Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:45, 7 September 2009

ET, EST, EDT

Not sure why you are so adamant using EST while we are in EDT. Regardless, we should use ET instead of EST or EDT. Reliefappearance (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was a typo on my part ... LOL! ET is fine with me. ObserverNY (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

IB has no standards

This is offensive. Please consider formatting it as follows: Frankly, this is outrageousso that readers do not have to be subjected to such outrageous, anti-semitic language. I noticed you removed your potentially libelous statement and I am asking that you remove this one as well. The link remains, but the offensive phrase would be removed from the talk page. Thanks La mome (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty offensive that IB would authorize that school. Funny, calling Christians "pigs" doesn't bother you? News is news, I didn't title the article or create the url. Deal with it. ObserverNY (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Any and all name-calling bothers me. Calling Christians "pigs" is not on the talk page. That type of inflammatory language discourages others (both old and new editors) from wanting to edit. If you had any sensitivity, you would reformat it. La mome (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You simply don't get it, do you? How very sad. ObserverNY (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

La mome: Offensiveness exists, and there's much more of it on wikipedia than you seem to think. On the other hand, wikipedia is not a forum for discussing the merits or otherwise of the IBDP, so I'd suggest that it's not a point we should be pursuing anyway. ONY should know that. Ewen (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ewen - I was unaware of the WP:SYN policy and it was well-cited by HelloAnnyong. I cited two outrageous facts. I am not the Principal of that school who uttered the offensive words, nor did I write the article. There is no evidence of IB EVER denying a school authorization. Of course, you are extremely capable of locating information and if you have evidence of schools ever being denied in IB's 40 year history, I would find it most interesting. As it stands, without contrary stats, IB approves 100% of its applicants. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

That's just flawed logic. Because you've never seen something doesn't mean it doesn't happen. All we can say is that the approcal rate is more than 0% and less than or equal to 100%. Anyway, this isn't a forum and it's not the place for original research. Ewen (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Flawed logic? Moi? You know, all of the best universities publish what their "admission" rate is. For example, I believe Yale's was < 8% of all applicants last year. That's because universities have "standards" to be met. But IB HAS NO STANDARDS for granting authorization. None. You may be interested in knowing that just this morning a document which was in response to a complaint filed by a UK resident with IB came into my possession. The reply from Director General Jeffrey Beard, dated July 31, 2009 stated that the King Fahad Academy "met and continues to meet their (IB's) standards". Clearly, a Principal who refuses to eliminate "textbooks" that denigrate Jews and Christians is okey dokey with IB. Shameful. Simply shameful. And hypocritical in the extreme. ObserverNY (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

p.s. - you convinced me to remove the suicide info by proving that an equal number of cases existed with AP/A-Levels. Are you chicken to find evidence of a school being denied IB authorization? ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Talk:Van Jones

The comment you restored to this discussion was simple vandalism. Talk pages are for discussing how an article can be improved; when a user uses the talk page to simply insult the subject, it is distracting to the work of improving the article, and can be removed. You are right that we shouldn't remove comments about improving the article that we disagree with, but it's fine to remove simple vandalism. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

