Talk:John Kerry/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

New archive added 08.11.04 Rex071404 01:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've archived everything up to the 5th, b/c this was just getting too long. Feel free to refer to items in the archive if you like, but it appears most of the things there have been resolve, I hope. — マイケル ₪ 17:54, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

(Alleged) defamation of Cameron Kerry and Thomas Vallely

Until Rex showed up today, our account of the 1972 campaign incident reported the facts: “Kerry's younger brother Cameron and campaign field director Thomas J. Vallely, both then 22 years old, were found in the basement, where telephone lines were located. They were arrested and charged with "breaking and entering with the intent to commit grand larceny," but the case was dismissed about a year later by superior court.” When I checked the history today, it so happened that, of Rex’s 30 or so edits, the first one that I noticed was one that changed the first sentence to: “Kerry's younger brother Cameron and campaign field director Thomas J. Vallely, both then 22 years old, broke in and entered the basement of that building, near where telephone lines were located.”

We have no basis for judging them to be guilty. The case was dismissed by the court. If it’s “obvious” that they were guilty from the facts that they were found there, that they were arrested and charged, and that they now look back and say what they did was foolish, well, fine, all those facts are in the version that’s been in place for days now. The readers can draw whatever conclusions they please. They don’t need any of us step in to make up for failings of the legal system by inserting the conclusion that the defendants actually were guilty. Because no significant facts have been presented other than those that were in our prior version, I’ll be changing it back, after I look over the rest of the page to see what other POV edits have been added. JamesMLane 21:54, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I did not put the word "guilty" in that text and in fact, it's not in there. What is in there is this:

"On the eve of the September primary, Kerry's younger brother Cameron and campaign field director Thomas J. Vallely, both then 22 years old, broke in and entered the basement of that building, near where telephone lines were located. When the police arrived, they were arrested and charged with "breaking and entering with the intent to commit grand larceny," but the case was not prosecuted and charges were dismissed about a year later. DiFruscia claimed that they were trying to disrupt his get-out-the vote efforts. Vallely and Cameron Kerry asserted they only intended to check their own telephone lines because they had received an anonymous call warning that the Kerry lines would be cut. Cameron Kerry, in a later interview, surmised that unknown political opponents had misled them with a false anonymous phone call. He also stated "It was an impulsive, rash thing that we did and that John Kerry ended up having to deal with," he added. [1] [2]"

I fail to see how this text is to be faulted along the lines of what JamesMLane has said above. Comments from others on this would be appreciated.

By the way James, how many Massachusetts attornies are you able to consult with, so as to better understand the Massachusetts legal system? I assure you based on the fact that (2) of my best friends are Massachusetts attornies and because I have queried them at length over time, I understand what I am describing and also that the text above, as I have presented it is both accurate and fair towards Mr. Kerry an Mr. Vallely. Most probably, the chargs were continued without a finding (CWOF) and then dismissed. In fact, removing the word Superior (Court) was actually more fair to them, because it implies it was more serious than it was. In Massachusetts, it is common practice to "CWOF" charges aginst nice people with clean records. The re-write was to emphasize with clarity, precisly what they were arrested for. The public records on this are easily accessable and are quite nearby to me. Don't make me drive to the court house and retrieve the records (they are public) for if I did that, and posted a scan of a certified copy of them on my web site, it could be made to look much worse. James - you are simply over-reacting. Rex071404 22:57, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You state as an established fact that they "broke in and entered." The known fact is what was in the prior version: "They were arrested and charged with 'breaking and entering with the intent to commit grand larceny'...." You claim that your rewrite "was to emphasize with clarity, precisly what they were arrested for." The old version quoted the charge verbatim. It's hard to be more precise than that. What your rewrite adds is that the statement that they committed the acts with which they were charged. I recognize that a dismissal is not an adjudication on the merits, establishing their innocence, but still less is it an adjudication on the merits establishing their guilt. (Feel free to confirm that point with your legal team.) If you think guilt is the more probable conclusion on the stated facts, you're free to hold that opinion, and you're free to post anything you please on your web site, but your opinion has no place in a neutral article. JamesMLane 23:20, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Published accounts indicate that they were arrested inside the building, that they did not have permission to enter and that in order to gain access, they broke in. Indeed, as I have read the accounts, they were arrested in the basement of the building. These facts together, clearly support the statement "broke in and entered". They did indeed do that. Now as to whether or not in doing that, they had the requisite Mens Rea [3] to warrant convicting them of the crime of "breaking and entering with the intent to commit grand larceny" is another story. It is not in dispute that they broke in. What was in contention, is whether or not, in doing so, they intended to commit grand larceny. It seems to be clear that they did not intend any grand larceny, but it is even more clear that they did break in. Also, you probably don't know this, but in order to get a CWOF in Massachusetts, one invariably is required to submit a plea which is an "admission of sufficient facts". What this means is the defendant admits that the facts are sufficient to warrant a conviciton, but does not admit guilt. More than likely, C. Cameron & Vallely plead that way. However, without seeing the docket, we won't know. FYI: When arrested in Massachusetts, charges automatically issue - there is no "show cause" hearing. This means C. Kerry, and Mr. V, did enter a plea. More than likely, the judge saw that there was not enough evidence for the Grand Larceny, but that there was enough for the break in and, after various negotiations between DA and defendants attornies, agreed to continued without a finding for one year, then dismiss. Technically the defendant is on unsupervised probation while a case is pending dismissal after CWOF. If you keep digging at this, you're going to open a can of worms which will beg the question of: What did John Kerry know and when did he know it? And did he ever denounce his brother's actions of that night? Rex071404 23:39, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex, you write: These facts together, clearly support the statement "broke in and entered". The version of the article before you edited it gave the facts. You still haven't explained what's wrong with giving the facts and stopping there. If the facts clearly support a particular statement, as you contend, then it will be clear to the readers, without our having to spoon-feed them the conclusion that you favor. No facts are being suppressed in the version that we had for several days and that you suddenly changed. All you want to do is to assert as a fact that they did what they were charged with, thus getting in the juicy reference to breaking and entering twice, presumably because your POV is that it should be emphasized. The NPOV approach is for us to give the significant facts. There was a version as of a couple weeks ago that devoted too much space to quoting Thomas Vallely and Cameron Kelly, and I was the one who shortened it to take out most of their self-serving statements. Their point of view deserves to be reported, once, but we don't need to hit the readers over the head with it. The same is true of the charges against them. The version you changed gave all the significant facts and was suitably NPOV without unduly emphasizing any one point. You've shown no defect in that version. JamesMLane 02:05, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I’ve restored the strictly factual language about the break-in. Some other points:

