It was here, in the Roesgen Talkk page where you said: "Enough with the teabaggers who pop up every few days, we should try to have the article semi-protected again. Remember folks, this is a BLP" As it was both in direct response to my edit - and I was the only person active there at all in the last three weeks or so, and it was in a section of talk that I had started and been the only one posted in - I took it as directed at me.
I was then told by the other owner, "If you aren't one, then he wasn't talking to you."
This was my response:
'Bullshit. You don't attack the only person you're having a discussion with and ask for the article to be locked and then defend it by saying, 'well, if your not one - then he's not talking to you'.
 The accusation is the attack and nothing I've said or done here, nor in my recent edit history at the Republican congressman's article referenced above indicates any bias. I notice however that the home page of one of the two editors standing sentry over his pet article has dozens of claims of profound liberal bias proudly festooned across the page like a Volvo in Vermont on it's way to the Northeast Kingdom. One usually finds such committed and messianic people to be deeply wedded to their cause and saturated to the bone with inflexible bias - whether on the left, right or third way. False unsubstantiated accusations, blatant bias, article "ownership" and the complete lack of any effort to defend the inclusion of drivel, garbage and fluff into the encyclopedia is ridiculous and nothing more has been done by the "guards" than revert, attack and ignore''.99.141.246.39