{{RFM-Request|[[Apartheid (disambiguation)]]|Apartheid (disambiguation)}}-- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 02:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
{{RFM-Request|[[Apartheid (disambiguation)]]|Apartheid (disambiguation)}}-- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 02:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
== Your comment on my talk page ==
I do not "hang around with" anyone like that. I would like to ask you to stop repeating this untruth. I have explained this to you before, but I will explain it again for you here and now, and if you insist on repeating it, I will simply link people to this comment so that they can understand what you are up to and draw their own conclusions.
I was invited to the Time 100 party. At this party I met and spoke to a wide range of people including Al Franken, John McCain, Ann Coulter, Rachael Ray, Martha Stewart, Condi Rice, etc. Fox News reported on the brief conversation that I had with Ann Coulter in this way: "Meantime, I left the Time Warner Center just as my pal Ann Coulter was busy chastising Jimmy Wales about her Wikipedia entry and finding out from him how to change it. Listen, you Wikipedians, be nice to Coulter."
In fact, Coulter made two complaints about the article, two factual complaints which, in my view, were about things which are neither in favor of nor against her. The first complaint was that our article apparently at one time indicated that she was raised in the Roman Catholic tradition. Not true. The other complaint was that our article suggested that her newspaper startup during college was funded by a particular conservative philanthropist, which she felt was not true. (And to date, as far as I know, this has not been confirmed.)
Whether or not she was or was not raised Catholic seems to me to be neither "pro" nor "anti" Ann Coulter. Whether or not she was funded by Richard Mellon Scaife seems to me also to be neither "pro" nor "anti" Coulter. (She is a hell of a lot more controversial than he is, and she is of course a well known and open conservative, so what's the difference.)
Xed frequently tries to spin this chance meeting and discussion into some kind of evidence that I am opposed to a serious and neutral discussion of politics, or that I am somehow racist, or right-winger. All I can really say to that is: this rendering of the facts is so absurd that all that is required is for me to state them plainly and people will judge for themselves what this may say about Xed.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 13:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed that article from my site some time ago and I don't think I any longer have a copy of it. Adam12:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of the caption is "I have left this text as I posted it at the start of the war, so that my comments and predictions can be judged in the light of what actually happened." This would indicate you would have kept a copy. Perhaps you can post it here. - Xed12:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its funny how that article just diasppeared. From memory the articles gist was that Mr Saddam was a very bad man who was resposible for killing 1000s some of who were gay. Because of this it was OK for US, UK and Australia etc to invade-NO MATTER HOW MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE WERE KILLED OR MAIMED. The end justified the means. Also ask Mr Carr how he justifies his membership of ALP and active support for that parties stance against gay marriage. Like the missing pro-invasion article he keeps VERY quite about this. Eric A. Warbuton04:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy
I'd keep myself far from Arbcom cases and snowy things alike if I were you. It's likely to bring nothing else than wikistress. — mark✎06:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just had to drop a note to say that I laughed out loud at the incongruity of Tony's message just after Mark's above. One might begin thinking about nefarious plots if they saw enough coincidences like this. Anyway, I hope you are doing well. - BanyanTree21:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
Strangely, my version hasn't been reverted for days. What does that suggest? It seems my additions weren't the issue. - Xed16:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The facts speak for themselves. Jimbo hangs around with someone who views arabs as, and I quote, "ragheads, camel jockeys, and jihad monkeys". He then goes out of his way to make their articles more sympathetic, after they have complained about the article. It's not uncivil to point this out. Rather, it is a service to Wikipedia. - Xed22:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Hangs around with?" False. "Make their articles more sympathetic?" False. Associating Ann Coulter with Scaife is not negative for her, it is negative for him. Please.--Jimbo Wales04:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I met Anne Coulter recently and she brought this tidbit up to me as an example of a flaw in the Wikipedia biography of her, and I have to say that I agree with her criticism on this point." Your words, Wales. - Xed09:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, if someone walks to up me and says that they would like to talk about their bio in Wikipedia, and I do so, that hardly amounts to "hanging around". And saying that she was right about her criticism is in now way about making the article more sympathetic to her. The specific factual issue at hand (about the details of a funding source of a college newspaper) seems to me to be neither sympathetic nor unsympathetic to her. The other edit I made was an unsourced reference to what her official birth certificate supposedly says. Is that sympathetic to her?