• First vet to testify – Rex complained “Better proof needed - Kerry was not, in 200 years the only vET to testify before Congress...” The version that he changed did not, of course, say any such thing. It actually referred to Kerry as the first Vietnam veteran. One source is CNN.
• Noriega – I believe in NPOV even to people like Noriega and BCCI, so I changed “gathered facts that” to “found reason to believe that.”
• In the interest of reducing unnecessary detail, I took out the name of Kerry’s boat. I think favorite movie is legit, though borderline, but there's no need to amplify the point by saying he named his boat after the movie. JamesMLane 03:00, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kerry's cousins

This text here:

"John Kerry's maternal grandmother, Margaret Tyndal Winthrop, came from a family with deep roots in Massachusetts history, and was raised in Boston. Her grandfather was Robert Charles Winthrop, the conservative Whig Speaker of the House and a senator, and her ancestors include James Bowdoin, former governor of Maine, and John Winthrop, the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Other notable figures in this branch of Kerry's family tree are Franklin D. Roosevelt (4th cousin twice removed), Jane Addams, Calvin Coolidge (8th cousin once removed), and ironically, George H.W. Bush (9th cousin once removed), and George W. Bush (9th cousin, twice removed). [4]",

was just now deleted by an anonymous user. To maintain the continuity of the discussion on this page, I reverted that deletion and am asking for comment. I agree with the anonymous user and am asking for consensus that the above text be deleted as superfluous and too minutiae oriented. Please comment on this. Rex071404 00:20, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. There was probably no need to revert it, though IMO, it was a good idea to bring it up here. Personally, I think we should go further than that, and chop the whole ancestry section, perhaps cutting it down to two or three sentences. Ambi 03:13, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't eliminate it completely. There's been some mud thrown at Kerry over allegedly concealing his Jewish ancestry (or some such, I don't remember all the details of every smear). I suppose we'd better not open ourselves up to any charge of joining in a cover-up, so that aspect of his ancestry should stay in. His grandfather's suicide and most of the relationships on the other side can go, except that I'd leave in his distant relationship to the Bushes. For the rest, maybe just say generally that the family's roots in New England go back a long way. JamesMLane 03:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say eliminate completely. Just mention his Jewish history, that two of his ancestors died in the concentration camps, his distant relationship to the Bushes, and the family's roots in New England. All the rest, IMO, is excess. Ambi 04:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agree with Ambi here, and thanks rex for talking about this on the page. Exactly what is needed. Lyellin 11:14, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

I say we delete the entire "cousins" section. This stuff sounds like a TV expose - way too much fluff for a serious encyclopedia article. Rex071404 05:18, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I went to try a draft of a slimmed-down version and discovered that a lot of information would've been lost, even to someone who wanted to pursue this subject, because one couldn't follow the link through Kerry's maternal grandmother. I created a stub for her at Margaret Tyndal Winthrop, and copied the last paragraph (with Governor Winthrop et al.) into it. (Even as stubs go, it's pretty sloppy, so anyone who wants to fix it should.) With that protection in place, here's a possible rewrite. It ended up being longer than I'd expected. As I explained above, I think we need a fair amount of detail about the Jewish background. I didn't want to drop the reference to opium for fear of being accused of bias, but I really think it could go, given that there are links to articles on James Grant Forbes and the Forbes family. My proposal:

Kerry's paternal grandfather, Frederick A. Kerry (born Fritz Kohn), was born in the town of Horní Benešov, Austria-Hungary (in what is now the Moravian-Silesian Region of the Czech Republic), and grew up in Mödling (a small town near Vienna, Austria). His wife Ida (née Loewe) was born in Budapest, Hungary. They immigrated to the United States, arriving at Ellis Island in 1905. The Kerry-Kohns were German-speaking Jews, but the family concealed its background upon migrating to the United States, and raised their three children as Catholics. A Czech historian has shown that Ida was a descendant of Sinai Loew, one of three older brothers of Rabbi Judah Loew (1525-August 22, 1609), a famous Kabbalist, philosopher and talmudist known as the Maharal of Prague. Two of Ida's siblings, Otto Loewe and Jenni Loewe, died in the Nazi extermination camps (Theresienstadt and Treblinka, respectively), after being deported from Vienna in 1942.

Richard John Kerry, John's father, was born (c. 1916) in Massachusetts. After a stint in the U.S. Army Air Corps, he worked for the Foreign Service and served as an attorney for the Bureau of United Nations Affairs in the U.S. Department of State. In 1937, he met Rosemary Forbes, a member of the wealthy Forbes family. One of eleven children, she studied to be a nurse, and served in the Red Cross in Paris during World War II (she also was a Girl Scout leader for 50 years). The couple married in Montgomery, Alabama in January 1941.

John Kerry's maternal grandfather, James Grant Forbes, was born in Shanghai, China, where the Forbes family of China and Boston accumulated a fortune in the opium and China trade. He married Margaret Tyndal Winthrop, who came from a family with deep roots in New England history. Through her, his maternal grandmother, John Kerry is related to four Presidents, including, ironically, George W. Bush (9th cousin, twice removed). [5]

These three paragraphs would replace what's now a five-paragraph section on "Family background". JamesMLane 11:36, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Three is better than five. Still, I think it might be better to, if not remove it completely, give Kerry's ancestry its own article, and shuffle all five paragraphs over there. Ambi 12:50, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NY Times Re: Cameron Kerry 1972 arrest - what are the true facts?

