| Revision as of 07:35, 9 May 2005 editGordonWatts (talk | contribs)4,767 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:44, 9 May 2005 edit undoFuelWagon (talk | contribs)5,956 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| ]] 03:35, May 9, 2005 (EST) | ]] 03:35, May 9, 2005 (EST) | ||
| :Hey, *ssh*le, I just checked out your . If you think garbage like "You are being asked to help impeach judges involved in the Terri Schiavo case." is f*cking neutral and balanced reporting deserving to be referenced in wikipedia, you're completely out to lunch. Get a grip. And don't give me this "I post the opposing views expressed by many" crap. have some friggen balls and say it like it is. You're advocating. asking readers to "help" impeach judges is not a neutral reporting of facts. It is completely biased advocacy for a certain point of view. Calling it anything else is shite and delusional. have your propaganda site if you want, but don't link wikipedia to it alongside journalistic sites. ] 18:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:44, 9 May 2005
Your edits to the Terri Schiavo article are problematic. Your personal opinion as to her treatment and the legality of her even being placed in a hospice have no place in the article. RickK 06:22, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
I am new to editing the "talk section" and posting my comments and replies, but I will give it a try. Mr. Rick, I do not post "my views" per se, even though I agree with the diverse views I post usually.
In contrast, I post the opposing views expressed by many, and express them as such, and then back up the viewpoints that are expressed with quotes from State and/or Federal Laws.
In doing so, that is not "my view," but, instead, the view of the laws. Most have accepted my exposure of the various laws that highlight various differences, and any opposition would no doubt be construed as a personal attack.
If you disagree with me, then post an opposing viewpoint, make it brief, and cite some section of the State or Federal constitutions, state or federal laws, or case law from some state or federal court --or even perhaps the quotes from some well-known authority.
Raw criticism is a waste of energy and self-destructive, and it may be cause others to lower their opinion of you. Gordon Wayne Watts, Lakeland, FL, USAW 02:46, May 9, 2005 (EST)
(Now that I've burn my time up trying to get a balanced expose, please tell me what "user talk" is, and what the phrase: "User talk:RickK|K" means in the programming language. Thank you. Gordon Watts.)
Nevermind that question - I figured it out -one is a link to my "personal page," and the other is a link to a message board for me.
Now, notice that I've reported your behavior to the community. Don't get bent: One of your implications might be right: Your actinos imply that I should not have stated Greer's violation of law as "fact." (You didn't state this, but I inferred it.)
Nonetheless, your broad deletes are troubling and should be justified if you intend to deleted neutral cites to the law. Please note that I have addressed this in this link:
Gordon Wayne Watts, Lakeland, FL, USAW 03:35, May 9, 2005 (EST)
- Hey, *ssh*le, I just checked out your website. If you think garbage like "You are being asked to help impeach judges involved in the Terri Schiavo case." is f*cking neutral and balanced reporting deserving to be referenced in wikipedia, you're completely out to lunch. Get a grip. And don't give me this "I post the opposing views expressed by many" crap. have some friggen balls and say it like it is. You're advocating. asking readers to "help" impeach judges is not a neutral reporting of facts. It is completely biased advocacy for a certain point of view. Calling it anything else is shite and delusional. have your propaganda site if you want, but don't link wikipedia to it alongside journalistic sites. FuelWagon 18:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)