Perhaps you would be much happier if Wikipedia consisted of biased hatchet jobs on people you don't like, but that isn't the way it works. Even Ann Coulter, as much as you despise her, will have a factual and neutral article. --Jimbo Wales20:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come on Wales. Get a grip. Ditch the strawmen. Take criticism seriously for a change. Even if it's not from Coulter. (note: this got me blocked by one of Jimbos minions for making personal attacks. Seriously.) - Xed23:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Xed, I would encourage you not to remark on the editor (Jimbo, in this instance) themself. Saying he lacks integrity (which you've said multiple times now) is a personal attack. If you have a problem with the content of one of his edits, please be specific and state that. It is fine if you disagree with someone, as we all should disagree with people sometime (we're not sheep, we have our own opinions on matters), just don't make it a personal dispute. Keep the discussion limited to the article's content. Do not comment on the editor themself. Thanks. --You Know Who(Dark Mark)13:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but please do not bring it to Wikipedia. If you don't like the guy behind the scenes, comment on him behind the scenes too. Personal attacks harm the community, not just those being attacked. Thanks, Xed. --You Know Who(Dark Mark)14:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding edits such as this: You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.
I can't really see how Come on Wales. Get a grip. Ditch the strawmen. Take criticism seriously for a change. Even if it's not from Coulter. is a personal attack. Oh, I see. I'm criticizing the Leader.... - Xed23:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What it is is harrassment. What it isn't is helping to make this a better encyclopedia. If you can't discuss article content in a civil manner, you are in violation of policy. --InShaneee00:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's neither harassment nor personal attack. It is precisely what you claim it not to be - it is aimed at making this a better encyclopedia. If the Leader can't be criticized, then Wikipedia may as well officially become a cult. - Xed00:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if the comments you made were to an anonymous IP; I would have blocked you all the same, as would any other administrator here. We're not here to discuss other editors; wikipedia policy dictates that we keep on topic with discussing article content on its own merits. --InShaneee00:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find one instance of a similar comment to an anonymous IP which resulted in a block I'd love to know. - Xed00:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the truth accomplishes nothing but insulting another user, we don't want it. This is an encyclopedia, not a flame-filled Usenet group. --InShaneee01:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've said if the comments you made were to an anonymous IP; I would have blocked you all the same and subsequently claimed you've done so in the past. There is not one instance of such a block. You made it up. - Xed11:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For criticizing the Leader again. This time for saying, As documented here - "Policies are often applied to critics retroactively. Critics are punished, and then a policy is stuck on or invented later." on User_talk:Anittas. - Xed15:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, since this is your third personal attack block in only a little more than a month, it is my opinion that you have reached the threshold of "repeated personal attacks," and, under your personal attack parole, I, at least, will be blocking for a month in the future. Phil Sandifer15:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, twice blocked for criticizing Wikipedia or Wales (1: Come on Wales. Get a grip. Ditch the strawmen. Take criticism seriously for a change. Even if it's not from Coulter., 2: As documented here - "Policies are often applied to critics retroactively. Critics are punished, and then a policy is stuck on or invented later.") - Xed22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tit for tat
Hi Xed,
Sorry I haven't got back to you since your messages. (I've been a bit busy with work.) Wondered if you might like to take your mind off Wikipedia political troubles and take up an Africa tit-for-tat thing? I can probably manage an hour or so on Culture of Kenya or Culture of Tanzania (not sure which yet); perhaps by next Monday or so? — Matt Crypto19:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ps;I have a lengthy bit on jimbos talk page you might be interested in.
