"

 Why LaVey anyway???? 

Well, so far, Reason Rules. The Neutrality sticker is still up, though LGagnon threatened, I believe, that it would only be temporary. Intellectually, I am actually rather satisfied to leave it at that.

But - Not!!!!!!!!! For one thing, I enjoy intellectual duelling much too much. All Hail Wikipedia! Ah, for the days of learning for the sake of learning!

I raised the question as part of my pursuit here: why LaVey? Why not Timothy McVeigh? Again, there's not enough room for everyone, so how were the selected selected? We know who is included. Who was excluded, or perhaps simply ""non-included,"" i.e; unintentionally, in contradistinction to intentional exclusion?????!!

What is more, in view of the evolution of terrorism – to all intents and purposes –  virtually morphing  into a veritable weltanschauung, Timothy McVeigh takes on a new urgency, relevance and intellectual/philosophical challenge.

My fear is that the whole effort is loaded, biased, in violation of Wikipedia rules. The whole thing seems to be a charade to ride satanism in on the ratiocinative coattails of Objectivist Ayn Rand. Otherwise, again, why not Timothy McVeigh? Again, he explicitly mentioned, and is often discussed in terms of Randian libertarianism. She would disown him like a Bolshevik, of course, but then she would disown LaVey in utter disgust!!!! So, if there's room only for one of the two, why LaVey?

If I don't receive reasoned responses, I will edit LaVey out again. Again, boys and girls, my emphasis is on a truly Wikipedian neutral POV. AOluwatoyin

Oh, by the way, regarding my being blocked  on grounds of incivility, no less  LGagnon who started all the trouble, on the other hand, does not get blocked? He who refers to admins as ""vandal-coddling""??!!! That's not ""incivility""?!!!! Such revolting double-standards will not stand. I'm just getting warmed up, here!!!!! AOluwatoyin."