Here is the link

It's from New York Times, Published: February 15, 2004. "Kerry's Brother Helps Make the Big Calls"

Here is the excerpt where the fact of the break-in having occured is reported:

He describes the 1972 campaign as a brutal lesson in realpolitik. He said that neighbors in his family's largely Republican hometown, Lowell, stopped speaking to his parents, and that editors at local newspapers took unwarranted political potshots at his brother.

Mr. Kerry said his brother's campaign failed to respond to critics — a mistake the campaign has not repeated.

Mr. Kerry was arrested during that campaign. He describes the incident with a slight grin. An anonymous telephone caller informed him that an opponent was planning to cut his campaign's phone lines, so he and an associate broke into the building where the phone lines were housed to make sure they were secure. The police arrived with suspicious alacrity, he said, leading him and others in the campaign to believe that political opponents had set him up. He was arrested for breaking and entering, but the charges were later dropped.

"It was obviously not the smart way to do it," Mr. Kerry said.

JamesMLane, please be candid enough to admit you are wrong on this point. I have given you a careful and correct explanation and I have provided a verfied corroboration from New York Times. I am restoring my edits on that section and I ask that you leave them alone this time. Thank you Rex071404 04:54, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Times statement is inconsistent with that of the Boston Globe, which said that Kerry and DiFruscia headquarters were in the same building. On that view, the two couldn't have been breaking into the building, to which they had legitimate access. We don't need to adjudicate among the various alternatives (they broke into the building; they had legitimate access to the building but broke into the basement; they had legitimate access to the basement but broke into a locked utility room in the basement; other). Instead, we present the known facts: They were found in the basement, the police arrested them, and they were charged with B&E. The version that you keep deleting does not omit any significant fact. In addition, it includes hyperlinks to the Times story that you now cite, as well as the Globe story. I'm restoring that version. JamesMLane 10:00, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. The NY Times owns the Boston Globe and as a consequence, both stories are under their editorial control. The New York Times is very specific: "he and an associate broke into the building where the phone lines were housed". There is not ambiguity there. They broke into the building near where the phone linews were. My version states this, yours does not. Using the previously announced rule of defferring to the accuracy of later versions, the Boston Globe articel is from June 03, but the New York Times is from February 2004. Also, The New York Times is universally recognized for accuracy. There has been no retraction or denial on this story. The fact that the break in occured remains as having been reported accurately and has not been denied by either Cameron Kerry or the Kerry campaign.

Nontheless, in this instance you are ignoring the truth as evidenced by published reports, so as to make justifications to continuously revert me on a groundless basis. My edits on this section are accurate, sourced and NPOV. I wish to re-insert them and am again asking you politely to desist from your reversions to them. We can easliy discuss this with others over time - please do not keep reverting me.

And please take note: The Times link you keep reverting to requies a password and goes to who know what story. My link which you keep deleting is one that NYT has made password free allowing it to be read by all - and it goes directly to the story with the statement of fact regarding the break in. Perhaps this is why you keep deleting - it proves you wrong.

And what is your answer to this? Rather than admit you are in error, you emphasize via comment on my talk page the fact that you are trying to get me blocked from editing John Kerry

Also, why is it you actually are suggesting that I defer to your surmises, when this is precisly what you complained about with me on this very article - that I surmized some conclusions based on adding facts together? Such a stance by you makes no sense. You now doing exactly what you claim is invalid. On the other hand, I have proven my case with a more timely, direct verification by New York Times. Why is it that your answer is an attempt to have me lbocked, rather than reach consensus? Rex071404 14:00, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see, the NYT is infallible and their precise wording is absolutely true, barring any subsequent retraction? I don't accept that. The NYT is just another source of information. They are widely respected, but that doesn't mean they are infallible or that we have to slavishly accept the precise nuances of their phrasing as being absolutely conclusive evidence of anything. FYIW, it might be worthwhile to compare what some avowedly anti-Kerry sites have to say about the matter (and when):

• [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1106650/posts freerepublic], dated March 28, 2004--only states they were arrested on charges of breaking and entering.
• Frontpagemag.com, quoting from WinterSoldier.com, dated April 8, 2004 -- only mentions that they were arrested and charged. And WinterSoldier.com indicates that section was updated April 5, 2004

In any case, you are using a literal reading of the NYT to make an argument for a specific conclusion. That's not what Wikipedia is about. older≠wiser 15:35, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The sources you cite are all totem-pole hearsay. That is, repeating something that was already repeated. On the other hand, the NY Times article which I cite was a recent, 1st hand inteview with the participant of the act. Also, NY Times has allowed that URL (as they sometimes do) do be viewed with no logn-in password required. If there was any question that this story was not accurate, you can be certain that the libel attornies at the Times would either pull the article completely, or at minimum, be sure a log in was required to minimize its distribution. In any case, totem-pole hearsay always has less validity than a 1st hand report. And additionally, I read the NY Times article as an actual confession, which as you know, always is paramount. Rex071404 15:43, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I quite agree that both Freerepublic and WinterSoldier.com are not authoritative sources. However, as anti-Kerry sites, you'd think they'd take whatever opportunity they could to impugn Kerry. Regarding the NYT article--the phrasing that you place so much weight on is not a quote from Cameron--it is a paraphrase and as such we really cannot rely on it as being conclusive of anything. The existing phrasing is NPOV and readers can draw their own conclusions without our having to rely on a paraphrase by a NYT writer. older≠wiser 16:06, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you agree that your sources are of lesser veracity, then I see no reason you should point them out - they do not help you make your point. Also, when you say "paraphrase" you are in error. This sentence "he and an associate broke into the building where the phone lines were housed" is not a paraphase. Rather it is a 1st hand report of a fact. That is how reporters report news. They state facts. A news report need not pend itself, held back until a culprit says something like this: "Yes indeed, I broke into the basement". It's axoimatic that culprits softplay their mis-steps....

