"

 Monkey See, Monkey Do 

There are those with ""selective hearing,"" a term which pretty accurately describes the phenomenon of ""hearing only what one wants to hear.""   Similarly, there are those who exhibit the phenomenon of ""selective seeing,"" which is either ""seeing only what one wants to see"" or an inability outright to see what is clear to everyone else.  I suppose the terms could have originated with the three  ""see no evil,"" ""speak no evil,"" and ""hear no evil"" monkeys, but that would be just a guess.  Even so, there must exist those who speak only what they want to speak...

One of the editors of this page, whom I shall refer to as ""Monkey One,"" cannot seem to see facts as facts... even after I have repeatedly rewritten the lead to read in support of his assertions, researched his sources to verify his own claims, offered suggestions to improve (strengthen and render impervious) his content, and even spelled it out in more than one sentence that I did not desire to derail the content of his article -  no matter what I say or do, said or did, I am still  and have been accused of being out to tear it all down.  Moreover, because I won't give this editor sources to support his position that I oppose his work, I am somehow inferior an my every attempt perceived as a ""red herring.""  

The user clearly has established himself as the canine pack's alpha male (or herself as the alpha bitch)...

I have my own talk page if you want to ask me something, asking me on someone else's is ridiculous. Why can't you use ""Though historians disagree""? Because you haven't supplied a strong reliable sources showing there is disagreement on the status of Punch. That's why. The article already reflects that historians disagree about when the institution of slavery was started, so no, I'm not opposed to it as long as it's properly sourced and is accurately reflected in the article. To use that language in regards to Punch's status or the significance of his court case is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Like I've been saying from the beginning, find a reliable source and then the article can properly include that source. Like I've told you before, feel free to take this to dispute resolution if you want. I would, but you've made so many numerous red herring arguments that I wouldn't want you to suddenly feign ignorance and pretend that you never argued such a thing. So pick the argument or assertion you want, and take it to the proper noticeboard. Also, I didn't reference plagiarism at all. You're the only one who fallaciously made such an accusation. I've only said that emails are often not verifiable and don't count as a reliable source. Please make a stronger effort in reading comprehension before levying accusations...egregious accusations.

A person can only take so many of these types of allegations before he begins to believe the attacker is serious.  

Enter mens rea.

Inasmuch as I have been found guilty of the crime by this judge (and jury of one), I've the liberty and license, now,  to respond befittingly.

Enter double jeopardy.

I should have done it when I first saw it, but I guess I was courteously seeing only what the article's alpha editor wanted me to.  

The good guys don't always finish last, except to laugh.

It's the best.

  

."