Will Beback's passive-aggressive approach, and Cberlet, just plain aggressive Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Get a load of this. Note how deftly Will avoids addressing the actual issue at hand.

[Merzbow]

Honestly that whole argument about that single paragraph seemed kind of pointless to me. As I made clear on the page I thought that it was already clear enough the views were King's, because the surrounding text was already scattered with "according to King" and the like. The rewrite I proposed is basically a copyedit for precision and clarity; hopefully it will get approved.

Although I am on the opposite side of the political spectrum from Chip on most issues, his published writings on LaRouche appear mostly accurate to me, and I don't see a conflict in him adding his own published stuff. Note how I say "published", not "self-published". I've spoken against other editors who try to cite their own blog posts in Wikipedia, for example; unfortunately I was ignored. This probably stems from the fact that people who do police the orthodox viewpoint on controversial issues do get cut more slack. This is probably the way it should be, since otherwise stuff like the 9/11 article space would just get devastated by those who can't get their fringe views published elsewhere; but everybody has one "orthodox" viewpoint somewhere that they take issue with, and it is painful to see slack cut there to the "other side"...

This post has been edited by Merzbow: Sat 5th April 2008, 1:01am