claiming to have been an Air Force captain when he had been a sergeant. His actual service in Vietnam was also called into serious question.

Participants said the meeting was also where Mr. Camil, an ex-marine from Florida, proposed killing American politicians who continued to support the war.

Terry DuBose, a Texan, says Mr. Camil and a few other men approached him to participate. "They wanted me to shoot John Tower," he says. "They had a list of six or eight senators who had continuously voted for the war."

Mr. DuBose says he just walked away. But Mr. Musgrave said Mr. Camil brought the idea up for a vote on the meeting's fourth day, a Monday. "It went over like a lead balloon," he says.

Messrs. Musgrave, DuBose, Camil and others who recall the discussion all say they do not recall Mr. Kerry's being present at the vote. Mr. Musgrave says he believes Mr. Kerry, having tendered his resignation, had left a day before. But Mr. Musgrave also says informal discussions of Mr. Camil's deadly idea had gone on all weekend, and "I don't think that there was anybody there that didn't hear about it."

Source: The New York Times, April 24, 2004: "Kerry Role in Antiwar Veterans Is Delicate Issue in His Campaign" By DAVID M. HALBFINGER

Whatever you want to make of this, it does not fit your charactarization of "Despite the fact that we're talking about a meeting that may have happened, that Kerry may have been at, that someone may have made an outlandish statement that in any case was immediately shouted down" -- Cecropia | Talk 09:26, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Do you have a link, so it can be cited in the article, if this is to be mentioned? While I'm not exactly opposed to some mention of it, making much fuss of this seems to me to be just POV, and an attempt to imply that Kerry wanted them assasinated, which there is no evidence of, to my knowledge.. Kerry didn't propose the thing. Kerry wasn't there at the vote. Apparently, he was at the meeting, and he may even have heard of the idea. Heck, people have said crackpot things in my presence before...does that mean if one day I do something important enough to get an article, that they should be mentioned then? Ambivalenthysteria 09:33, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Times article can be cited by publication date, title and author, since it is now a premium archive (after 5 days or 7 days or something Paid link. But this is apparently the same article from the Times service [1]. Here is a link for some of the source for the Times: KC Star. Hope these are useful. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:51, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well then, now that we all concede that Kerry was INDEED at that meeting...

Wouldn't it be proper to make SURE people KNOW that???

After all since it's AXIOMATIC that a RESPONSIBLE PERSON would, upon hearing of such a suggestion, REPORT it to the police/FBI, etc.

And since we have NO evidence that Kerry reported it, we can conclude:

He didn't care enough about the people who were being threatened to bother to report, or

He was indeed sympathetic to the suggestion, or

He preferred the fellowship of VVAW over the strife that would be caused by reporting, or

He was convinced (hubris wise) that he could lead VVAW away from such things,or

He DID REPORT (as an FBI snitch) and we don't know it.

Please don't give me this BUNK about "people have said 'crackpot' things in my presence before"! Please take a look at the Wiki page for the Weathermen.

Many Weathermen were well connected to the scions of Old Eastern Money - so was Kerry The Weathermen we well known to and by MOST Vietnam-era anti-war leaders - so was Kerry The tactics and episodes of VIOLENCE being used by the Weathermen, would have been well know to all VVAW leaders, INCLUDING KERRY!

There is NO WAY that someone in Kerry's role back them as a VVAW leader and prominent anti-war spokesperson, who had PERSONALLY MET many, many, well known 60's and 70's counter-culture leaders, would have been UNAWARE of the Weathermen and their activities.

In that context, Kerry's utter FAILURE to report VVAW threats and PUBLICLY DENOUNCE THEM, speaks volumes about him.

None of you would honestly contend that a well known anti-war leader such as Kerry, would have been unaware that, at the time of this conrovesal meeting, there was ALREADY ACTUAL VIOLENCE being employed by other groups around the USA, would you?

For gosh sakes, I was only 11 years old then, and I was aware of it!

I fact, EVEN MAD Magazine had information about them (in parody form, of course).

Please, Please, Please, people!

Can we PLEASE take off the pro-Kerry blinders!?!?

Is this Wiki nothing but a bunch of tepid information "followers".

Kerry KNEW that violence was being suggested! Kerry KNEW that other groups were employing it already! Kerry DID NOTHING to report bonda fide threats!

These were NOT mere "crackpot" threats.

In fact, they were of sufficient seriousness that Kerry CLAIMS he quit VVAW over them (though exatctly when he quit is in DISPUTE).

Oh, I see, it's BAD ENOUGH TO QUIT over, BUT NOT BAD NEOUGH TO REPORT?

Aaarrgghhhhh!!!!!.....

Rex071404 16:48, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't all concede he was there, we all don't concede that this is relevant in any way, nor do we concede that smears of guilt by association or inference or inaction belong in this or any other wiki article. Your tone and gratuitious use of capital letters indicate that you're clearly not neutral in this matter. Gamaliel 16:43, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why did you delete this comment Rex? Gamaliel 16:57, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was not aware that I deleted you. I did have an "edit conflict" snafu, so I exited, cut out my partial post, and re-inserted it. Based on that, I humbly apologize, as it's apparent to me now that I accidently cut you out while trying to fix me. Sorry.

Rex071404 17:04, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. No harm done. Gamaliel 17:09, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

BTW, my use of CAPITAL LETTERS (on this page - note than NONE have been used on the actual Jonh Kerry page) has been to highlight various words.

To impute from that, that I am clearly not "neutral" (while implying that YOU are) is silly.

You do know OF COURSE, that I DO NOT have BE neutral. Rather, what has to occur is that the COMMENTS THEMSELVES, which I post on the actual John Kerry page be neutral.

Please, let's not descend into a contest of proving whose "inner neutrality" is more "pure". Such abstract and esoteric thought belongs in a philisophy section, not here.

While I am happy to address your concerns about the verbage of the ACTUAL WRITTEN comments I post on the John Kerry page, I take issue with your snide insinuation that you, as a person, are somehow "more pure" in your "inner neutrality" than me!

Rex071404 17:14, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No one is completely neutral. My comments were not intended to assert that I am superior or purer than you in any respect. I simply believe that perhaps you are not the best person to edit this article in an NPOV given that you've apparently worked yourself into a lather over it. Nothing personal, but I tend to believe the same thing about anyone who gets so worked up they WRITE IN CAPITAL LETTERS LIKE THIS. But I have no interest in a debate over who is more pure or philosophy of neutrality or anything else of that nature. Gamaliel 17:25, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To Gamaliel: I don't believe the issue is guilt by association. Kerry exhibits selective memory on a number of things. The Kansas City meeting would have been a big life event for him. He in effect concedes (not disputing the FBI report) he may have been there but doesn't remember. Why? Bush is called on much smaller things (the never-ending flap over the National Guard details). It looks like he's disassociating himself from a particular meeting of the VVAW that did occur, the responsible media and attendees and the FBI say he was there. Noone is saying he supported killing U.S. politicians or even attended the vote. But he apparently was at the meeting and has no memory. This suggests that acknowledging he was even at the meeting might raise questions the press could ask that he'd rather not answer. That's the significance. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:13, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why would the Kansas City meeting be "a big life event for him"? Large meetings with the occassional outlandish suggestion would be familiar territory to Kerry by 1971, I'd think. Even if he was there, why is it "significant" that he forgot or confused it with another meeting? The attribution of motives with no evidence is not NPOV. Let's stick with facts, we haven't gotten past that stage yet. I believe the issue is guilt by association, otherwise the sites like newsmax wouldn't be pushing so hard with such flimsy associations. And when you have syllogisms like Rex's Weathermen=Old Eastern Money=Kerry, we are clearly in guilt by association territory. Gamaliel

It would have been a big life event because that would have been the meeting where he quit the VVAW. The FBI reported he had a big argument over the VVAW's direction at that meeting and subsequently quit. The VVAW was central to his rise to prominence. There are quite a few facts in respected media that say he was there. My sources are not NewsMax (why is it only conservative sources are considered so bad they can't be used?) but The New York Times and other mainstream media.

But of course conservative sources want attention to be paid to this. Duh! Who do you think pushes embarassing minutae about Bush. I stopped edit in Bush-Kerry because there is such a large brigade of editors who spend their time bashing Bush and making excuses for Kerry. The articles are way out of balance. -- Cecropia | Talk

17:32, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simply because Gamaliel has a pre-judged PHOBIA about the use of capital letters in some words during a discussion, DOES NOT add any weight to his suggestion that said CAPITAL LETTER USE is indicative of non-NPOV. Now as to whether or not Kerry would have rememebred being at a meeting where ASSASINATIONs of US Congressmen and Senators was offered up as a suggestion. Let me ask you this: If YOU were at a mosque in Brooklyn today and one of the worshippers suggested to a group of men who were meeting that KILLING a NYC policeman would advance the cause of the local community, would you EASILY forget that? The answer is NO, you would not. In today's day and age, any suggestions of pre-planned violence by a member of the Muslim community would not be easily forgotten. That's because Fundemental Islamic Radicals are comitting acts of terror and everyone is on alert against it.