Here is what we know so far:

• 1) Either Camron Kerry was arrested or he was not - Fact: He was arrested
• 2) Either he did do something or he did not - Fact: He admits to doing something;

"It was obviously not the smart way to do it," Mr. Kerry said.

• 3) Precisly what the "it" Mr. Kerry admits to having done, is the question.

Are you suggesting that Cameron was arrested after NOT breaking into the building? Are you suggesting that the charges were utterly groundless? If so, ask yourself, why is that fact not in the NYT article?

Try as certain people may, there is no way to argue or rationalize away the truth here: 1) Cameron Kerry was arrested. 2) Cameron Kerry did break into the building.

The only open question is whether or not he was intending to commit Grand Larceny. And since nothing I have read brings a reasonable level of proof to that, I have left out any inference that he did intend Grand Larceny. On the other hand, simply because the aim of the break-in may not have been criminally intended, does not mean that the break-in did not occcur.

Please read my post above where I link to Mens Rea and explain in more detail. Rex071404 16:43, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You clearly have a very different understanding of how news is reported. There is a world of difference between an exact quotation and a paraphrase. The article that you cite most definitely paraphrases a discussion between the reporter and Cameron. It is not an exact quote and you are engaging in sophistic contortions in an attempt to prove your point. As for "If you agree that your sources are of lesser veracity, then I see no reason you should point them out - they do not help you make your point." -- they do indeed help make my point, only you refuse to see it. My purpose in refering to these anti-Kerry sites is that if they do not take the opportunity to impugn Kerry (although they frequently take considerable liberty with the "truth") and are content to merely report the facts in much the same way as the current article is phrased, then there is little reason for us to make presumptions based on a NYT reporters paraphrase. And again I say you are using a literal reading of the NYT to make an argument for a specific conclusion. That's not what Wikipedia is about. older≠wiser 17:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While I am still taking time to review the single quotation point I made earlier, I have a link which explains that your "paraphrase" supposition on the sentence in question should not be relied upon. According to this link which has information from the Comp 1120 course at the University of Minnesota, if one is paraphrasing correctly one should "[Use] your own words, but NOT your opinions or interpretations of the information you're paraphrasing. No first person or second person are necessary.". As I read this, it's pretty clear to me that in the sentence in question, if it is a well written paraphrase, would not be mis-stating the central fact of whether or not there was indeed a break-in committed. And since we can presume that NY Times has 1st rate writers and copy editors who do not change facts when they paraphrase, there is every reason to interpret the sentence the way I suggest and no reason to interpret it your way. There was a break in. Cameron Kerry and mr. Vallely did commit that break-in and this is precisly what the New York Times has reported. Rex071404 01:54, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please do not tender phrases such as "you are engaging in sophistic contortions " as they do add to the type of resentment which other have complained about.

Also, I do not claim that the sentence I keep referring to is a quote. It is not in quotations ", so it's not a quote. Nor is it in single quotations ', so it's not a paraphrase. Rather, it is exactly what I contend it is; an assertion of raw fact, which the interviewee (Cameron) is not disputing. Simply because it is puff-pieced in the middle of a go-easy-on-Cameron sentence, does not reducet the foundation that it is being asserted by the reporter as fact.

Again I will ask you, are you suggesting that Cameron Kerry was arrested for not breaking into the building? If that is what you are suggesting, then the NYT and Cameron are remiss for failing to point out that the arrest was groundless, wouldn't you say? And frankly, that is extremely unlikely.

Also, I notice that you still have not addressed the intent aspect of the arrest, which is the only open question. I have explained this at length and I assuure you that I am quite familiar with Massachusetts law on the subject of arrests and charges. What specific familiarity do you have on the subject? Rex071404 17:20, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You give the citation the weight of evidence equivalent to a direct quotation, which it is not. I have no idea what you are talking about with single quotation marks indicating a paraphrase. This is not any practice that I am familiar with. If you read the article, it is clear that the article is recounting a discussion between the reporter and Cameron, but is not using Cameron's exact words--the very definition of a paraphrase. It is by no means an unambiguous assertion of fact by the NYT or even necessarily by the reporter. It is simply that reporter's paraphrasing of the conversation. The actual facts, such as there are is that Cameron was arrested and charged with breaking and entering. The Wikipedia should not be judging intentions under any circumstances. You are making an argument for a specific interpretation. older≠wiser 18:30, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is about cameron kerry, not john kerry, and would belong on the cameron kerry page were there one (is there one?) and not here. Is there anything more than brief mention of George W. Bush's family members (such as his brother, Jeb Bush), or actions thereof, on the George W. Bush page? No. It simply doesn't belong, as it doesn't belong here. We must remain impartially relevant and consistent. Kevin Baas | talk

This is very relevant, because Cameron was working for the Kerry campaign during the time period which spanned the period of the break-in. It is a notable event which is part of Kerry's history, surely at least as much as all the other anecdotes about his past, family, friends, and crewmmates. Rex071404