Yes, I read some of it. A useful analogy for Wikipedia's present woes is alcoholism. The first step in recovery for an alcoholic is admitting that there is a problem. Wikipedia has yet to take this first step. Like alcoholics, it attacks those who suggest it should. Moments of clarity will become increasingly uncommon until it reaches rock bottom, and there are no more choices. - Xed00:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that is true. There are a variety of useful analogies. In this case, there is also a second path; that of intervention. I believe i am qualified to lead this intervention, and would hope that you would support such an effort by clearly delineating specific problems and specific ideas for fixes. I'd rather not see it hit rock bottom if we can
dry it out by getting it lucid first. So far, I seem to be enjoying a certain amount of leeway in making the suggestion that it should. So far, only inshannee has taken actions against me. If we can, we owe it to ourselves to try to fix this before it gets too bad to get fixed.
I agree that the article quality can be very poor. For instance,
psychonaut is an article i was involved in which demonstrated early on a systemic bias against experts and expert information. They
were totally clueless in the face of my information, and wanted me to referance everything; Which i might have been able to do in like 15 days considering the quality of google and my search speed. But that wasn't the only problem. Ad hominems, straw arguments, and essentially an assumption of ignorance in the face of overwhelming evidence that i was in fact an expert on the subject... The article is still just sort of an anchor of a justification for the entheogen
project.
Systemic bias is a bigger problem, and "wisdom of crowds" might also
be termed simply "groupthink" esp where pack psychology is obviously running mobs, like it is here.
So we agree on the basics. Heres my brain popper for the day;
Can you tell me if you were acting on behalf of Michael Danby when you added text to the Julia Irwin article? It seems unusual at best for you to edit that article.
No. I wrote a large number of basic articles about MPs and Senators at that time. I did not subsequently "add text" to the article, as its edit history will show you.
On a similar subject, do you have any sources to back up your claim that Jennie George was a member of the Communist Party of Australia?
It's in the Brad Norrington biography (1998)
And was this "information" added at the behest of Danby as well?
Hey, I was about to critisize your comments on Jimbo's talk page, when I checked myself, and then looked into the User:Anittas situation. You're right there is deffinitely something VERY weird going on there. Easter rising13:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
jimbos talk page re
hey, believe me i understand...its tuff to hold it together
when you are one versus the mob...but hey, its not like that
anymore. the best way for us to stay chill is for us to talk
about how to support each other in this.
Let me know if there are any more new and interesting torches
to pick up and what page to go to Xed. I am really with you in this effort and will be happy to assist you in any way possible.
(including where necessary, checking you if you get overheated... and i hope you will do the same for me.)
I started my journey with Wikipedia several months ago. After using it on a few occasions as a handy resource, I became intrigued with it because it’s general conceptual
Modus operandi matched my own personal objectives. Wikipedia exists to create an online encyclopedia, the largest and most complete ever. For many years, and since well
Before Wikipedia, my personal goal has been to participate in a collaborative Textbook
Writing experience, and to use good information and lucidity to end the age of propaganda and start a genuine age of information. As a child, I learned to speed read,
And managed to read thousands of textbooks. This put me in a unique position to integrate the concepts from many different sources, and to try to solve apparently unsolved problems.
As I explored Wikipedia, I found an article which was very poor in overall quality and Very skewed with patently bad information on a topic I am an expert in. The Wikipedia Article “psychonaut”. This article still stands as a good example of the problem with Wikipedia. Drug using self justifying people have written an article about Psychonautics Which frames Psychonautics as being about drug use. Psychonautics is not about drug use, it is about the exploration of the psyche. I made an effort to improve the article, and succeeded in getting the definition changed, but it became rapidly apparent that I was facing ignorant people who didn’t know what they didn’t know and who were prepared in any case to fight to defend their turf. After giving them a very complete outline, and starting a professional level conversation with them, all they could do was include A few minor points in a new version and otherwise tell me more or less to shut up and go Away. This alerted me to the problem, which I will now try to define.
<o:p> </o:p>
The primary problem with Wikipedia is that it is in fact written by everybody collectively, and, THERE IS NO MECHANISM TO PREVENT DRIFT TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR. Expert level knowledge is irrelevant; because what goes into the article is what 10 uneducated people want in the article, not what is
True, important, or most useful or informative to the general public. This ends up meaning that if you are an expert on a topic and want to participate in Wikipedia, your
Real task is an uphill battle that may take months or years just over even a single Article.
This problem could be theoretically dealt with if there were lucid rules to deal with content disputes. However, Wikipedia offers exactly the opposite. If you are in a conflict on wikipedia, there is almost no recourse for you if the other person is both abusive, but clever enough not to violate only a very few insufficient rules. You can be attacked and maligned at any time, and there is no real recourse for you. There is a rule against personal attacks, but it is really only enforced on Wikipedia by admins using it for
Personal warfare purposes, and otherwise, you are more or less swimming alone.
Wikipedia is thus completely vulnerable to the Tyranny of the majority. Wikipedias articles in general character are very low in quality, and the reason for this is simple;
The people writing the articles are factually ignorant, and any interference from somebody who knows what they are talking about will only cause that person to get ganged up on and abused.
<o:p> </o:p>
The next biggest problem on wikipedia is the way that it handles neutrality. Wikipedias definition of neutrality is that something is neutral if the “mainstream press” has said it.
The problem is that the mainstream press isn’t neutral, and the mainstream press is by vast majority republican owned and operated. This skews wikipedia badly towards the right, which doesn’t stop the left from being represented. Wikipedias policy is that articles should be written from a “neutral point of view”. This is called the NPOV
Policy. The problem with this policy and how it is actually applied in practice is that
In the first place, “neutrality” is never rationally defined. Neutrality doesn’t just consist of neutral language, and it doesn’t just consist of giving equal time to different sides of an argument. It also requires a real understanding of the difference between opinion and fact. There is no method for pointing out the difference between opinion and fact.
On Wikipedia. Wikipedia side steps the issue by calling something a fact if somebody else said it. It requires only references, not a cogent evaluation of those references. References are only required to be mainstream, there are no criteria and there is no methodology for determining if a reference is itself biased. The result of this is that “neutrality” as such Becomes incredibly vague and hard to pin down, and, more importantly, “neutrality” As such is only what the local administrator says it is. These admins are not required to understand logic, aren’t required to know how to evaluate fact from opinion, and, aren’t even required to follow the rules set for mere editors. It is factually common practice for admins to verbally attack others, and there is no recourse for the abused.
<o:p> </o:p>
Wikipedia has thus become a battleground, not an encyclopedia. There are no real
Criteria set forth to limit persons from becoming admins, and so eventually, those who seek power for nefarious purposes, including Trolls, can become administrators on Wikipedia. Once a person is an admin, they are essentially above reproach.
Confronting an admin over abuse is enough to get people banned. (Or blocked.) Wikipedia essentially has become nothing more than several different point of view camps, which war with each other in never ending battles to twist the truth and facts
Their way.
<o:p> </o:p>
The proof that this is true is actually written all over Wikipedia. Any given exploration of a science topic will demonstrate quickly that the information presented is substandard and often not even factual, just well sourced. With a million articles, you would think that by now a single textbook worth of material on some topic or another
Would have been generated. Not so. Check out the “portals” on Wikipedia. “Portals”
Are ways of grouping articles together by subject. Any cursory examination of the portals
Shows that there wouldn’t be enough material out of any given portal to justify a whole
Textbook. So what are 1 million articles covering? Everything you can think of, and mostly noise, nonsense, drivel, entertainment, Movies, Television, Games, Politics,
Biographies, and so forth. Wikipedias content is by vast majority “non-encyclopedic.”
If we define “encyclopedic” material as being that which would be found in some given textbook, or if we define an encyclopedia as a topic orientated textbook, Wikipedia is
Already a gross failure.
