User talk:DHeyward

Monday

4

November

09:35 UTC

Please add comments to the bottom

Likely fading out

I'm nearing my pain threshold for this website mainly due to the blatant left wing bias that permeates it in every corner. I used to recommend some areas for basic referencing that had little partisan partic.ipation...but that is now rarely the course. Surely I'm getting older now and my perspective is more conservative than some child still in college. But I'm facinated that so many "adults" still cling to adolescent liberal notions, failing to grasp Churchill's oft cited comments in essence that if a child is not liberal they have no heart, but if still liberal as an adult one lacks a brain. Its like Sanders supporters....do they really understand what communism is? Of course not....they think the money tree is infinite or that everyone should be equally poor.--MONGO 04:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Definitely a sense of entitlement is manifesting itself. "Progressive" has been co-opted by a "me first" generation that doesn't support social progress at all. They lack the fundamental understanding of what "free" means. Someday they may realize that the evil capitalists railroad robber barons were the richest people of their time and still needed a chamber pot - the poorest of us today have more wealthy comforts than the richest capitalists only a century ago. Getting in the way of that type of advancement in wealth is very regressive and severely impacts the next generation in a very selfish way. --DHeyward (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Chris Kyle

I've left some comments at the talk page of the article regarding the latest kerfuffle there. My feeling is that once the PP expires, the status quo in the article regarding the awards needs to be restored. Thoughts? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thst'd be my thought. The Intercept is not a reliable source considering what they strung together. They found a way to use USA Today's article on secret awards with redacted citations to defame Kyle. Thry are the ones that are stealing valor. --DHeyward (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I think at this point, the only thing we can do is let the truth be the truth and wait for the record to be corrected to match the DD-214. Which it will, eventually. It doesn't seem that anything you or I or anyone else says will change the other individual's mind because they appear to believe Kyle was a liar and our opinions are based solely on POV. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It's only one editor. I'm done trying to convince him. Until the DD215 is filed, the article should reflect the only RS available which is the DD214 as well as consensus which is 2 SS and 5 BS. --DHeyward (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify

I actually agree with you RE outing, however not all oversighters do, and the current wording in the outing policy can (imho not by anyone thinking rationally) support that interpretation. X is person X is outing. X is socialmediaprofile X is not always considered outing by the people who would oversight the material. Its currently under discussion on the outing talkpage since Jan but there are a number of issues. Bear in mind Kingsindian's ombudsman request that came back with the answer that the name of someone who has been a witness in court, given interviews to the press, and been named in books, is not public information as they may have been compelled to testify unwillingly. The entire outing and oversight area needs to be overhauled and actual impartial oversight of CU/OS needs to be implemented. There is little point getting into an argument with Hijari, as his opinion of the policy/practice is shared by at least some of the people who enforce it.Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)