Compare that to Kerry's context in 1971:

1) The Anti-war croud was aware that they were being snooped on by FBI. 2) The Anti-war crowd KNEW that SOME of their fellow travelers such as the Weathermen, were already using violence. 3) The 1st thoughts in a anti-war leader's mind when violence was offered up as an option would be a FULL an CLEAR cognition that such a suggestion is VERY DANGEROUS (given the then current political environment)

There is NO WAY any anti-war leader would have easily forgotten being at a meeting where a bona-fide suggestion of KILLING politicians was offered up. An the suggestion WAS made in earnest. With a littel looking, you can find an online article by the man who offered it up which states quite clearly that he was indeed VERY serious about it!

Now as for the point of mentioning the Weathermen: - By virtue of what that splinter, off-shoot group of radicals was doing (ie: bombing) ALL leftist radicals were under GREAT suspicion. For you do suggest that this would not have on Kerryt's mind is tantamount to saying he's an oblivious dope. Is that what you are saying?

And not only that, buy why do you guys keep deleting the text about the "medal tossing incident"? It is irrefutable that Kerry tossed something that day. Medals or Ribbons. Either way, his dancing around on this topic is a window into his character and the details I have posted about the Medal Tossing Incident are 100% true and 100% factual. Simply because there is no pro-Kerry way to view those facts does not mean we must delete them.

I intend to re-insert the "Medal Tossing Incident" as many times as it takes until you pro-Kerry lurkers either stop deleting it or FULLY and powerfully explain why it should stay out.

Rex071404 01:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A couple of points. 1) using capital letters does indeed make your contributions to the talk page here look more like a rant than a civil and rational discussion, and it does give reason to scrutinize your contributions to the article more closely as well. 2) Even if Kerry were at the meeting (and I for one cannot fault him for not recalling precisely which meetings he did or did not attend 30 odd years ago), and though assassinations may have been discussed among some of the participants, it still does not mean that Kerry was necessarily aware of such discussions. If you have ever been to a meeting with more than a handful of people, would you clearly recall everything that anyone there discussed? I think not. You are simply building a circumstantial trail. Because you are apparently predisposed to dislike Kerry, you find this chain of reasoning supremely persuasive. Personally, I think the logic has a similar qualities as some of the more outlandish conspiracy theories floating around. You see what you want to see, but that does not make it fact. older≠wiser 01:55, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

STOP your wholesale deletions/reversions!

You need to STOP your wholesale deletions on the John Kerry page. This a controversial topic and you are supposed to discuss this before taking such drastic action! You are causing an edit warr and I am going to report you!

Rex071404 12:48, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You are making plenty of edits without discussion yourself. Please tone down the rhetoric and attempt to work with the rest of us. Gamaliel 21:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let's stop this whitewash

Gamliel and "Neutrality", stop this whitewashing of Kerry and the VVAW. The material is accurate, relevant and well-sourced, Your partisanship is sticking out all over the place. I can point to a dozen items in both the Bush and Kerry articles that are way less relevant than this. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What whitewash? All I attempted to do was condense a 5 paragraph ramble into some coherent form that we could all live with. Please actually look at my contributions. I wish you and Rex would actually try to work with us instead of accusing everyone of bias and then reverting. Gamaliel 21:24, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is a whitewash, you are trying to minimize and shrug off a large event, even arguing that virtually everything about it is rumor. You know this (and much of his VVAW experience) is potentially damaging to Kerry. "Condensing" is a common but lame excuse on Wikipedia for pushing POV. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:42, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please don't attribute motives to me. I "know" no such thing and do not care. I just simply do not believe the issue of a quickly rejected suggestion at meeting he may or may not have attended of an organization he quit is of any relevance, and if it must be included I believe that it surely doesn't merit as much space as the medal controversy or half his Vietnam service or whatever. Gamaliel 07:19, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I put this further explanation of Gamaliel's talk page:

As to Kerry and the VVAW and that Kansas City meeting, it is quite relevant to Kerry's article, and I'm sure Kerry and most of his supporters know it. Perhaps more important than the fact of his being at the meeting, well backed up by articles in the mainstream press and tacitly acknowledged by Kerry himself, are the possible reasons why he says he doesn't remember it.

Looking at it as a journalist, if he acknowledges being at the meeting, it opens the door for questions he would probably not want to have to answer. For example: "Did you know about the discussion to assassinate US politicians?" If he says no, the press will dig to find people who were there who can testify Kerry had heard of it. In that case (or if he acknowledges he had heard it but didn't take it seriously or whatever) the next question: "You knew there were people threatening violence who might possibly have committed it, with or without the VVAW's support. Did you tell any authorities about that? Why not?" In the post 9/11 milieu, those are questions he might not want to answer. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As to the relevance of other things in the article, the piece on Kerry's early childhood is longer and includes such incredible relevant, important (and uncheckable) material as that he cried at the age of three walking through the rubble of his mother's childhood estate, that he liked to race his back and play "kick the can", camped in Sherwood Forest, loved Scaramouche and named his boat after him. Wow. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:33, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you think that stuff doesn't belong, remove it and stop complaining about it. Gamaliel 07:19, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia, what "whitewashing"? What did I do? Neutrality 21:55, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You have participated in reverting the VVAW material to the whitewash version. Notwithstanding Kerry's participation there is no credible evidence that the meeting didn't occur or that the assassination proposal wasn't made. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:05, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of the trivial childhood stuff should go too - this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a book-length biography. Likewise, if the purpose of the VVAW detail is to encourage journalists to dig deeper, that's a strong hint that things are bordering on original research, which is also outside of our charter. WP should just refer people to links that represent the current state of journalistic digging, and leave it at that, at least until an authoritative summary is published. Stan 22:08, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The purpose is not to get reporters to dig deeper. My explanation here in talk is to demonstrate just one of the reasons this is not an insignificant issue, as proposed by several. I expect examination of Kerry's VVAW activities to be quite thorough in the press before the election without Wikipedia's help. What I want in Wikipedia is for accurate material to be presented fairly -- Cecropia | Talk 22:41, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

The reason for my reverting to the so-called "whitewash" version is that it acknowledges these claims fairly without taking as gospel everything that right-wing opinion websites put on the Internet. Type in "John Kerry"+"November 1972"+"VVAW" [2] into Google. Look at the results:

• Free Republic
• Newsmax
• Opinion Journal

And so on... Neutrality 23:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let's fairly acknowledge this event with the facts we know are true and leave the speculating to the sources above. Neutrality 22:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And so on. Opinion Journal is the Wall Street Journal, a highly respected paper if too conservative for your taste. Also the "so on" includes the Boston Globe and the Washington Post. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:50, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Really? Because I looked at the Boston Globe feature and it didn't mention this. The Washington Post didn't come up either. Please direct me to some links. Neutrality 23:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The article material is from mainstream sources. Why do liberals feel that they can curse news on the basis that it is "right wing" just because it doesn't match their taste? You don't have the right or the competence to whitewash an issue because you think it'll make right-wingers happy. That is the virtual definition of POV.

OregonMag, NY Sun, and Freepnet are not mainstream. Neutrality 23:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Opinion Journal is the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which is not quite so well-respected...at any rate, what on earth is the supposed significance of this event? That Kerry's a liar? Unless we can prove that he's a liar, this seems pointless. That he supported some monstrous proposal? Obviously he didn't. I don't think Wikipedia should provide a home for opposition research about political candidates, whether I support them or not. john k 22:57, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not-so-good events in their past? Sure, we can put it in the article. Like the break-in of the HQ of Kerry’s opponent’s in his 1972 congressional campaign. I expanded that section because it was noteworthy. Embarrassing/bad stuff deserves to be in the wiki, but dubious stuff that is ONLY in op-eds and partisan sources? Hell, no. Neutrality 23:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Inuse inappropriate

It is inappropriate to put an Inuse message in the middle of a major editing dispute. Both versions of VVAW are there now. I suggest you make no more edits, ask an admin to make the page {{Protected}} and hash out the differences in talk. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:10, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The reason for the Inuse message is my hope that we can take a break from editing and work this out without having the page protected. Neutrality 22:16, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Protection is the appropriate way to do this. After the arguments are hashed out, ask for consensus to unprotect. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:19, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For VVAW, I would be satisfied with this (see below)

Rex071404 22:35, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1971 Meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW)

File:Kerryrally.jpg

John Kerry speaks at an anti-Vietnam War rally.

From November 12-15, 1971, a VVAW meeting was held in Kansas City, Missouri. It has been reported that at that meeting, a VVAW member proposed that they should assassinate pro-Vietnam War politicians.