FisherQueen - I'm just a little adamant about other editors censoring comments on a talk page, it is not acceptable practice. In the future, I recommend that such comments be stricken so that the offending signature doesn't get lost in the history. ObserverNY (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Since Glenn Beck has been talking about Van Jones, that talk page has been getting a lot of vandalism. If we left all those comments in place, stricken or not, the page would soon become nearly unreadable, and discussion of actually improving the article would end. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. So has most of the vandalism been on the part of anti-GB people? I've just sort of been testing the waters at GB because I figured it would be a controversial article. I want the facts presented, but I've seen a few control-freak liber-loons in Misplaced Pages and I haven't quite been able to figure out yet who has "annointed" themselves as "liberal editor in chief" guarding the page. ObserverNY (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I think you're not going to have any luck finding established, regular users who are actively pushing a political point of view, because people get blocked for that not long after they start editing. Most of the vandalism at Talk:Van Jones seems to be from people who want to insult Van Jones in a general way, but aren't interested in sharing ideas about making the article better. Of course, the Glenn Beck thing has also brought some conservative new editors who thought the article was a bit unbalanced in Jones's favor, and had some good ideas about fixing that, and none of their comments were removed- the only thing it's appropriate to remove is the stuff that is pure insults with no content. For example, the specific edit you restored had a full paragraph of racist invective. There's no one in charge of guarding the page; there are lots of experienced users who have it on our watchlists. I hadn't ever heard of Jones until I noticed vandalism to it while I was patrolling recent changes, and I am not really involved in writing the article- there are lots of people who know more about Jones doing a good job of that- I'm just helping out by warning and blocking vandals and removing vandalism, so the editors involved can get on with the work of making the article better. It isn't, in my experience, useful to try to divide Misplaced Pages editors into liberal and conservative sides, because lots of Misplaced Pages editors are from countries other than the United States, and have their own completely different political perspectives. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong- the full paragraph of racism wasn't in the edit you restored- I think it was the one I removed just before or just after yours. There's been so many that I get them a bit mixed up in my memory. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi FQ - thanks for the info. I don't know how much time I will have in the near future to contribute to both the Glenn Beck and Van Jones articles, but I am extremely interested in both and hope to make constructive, accurate contributions. Your attention to vandals is appreciated, I apologize for restoring that edit. As I said, there was one editor at the IBDP who took it upon herself to censor a comment I made on the talk page there, and she was rightfully reverted. Now that I understand what is happening at the Van Jones article, I appreciate your vigilance. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Thanks. I may be a Democrat, but at Misplaced Pages, I try to make sure that I don't ever use my admin button to keep other perspectives from being heard- lively debate makes articles better, by making sure that articles don't become biased. Boy, the vandalism has been awful this morning, hasn't it? I hated to semiprotect the talk page- that's something I'm normally dead against- but since this morning's vandal keeps changing ip addresses, it seemed like the best way to give everyone a break from it so they can work. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, we'll have to work on that Democrat "problem". ;-) The way things are right now, I'm surprised anyone would admit to being a Dem OR a Repub! LOL! I think the semi-protect is a good idea, I don't have a problem with it. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

There's a lot in which I agree with traditional Republican views- I like free market capitalism and personal freedom from excessive government interference. But I'm gay, so it would be stupid of me to ever vote Republican- it'd be voting against my own interests. -16:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think more and more Republicans are adopting the Libertarian ideology which is much more accepting of an individual's rights and preferences than say, the fundie Christian perspective. I don't care if someone is gay, as long as it isn't another female hitting on me. I happen to be of the mindset that being gay is physiological, not a "choice". I'm all about Free Will. ;-) But if your physiological make-up is such that it drives you to a partner of the same sex, I don't believe anyone should be punished for that lifestyle. On the other hand, I don't feel that lifestyle needs to be promoted to children in 1st Grade as what is considered "normal" for society as a whole. My daughter and I have many male gay friends and we just adore them! (and my daughter is a 20 yr. old registered Republican & art student ...LOL - talk about conflicting politics!) In art circles - Republicans either shut up or change the subject when it comes to politics) which makes talking about shopping at Neiman Marcus or Abercrombie all that much more fun. ;-) Tata for now ObserverNY (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I think the GOP will catch up with the changing culture: one of the jobs of a conservative is to hold on to what's good about the past, and to be the last to change, and we need that, to keep us from rushing ahead blindly. As for schools, though- I don't think that people who talk about 'promoting' gay life in schools have an accurate picture of what's happening. ALL kids- no matter what kind of kids they are- arrive at school assuming that everyone's life is more or less like theirs. As kids talk about their lives in class, they learn that not everyone has whatever they have- two mommies, mommy and grandma, two daddies, mommy and daddy, a big house, a little apartment, a fish, weekends in the mountains... teachers help them learn that different kinds of lives are okay, because the alternative is teasing and bullying. It doesn't really work in a classroom for teachers to single out the kids with gay parents, and say, "Sarah, you aren't allowed to talk about your family, because some parents think your family is yucky." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, I certainly wouldn't condone that. I was referring to the CA teacher who brought her 1st grade students to her lesbian wedding. I think that is rather confusing for most children that age.ObserverNY (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I remember that story...I couldn't quite picture why the class was going to a wedding as a school outing at all. Doesn't sound like any elementary school I ever went to... I looked for more context on that story and never found any. I wouldn't have a problem with a teacher inviting kids and their families to her wedding, but I don't think it should be part of the school day, and it certainly shouldn't be mandatory. Then again, I think I'd feel the same way if she were marrying a man.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Fun! I searched again, and this time I found the context. Here's the article I found. When marriage became legal in California, the teacher had taken the day off for her wedding. It was a parent who organized the trip as a surprise for her, not the teacher. It was a charter school, NOT a public school. And kids were allowed to stay at school, which two kids of the 20 in the class did. Those details make me feel a little less ooky about it- though, speaking as a lesbian teacher, I would personally be rather horrified if my class showed up unexpected at my wedding, even though I'd pretend I was delighted to see them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was California, yet California defeated Prop 8, go figure! Btw, charter schools do receive public taxdollars. ObserverNY (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