This proof is content driven, but there are more and better proofs that Wikipedia
Is a battleground of point of view warriors. Perhaps the best proof is Jimbos talk page.
Jimbo is the person who came up with the idea of Wikipedia, and he is the defacto
Dictator of Wikipedia. Jimbo is a pretty kewl dictator as far as such go, because he believes in consensus process. But the point is, if you read his talk page, every third entry
Or so is somebody making an appeal to him versus outlandish abuse. And he doesn’t answer these people, and the abuse goes on. At the top of Jimbos Talk page is a message saying to take such complaints to and Administrative page. Good luck. If your complaint for instance involves an admin, they might just delete the complaint and block you. If you are being personally attacked, the standard answer is to go “work it out yourself.” Of course, there are other methods to deal with problems on Wikipedia, and to be fair, we should discuss them. There is in fact an entire dispute resolution process. The first step is called a request for comment, or RFC. Here, you are invited to make a page, list your evidence, and make a complaint. The reality is that you are just drawing a big bull’s-eye across your forehead. It’s not against the rules for others to seek the help of all of their friends, and “consensus” process thus really amounts to nothing more than a popularity
Contest. If you are new to wikipedia, or an expert with less time to devote than the next
Whole month, you are pretty much out of luck. You’ll be crucified, happily, and if you get upset about it, and do anything other than allow yourself to become a good well behaved martyr, you are likely to get blocked or banned. After all of that trouble, and we will say a minimum of 5 days, an RFC must in theory be filed before any other complaints, but an RFC carries zero weight of authority. So if you are being abused, you just lost five days fighting where it doesn’t really matter, and on top of it all you have been tricked into criticizing Wikipedia, and thus have become a defacto enemy and
Scapegoat for Wikipedias pov warriors and ignorant admins. Now that things have escalated, you can start a new process that will last a minimum of five days, and which also carries zero actual weight of authority called mediation. Here, you are expected to compromise and give in and allow others to assault you, mischaracterize you, and insult
You, and further scapegoat you. There is no recourse here to logic or fair play, and despite rules that supposedly require civility, nobodies required to stay civil except you. Any admin can attack you, and, you simply are required to endure it. So now you have spent a minimum of ten days, nothing has changed, and nothing has been done about your complaint. Your article may have been nominated for deletion and been deleted by then, Before you even have a chance to seek genuine authority to resolve the dispute.
<o:p> </o:p>
The next and last and final step, is called Arbitration. Unlike two prior steps, Arbitration actually has authority and weight to actually make people do things or face consequences. However, you should know that there are Arbiters who are pov warriors, and that the process only requires one arbiter to more or less act as facilitator. So if you are lucky, and you get an arbiter who favors you, you are in luck. But if not, you are basically in a court of law where the main judge is also the prosecution against you. You aren’t allowed to defend yourself versus the arbiter, nor to cross examine the arbiters case or logic. By now, the people you were in the conflict with have had at least 10 days to attack you, bait you, and abuse you. There is an evidence page where you get to make your case, but arbiters aren’t required to read it, and most don’t. Instead, the facilitating arbiter makes his or her case, and the other arbiters vote to agree with or disagree with the facilitating Arbiter. The page on which that happens you aren’t allowed to even make comment to.
<o:p> </o:p>
So justice is elusive at best, and impossible at worst on Wikipedia. This creates a host of other systemic problems. It means that in the end, 99 percent of the participants put up or shut up, and learns to go along with the flow of apparent “consensus”. (Which is often generated by only a single admin.?) The idea here is that conflict takes time and process to resolve. The problem is, nobody in their right mind is going to put up with all of that. Wikipedia thus chases away anybody of decent or high caliber unless they are for whatever reason truly dedicated, and willing to spend hours and hours and hours being abused in order to accomplish writing a short article which will then probably degenerate into noise anyways.
