Controversy  a litltle balance maybe   Im fully aware that most of the authors of this articles are proKerry or at least antiBush but should it be quite so obvious to the reader    Actually the main part of the article while not always completely balancedhas a fair amount of giveandtake attempting to lay out each sides statements and the others responses  Its clear that we have some very different opinions but were making some good headway here  BUT the Controversy section is almost entirely attacks from one sideabout two dozen sentences the long list of allegedly significant ties and numerous often angry quotes from Kerrys team and supporters including many in the media many of which add little or no actual information or argument for their position  On the other side we find a few brief BushCheney denials and maybe two quotes  Fine if youre trying to sound like an LA Times editorial  But I didnt think thats what we were after here  And of course there is the insistence that certain responses to charges are not relevant even if these are the actual responses Bush etal are making   I didnt think it was our job to judge the strength of each sides argument simply to seek to represent it fairly  Could we afford to shorten and limit the number of quotes that add more heat than light   And is it possible to resist the temptation to insist that every statement that might appear more favorable to Bush or Cheney there are precious few as it is must immediately be countered