They do get public dollars, but they often represent specific points of view- there are lots of religious charter schools. I'm guessing that, in California as in my state, 'Creative Arts' is code for 'school with lots of gay students and parents.' Such schools teach specific religions all the time, which wouldn't be kosher (hee) in a public school- the parents who go to charter schools generally choose one with an educational philosophy they like. I'm no fan of Prop 8, because I think it sets a dangerous precedent to let minority rights be determined by a majority vote. Majority rule, with guaranteed equal rights for all is at the heart of the Constitution. Everybody knows, though, that ultimately, the question of gay marriage is going to be decided in the Supreme Court, and all the various state laws and votes along the way are just paving the way to that decision. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Both of my kids attended a half day performing arts HS, 1/2 day reg. HS, which is the closest thing around me on LI, NY to a charter school. There was no religious affiliation whatsoever, but there was a large gay population. My son went on to graduate from SUNY Purchase as a lighting designer. Being a "clean cut" straight guy, he was the "minority" at Purchase... LOL! However, I believe the question of gay "marriage" should remain within the State's purview and should not be considered a Federal issue as marriage is not addressed in the Constitution. And though I do not subscribe to an organized religion (I was raised Jewish, married a Catholic), I can't help but feel that homosexuality is God's natural means of population control - which makes me a bit uncomfortable with gay adoptions. I mean, look at Rosie O'Donnell (ugh). Btw, I'd just like to add that it is very nice to encounter someone in Misplaced Pages who is comfortable having a casual conversation without lecturing me on Misplaced Pages protocol and etiquette. I have a couple of Nannies in here who like to scold me if I so much as say "boo" incorrectly. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I think that, evolutionarily speaking, gay people make a lot of sense- people with parenting instincts but no kids of their own are good for a population, because they can take in kids whose biological parents die or are incapacitated. The 'gay gene' might not get passed on directly, but populations with 'spare parents' would benefit in a Darwinian sense. When I see gay people paying huge amounts of money to do in vitro fertilizing, though... I can't help thinking of all the damaged kids in need of loving parents, who'd be happy to have gay parents as opposed to living in the foster care system or with the parents they were taken from. If I ever have kids, I'll try to adopt, not a perfect baby, but one of those kids. Would you like me to lecture you on Misplaced Pages protocol? I'm quite passionate about the notability criteria.. :)-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely wouldn't like to lecture you on Misplaced Pages protocol... LOL! Right now, the evil editors at IBDP are plotting to get me banned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Candorwien I think it's hysterical. Talk about dysfunctional! Btw, I was adopted at birth, and you make a very good point about gays being able to be caring parents and saving children from unfortunate situations. I'll give that some thought. Of course, I was told by my adoptive parents that they got me through a Jewish agency and that my birth mother was Jewish, but they didn't know anything about the father except they thought he "died" before I was born and had red hair. (kinda like our German Shephard who broke her hip and was sent to the "farm") Anyway, at the tender age of 48, I came across my original adoption papers which revealed that my birth mother was a Methodist from Maryland and I have step-brothers or sisters somewhere! Now this would explain why I dropped out of Hebrew school, but talk about an identity crisis! LOL! ObserverNY (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

p.s. - I'm glad we're on the same page on the in-vitro issue. Huh? Do I sense a slight slide to the right? C'mon FQ!