<o:p> </o:p>
Wikipedias government is thus definable as a tyranny of the majority based in pack psychology and anarchy. Its claim to consensus process is totally illusory, in fact it practices a perfect example of the now well discredited <st1:place w:st="on">Delphi</st1:place> process. It forces false consensus via threat, intimidation, and manipulation.
<o:p> </o:p>
Nowhere does this become more apparent than in trying to specifically bring these problems to the attention of Wikipedia. Like all bureaucratic monsters, Wikipedia isn’t
Really interested in criticism, and serious critics are punished by intimidation, threat,
Blocking, and banning. Standing up to an abusive admin is “asking to be banned.”
Standing up to wikipedia as a whole on account of this problem was a lesson is doublethink and pack psychology. Being blocked for defending somebody else against blatant admin abuse (and reckless flagrant disregard for the rules) demonstrated the simple truth. People are blocked or banned from wikipedia simply for the crime of standing up for their rights, or other people’s rights, or for demanding that the rules be followed. The rules are followed selectively and at the convenience of the admins. Personal attacks are the modus operandi of admins, Votes for deletion, and even arbiters.
Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia; it’s a political battleground, a war zone of ideologies,
Complete with total blatant and flagrant corruption.
<o:p> </o:p>
Now, having made my case against Wikipedia, the next question is why bring this up
With you? The answer of course is that I am interested in collaboration of the type that Wikipedia promises but cannot hope to deliver. For over 15 years, my goal has been to
Write Textbooks or Tomes on those subjects which are most contended over, and to use truth and knowledge and logic and reason and fact to facilitate real change and evolution
In our society towards the better. Specifically, I am interested in getting together with others and building a knowledge base prequel to writing textbook tomes on the following subjects. Ethics, Psychology, Sociology, Metaphysics, Philosophy, World Religions, Politics, Psychonautics, Permaculture, Arcologies, Architecture, Space Exploration and Colonization, Physics, Chemistry, Biochemistry, Herbology, Botany, Aerodynamics,
Computer Sciences, Robotics, Alternative energy, Propulsion Physics, Electricity, The Strong and Weak Nuclear forces, And Gravity.
<o:p> </o:p>
My Email is Prometheuspan@hotmail.com
KucitizenX@yahoo.com
Or
ThinkStarship@hotmail.com
RfM
This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.
Thank you, [signature]
I do not "hang around with" anyone like that. I would like to ask you to stop repeating this untruth. I have explained this to you before, but I will explain it again for you here and now, and if you insist on repeating it, I will simply link people to this comment so that they can understand what you are up to and draw their own conclusions.
I was invited to the Time 100 party. At this party I met and spoke to a wide range of people including Al Franken, John McCain, Ann Coulter, Rachael Ray, Martha Stewart, Condi Rice, etc. Fox News reported on the brief conversation that I had with Ann Coulter in this way: "Meantime, I left the Time Warner Center just as my pal Ann Coulter was busy chastising Jimmy Wales about her Wikipedia entry and finding out from him how to change it. Listen, you Wikipedians, be nice to Coulter."
In fact, Coulter made two complaints about the article, two factual complaints which, in my view, were about things which are neither in favor of nor against her. The first complaint was that our article apparently at one time indicated that she was raised in the Roman Catholic tradition. Not true. The other complaint was that our article suggested that her newspaper startup during college was funded by a particular conservative philanthropist, which she felt was not true. (And to date, as far as I know, this has not been confirmed.)
Whether or not she was or was not raised Catholic seems to me to be neither "pro" nor "anti" Ann Coulter. Whether or not she was funded by Richard Mellon Scaife seems to me also to be neither "pro" nor "anti" Coulter. (She is a hell of a lot more controversial than he is, and she is of course a well known and open conservative, so what's the difference.)
Xed frequently tries to spin this chance meeting and discussion into some kind of evidence that I am opposed to a serious and neutral discussion of politics, or that I am somehow racist, or right-winger. All I can really say to that is: this rendering of the facts is so absurd that all that is required is for me to state them plainly and people will judge for themselves what this may say about Xed.--Jimbo Wales13:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
