I asked a series of questions, that if supplied with verifiable answers, might well have helped your cause, Tony. I personally would have liked to learn more about the amateur production I worked on all those years ago, as I've never had the opportunity to view the fruits of my labors. Instead of reasonable answers to reasonable questions, we were treated to a speech. Said speech was filled with ad hominem attacks and poisoning the well commentary ("any prudent reader here", implying that if a reader sees things differently, they cannot be prudent). That I bear you animosity is no secret: five-plus years of your unfounded attacks will do that for a person. Even so, your cause would have been aided by calmly and verifiably answering the questions I posed. What you cannot seem to accept is that you cannot simultaneously meet your goal of writing propaganda AND getting it published on the Wikipedia. You either have to give up the propaganda and write a genuinely unbiased article with verifiable facts in it, or you have to give up the dream of having it published in Wikipedia. If you cannot or will not meet the minimum standards Wikipedia requires of your article(s), you will not get published. That's what these people have been telling you all along. The Wikipedia is not about freedom of speech, or emotions, or beliefs. It is about cold, hard, verfiable facts, presented in an unslanted and unbiased manner. I'm sure you remember your geometry classes, where you not only had to get the right answer, you had to prove that the steps you took were right. Your geometry teacher wouldn't accept "My six anonymous friends said" or "Everybody KNOWS that it's true" or "Most prudent people can see that", so why do you think an encyclopedia, even one created by volunteers, is going to accept such sloppy thinking? Again, if you cannot write an unbiased article with verifiable facts (and the links to prove it), it will not get published. You simply aren't going to get the opportunity to use this platform for disseminating your particular views. Not unless you can document them from reliable sources and provide the links so that anyone can check. And while it's possibly true that many people here are against you, it's definitely true that they were neutral towards you until they got to know you better. Including me. You have only one person to blame, Mr. Genovese, for all the hostility shown you: Tony Genovese. 
   	   
 It's up to you, Tony. Want to stop being universally hated? Stop being universally hateful to everyone who disagrees with you. Want to publish an article here? Start writing articles not agitprop. You don't even have to adopt it as a lifestyle: you can always try it as an experiment, see if it gets you the results you want. Or not. Maybe you enjoy having every man's hand raised against you: what you lack in friendships, you feel you can make up in Martyr Points. [shrug] Suit yourself. I rather enjoy being a passive witness here, watching you alienate people and getting your rear end kicked for it is pure entertainment for me. Watching you try to shift the blame everywhere but where it belongs is pretty funny, too. You have the power to choose how people treat you. If you like the way you're treated now, don't change a thing. You're obviously doing just what you need to do to get the treatment you want. John Whiting