Some sources say that this suggestion was immediately shouted down by a large majority. Also, according to some reports, Kerry left the meeting prior to that suggestion being offered and was therefor not present to personally hear the proposal for violence.

On this subject, over the years, Kerry has at various times stated that he does not remember attending the meeting in Kansas City. He has said that his memory is that he had already resigned from the organization several months earlier, at the St. Louis meeting in July 1971.

However, the New York Sun reported in a front page article on March 12, 2004 that "Kerry's presence at this meeting has been confirmed by several witnesses, even though Senator Kerry has stated that he does not remember attending." [3]

Additionally, as late as January 26th, 1972, the New York Times was still reporting John Kerry as being "a leader of Vietnam Veterans against the War" [4]

The varying reports on this topic do not make clear precisely what the historical record is and for that reason, the readers are left to drawn their own conclusions about this.

What's with all the "some sources say"? Do any sources say the suggestion wasn't shouted down, for instance, or that the suggestion wasn't even made? If there's so much disagreement about the basic facts, why mention this at all? john k 23:00, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The ONLY disagreement is from Kerry syncophants. All the media reports do indeed say that the suggestion for violence was made. In fact, the man who offered the suggestion has conceded in recent interviews that is was indeed made.

The problem is that in the name of FALSE neutrality about this, certain pro-Kerry Wikis want this softpedaled.

The point is that something that was indisputably dangerous occured there and was admitted to by the man who said it. The only remaining question is how much wiggle room Kerry should be allowed in his denials...

Rex071404 23:22, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone dispute that the suggestion was immediately shouted down? I still don't understand why this issue is significant enough to be in an article about Kerry. Kerry might've lied about something? because obviously Kerry never has condoned the murder of politicians he disagreed with, so you surely aren't trying to tar him with guilt by association. john k 00:55, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NEW VERSION OF DISPUTED SECTION.

Take a look. I think it's quite NPOV. Neutrality 23:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fat chance, you've done nothing more than emphasize solely from a sympathetic story from Kerry's local newspaper.

Rex071404 23:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Boston Globe is not noted for its friendliness to John Kerry - in fact, it's noted for not particularly caring for him. john k 01:27, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh and you know this because you are from the Boston Area (as am I) and you've read the Globe daily for over 20 years (as do I).....?

Rex071404 01:41, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I know this because I've read total hack job stories in the Globe about Kerry, and because I've frequently read articles talking about how the Globe doesn't like Kerry very much. john k 11:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's true. I recall reading about a series of bizarre Globe accusations that Kerry was lying about not knowing he was Jewish. Gamaliel 16:32, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And are we to infer from that supposed dislike that the Boston Globe (which is owned by the New york Times Compnay) is intentionally mis-reporing facts so as to falsely smear Kerry? Let me get this straight, you are suggestiong that we can only souce pro-Kerry information links because the anti-links are presumed to be false? Get a grip, ok?

Rex071404 16:54, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Left hand formatting for medal looks better

I reversed back to the left hand side formatting from Neutrality's previous edit.

Rex071404 23:29, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I notice that Neutrality was also heavily involved in the raging dispute that caused George_W._Bush to end up being "protected"

Is that his goal here?

To be the last man standing just prior to forcing John Kerry to end up being protected here too?

Rex071404 01:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, quit it. This article should be protected. Both of you are awful. The hundreds of tiny edits strategy is intensely irritating. I was going to revert to the last stable version (or, more accurately, the last pre-you and neutrality version), but you've been at this shit forever - there've been hundreds of edits in the last week or so. Both of you ought to be kept away from this article, just based on a completely non-substantive critique of your editing styles. (And Rex's talk page style makes things all the worse for him). Sigh. john k 01:52, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I really don't think there is any equivalency here. I haven't vandalized anybody's talk page (as he has done multiple times). I also rewrote the disputed section several times, but he keeps reverting. (Sigh.) Neutrality 02:01, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I've requested page protection. Neutrality 02:04, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was trying to be scrupulously unbiased, because I agree with your POV more than I agree with Rex's. Given his behavior on talk pages, I'd say that Rex has behaved worse than you. But the hundreds of tiny edits thing is really irritating no matter who is doing it. john k 02:33, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As a maintainer of the George W. Bush page, I affirm that there was no "raging dispute". There was only a violation of consensus by VeryVerily, in response to which Neutrality acted appropriately.

As a member of the Wikipedia community, I affirm that it is against policy to discuss a user on an article talk page. Such discussions belong on the appropriate user talk page. If there is a dispute over an article, the disputed aspects of the article should be discussed. Kevin Baas | talk 02:51, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

The fact that this has been "protected" with the pro-Kerry Liberal bias versions intact is very frustrating to me

This has turned out, predictably, just as I said it would: The pro-Kerry squad has succeded in goofing things up enough to screw the rest of us out of the opporunity to present the TRUTH.

To the person/persons who "protected" this page, I challenge you to refute the truth of this:

1971 Meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW)

File:Kerryrally.jpg

John Kerry speaks at an anti-Vietnam War rally.

From November 12-15, 1971, a VVAW meeting was held in Kansas City, Missouri. It has been reported that at that meeting, a VVAW member proposed that they should assassinate pro-Vietnam War politicians.

Some sources say that this suggestion was immediately shouted down by a large majority. Also, according to some reports, Kerry left the meeting prior to that suggestion being offered and was therefor not present to personally hear the proposal for violence.

On this subject, over the years, Kerry has at various times stated that he does not remember attending the meeting in Kansas City. He has said that his memory is that he had already resigned from the organization several months earlier, at the St. Louis meeting in July 1971.

However, the New York Sun reported in a front page article on March 12, 2004 that "Kerry's presence at this meeting has been confirmed by several witnesses, even though Senator Kerry has stated that he does not remember attending." [5]

Additionally, as late as January 26th, 1972, the New York Times was still reporting John Kerry as being "a leader of Vietnam Veterans against the War" [6]

The varying reports on this topic do not make clear precisely what the historical record is and for that reason, the readers are left to drawn their own conclusions about this.

Or how about this:

The medal-tossing incident

File:Ndsm medal and ribbon.jpg

National Defense Service Medal and Ribbon issued to those who served in periods of conflict since 1950.

On April 23, 1971 John Kerry and other veterans threw their medals and ribbons over a fence at the Capitol building at Washington, D.C. in protest. The stated purpose of the demonstration was to show that this protesting group of veterans thought the war was unjust. Later on, during Kerry's political career, the varying news reports about Kerry's assertion that he did not throw his own personal ribbons that day, has caused considerable controversy.

The difference between "ribbons" and "medals" in the military is that ribbons are the small colored bars that are worn on uniforms but medals are larger ribbons with attached metal medallions that are only worn on special occasions.

On November 6, 1971, Kerry was being interviewed by a television station in Washington, D.C. where he said that he "gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine medals."

The medal-tossing incident is controversial because it ultimately turned out that Sen. Kerry does keep a display of medals at his home. If these are his original medals, then this proves that what he threw over the Capitol fence in 1971 were not his medals. Over the years, political opponents of Kerry have seized upon this incident, saying it demonstrates that Kerry is untruthful and changes his story from time to time.

Kerry contends that he has always been consistent in re-telling his version of what he did that day in protest and he also claims that he did not in fact throw his medals themselves, only his ribbons.

News accounts from the time say Kerry and other Veterans tossed a handful their medals over the fence at the US Capitol during an anti-war protest, but are not clear on exactly who threw what on an individual basis.

However, critics point to the published record as such as articles from the Boston Globe which clearly highlight that Kerry has been quoted in contradictory statements on this topic several times over the years, beginning with a WRC-TV "Viewpoints" (interview) he gave in 1971 stating he did indeed throw away his medals.

Even so, as a guest on ABC's Good Morning America TV show in April 2004, Kerry [http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-04-26-kerry-medals_x.htm denounced] this factual dispute as "...a phony controversy".

You won't even TRY to, because you KNOW THAT YOU CAN'T!

This effort has turned out like the sore loser kid who takes his ball ang goes home: You cant stand the truth, so you block other from presenting it.

As for "discuss(ing) a user on an article talk page", I tried that on Neutrality's TALK page and he kept deleting my comments.

Rex071404 03:22, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See m:The wrong version. RickK 05:23, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

If we have a Wikipedia:Civility rule aginst "incivility"...

"... behavior that causes an atmosphere of animosity, disrespect, conflict and stress...", why does Neutrality get to have the final say about John Kerry?

I find that to be VERY "stress(ful)"

Rex071404 03:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why does Neutrality get to have the final say about John Kerry?

I await an answer...