I don't care which link to the Times article is used. I'm registered at the Times so I didn't know there was a difference. I certainly wouldn't consider it "a notable event" but it merits a brief mention. For the rest, I agree with Bkonrad's well-thought-out analysis of the available information. I'll add only that, to the extent you're concerned about incorporating a "confession", the current version quotes Cameron Kerry as saying, "It was an impulsive, rash thing that we did...." Therefore, if you look at your own list of "Here is what we know so far," it's all covered. (We use the "impulsive, rash thing" line instead of the "not the smart way" line, but I think the former is the stronger admission, the one where Cameron Kerry is more critical of himself.) In short, there are no significant facts that are excluded from the current version. JamesMLane 17:44, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Even if we take your assertion of "there are no significant facts that are excluded from the current version" at face value, due to lack of sufficient rebuttal to facts I have presented here, it is equally (more so even) true to say that there were no false facts included in my version. I read your comment to be a concession that this disagreement was never based on the truth (or lack thereof) of the facts at issue. Rather those who are disagreeing with me and reverting me simply do not like my word choice and editorial technique. Frankly, I feel that some editors here wish to soft-pedal those things which look unpleasant for Kerry. In that vein, this I feel, is what's happened here. As I see it, the defenders of the status quo in regards to that section of text have not adequately defended the completeness and accuracy of the text. There are three things to watch for: Completeness, Accuracy and Fairness. My version comes closer than the current one on all three measures Rex071404 18:15, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The only "lack of sufficient rebuttal to facts I have presented" is in your own mind. You simply refuse to acknowledge when you are engaging in speculative argumentation under the guise of presenting facts (which only you consider to be unambiguous facts). older≠wiser 18:30, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To point out the precise and unambiguous truth as reported by the NY Times is in no way accurately characterized as "speculative argumentation". I have addressed each and every point you have raised and have fully rebutted them all. It is currently you and JML who refuse to make acknowledgments on this topic. And since this section is now so lengthy, I shall again ask everyone the question which you (among others) have yet to answer (see "Cameron Kerry - the crux of the matter" - below)

You write: "I read your comment to be a concession that this disagreement was never based on the truth (or lack thereof) of the facts at issue." Of course, I make no such concession. The statement you try to impute to me is not true. Furthermore, from now on I will not waste any more time answering such comments. If you want to misread something I say, and triumphantly post your misreading here, you go right ahead. Just don't take my silence as agreement. My thoughts are found in my comments, not in yours. JamesMLane 07:21, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex and Wikipedia

Rex, the following edit summary by you is one small example of your near-total misunderstanding of the Wikipedia process: “Link style Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is consistent with VVAW pointer to sub page method - do not change this link format again prior to full discussion - Thank you!” I'm going to analyze this particular issue in more detail than it deserves, because I think it illustrates a larger point.

You do this over and over. You feel free to make any changes you want, but anyone else who makes a change is a “vandal” if you don’t like the change and it was done “prior to full discussion”. I have nothing against “full discussion”, but it seems that you don't think a discussion is finished until you've agreed -- which you almost never do.

This one tiny point about the basics of Wikipedia linking policy has taken up an absurd amount of time already, thanks to you. Here’s the actual history. I was the first to suggest the current framework, in this edit on the Talk page, in which I wrote in part:

I'd support something along these lines: In the "Criticism" section, leave in the stuff through and including Hibbard's attack on Kerry. Then add: "Also criticizing Kerry are over 200 other Vietnam Era veterans who, in 2004, established the group known as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth {SBVT). They have questioned Kerry's service record and his medals. Several people who were in the same unit with Kerry are part of SBVT, but all the members of Kerry's crew who are still living support his presidential bid." Then the question is whether the back-and-forth about their attacks should be incorporated into the SBVT article or separated in a separate article, that would be wikilinked in this passage. I'd favor the former because the SBVT article is short enough that it can reasonably accommodate the rest of what's now in the "Criticism" section.

Mbecker and Wolfman agreed, and Gamaliel had previously endorsed a change along these lines, so that change was made. You apparently weren’t online at the time, but there’s no rule that every proposed change has to wait 24 or 48 hours so that everyone can comment on it. You were online sometime thereafter, when you made this revert (among others) to try to reinstate the plug (including cover photo) for the book attacking Kerry. (I note in passing that your edit summary there – “I was the one who originally posted this .jpg here some time ago - this should not have been moved” – is one of many suggesting that you feel some sort of ownership over the article, especially over changes you make, such that no one else is allowed to change anything you’ve added. Get it through your head, there is no such ownership on Wikipedia.)

Anyway, as to the link question, the immediate point is that you made multiple edits, including edits to this very section, without changing the SBVT link. Wolfman and I had both followed normal Wiki style for links, and that’s how it appeared in the article. It was only several hours later that you began the string of edits in which you repeatedly changed the normal Wiki style to one that suited you better, apparently because you really really liked that particular link and you wanted to urge readers to follow it.

I hope you see the point here. You yourself changed the link format “prior to full discussion.” In fact, no one else has agreed with you that there’s any reason to depart from normal linking style here. Nevertheless, you insist that your preference must govern, trumping everyone else’s, pending “full discussion.”

The specific issue of setting up this one link incorrectly isn’t of any great intrinsic importance. I’ve detailed it to try to make you see that the practical effect of your style is that you're demanding enormous special privileges. If everyone acted the way you’ve been acting, the Wikipedia project would become utterly impossible.

The patient and sincere explanations you’ve gotten haven’t helped. The multiple warnings you’ve gotten haven’t helped. The 24-hour block you got hasn’t helped. The Request for Comment hasn’t helped. The Request for Mediation hasn’t helped. The threat of a Request for Arbitration hasn’t helped. The actual commencement of a Request for Arbitration hasn’t helped. If we assume good faith, then we can only conclude that you’re temperamentally incapable of participating in a collaborative editing project. From now on, I won't be able to waste any more of my time trying to teach you anything. My further comments on your editing style will be given in the course of the Arbitration Committee proceeding instead of cluttering up this page. JamesMLane 07:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Due to the fact that JML's comments in this section all refer to me and my efforts, not to a discussion aimed towards reaching editorial consensus about edits on John Kerry I ask the other editors here to take note that JML should have posted this section on my talk page, not here. If there is no objection after 48 hours, I would like to move this section there where it better belongs. Rex071404 15:20, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I object. These comments are about your behavior on this page, and thus belong here. They also belong here because you've persistently refused to modify your behavior on this page, instead trying to deflect it by criticising others, as you are in this case by complaining not about the substance of JML's comments but the location of them. Gamaliel 17:43, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rex on this. This is an article discussion page, not a user discussion page. Only article content should be discussed here. Regardless of any purported connections between articles and users, discussions should be kept as informationally close to their topic as possible. The discussion in question belongs either on the appropriate user talk page, or the appropriate dispute resolution forum. Kevin Baas | talk 17:52, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

I put the comment here for two reasons. First, most of it is a very detailed analysis of one particular passage in the article, one where Rex has already made multiple edits and reverts to try to insert his POV enthusiasm for the SBVT attacks. I don't see how he can demand "do not change this link format again prior to full discussion" and then object when someone engages in that "full discussion". Second, to the extent the comment goes beyond the specific issue of the reference to SBVT, it was my thought that some people might see it here who wouldn't see it if it were on Rex's Talk page, and that any resulting discussion could be useful in improving how everyone approaches editing this highly controversial article. Rex's response convinces me that the latter point was an exercise in foolish optimism on my part, which I will now abandon.