Oh, I don't think it should be illegal. Everyone has the legal right to fuck up their life, and that of their family, in their own unique way- isn't that a good Republican point of view? But I think the moral high ground goes to the people who adopt kids who are already in the world needing homes, not the ones who pay $10,000 per hit of sperm for a perfect white infant. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it should be illegal, I just don't think it is preferable. ObserverNY (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Check out who is on the organizing committee (Van Jones)

Can you add this to the article? I'm retarded. JohnHistory (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/Trutherismlite_and_a_second_Jones_tie.html?showall

OOPS, wrong one here it is...

http://www.rense.com/general18/march.htm JohnHistory (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Okay, agreed. But, you know the NY times isn't going to get to the bottom of this and I wonder how many good conservative journalists there are in San Fran? Van Jones is such an ass I wonder if hill make Obama fire him and not step down, but he is definitely toast. JohnHistory (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Nice job! It feels good to be a part of it. I was here a month or two ago adding his arrest into it and you wouldn't have believed how "clean" it was. I guess that was even true just yesterday. Obama's page is or was totally biased but the clique that runs that page is impossible to crack. They blocked me from even writing on my own talk page for 2 weeks and erased what I wrote there under the "rant" rule. It's the first thing you get when you google obama after his official pages, so you know that they literally "mind" that page every second. It feels good to actually see this work out for onceJohnHistory (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Van Jones is Gone Dude!!! Hell's yeah!

Hell yeah man, I just thought I would let you know. He resigned!!!!

We did it, man!!!! 71.245.236.40 (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Up late celebrating. I think this link says it all, bro.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsaTElBljOE JohnHistory (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

A firm reprimand

Shame on you for not using preview! SHAME ON YOU!  :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO! Hey, thanks for putting the protect on the page. I don't know if you saw that awful ni**er stuff that some moron put up. And they call ME lewd and vile! Geez! ObserverNY (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, I saw it. Yuck. Maybe Glenn Beck should start having a "Racists never get laid" segment on his show... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL! I wonder if there are any gay racists? Would that be an oxymoron? I'm trying to recall if any of our white gay friends have ever expressed racist sentiments....hmmmm.... I went on a cruise this year and made friends with this fabulous married gay couple from Paris, adorable. They were actually politically conservative! You should have heard them trash healthcare in France. But I don't think anything racial ever came up in our dinner talks. Of course, I don't recall many blacks on the cruise, either. The sad thing is, this President IS causing racial divisiveness that had pretty much disappeared, which is why he was elected. Most Americans are very good people at heart. They know it's not right to judge someone by the color of their skin. But then, when a person of color lies to them and abandons all of his promises, the old stereotypes and ugly names get applied by those who feel they were tricked. Sad. It doesn't mean I support it (obviously by my request for you to block the racist user), but I understand the frustration and anger behind it. ObserverNY (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, there are gay racists. If you were reading the gay blogs for the last few weeks, you'd see quite the tempest-in-a-teapot over comments made by Dan Savage pitting gay racists against black homophobes... oh, everyone had something to say about that one. I don't think that Obama's causing the divisions by his actions; the racist comments were happening during the elections, too. I think that there are some racists who just can't wrap their minds around having a black president- in my opinion, that's what's behind the 'birthers'- they're people who just are not able to conceive of how a black man with such a furrin-sounding name ended up as President. The people screaming about him now are pretty much the same people who were screaming that he was a secret muslim terrorist african gay drug addict during the campaign. I think that he's been more or less true to what he said in his campaign- first priority was closing Guantanamo, second priority is health care reform, all done with lots of input from Congress. I kind of wish he'd taken a stronger, more direct hand in both of those, but it is the same kind of style of leadership he showed when he was campaigning. And I'm genuinely pissed off that he's not making good yet on his campaign promises to gay Americans, but I'm going to hold off on real anger until he's been in office for a longer time- I can understand why he's making health care his first priority. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit, I don't read the gay blogs. But you're wrong about "the birthers". It has nothing to do with his race. It has to do with Obama's inability to produce his original birth certificate and not being a "natural born citizen". Have you seen this? Filed Friday in U.S. District Court. ObserverNY (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Oh, now you've disappointed me. His birth certificate has been examined by Hawaii officials. Hawaii officials have confirmed that it exists in their files. There's a scan of it all over the internet. It looks exactly like mine. There's no case there, which is why these cases have been thrown out of every court in which they've been filed. Pure conspiracy-theory nonsense, right up there with 'George Bush planned 9/11' and 'The CIA assassinated Kennedy.' It's been so widely debunked that I can't be bothered to even argue it. You could read Snopes or Factcheck or USA Today if you like, but I refuse to argue about it just as I refuse to argue about whether the Holocaust happened or whether people really walked on the Moon- because the whole thing is too stupid to dignify with a response. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There are conflicting reports about the "hard copy" from Hawaii. It was a later copy that was reproduced on the Internet. I'll be interested how this turns out because the guy filing the suit would be committing felony perjury if his allegations prove to be false. If he obtained this last February, it seems to me he's spent the last six months making sure his case is as airtight as it can be. Time will tell. I'm just interested in the truth. ObserverNY (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I don't believe a word of that, and I'm surprised that you do. Surprised and disappointed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't believe the suit was filed? ObserverNY (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Removing content from someone else's talk page...