Rex071404 04:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No one gets to have the final say on article. It is a matter for consensus. However, when your edits breach the NPOV policy, which is a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia, then don't expect a great deal of sympathy for your cause. As I've stated repeatedly - regardless of our views on people, we must try to write neutral articles.

What is "neutral" about the pro-Kerry blather that Neutrality kept re-inserting without discusion?

Rex071404 04:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reading the Protected versions you posted above, it reads Neutral to me. Saying what was reported to occur, and the counter arguements, without a bias in other direction. That's the goal, right? There are two different stories out there, and both are mentioned. Lyellin 11:34, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Secondly, the way you went about contacting people on their user pages was unacceptable. Rather than attempting to discuss the issues at hand, you threatened any users who disagreed with "reporting" unless they gave in to your POV. And then, you spammed that message repeatedly on Neutrality's, and to a lesser extent my, user pages.

As for "Talk" pages errors, I am still learning, you know that I am new, don't you?

By the way, why is everyone here fixated on "process" rather than corroborated facts?

The simple truth is that the 1971 VVAW Meeting and the Medal Tossing sections I have shown above are factual, accurate and true.

If certain persons don't like the manner in which I present the verfied facts I have offered,

why don't we work together to present them in a softer tone, rather than substituting on

a wholesale basis, an entirely diffrent set of facts as Neutralitykept

doing to me.

There was NO justification for his continued deletion of my links to ABC.com, the NYT article

and others. Those are widely recognized sources reporting germanely on the topic at hand.

To delete them is, in and of itself, obvious bias.

Rex071404 04:37, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you continue to behave in this manner, you'll make filing an arbitration complaint against you vastly easier, if it comes to that. On the other hand, if you'd like to calm down, stop "SHOUTING" and discuss creating a more neutral article, be my guest. Ambivalenthysteria 04:09, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

He has harrassed me and MANY other users on talk pages. I say go for the ArbCom right away. Neutrality 04:19, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey Neutrality, please keep your false accusations OFF this page! Rex071404 04:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It would appear that Neutrality wants ArbCom now so he can get me booted in order to win the Edit War which he started! Rex071404 04:27, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Uh...yeah. Sure. Neutrality 04:27, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that I am right on this point and that you started all this trouble because you have a pro-Kerry bias.

Rex071404 05:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The both of you need to calm down, please. I'd love to help here, but I can barely make heads or tails of what has occured over the last week, because of the constant bickering and highly unreadable discussion pages here. Let's take a break, simmer, and get this organized a bit more, please. Lyellin 11:34, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

If this is a "discussion page" why am I hearing no answers to my request for comments...

... on the accuracy and tone of my suggested texts for the "Medal Toss" and "1971 VVAW" sections....?

Rex071404 04:54, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality, is this Poll acceptable under policy? I think a RfC would be a better alternative. Ambivalenthysteria 04:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're right. Go ahead and file one. I daresay they'll be plenty of users to sign off on our complaint. ;) Neutrality 04:50, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm at school at the moment, but I'll be home in an hour or so. I'll see what I can do then. I think we're going to be stuck here as long as Rex continues to attempt to add POV and conduct himself in this manner on talk pages. At that point, I think between, you, me, and Cecropia, and maybe even Rex if he calms down, we might be able to come up with a better article.

Cecropia, I just don't understand how that particular VVAW meeting section is relevant to Kerry. Of course his time in VVAW deserves attention, and probably much more than is here already. But that meeting just isn't, as far as I can see, relevant to him. With the source you provided, I'm happy to accept that he was there, but there's no evidence that he knew of the proposal, and certainly no evidence that he supported it - nor that the vast majority of his colleagues did either. Kerry has done his share of questionable things, but this seems to be an attempt at smearing through guilt-by-association. If it's not meant to imply that he supported it somehow, why is it there, and why is it relevant? Ambivalenthysteria 05:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's very relevant because Kerry has at times said that he quit VVAW because of the imprecations / plans / ideas of violence and other times he has said that he quit earlier than that. Now if he quit because of the the violent ideas, then why is there no record of him telling the police? You can't reasonably suggest that in the context of that era, in light of the then well known fact that other groups were using violence, that someone like Kerry should have just "shrugged" off the violence suggestions, can you? On the other hand, if Kerry did quit before the "violence" meeting, why was he still representing himself to the media as a VVAW leader almost a year later? (see link above to copy of NYT article). The simple truth is that this episode well serves to highlight the true fact that Kerry is indeed a professional waffler who tries to take two sides of every issue. It is right and proper that the Wiki record show the details about these two points. Indeed, we should go farther and detail how many times Kerry has changed his story about this. Are we going to be reduced to nothing but pro-Kerry syncophants simply because we know Nader can't win and some of us are not happy with GWB (aka "the shrub")?

Rex071404 05:30, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Duly noted

I suggested that this page be protected and was ignored. Neutrality even inappropriately posted an {{Inuse}} notice, and I said that protection was what was called for, and was again ignored. Now I notice that this has been protected four hours after I suggested it, and after Neutrality and others placed a biased article about the VVAW putting in everything exculpatory to Kerry.

Neutrality recently failed in his bid for sysop. We'll see if he straightens up between now and the next time someone proposes him. This does not speak well for his NPOV and mediation skills. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:35, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First of all, the {{Inuse}} notice was an attempt to try to get everyone to stop editing without resorting to page protection, not an attempt to monopolize editing. Secondly, I was the one who requested page protection for the article. Third, my edits are not biased, and I have shown a continuous willingness to compromise, apparently unrequited. Fourth, I have been harassed the entire time by Rex, who spams my talk page with insults. Fifth, I still have not been given a clear answer on what exactly what content you want to appear on the page.--Neutrality 05:45, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since I have not been actively editing, I tried to supply multiple references showing why the version that was standing was inappropriate, rather than specify my own "version." I took a lot of effort to track down sources and find the information, for which I provided references. I fully expected those who were editing, including you, to work out the corrections themselves, assuming good faith, but my work fell on deaf ears. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:54, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What, specifically, do you find unaccpetable about the version that is currently protected? We need to get into specifics, otherwise we get into semantics and circular arguments.--Neutrality 05:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please, I gave multiple references to explain why the original paragraph was inaccurate. The current material cites example after example that Kerry wasn't there, but not a word of the material indicating that he was. I don't waste my time trying to correct such obvious bias. If you are honestly incapable of seeing the one-sidedness of this, you are so POV that you don't even realize it. I can't waste my time fighting such obvious bigotry, so have a party. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:19, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Then find some material from a mainstream news source that indicates he was there. By all means, let's put all we can.--Neutrality 06:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you were truly interested in neutrality, you wouldn't need others to do your research for you. The search you cited in which you claimed found "right-wing" sources also had articles from The Washington Post, Boston Globe and Los Angeles Times. You want to control the article, you've got it. Don't insult others by trying to make them jump through your hoops. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:31, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

By the way, your comments that I am POV are ridiculous.--Neutrality 06:28, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You acknowledged your bias:

The reason for my reverting to the so-called "whitewash" version is that it acknowledges these claims fairly without taking as gospel everything that right-wing opinion websites put on the Internet. Type in "John Kerry"+"November 1972"+"VVAW" into Google. Look at the results:

• Free Republic
• Newsmax
• Opinion Journal

And so on... Neutrality 23:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You didn't look further for other citations, and your characterization of these sources as "right-wing", even if accurate, and your dismissal of them, shows your bias. Wikipedia can't include only material that passes your tests. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:35, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I seem to recall Cecropia providing proof (somewhere above) that he was actually there, though I'm not going to dig through all Rex's rants to find it. I'd still like to see a link to it, however, so it can be cited if the content is to remain. Nevertheless, I was satisfied with it.

It's pretty clear to me that the current wording of that particular section is pro-Kerry, and needs a rewrite. At the same time, Rex's version was completely unacceptable, as it all-but-suggested that Kerry implicitly supported the assassination of politicians. Personally, I think the whole section around Kerry's time in VVAW could do with a significant rewrite. Though I have to back Neutrality up in that using those far-right-wing sources to suggest that something is "fact" is unacceptable - just the same as using an extremist left-wing site would be. Ambivalenthysteria 06:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The New York Times is not considered "far-right-wing" and yet they clearly have Kerry giving them a quote in an article which identifies Kerry a VVAW leader still on Jan. 26th, 1972. If Kerry was so keen on disassociating himseld from VVAW, you'd think he would have made sure the reporter knew of whatever his new affiliations were... Rex071404 05:17, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Whatever Rex does, *I* don't use right-wing sources. Neutrality's error is that he impeaches an entire subject area because sources he disapproves of have covered it--i.e., if that source says its true, it can't be true, and Neutrality stops looking. If I am researching a subject and come up with material from a doubtful source (rightist, leftist, or other biased) I look to see if the same material is in respected sources. If it isn't I don't use it. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:50, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you !

At last, a voice of reason!