Accordingly, I'm going to extract the portion that's about the SBVT edit, and which responds to Rex's edit summary, and enter that much as a separate comment under "Link to SBVT sub-page" above. After that, Rex, if you want to move the full comment to your Talk page, feel free. Please recognize, however, that the dispute about the SBVT link is not an isolated incident. It's part of your continuing pattern. I don't want to take the time and the space to go into this much detail about each and every one of your comments or edit summaries that I disagree with. I don't think the Talk page is enhanced when people endlessly repeat themselves. Therefore, whether you move this specific text or not, please consider it to be implicit in many of my future comments here. JamesMLane 19:08, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that your lenghty off-topic comments need to be moved so as to preserve the space on this page for what it's intended as - a scratch pad for us to use in an aim to reach consensus on the text which goes into John Kerry Rex071404 19:17, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry Re; Ollie North

The "perjury" was originally put in by me, then edited out by others. I did not rv, as I am currently unsure of the exact criminal charge which he was convicted of, had overturned on appeal and was later pardoned for. The exact charge may not have been "perjury" Rex071404 16:51, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This comment copied to here from my talk page by me Rex071404 17:06, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC):

Okay. Perjury is a very strong allegation. If it happened at all, regardless of whether it related to any specific charges, it should be in there, if it did not happen, it certainly shouldn't. Personally, I have no knowledge on the subject, I was just preserving important information which I presumed to be accurate. Kevin Baas | talk 16:57, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

Kevin Baas, Bush didn't pardon North; the case was dimissed. The article needs further editing and I agree with Jgm that the amount of detail on North is too involved. North was the most prolific person involved with Iran/Contra in the media coverage, not the most important. I don't see the point of listing him with Kerry's involvement in Iran/Contra.

I was putting two and two together, this article said that he was pardoned, and then Mt2131 refered us to [6] for info about Oliver North. The title of said article is "BUSH PARDONS 6 IN IRAN AFFAIR, ABORTING A WEINBERGER TRIAL; PROSECUTOR ASSAILS 'COVER-UP'", so you can understand the confusion. I have now looked through the article and discovered that I was mistaken. Thanks for pointing this out. Kevin Baas | talk 15:12, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

Here Rex071404, "Oliver L. North: The former Marine lieutenant colonel was a staff member of the National Security Council. Was convicted on May 4, 1989, on three felony counts for his role in the Iran-contra affair: aiding and abetting obstruction of Congress, destroying security council documents and accepting an illegal gift. He was acquitted on nine counts. He was sentenced July 5, 1989, to two years' probation and 1,200 hours of community service and fined $150,000. On Sept. 16, 1991, the convictions were thrown out on appeal because testimony in the trial might have been influenced by Mr. North's testimony before Congress under immunity. " [7]. Hope that helps. --Mt2131 00:10, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Speaking as a reader rather than an active participant in this article: the amount of detail on Iran-Contra in general and North in particular is way too high, in my opinion. Details on North's conviction, etc. can easily be found in linked articles on those subjects and add nothing substantive to an article on John Kerry. I suggest a fairly brutal scrub of this whole section is in order. Jgm 01:36, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's my view (and that of my wife also whom I've asked to read JK) that the entire article has way to much text in just about every section. Though the overall structure could be said to be good, some sections have simply too much detail which does not refer to something about Kerry, his personal history or his personal activities. The details about Ollie North are an example of that. The listings for the "Pershing" book and the ex-wife (Thorne) "Depression" book are also too tangental to Kerry's personal activity and/or history.

And, to see another, different point I am trying to address, please take a look at the new section below, titled "Elliot" Said". Rex071404 03:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are some places where this article goes overboard with the level of detail, but I don't see it as overly long. And there are some places where we've stuck in too much information on non-Kerry things (Ollie North for one) but we've done a good job trimming such excesses.

And I disagree with the need to cut 2 books from a list of 8. Yes, they are tangental, but still related and of interest. Gamaliel 05:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cameron Kerry - the crux of the matter (all editors, please read and reply to this)

In regards to those who won't concede that Cameron Kerry did in fact engage in a break-in as reported by the New York Times here.

• Q: Are you suggesting that Cameron was arrested after not breaking into the building?
• Q: Are you suggesting that the charges were utterly groundless?

If so, ask yourself, why is that fact not in the NYT article?

Rex071404 18:50, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(Since older has stated that he will not respond - I have moved his comment lower down the page in order to make room for the comments of those who will respond.) Rex071404 19:13, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am not going to bother to repsond to your irrelevant leading questions above. To respond to points you made in the section above: you are relying on a casual paraphrase in the NYT as proof positive to support your position. That is what I call speculative argumentation. You say "I have addressed each and every point you have raised and have fully rebutted them all" and I reject this--you have not "fully rebutted" anything. You are the only person arguing for your version. Do we really have to put such triviality to a vote? older≠wiser 19:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Elliott said

I am of the view that attributing so many statements to Elliot, in light of the fact that Elliot's actual views are now at the center of controversy in the press, needlessly injects a POV controversy into the article. The way I see it, virtually every statement being attributed to Elliot ought to come with a disclaimer concerning the current state of his views. At the very least, too much of Elliot sounding supportive of Kerry tells only 1/2 the story. I'd like to see this toned down.

