Right So weve dealt with the question of Qwortys slander Lets move on Heres why you should not be involved in this discussion Qworty You have demonstrated  not simply to me not simply to Wikipedia but to THE WORLD AT LARGE  that you are incapable of editing in good faith When the mainstream media characterizes you  Qworty  as a ranting slanderous biased editor then well we should take that seriously  I do hope youve read the Salon article about you If not let me quote your screed was interpreted rightly as an apoplectic defense by one Wikipedia editor of actions that other Wikipedia editors labeled revenge editing Theres a lot of anger here not to mention an unhealthy fixation with excrement Call me persnickety but reading Qwortys comments did not give me the greatest faith in Wikipedias internal process for building an encyclopedia of human knowledgeThose arent my words regarding you They are Salons THEY have identified you as an apoplectic vengeful disgrace with an unhealthy scatological fixation So thats what were dealing with here you Qworty as the star of an article entitled Wikipedias ShameNow Wikipedia requires that we assume good faith in our fellow editors which I do until the most extreme and frankly comical evidence points out that were dealing with someone like you Since we know that you will do everything within your power to sabotage any entry remotely related to Filipacchi its a waste of time to discuss matters of policy with you Im happy to debate subtle points of epistemology with almost anyone into the wee hours of the morning  just not with you  As for Little green rosetta Ive been giving her the benefit of the doubt Even though she accused me  on the basis of what she termed behavioral and technical evidence  of using sock puppets Even though when that proved to be false okay a lie she didnt apologize but instead came here to support your  Qwortys  frivolous snark Despite all of this Ive given her the benefit of the doubt Now shall we get back to the tedious matter of editing this article  By we I mean me and the editor who hasnt starred in an article entitled Wikipedias Shame   

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
Right So weve dealt with the question of Qwortys slander Lets move on Heres why you should not be involved in this discussion Qworty You have demonstrated  not simply to me not simply to Wikipedia but to THE WORLD AT LARGE  that you are incapable of editing in good faith When the mainstream media characterizes you  Qworty  as a ranting slanderous biased editor then well we should take that seriously  I do hope youve read the Salon article about you If not let me quote your screed was interpreted rightly as an apoplectic defense by one Wikipedia editor of actions that other Wikipedia editors labeled revenge editing Theres a lot of anger here not to mention an unhealthy fixation with excrement Call me persnickety but reading Qwortys comments did not give me the greatest faith in Wikipedias internal process for building an encyclopedia of human knowledgeThose arent my words regarding you They are Salons THEY have identified you as an apoplectic vengeful disgrace with an unhealthy scatological fixation So thats what were dealing with here you Qworty as the star of an article entitled Wikipedias ShameNow Wikipedia requires that we assume good faith in our fellow editors which I do until the most extreme and frankly comical evidence points out that were dealing with someone like you Since we know that you will do everything within your power to sabotage any entry remotely related to Filipacchi its a waste of time to discuss matters of policy with you Im happy to debate subtle points of epistemology with almost anyone into the wee hours of the morning  just not with you  As for Little green rosetta Ive been giving her the benefit of the doubt Even though she accused me  on the basis of what she termed behavioral and technical evidence  of using sock puppets Even though when that proved to be false okay a lie she didnt apologize but instead came here to support your  Qwortys  frivolous snark Despite all of this Ive given her the benefit of the doubt Now shall we get back to the tedious matter of editing this article  By we I mean me and the editor who hasnt starred in an article entitled Wikipedias Shame   