Rex071404 05:38, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

POLL

All right now. Let's have an informal poll see if they's some way we can stop this before I go completely insane. Here's how it works. Submit what you think shoud be the content of the disputed section in a sub-talk page so we can get a rough estimate of where the consensus is. (A sub-talk page is like this: Talk:John Kerry/Sample.) Neutrality 06:15, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality's version

(John Kerry/Neutrality)

1. Neutrality 06:15, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Remove section entirely

1. Gzornenplatz 06:32, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
2. Gamaliel 07:30, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3. john k 11:46, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Return to my versions

1. Rex071404 16:55, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. Buster 05:57, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Comment

• Differences of opinion or emphasis is made by consensus. Fact is not determined that way. A consensus of pro-Kerry people is useless. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • So you are suggesting that it is impossible to determine fact in this case, no?--Neutrality 06:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Mainstream newspapers have reported this, citing the FBI reports that say he was there, with detail, they quote people who recall him there, and those who don't. This is what we report. Consensus does not meanthat you take what was reported, decide what you think (or want) to be the truth, and then quote only the sources you (or your consensus) think are "true." -- Cecropia | Talk 07:18, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Consensus has its limits, but surely there are important questions of emphasis here. How else are we to resolve them? I agree with your (Cecropia's) suggestion that Kerry's childhood bicycle riding, though an apparently undisputed fact, is trivial and should be deleted. The Kansas City meeting shouldn't be deleted completely, but it's not nearly important enough to justify the space allocated to it in the current version. (I personally served on a nonprofit organization's governing board in the early 1970s. I could not now tell you when I became a board member or when I ceased to be one. Still less could I say with any confidence exactly which meetings I did or didn't attend during my membership. Kerry's imperfect memory about such things doesn't deserve the same amount of space as the whole Iran-contra discussion, which is approximately what the current version gives it.) JamesMLane 06:46, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • If that non-profit agency had been the key to your rise to political power, if you had strong disagreements with what they were doing, and if the meeting in question was one where you resigned including an argumentative disagreement with another member of the board, do you think you would remember the meeting? -- Cecropia | Talk 07:22, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I would remember the substance of the disagreement that had prompted my resignation. If there were multiple meetings, though, I wouldn't necessarily remember, three decades later, the exact date and location of that one. I also don't agree with the analogy (in one of your comments above) to Bush: "Bush is called on much smaller things (the never-ending flap over the National Guard details)." The difference is that whether Bush fulfilled his legal obligation is intrinsically important. That Kerry was active in VVAW is intrinsically important. Whether Kerry was at the Kansas City meeting is not intrinsically important. It's being hyped as casting doubt on his credibility because he says he doesn't remember. I just read the article on George W. Bush military service controversy -- which, I note, is separate from the main George W. Bush article. That article analyzes the evidence about Bush's service or lack thereof, but doesn't try to make a federal case out of his alleged failure to remember details from the early 1970s. If you think the two candidates should be treated identically, then all this stuff should be removed from the John Kerry article, leaving behind only a cross-reference. ("Questions about his VVAW activities have been raised. See John Kerry VVAW controversy for a full discussion.") That new article would confine itself to the facts without trying to flail Kerry over his allegedly incomplete or inconsistent statements. Maybe we could all agree on that approach as a basis for unprotecting the page? JamesMLane 09:18, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • The major fact of importance about the 1971 VVAW meeting is that Kerry has changed his story about it so many times. Do you dispute that Kerry has gone on record (as proved by our links) with multiple versions of both the Medals story and the VVAW story? Don't you find it odd, that on both of the points; Medals and VVAW MTG, the pro-Kerry crowd is adamant to hide the fact that Kerry has kept changing his story? The simple reason they want to hide this fact, is because it does what they don't want: It highlights that Kerry is trying to hide something or that he is worried that he'll lose votes if the truth comes out. Rex071404 07:05, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I haven't checked any references about what Kerry said when. Assuming for the sake of the argument that you're correct that Kerry has made inconsistent statements on this "issue," the point of my comment above, which you don't address, is that it's not the kind of thing that the average person would have a firm, clear recollection about. Therefore, the information that Kerry didn't remember it at this level of detail is about as noteworthy as the report of his childhood fondness for cycling. JamesMLane 07:27, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • The point here, James, is exactly that. Impressive things happened at that meeting, and Kerry does not categorically say he wasn't there. He says he doesn't "remember." This is a lawyer's answer, straight out of Nixon's playbook ("you can say you don't remember, you can't recall"). You can't perjure yourself by saying you don't remember. It happens I was at the VVAW march in DC in 1971 (the medal-throwing one). I remember quite a few details, including things said about Kerry by some of the other vets, including some told to my friend and I about Kerry when we took a couple of other vets we met to College Park, MD (we had a car,most didn't) for dinner. What I don't remember is what hotel I stayed at or exactly why I was in DC. I recall I had some business I had to do there, but don't recall what it was. You remember the impressive things. -- Cecropia | Talk 07:36, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree that you remember the impressive things. In my experience, however, to attend a left-wing meeting in the 1970s and hear some idiot make a completely whacked-out speech (usually with great fervor) was not impressive. It was pretty much par for the course. According to one of Rex's comments above, Kerry has stated that one reason he left VVAW was the discussions of violent action. If a lone extremist at the Kansas City meeting had suggested assassinating senators, and been immediately shouted down, then, even assuming that Kerry was at that meeting and attended that session of the meeting, I wouldn't expect him to remember it. I'd expect something along the lines of "I attended a lot of meetings and overall there was more talk about violence than I was comfortable with." I would not expect him to remember exactly which meetings included exactly which crazy statements. From what I've read here, it sounds like this "proposal" was one nutjob's comment, which was immediately shouted down, so it certainly wasn't the subject of any serious consideration, i.e., no debate that would make it stick in anyone's mind.

Now, having reread the current version of the VVAW section more closely, I must expand my previous criticism of it. I still think that it's unfair to Kerry in the attention it pays to these quibbles about details. I now add that it's also unfair to Kerry's opponents in that it ignores the serious issues dating from that era that reverberate today. It should include something along these lines: "Many Vietnam veterans deeply resented the VVAW's activities, feeling that their own military service was being attacked or cheapened. Enough of this resentment lingered in 2004 to motivate some veterans into active opposition to Kerry's campaign." From what I've read, that's true, and this kind of disagreement over fundamental policy issues has more political importance than the trivia covered at such length here. JamesMLane 08:37, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am surprised at the facile reasoning being employed here. The KEY to understanding why Kerry's equivocations on WHEN he quit VVAW is to understand the mood of the anti-war people at the time these events took place. It's clear listening to you, that none of you have any personal recollection off the mood of the country at the time. I can tell you for an absolute certainty: People WERE fearful of the violence that certain anti-war/other radicals were committing around the country. Need I remind you of a) Chicago Riots b) Riots after MLK was killed c) Large protests in the street, nationwide. d) The anti-war crowd camping out on the Mall in DC - so many that Nixon himself went out tin the middle of them night to talk with them e) The Weathermen bombing things around the country. These things CAPTIVATED the daily dialog of millions of Americans. I know it from personal experience - things like this were of constant discussion at my home. In fact, my family specifically moved from LA to Boston in 1969 because of there oppressive fear that the country was cracking up. There is NO WAY that a smart, educated anti-war leader such as Kerry, would have been oblivious to the highly distressed mood of the country. Form him to claim that he has no recollection is farcical! Do two time lines: One with the dates and events and below that, one with Kerry's various claims about his mindset towards VVAW. Even according to this page (and your various comments), Kerry supposedly quit July 71, because of the rising foul and aggressive mood of VVAW. If this is true, are you going to tell me that he NEVER heard through the grapevine about the suggestions made in Nov 71 about killings? Har! That's laughable! And in fact, the evidence we have from the New York Times, clearly shows that Kerry did NOT quit in July 71. In fact, more than 6 months after that, in January 72 and EVEN AFTER, Kerry was still doing interviews (see newspaper quotes at link which follows below) where he was identifying himself as a leader of VVVAW. In my view, the refusal of certain commenters and editors to review all the available evidence pertaining to the time line of events, allows you to make the sleepy-eyed conclusion that 'it's no big deal'. Listen to yourselves talking about a "lone extremist" - you sound like the whitewash that came out of the Warren Commission. No one here is saying that Kerry was in favor of or personally suggested violence, but the only evidence in the public record (except for Kerry's conflicting denials) clearly indicate that the preponderance of the evidence points more to him being there than not. What more do you want for a standard of proof? If you insist on more for these points about Kerry, they you are going to have to keep this page "protected forever because this disagreement is not going away. How dare you make more proof be required on this point, when in the section about Kerry's puny FOUR MONTH tour of duty as a Swift Boat Commander, you keep deleting the fact that it was only FOUR MONTHS after arriving in country that he bugged out for USA. There are MANY other vets from humbler origins than Kerry who did NOT win an cushy billet on a swift boat and had MUCH harder time getting the easy release from the war zone that he did. You people amaze me! Everyone remembers the BIG STINK that was made in the news back in '92 about how George Bush Sr. was rescued by a sub because of his father's connections, but you all seem to want to ignore that such a thing could have helped Kerry get out early too. How may multiple wounds Vietnam Veterans have you personally met and discussed this concept with? I have met and discussed this with several. Please do a better job of familiarizing yourself with the topics! Your incredibly willingness to interpret all data favorably towards Kerry is shocking to me and it's certainly NOT NPOV. NPOV requires RIGOROUS commitment to intellectual honesty. It requires that all logic trains be examined ad weighed. You are not doing this! You are simply leaping to conclusions based on suppositions! This discussion is immensely frustrating to me because I can't imagine why you a fighting so hard to keep out things that may raise doubt about Kerry unless you are rooting for him to win to such a degree that you are intentionally being biased. If you want a higher standard of proof for the 71 VVAW MTG and the Medal Toss than the clear proof we have already offered, that must mean that you are inviting me to apply that same higher standard to the other sections of John Kerrry which read like a Kerry campaign brochure. So lets start chopping those out radically as you've done to my sample posts above! It is obvious as the nose on your face that the reason Kerry has changed his story about these two points and the reason that Kerry does not was the puny time line of four months well known, is that taken together, one clearly sees thet crass, self-serving nature of one who was bent taking the political path even since school - see your own BIO details of him! It is utter naivete to suggest that all these "coincidences" are just that. Kerry just happened to "forget". Kerry himself just happens to be the only one we should believe about the time lines involved. Kerry just happended to keep changing his story over time. It was all an accident. There is no possibility (or is there?...) that Kerry has been a scheming grasper all his life, who having beeen raised on the periphery of big money and power, has beeen lusting for it all his life. And of course, since we won't allow ourselves to look at the evidence from this premise, then of course we cannot see how true it is and therein understand WHY Kerry has been beating around the bush on these points. They are his Achilles heel and the pro-Kerry supporters on this page know it! If the public becomes aware of the crass opporunitism Kerry has evinced all his life, then the entire rational of his sales pitch of: "me big war hero" goes 'poof'. Oh I see, he was only in Vietnam for four months... And he got out early as a consequence of (3) purple hearts earned for scratches. But he just happned to have his film crew over there with him to get that shot with the fatigues, helmet and M16. There was no pre-planning going on here. No family connections helped him get the easy Swift Boat billet (rather than say a Forward Firing Base commander where the casualty rate was VERY high). In fact, you've now convinced me Kerry is so wonderful, with his purple hearts, he can just pull a solution to the 30 year old (think Munich Olympics, downfall of Shah, etc.) Radical Islam problem right out of his ass! Will you PLEASE STUDY the information linked to on this page: (link)