...is against policy. (aka - It makes Jimbo cry, or something like that.) Anyway, let him remove the comments. Gracias. APK that's not my name 01:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

APK- Huh? Some dude came into MY talk page and said this: so I went and struck what I thought he was referring to. I would NEVER remove something from someone else's talk page - however it is perfectly permissible to remove whatever I want from my own. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I see that you struck through the word, but scroll down. You removed a large section of his talk page. APK that's not my name 01:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I have no idea how that happened - I certainly didn't wipe it. I think he wiped it himself! Someone tried to have him blocked and then he was unblocked and when I checked back later it was gone, but it wasn't me! All I did was strike "commie nutjob" or whatever it was I called the other editor.ObserverNY (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I checked the history and it appears the only explanation is that somehow I wiped out that huge section. I would never do that intentionally as I personally was incensed when another editor censored my comments on an article talk page. I entered my apologies on his talk page and have no problem with your reversion of my edit, except it unstrikes the "commie comment which then gets me in trouble with the other editor who yelled at me.....oh dear oh dear.... ObserverNY (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Look again. My edit was a partial revert. (the strike is still there) APK that's not my name 02:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh. OK. Cool. ObserverNY (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I just erased it, no worries. JohnHistory (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory I kept the other stuff because it will be funny in times to come to look back on the historical record that we kind of had a little tiny part in. But, let me know and I will delete it, though it doesn't have anything bad I just didn't know if you wanted that gone as well. Either way. By the way, do communists think "commie" is slander or do they think calling it slander is slanderous??? hmmm???JohnHistory (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Hey JH - I just wanted to make sure you knew that I wasn't trying to censor you - good grief, that's the last thing I would ever do! As I said, I've got this nutjob tracking my every move so she can "compile evidence" of my "gross transgressions" such as calling the lorax a "commie". (I'm sure she'll add this comment to her pile...hehehehe) Her goal is to get me permanently banned from Misplaced Pages.....LOL!... don't these people have ANYTHING better to do with their lives? Hope you have a nice Labor Day. Any chance you'll be going to D.C. on 9/12? ObserverNY (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ANI

I've opened a thread on WP:ANI about your last edit about me. — HelloAnnyong 14:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh good for you HelloAnnyong! That was so polite of you to give me notice. ObserverNY (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Civility

Please go to User talk:JohnHistory and refector this edit of yours to remove the clear personal attack William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't attack JohnHistory, what are you talking about? ObserverNY (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I see you worked it out. Sadly, you then deleted this message and proceeded to further incivilty . So I've blocked you for 24h. Please read and abide by WP:CIVIL William M. Connolley (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. I forgot the actual block. Done now William M. Connolley (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO! Who's "inept" now Connolley? You mean people actually make mistakes sometimes? OMG! Imagine that. ;-p ObserverNY (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

for the record

Connelly - you said: : I see you worked it out. Sadly, you then deleted this message and proceeded to further incivilty. Yeah. I deleted the message. I have a right to do that on my own talk page. If APK and you hadn't butted in to talk pages you weren't invited to on an interaction between two editors where THERE WAS NO PROBLEM , there would have been NOTHING TO WORK OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE. I simply love how egomaniacal Wiki admins think they can police user talk pages. Did JohnHistory complain about my accidental delete? NO. He did not. ObserverNY (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

To Wikidemon should you be cruising the Talk pages

WD - "What makes this suddenly an issue in July, 2009? By "everyone" I meant insiders. I have a hard time imagining that anyone on either side couldn't have found this if they had wanted or tried."" There ya go. You answered your own question as to WHY this became an issue in July. Especially by "everyone" meaning "Obama and His cadre of San Francisco/Chicago radical black nationals". So the questions are:

• 1. Is our FBI too stupid to run a Google search on these Czars?
• 2. Did the FBI run a Google search and our President was fine with every offensive/racist/Marxist quote this man and who knows how many of the other 30+ Czars have recorded for posterity?
• 3. How are these Czar positions even Constitutional if Obama is circumventing Congress' vetting process?

These are the questions the American public want answered. These are the questions FOX and ONLY FOX are brave enough to try and get answered. ObserverNY (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY