So a third pornography industry advocate has joined this correspondence, which increases the number of participants but actually decreases its importance in my affairs, as well as the relevance of Wikipedia in important matters regarding the health of our society (it is lamentably our society... I only wish I could call it your society).  But I may call Wikipedia your propaganda tool, since you are apparently the one who has been granted authority to tolerate certain comments which you interpret as being unbiased and to crassly delete other information which you interpret as being biased.  If you really want to avoid bias, just casually investigate the history of your pornography supporting friend Horrorshow, who, not surprisingly, has been busy editing other articles that clearly promote the pornography industry.  Wikipedia: a free speech tool for the people or a propaganda tool for a certain sector of the population which seeks to control people's opinions on matters that adversely affect their mental health?  Quite a question to ponder.  But my point on bias is that every author is biased.  Just because Wikipedia can be edited by supposedly anybody (in theory it can be, but in reality it is clearly controlled by certain well-organized individuals who have made Wikipediaing their vocations), does not make Wikipedia an unbiased source of information.  The author of this webpage, who clearly has an interest in displaying information that promotes the pornography industry in the United States, is biased.  His or her comments on Lubben's religious views clearly betray that sentiment, as do the history of his or her activities on Wikipedia.  And you don't need to tolerate anything from me any longer, because I will stop now... or maybe I won't, I guess it depends on just how much time I'm willing to waste communicating with you.  This is becoming Dostoevskian, Underground Man... give it a read sometime... it might help you.Veritas, Semper .  But you and I both know where the truth lies in this matter.  There is no need for an arbitrator, who, again, would be mistakenly be labeled an unbiased third party.