Rex071404 15:18, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• I would support a compromise version of no more than, say, 1 or 2 short paragraphs. Gamaliel 07:30, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• I think it is sad that this debate is going on, so forcefully, and so dramatically, and I'd like to help. First off, my bias. I'm a Kerry supporter. My second bias. I happen to love the idea of a NPOV Wikipedia. SO, with that in mind, let's consider options. There is obviously a strong dispute over the accuracy of the sections, and also, and I believe more importantly, how much attention they should recieve. I don't believe either of these issues deserve equal recognition to say, the Iran-Contra issue, which is one of already high importance. On the other hand, I definetly believe they need to be mentioned in the John Kerry article in some way. JamesMLane suggusted it above, and I think that perhaps a good idea would be to create a seperate page, where both sides can be discussed, in as much detail as possible, without cluttering up the Main John Kerry page. In this way, the dispute is moved to a page, acknowledging that there is a dispute, and it also allows the John Kerry page to show relative importance of events. Lyellin 11:48, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

I say NO! to a separate page for this controversy - Pro-Kerry material must be subject to the same ruthless edits, or this stuff stays in too! =

What say you to that? Rex071404 15:37, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's reasonable to urge that all edits, whether favorable or unfavorable to Kerry, be subjected to the same standard. It's not particularly helpful, however, to present such a truism in a form that suggests an implied threat, and in boldface no less. (Sidenote: It's also not helpful to charge that another contributor is "feign[ing] confusion.") As to the substance of your comment: The "ruthless" standard that I've been applying is that of significance. The article shouldn't try to report all the details of every brickbat (or of every compliment) that's been thrown Kerry's way. As I pointed out, the current version devotes approximately equal space to these two topics: (1) whether a 27-year-old John Kerry attended a particular meeting (when his significant and undisputed association with VVAW is covered elsewhere in the article); and (2) the investigative actions of U.S. Senator Kerry that brought to public attention the Iran-contra affair and, as an offshoot, played a role in the shutdown of BCCI. Applying a neutral standard to these two points, I conclude that the second is far more important than the first. For fairness between Presidential candidates, I'll add that was-Kerry-in-KC is less important than was-Bush-in-Alabama, but if the current version were to stand, Wikipedia would be giving significantly more coverage to the criticism of Kerry than to the criticism of Bush. JamesMLane 16:10, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have posted above, detailed suggestions and asked for comments about facts and tone...

Why do you all continue to refuse to respond???

Rex071404 06:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Request for Comment

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rex071404.

I initiated the "Rfc" because I was frustrated with the wholesale reversions be done on John Kerry by certain pro-Kerry editors.

Rex071404 17:03, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Needs editing.

There is no follow through here about Kerry killing the viet cong. It goes from his crew mate shooting him in the leg, to Kerry and Medeiros finding the corpse, to two paragraphs later mentioning passingly Kerry's killing him.

The normal procedure that would have usually have been done was to fire to shore and then flee. But Kerry ordered him Sandusky, the second-in-command and navigator, to take the boat ashore, directly into an ambush. Whether this was bravery, foolhardiness, or some combination of both is in dispute, but the facts are clear; once on land, a teenager in a loincloth jumped out of the bush, carrying a powerful grenade launcher that could have destroyed the boat. Only feet away from Kerry and the crew, forward gunner Tommy Belodeau shot the enemy in the leg with the the boat's M-60 machine gun. "Tommy in the pit tank winged him in the side of the legs as he was coming across," Short said. "But the guy didn't miss stride. I mean, he did not break stride." According to crewmate accounts, Belodeau's gun jammed after he fired, and while fellow crewmate Michael Medeiros attempted to fire, he was unable to do so.

Kerry, with Medeiros searched the soldier's corpse and took the rocket launcher, returning to the boat. Kerry's supervisors joked that they didn't know whether to court-martial him for beaching the boat without orders or give him a medal for saving the crew. They settled on the latter, and Kerry won the Silver Star.

This incident was a defining moment in Kerry's life; he does not usually talk about it in the media. In one of the very few quotes about what happened in the press, Kerry said that "It is a matter of record, what I did in Vietnam. And over the months that I was in combat, yes, we know that we were responsible for the loss of enemy lives. But that's war." Sources close to Kerry said the incident had a profound effect on Kerry:

"It's the reason he gets so angry when his patriotism is challenged. It was a traumatic experience that's still with him, and he went through it for his country." It affects the way Kerry lives his life every day, the source said, since "he knows he very well would not be alive today had he not taken the life of another man [he] never ever met."[2] (http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml#audio)

Kerry even told his daughter Vanessa that the man he killed had fled; she did not find out the truth until she was an adult. --Mt2131 09:46, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good point, definitely seems like there's a gap there. A related nitpick: do you really need to search a corpse to find a rocket launcher? Gamaliel 15:11, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You do search corpses for empty roecket launchers if you are a phoney opportunist who expects to be going home real soon and you are trophy hunting...

Rex071404 15:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, just shut up. It's obvious that your agenda here is not to create a good encyclopedia article, but to spread right wing talking points about John Kerry. john k 16:16, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you k for telling me to shut up. It is refreshing to be on the receiving end of your comments. You are indeed a model of compassion and good-neighborliness. Bless you!

Rex071404 16:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm still confused - why is this whole Kansas City thing significant enough to merit discussion (it IS - Please READ this whole page!) ?

This Kansas City meeting thing has me completely confused. Even if it is true that Kerry was at the meeting, later said he wasn't, and then, after being informed of FBI records that said he was there (BTW, the Boston Globe article merely cites someone else as saying they found FBI Records, not the records themselves), he said that he didn't remember being there, what is the significance of this? As JamesMLane (I think) has noted, Kerry has said that he quit the VVAW because it was getting radicalized, and there were too many calls for violence, and so forth. So, why, exactly, is the simplest explanation here that Kerry lied about it? What on earth would be the reason for lying about it, when he's already said that he quit the organization because of the very thing that happened at this meeting that he supposedly doesn't remember being at?

