okay, i get the first one.  but the second one was a part of my argument for keeping the article in place.  While it was an attack of sorts is was an attack on the credibility of the guy who was requesting the deletion (MacLean himself), which seems perfectly valid to do, as the credibility of the person requesting the action and their motives behind it are an important issue.

So why delete my ENTIRE argument for keeping the article just because you disagree with my position?  You could have taken out the words flake and deadbeat and still left all the rest.  (Since the guy has been sued numerous times for not paying his bills and been evicted, most people would consider 'deadbeat' a fair and appropriate description.)  My position has just as much right to be heard as anyone else's.

regarding the use of the term negro, which is what I am guessing that you took issue with, it is a word that I have used all of my life and it is a word that is used to identify or describe african-americans / blacks / coloreds, etc.  Negro is hardly an offensive term.  Isn't there an organization called the United Negro College Fund in the U.S.?