In particular, I feel that this sentence: Elliott submitted Kerry for a Silver Star, about which he later said he had no "regrets or second thoughts", in light of the current SBVT controversy is especially misleading to the readers. Any thoughts? Rex071404 03:20, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Because Neutrality was the editor (as I read the page) who inserted the above comment, in addition to the above, I notified him on his talk page of my concerns. Having given him advance notice of more than 1/2 a day, I have inserted into that section of text, this Elliott quote: "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single wounded, fleeing Viet Cong".

In sequence, the two sentences now read: Elliott submitted Kerry for a Silver Star, about which he later said he had no "regrets or second thoughts." More recently, Elliott also said "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single wounded, fleeing Viet Cong".

My source for the quote which I added is the JK Talk Page entry made by Cecropia on 08.07.04. I note that Cecropia is a very active and well respected Wikipedian, so I am not fearful that this quote is inacccurate. Also, my recent reading on the web does confirm this as acurate and recent. Rex071404 06:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think we should move Elliott's comments, pro and con, down to criticism. His story has changed at least 3 times; not recounting those changes is leaving out key facts, and recounting those changes would disrupt the flow of the Nam section. Also, he says "had I known the facts". What facts have changed or come to his attention since Nam? The eyewitness testimony, AFAIK, has not changed in the last 3 decades, and this was the eyewitness testimony upon which Elliott himself wrote up the Silver Star. So that should be noted when we quote him saying that. Gamaliel 07:24, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(does anyone know what these new facts are)

I am not opposed to moving Elliott's comments. However, this became an issue tonight after I reviewed one of Neutrality's edits (I felt it was too POV) and saw much tweaking to Elliott's comments. Certainly, at the very least, Elliott ought not to be quoted in a positive light towards Kerry, unless his current views are cited too. There are some Links on www.humaneventsonline.com where you can find Elliott's most recent affidavit. Elliott asserts that he was misquoted by Boston Globe and that he stands by his "had I known" statement as being his more contemporaneous statement.

Having said that, I do have a problem with how weak of a link pointer we are using to the SBVT sub-page. On the sub-page pointers to VVAW, we say "for a full discussion see <link>". I feel we should do this for the SBVT sub-page pointer also. This would draw more attention to the sub-page and people would be more likely to read it. This is important because the SBVT controversy is getting bigger each day and readers are going to want to be informed. See this news flash here [8] Rex071404 07:35, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that constitutes pretty strong agreement for moving it down to the criticism section, which is a good move in my opinon also. Rex, I also agree that the SVBT link could be slightly reworded as a "more information", "full discussion" etc link. Don't see a problem with that, really. Now, I'm done agreeing, so *chuckles*. Sorry, can't help it. Love that link. Cracks me up. Lyellin 07:53, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. The VVAW controversy is a direct branch of this page, thus the link makes sense. Trying to specifically highlight the SBVT link is just POV - it's a related article, rather than a direct branch of this one. If someone is interested in that, they can click on it as is. Ambi 08:46, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

VVAW and SBVT are not related. They are separate and distinct controversies. Rex071404 01:34, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just now, to correct for accuracy an edit made by Neutrality about 3 hours ago, concerning the Elliott quotes, I have made edits to that section. I would have preferred that Neutrality had not started inserting enhanced Elliott quotes there, as he did when he 1st inserted Elliott submitted Kerry for a Silver Star, about which he later said he had no "regrets or second thoughts" the other day. Frankly, with the claims and counter claims being made in the press about this, we are only going to either make this ugly for Kerry if we continue or we will have to make an Elliott "he said/she said" sub page. Neither of these will bode well for Kerry and either of them will entail more needless dialog here.

As for my wanting a more clear link pointing to the SBVT sub-page, I re-affirm that I do think, as made clear above, we need to make that link more emphatic. Rex071404 13:29, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kerry's voting record: Addition and Research

I think readers would like a NPOV on Kerry's voting record while in the Senate. As it stands, the Senate Years section is pretty sparse. And I find that a politician's voting record is more important than the campaign promises they make. Hopefully this can all be done in a Neutral Point Of View highlighting key issues and important legislation. A quick Google, I found The Orlando Report which looks too have a decent unbiased summary that can be used to further investigate the named legislation thus therein; and the article's catergorization of key issues looks like a good foundation for starting Wikipedia's own.

For further research help I Googled a site called OnTheIssues which looks like a progressive watchdog organization and has lists of politicians' stances and actions on different issues, many of which are sourced.

And there are the prominent special interest groups, like the NRA, ACLU, and the Sierra Club, who keep track of politicians' voting records over legislation that concerns each of their special interests.

It's just a start, I'd like to see the Senate section improved. Maybe somebody will get around to doing it.--Mt2131 03:26, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The table which displays the number of Kerry's personally sponsored bills by year for the last decade draws on the data from Kerry's Senate office web site and is accurate. Rex071404 03:31, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Personally sponsored bills are a limited and narrow resource which don't give readers comprehensive knowledge on a politician's voting record. It's a start, but it's a small start. --Mt2131 03:38, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

However limited or narrow you may feel they are, they are also a point of referrence that is of value to the readers. The details of this table are important to the history of Kerry's activities in the Senate. Does anyone here know of any major legislation which bears Kerry's name as a signature law such as Graham-Rudman or McCain-Feingold? If so, we should be sure to include the details, perhaps even point out why that particular bill was important to Kerry. Rex071404 03:43, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex071404, it is not a feeling of limited or narrow, it simply is. How many personally sponsored bills a politician does or does not create is not a reflection on their *voting record*, which are the bills, in this case key legislation on major issues, that a politician voted for or against. I know of no watchdog organization that keeps track of, and gives marks for, personally sponsored bills of a given politician because in the larger contextual sense of the Senate or House of Representatives it becomes quickly irrelevant. It is what bills a politician votes for or against and why he/she did so that matters, not who started what.--Mt2131 03:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do not agree with you about that at all. In fact, Kerry's Senate Office web site displays in great detail the history of each and every bill that Kerry has sponsored over the last 10 years. Sponsorship of bills which eventually become law is indeed a measure of a Senator's effectiveness. That being the case, raw data about numbers and eventual results do matter.