That is to say, the entire purpose of having this material in here is not to report in an NPOV manner. It's to insinuate that Kerry was in favor of violence against politicians in the 70s (when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest this), and to insinuate that Kerry is a greasy liar (which this story, imo, provides little evidence of - could somebody actually provide a direct cite of the FBI stuff, btw? But even if it's true he was there, I'm uncertain why that means he's a liar - there were two meetings in big cities in Missouri within a few months of each other. Even other people who attended the meeting seem to be confused about it in the Globe report).

As such, I don't see why this stuff has any place in this article. Why not just say that Kerry quit the VVAW because it was becoming radicalized, with some members advocating violence? This would be an accurate statement, and would convey a fact of actual importance. john k 12:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You would not be confused if you would stop ignoring the elephant in the livingroom which is the CONTEXT of the times when these things occured, combined with the mood of the country being different today, explains WHY Kerry keeps changing his story on these points. The important issue here is that Kerry has continually changed his story so as to hide his flaws and present a more favorable image... and even perhaps to assuage a guilty conscience. After all, where there is smoke, there is fire. I have addressed your concerns exhaustively above. Please FULLY read all comments before continuing to feign confusion. Thank you!

Rex071404 15:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What flaw is Kerry hiding here? He says he quit VVAW when they got too radical. How is this contradicted by this story? john k 15:54, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This Kansas stuff is much ado about nothing. John K is quite correct. I think some people should remember that this is supposed to be an NPOV encylopaedia, not a biased agenda-pushing part of the Bush campaign. FearÉIREANN 16:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of course it can't be part of the Bush campaign, because it's already part of the Kerry campaign...

Rex071404 16:59, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The problem again in a nutshell...

How do you expect a full spectrum of people to want to participate in (or even read) this Wiki if all the long-timers do is leap to conclusions about how to hound new people who disagree with them into leaving?...

Before you leap to conclusions about revelance, please lay out some criteria for measuring it. If not, you are just giving us your opinion. That is how we arrived at paragraph after paragraph of glowing BIO information about Kerry.

But everyone is jumping on me for drawing attention to the FACT that Kerry keeps changing his story about notable episodes in the timeline of his life. So them since some off you still don't get it, here it is again:

For a Presidential Candidate (Kerry) whose whole raison d'etre in this race is to save USA from (as Kerry tells us, ad nauseum) the "lies" of GWB, the fact that Kerry has a verifiable track record of changing his story about controverial issues is very germane to the current situation in America.

If people want glossed over BIO's, let them go to CNN or WAPO. People come to the Internet for better control over their information flow.

What good is it if you people keep censoring it?

Rex071404 20:52, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, the "problem" is that you choose to infer the worst possible motives from any inconsistencies in Kerry's record, then assert the criticism as incontrovertible truth, and dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as being a "Kerry sycophant" or of whitewashing your self-proclaimed truth. Should the inconsistencies be mentioned? Certainly, if they are substantive. But different conclusions can be drawn from such inconsistenicies and we need to clearly distinguish between speculative conclusions and bare facts. older≠wiser 21:04, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What about the link to ABC News and NY Times stories? Both of those sources confirm a set of facts that is different from what Kerry tells us is so... Alos, if my writing style offends you, why don't YOU write the new blurb, but this time INCLUDE the links to the articles which the others kept deleting out from under me....?

Oh and by the way, it's only your supposition that I choose to infer the "worst". As a matter of fact, by proclaiming my view to be the "worst" you betray your BIAS that anyone who highlights Kerry faults is somehow bad or wrong. What if it turns out that I am right about Kerry... that he has changed his story - that he is covering up for a guilty conscience, then what? Is it still the "worst" to believe something that's true?

Additionally, I can turn your comment around and ask, why is it that YOU prefer to believe the "best" about Kerry. Credulity does not impress me as a hallmark of a good editor. Frankly, if you can't see the glowing pro-Kerry tone of the total article, you are not very perceptive.

Not only that, but the disputed sections: 'Medal-Toss' and '1971 VVAW MTG', in the forms they stand now, are extrremely tilted in favor of Kerry. In particular, the VVAW secion is so chopped and convoluted in it's strain to only allow in quotes that help Kerry, that it's farcical.

You do see that, don't you?

Rex071404 21:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How has Kerry "kept changing his stories" re: the Kansas City meeting? He always said he wasn't there. After evidence was presented which suggested that he was there, he then states that perhaps he was, but he didn't remember it. That look to me like a single change of story. john k 23:54, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your question betrays an ignorance of the basic facts. Even a simple web search on the topic reveals a great deal of verified information. You may want to begin your research at this [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1107001/posts blog], which has many excellent external links on this VVAW topic. Bear in mind that much off the commentary from the bloggers is shrill and over the top, but many off the links are quit good. You have a choice here, you can stick your head in the sand, or you can read up more on the matter. Perhaps this simple WSJ link is enough to open your eyes.

Suffice it to say, Kerry has NOT "always said" he wasn't there.

And some reports have stated that Kerry is still [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37577 in communication] with the very same man who originally suggested that Us Politicians be killed.

Rex071404 02:09, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I see little in these links other than an "echo box" effect of shrill partisan defamation through repeating half-truths, and second- and third-hand reports of recollections of decades-old events. And yes, there is a similar effect on the other side as well. What we need are the bare facts without partisan spin from either side. Then, MAYBE, it might be possible to actually ascertain relevance. About all that is really clear is that there is considerable controversy about precisely what happened. I don't deny that Kerry has said different things about both the medal-throwing incident and the VVAW meeting at different times. However, I still do not see what the big deal is (and yes I have been following the discussion on this entire page). Most politicians at the national level dance a carefully choreographed dance in and around the truth, so that really shouldn't surprise anyone. Did Kerry actually do anything worth such condemnation? Not that I have seen. His "crimes", as I see it, are 1) that he felt passionately about the war (like a very great many of us at the time) and was somewhat willingly duped with the Winter Soldier testimony for which many vets and pro-war sympathizers continue to hold a deep resentment toward him; 2) that as part of his anti-war passion, he assumed a leadership role in the VVAW, and although at some point he realized that the leadership was going in directions he did not agree with and resigned, he did not fully repudiate all aspects of the organization (a subtle distinction that is apparently lost on snipers looking to tar Kerry with any loony idea ever concocted by anyone ever associated with the organization); 3) that he has been somewhat disingenuous about the medal-tossing incident (but really, what happened that was so bad?). I'm sure there are probably many other "crimes" that the right-wing would like to hold Kerry accountable for in their insular courts of unreasoning ill-will, but I'm tired now.

older≠wiser 03:28, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You are broadcasting credulity here when you say this: "although at some point he realized...". If that is true that Kerry "realized" something about the new, violent bent of VVAW, why the heck is he today still [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37577 in communication] with Camil, the man who advanced the suggestion about killing politicians?

Other than Kerry saying so (which he has NOT done), what evidence is there that Kerry's belated break from VVAW in mid 1972 was anything other than a career move? Where is the evidence of a "realization"? Your bald face assertion is all that there is.

Quite the opposite, the reason cited by Kerry's web site as to why he left VVAW is this exact quote: "Although Kerry was a leader of the VVAW, he eventually left it after concluding that the most effective way to oppose the war was to run for public office...". Quote source here

Frankly, you are duping yourself if you think the record supports the simplistic view of this issue which you are offering.

Rex071404 04:29, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Although I dislike responding to archived discussions--this exchange happened only yesterday and I do want to reply to Rex. So what if I am "broadcasting credulity"? We have a principle in this country of innocent until proven guilty and you have presented nothing of any actual substance to prove anything--simply a long chain of circumstantial evidence and insular reasoning fueled by hatred. So what if Kerry's decision to leave VVAW was influenced by his ambition for elected office. Is that a crime? You continue to simply assume the worst possible interpretation based on your personal biases. And you are attempting to "dupe" everyone by asserting the record comes anywhere near certainty regarding the allegations you make. older≠wiser 14:04, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about we have a page where we can post sample re-writes on the disputed (2) sections?

Earlier, one of the commenters, said this:

"*I would support a compromise version of no more than, say, 1 or 2 short paragraphs.

Gamaliel 07:30, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)"

Those persons who object to my writing style, I challenge them to re-write samples which reference the ABC News and NY Times facts, but with their own personal tone. Who is up to this challenge?

Rex071404 21:31, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The edit history will show that I attempted several versions of a 1-2 paragraph condensed account of the VVAW issue. It was those attempts that prompted you to shout all over my talk page that I was guilty of "pro-Kerry censorship" and accused me of wanting to start an edit war. So you'll excuse me if I don't make that attempt again and I doubt your shrill accusations will encourage anyone else to do so either. Gamaliel 04:24, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since, as you state above, you have quit trying to help here, why don't you abandon particpation on John Kerry and leave the resolution to others. Also, since you have quit, I now adopt the view that all your comments on this topic are vitiated by your act of quitting and no longer will I see them as having any merit. Please let me know when you have un-quit, so I can stop ignoring you.

