No the problem is that you choose to infer the worst possible motives from any inconsistencies in Kerrys record then assert the criticism as incontrovertible truth and dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as being a Kerry sycophant or of whitewashing your selfproclaimed truth Should the inconsistencies be mentioned Certainly if they are substantive But different conclusions can be drawn from such inconsistenicies and we need to clearly distinguish between speculative conclusions and bare facts     What about the link to ABC News and NY Times stories Both of those sources confirm a set of facts that is different from what Kerry tells us is so Alos if my writing style offends you why dont YOU write the new blurb but this time INCLUDE the links to the articles which the others kept deleting out from under me  Oh and by the way its only your supposition that I choose to infer the worst As a matter of fact by proclaiming my view to be the worst you betray your BIAS that anyone who highlights Kerry faults is somehow bad or wrong What if it turns out that I am right about Kerry that he has changed his story  that he is covering up for a guilty conscience then what Is it still the worst to believe something thats true   Additionally I can turn your comment around and ask why is it that YOU prefer to believe the best about Kerry Credulity does not impress me as a hallmark of a good editor Frankly if you cant see the glowing proKerry tone of the total article you are not very perceptive   Not only that but the disputed sections MedalToss and  VVAW MTG in the forms they stand now are extrremely tilted in favor of Kerry In particular the VVAW secion is so chopped and convoluted in its strain to only allow in quotes that help Kerry that its farcical   You do see that dont you