I have never attempted to attribute motives to you nor read your thoughts I can read what you write and confidently state that the editorial standards you claim to be working to are very different to how you actually edit The positions I suggest you withdraw are indeed perfectly reasonable but you are simply not living up to them In fact your editing is biased and you will record conjecture and faulty theories and obliterate historical facts if they do nt fit in with your point of view I note your comments about civility but after having read the whole of Wikipedia Civility I can not see which protocol I am supposed to have transgessed nor how can you be more specific On the contrary it is you that is deleting almost all of my contributions with cursory explanations What do you mean by red herrings in the Warren Commission evidence How can referring to a DAs investigation be pushing a POV Why am I supposed to discuss contributions beforehand but no one else is I ve previously asked Are you suggesting that in order to maintain a neutral point of view we have to suppress evidence supporting Garrisons Point of View but never got an answer