Rex071404 04:35, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I'm back now. Gamaliel 04:38, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Back how? Did you un-quit? Rex071404 04:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ok everybody, even the current VVAW web site seems to strongly imply that Kerry did NOT quit in July, 1971

In fact, the VVAW themselves could be properly interpreted to back up PRECISELY what I have been saying which is: Kerry was still active with VVAW sometime into 1972.

FYI: Read this!

Rex071404 02:25, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Only if you are predisposed to "properly interpret" it to back up your own POV. All it says is "By 1972, John Kerry had moved on from VVAW". That proves nothing. Gamaliel 04:26, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As I said, the trouble with this issue is you pro-Kerry people want confessions from Kerry himself - written in blood - or else you disregard it.

You can be sure that the current people at VVAW are well aware of this issue with Kerry. If it were true that he quit in July 1971 and if it were true that he did not attend the Nov. 1971 meeting, there is no reason that VVAW would withhold that information from their website.

The fact that they are vague about this and instead only allude to 1972 is perfect cover for Kerry and in perfect harmony with VVAW's stated goal of "anybody but Bush".

Again I say it, the editors of the Kerry page seem to have pro-Kerry credulity as their watch word. If Kerry or his people or friends say it, you believe it!

By the way, using your logic (that the end date on VVAW has no meaning), it would be equally true to say "By 2004, John Kerry had moved on from VVAW".

Rex071404 04:44, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I still don't see the relevance of when Kerry quit the VVAW, other than it seems to be the keystone of your conspiracy theory. He may not remember when he quit; it was, after all, 30 years ago. The NY Times article proves nothing, as it's a tangental reference to his belonging to that organization. The article isn't about him, I doubt the fact checker lingered on that point for too long, if at all, and he didn't resign to the NY times anyway. He may not have even resigned; I've drifted out of plenty of organizations without quitting.

In any case, the VVAW FAQ clearly wasn't written by someone with 30 years of VVAW minutes at their fingertips, as it references multiple outside histories. But you attribute sinister motives to them as you do to everyone else with whom you disagree, apparently.

In the end, all it says is as of 1972, he was no longer a member. Which is what we already knew. Congratulations on proving that. Gamaliel 04:52, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am amazed by your reasoning process in that you only accept as valid evidence, proactive, direct affirmations of a definate nature. You don't honestly think that such data elements are the only components off the acqusition of knowledge, do you?

You know, when the INS intercepts illegal immigrants in the AZ desert, they do so primarily by tracking their footprints. This is analogous to drawing inferences based on clear indicators and that is precisely what you are showing yourself as being unable/unwilling to do in this case.

With your logic, unless we visually see the illegal immigrant right in front of us, we can't intercept him - even if his footprints in the sand clearly show him to be 50 yards up the road, hiding behind a rock. According to you, we can't visually see him, so he must not be there!

Rex071404 05:04, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If anyone is still reading this, perhaps we should add the time and reasons for Kerry's leaving the VVAW to the section on anti-war activism and make the meeting a seperate issue to be addressed (or not) on its own. Linking the two issues seems to be key to the Rex/Cercopia conspiracy theory, and perhaps unlinking them will bring us closer to NPOV. Gamaliel 04:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand what the purpose of that would be - indeed, I think it would have the effect of highlighting the conspiracy theory. The only NPOV justification, in my opinion, for any mention of this at all is exploring the circumstances of his departure from VVAW, in what probably should be a significantly expanded section on VVAW in general. Ambivalenthysteria 05:02, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I should have reread the article first, I though the section on anti-war activism was much bigger than it actually is in this version. Aside from the medals and the meeting controversies, it's one or two sentences. This needs to be vastly expanded and his reasons for leaving the VVAW can be dealt with there. Gamaliel 05:16, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I object to the term "conspiracy theory"

The contention is misrepresentation by Kerry, I am not asking that we state Kerry was a member of a conspiracy. All of you know this to be true, so stop mis-summarizing the issue. Rex071404 05:06, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of course this stuff make Kerry look bad, because it is bad! Tossing your medals away and lying about it makes you a fraud. Knowingly associating with persons planning a crime makes you a conspirator or at the very least, an accessory. - Rex071404 16:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh what a neat trick! One of the super-users on this page was able to insert the above quote without their name appearing in the history log! Oh neato! Do you have x-ray vision glasses too?

If not, it matters not to me that you are too meek to put your name on your posting, I will still address this point:

I did make the above comment, but it also is true. However, if you bothered to review the history of John Kerry itself, you would notice that, in the interest of NPOV, I did not use such harsh language there.

However, on this page, where we are discussing our views (hence the title "discussion" at the top of the page), I am supposed to have more liberty to try to pursuade you so as to reach a consensus.

My, my, my, how the hidden snipers like to mock the newcomers so as to cow them into silence when they don't agree.

I await your next sneaky trick...

Rex071404 05:31, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sneaky trick? I simply pointed out two contradicting statements. And as with any other edit, my name appears in the history. There just wasn't much point signing it when all I was doing was quoting you. Ambivalenthysteria 05:38, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is no contradiction except in your own limited mind. The record clearly shows that I DID NOT try to use the word "conspiracy" or any derivative of it on the John Kerry page. As for why your name did not show in the revisions list, I cannot say, perhaps I refreshed just before you posted. even so, you should sign your handi-work.

Also, while we are at it, why don't we add a section detailing Kerry's known current associations with a convicted child molester as well as his interest in feigning marijuana use. Read all about it and see the photo catching him in the act just a few months ago,here.

Since you want to be such a mocker, I thought I give you something else to mock about... Rex071404 05:46, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, you just implied a conspiracy, and proved on the talk page that that was what you believed, which suggests that the implication was intentional. And...just a tip... if you want any claims to be taken seriously, you might want to quote neutral sources. Ambivalenthysteria 05:52, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The fact you are criticizing me for what I believe, rather than focusing on what we can agree to publish on the John Kerry page, clearly highlights what the problem here is: Editors of your methodology are chomping at the bit to fight people who believe differently than them.

Frankly, that smacks of bigotry to me. You aren't a bigot, are you?

If not, BACK OFF from probing my beliefs, and let's focus on getting agreement on NPOV VVAW and Medal Toss statements for John Kerry so this protracted dispute can end.

That said, while you may think that I inferred "conspiracy" by Kerry (I don't feel that I did) in the published VVAW section, unless you want to ignore the truth, you would have to admit that I DID NOT use that word, nor any derivative of or synonym for it in my editing on that page.

Rex071404 06:03, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not criticising you for what you believe, and I will not back off, nor am I interested in fighting people. If I'm so keen to get rid of you because of your views, why am I still on entirely civil terms with Cecropia, who holds exactly the same views on this article as you do? Perhaps that should give you a bit of a hint.

I did not say that you used the word "conspiracy", nor any synonyms, in the text. I said that your version implied a view which was matched exactly by your statements on the talk page. Ambivalenthysteria 06:09, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Again you are fixated on the "mental purity" aspect. I will not allow you to infer that your "inner neutrality" is more pure than mine. If you think my feelings are strong so be it. But DON'T try to imply that you are above the fray and have no feelings on this topic.

And again I will say, unless you are a bigot, what I think and how I feel is not for you to impugn, so BACK OFF about what my "view" may or may not be.

The ONLY thing at issue here, if we are truly aiming for consensus, is to answer this question: What is a text we can agree upon to publish on the John Kerry page. Anything else between us is ad hominem attack claptrap and out off this page.

Why do you keep prying at my beliefs? Again I say to you: BACK OFF! Rex071404 06:24, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You aren't a bigot, are you?

It's exactly this sort of offensive behavior that so many of us find objectionable. We don't care what you believe about Kerry; we do care that you choose to express those beliefs by shouting at people and insulting them. You should apologize to Ambivalenthysteria for this insult and quit spamming multiple talk pages with your nonsense. Unless you are more interested in scoring cheap partisan points than cooperating on an NPOV article. Gamaliel 06:17, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No apology is warranted. That was a bona fide question, on which he has failed to answer. In my view, it is bigoted to pry at anothers personal beliefs and that is exactly what that person is doing. If anyone should be apologizing it's him for his snide insinuations of superiority. Even so, if that fellow's feeling are hurt, I am sure he can speak for himself - so you ought to not be taking sides Rex071404 06:27, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And Gamaliel, aren't you the hypocrite for characterizing my efforts as "nonsense". I guess by your standards, you are entitled to insult people, but woe to others if they offend... Rex071404 06:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)