Now as to the point you make which is that there are also other measures of effectiveness. That indeed can be true, but I can find no data trail on Kerry's Sentate Office web site which supplies me with information about any bills which Kerry, either as an significant amender or as a co-sponsor, helped become law. I would like to see some information about bills which Kerry co-sponsored which became law. I am sure there are some, I just haven't located any data which corroborates that, have you? Also, the raw statistics about what did and did not become law is a concise window into this area. In addition to the table showing numerical results, what else do you suggest we add to give a more detailed view into Kerry's work product in the Senate? Rex071404 04:11, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A Congressman lists many things on his/her website, that does not mean it is of importance due to the duplicitous nature of a Congressman looking out for his/her own best interests. In the meat and bones of it, voting record is what matters. Kerry's effectiveness as a Senator is a POV topic due to its subjectivity. If there is any objective means that exhibits a Senator's "effectiveness" it would have to be his/her tenor in office, due to seniority in Congress from voter support. How much legislation Kerry has personally sponsored on the grounds of his effectiveness is merely a soundbite meant to detract from the man therefore a POV. Legislation begun in Congress goes through any number of revisions, additions, subtractions and arguments before it's finally passed. Kerry's stances, and more importantly, voting patterns is what counts for his behaviors, habits, record on important issues. The links I provided above are good starting points for creating a compendium on Kerry's voting record, namely the OnTheIssues site which provides sourcing to the Congressional Record.--Mt2131 04:55, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am not opposed to adding in a section with details about voting records. My point is that the table showing sponsorship of bills is also valuable. The two are not mutually exclusive, nor are they redundant. Both are valuable as a reference.Rex071404 05:26, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NLF vs. Viet Cong vs. NVA - Re: 172's recent edit

Most Americans understand that we were fighting Viet Cong and/or NVA soldiers during the Vietnam war. I have read very view books which use the term NLF. I think we will lose our American readers if we completely omit the term "Viet Cong". Rex071404 03:52, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion for new John Kerry sub-page

In order to head off any edit / revert wars or other SNAFUs regarding the "Elliott Quotation", provided we make a clear pointer link which says "see < sub-page name > for a full discussion.", I would support moving all this text (see below) to a sub page. Moving this text, would make Kerry's tour of duty / injury section more concise and would prevent tarring Kerry's main page with yet more controversy. Here is text for proposed move; Rex071404 13:39, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC):

Elliott Quotation Controversy

The details surrounding Kerry's Silver Star award have recently become somewhat controversial. In June 2003, Elliott was quoted as saying the award was "well deserved" and that he had "no regrets or second thoughts at all about that." [9] More recently however, in August 2004, Elliott signed an affidavit stating "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single wounded, fleeing Viet Cong" [10]. This August affidavit was released in support of his July 2004 affidavit which stated in part "When Kerry came back to the United States, he lied about what occured in Vietnam...". It was after the release of this 1st affidavit, that Michael Kranish, of the Boston Globe quoted Elliott as having said "It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here ... I knew it was wrong ..In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake." [11]. It was the release of these two affidavits and Elliott's contention that the Globe reporter substantially misquoted him which resulted in controversy. While there has been contention from some Kerry supporters that Elliott's story has changed as the 2004 presidential race has evolved, for the most part, neither the Kerry nor Bush camps have commented on or paid attention to these Elliott comments or the press reports about them.

In one of his few public comments about his Silver Star, made sometime before this controversy, Kerry said, "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."

Said a Kerry supporter: "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."[12]

Urgent request for group comment - Re: "Elliot Quotations" 08.10.04

Earlier today, I corrected an edit made by Neutrality (see above). Just now, without querying the group and without any explaination beyond an edit summary which stated "factual inaccuracy", Neutrality reverted me.

Now, as the regulars on this page know, up until a few days ago, I was not careful enough to avoid being embroiled in edit / revert wars. However, I am trying to be careful now and to that end, I am asking the group to review this situation and comment.

I ask you to pay particular attention the the recent comment made by Cecropia on JamesMLane's talk page: "But I am concerned about the revert wars and the general attitude. I am trying to put across the idea that Rex is A problem, but he is not THE problem. The problem is a few editors (including but not limited to Rex) who think that everything in the article has to pass their muster or it gets summarily reverted."

I would like to be able to participate in this Wiki as a peer, without being singled out by certain editors, who revert me without discussion. I am particularly concerned about Neutrality's past and ongoing efforts along those lines. In fact, I feel that if Neutrality would stop doing this to me, I would feel more welcome here.

Even though I strongly disagree with Neutrality's action against my edit and even though I stongly believe that his edit summary is not well-founded, I'm holding any re-edits on "Elliott" in abeyance until later today or tommorrow so as to give the group time to respond.

Please add your comments ASAP. Rex071404 14:42, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex. I for one thought that more comment/etc on the elliot issues was needed (which is what I am pretty sure the edit you are referring to was about, if I am wrong, I apologize). As such, I understand someone's reaction to you "correcting" it, even using the term corrected, until a consensus of what to do was found. On the other hand, and more to the point, I would ask Neutrality to participate in that discussion, explain issues, and comment back and forth, instead of a near-immediate revert (I was watching RC at the time). I do thank you rex, for stepping back and asking for comment here. Lyellin 14:50, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

This was not mere "correcting". Rather is was a wholesale reversion and multiple edits by Neutrality that blantantly mis-characterize my edits (which do contain accurate facts and accurate timeline and correct, on-point links) as being a "factual inaccuracy". Even so, as I have other things to attend to today and because I want to hear from the group, I will not comment on this again until tommorrow. Rex071404 14:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That was of course, the reason for the quotation marks. Unrelated, but a suggustion: in conversations, could you ensure that when you write a reply to a specific comment, it is indented so that it reads like it is a reply? Makes it easier for all of us to read the comments. Lyellin 15:02, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)