Both of you missed my point in it's silliness. I was attempting to suggest that the inclusion of medical and or psychological "analysis" rendered from afar and not done so in a standardized manner typical of "analysis" of such a nature, are silly innuendos that are not encyclopedic, and instead are slanderous leftist POV. I stated that I could find actual Doctors/Therapists reports that say that Bush is this way or that, but they are silly....the van Wormer and Frank jargon are not significant as some might wish them to be, and this is because of the nature under which the evaluations were performed, and the manner in which they were communicated....this isn't really that hard for everyone to understand is it? 13:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)