Wellon one hand its ok for Duckworth to call Peter a liar and its not ok for Mr Roskam response not to see the light of day on Wikipedia  It would seem to be a matter of fair play and common sense and with precedent being set on the Ms Tammy Duckworth Wikipedia Article The Duckworth article which you two    lovingly protect from absolutly any negative insertions and damaging Cruft so I invoke this little bit of policy WPSENSE  BTW its funny there is no such listing of Duckworths more notable campaign contributors like BABS and Baldwin It was Baldwin who wanted to hurt  Mr Hyde during the Clinton enpeachment trials There were a LOT of people here in the th that didnt cotton to well to Mr Baldwin and would not cotton to Tammys outsider friends very well if such information became more public knowlege of the contributions made by Mr Baldwin and his east and west coast limo librals which are the lions share of Duckworth contributions and are TOTAL OUTSIDERS to the th as well as Duckworth too   It is this as well as the general tone of Duckworth article which reads like a STORY or Campaign Tract and in light of this as well as being armed with precedents that you two good faith editors   have set I will lovingly protect Roskams article in the same Loving way as you two protect the  Duckworth article  and as per this policy WPSENSE or in other words  Whats fair is fair whats good for the Duckworth article is good for the Roskam article Common sense rulez Do zobaczenia