Talk:John Kerry/Archive 6

message: You called my views nonsense, then you archive the page to hide the evidence.
What kind of behavior is that?
Rex071404 06:53, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't the one who called your views nonsense, thank you. I archived the page because it was just about crashing my browser. The evidence of faux pas here from all sides is still easily accessible. Ambivalenthysteria 06:58, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep you opinons to yourself please 

message: There was a poll in progress, so I've taken that part of the Talk page from the archive and copied it back in here.  I did not copy the lengthy "Comment" subsection from the archived poll discussion -- only the first few subsections, the ones with the votes in them.  I've also added in a new subsection with my proposal, the VVAW cross-reference version.  It expands on the general discussion of VVAW, for points that (I hope) are agreed to be significant and undisputed, but it uses a cross-reference to a new article, to be created at John Kerry VVAW controversy, where most of the material now in this section would go. JamesMLane 06:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  POLL 

message: (John Kerry/Neutrality)
#Neutrality 06:15, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality's version

message: (John Kerry/VVAW cross-reference)
#JamesMLane 06:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: VVAW cross-reference version

message: #Gzornenplatz 06:32, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
#Gamaliel 07:30, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove section entirely

message: #Rex071404 16:55, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return to Rex's version(s) 

message: * There was no poll in process - that poll was inoperative while we talked! You are hiding the truth about the ongong dispute about what set of facts to use! Your barbaric butchering of this dialog is evidence of your idea backruptcy here! I laid out a number of suggestions on that archived page, but you refuse to carry any of those over! What kind of NPOV is that? Rex071404 07:00, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Since I do not know how to make a seperate page, here it is:
Rex071404 16:38, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have revised my suggested version to incorporate [[User:Lyellin|Lyellin]] version 

message: From November 12th to 15th, 1971, a VVAW meeting was held in Kansas City, Missouri. The meeting is quite controversial because one VVAW member in attendance suggested that the VVAW should assassinate, among others, seven Senators who were in favor of continuing the Vietnam War, including Strom Thurmond, John Stennis, and John Tower.
And even though most reports indicate this suggestion was soundly rejected, controversy has arisen in some circles as to whether or not Kerry was at this meeting, and whether or not his statements about this and as to when he quit VVAW have been consistent and accurate. 
Kerry’s campaign, according to the Boston Globe, says that Senator Kerry does not remember attending the Kansas City meeting, nor does he remember the specific discussion in question. 
Additionally, although Kerry has at times stated that he had already quit the VVAW before this meeting took place, the New York Sun reported on March 12, 2004 that "Kerry's presence at this meeting has been confirmed by several witnesses, even though Senator Kerry has stated that he does not remember attending." 
However, Scott Camil, the man who suggested using violence, has more recently said that he does not remember Kerry being there. According to the Boston Globe, Camil states “He had nothing to do with this, I don’t remember seeing him there.” 
Other sources, including the FBI and also another VVAW Member, Randy Barnes, have corroborated Kerry as attending the meeting. However Mr. Barnes has more recently restated his position on this and now says that he may have been mistaken as to which meeting in Missouri he saw Kerry at. 
The varying contentions surrounding Kerry's alleged attendance at this controversial meeting as well as the contradictory evidence as to precisely when he did in fact disassociate himself from VVAW has caught the eye of several national commentators, including John Fund of the Wall Street Journal and Patrick J. Buchannon, the right-wing idealogue.
The varying reports on this topic do not make clear precisely what the historical record is, however most published reports do give Mr. Kerry the benefit of the doubt and are clear to avoid suggesting that he was personally in favor of assassinating US Politicians. It is also reasonably clear that regardless of when indeed Mr. Kerry actually did quit the VVAW, it was in any case, no later than approximately 6 months after the controversial November 1971 meeting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above is much too long. How about this:
By 1972 Kerry had left the VVAW because of its radical tendencies. Some critics of Kerry today raise questions about the exact time of his leaving the VVAW. They point to a VVAW meeting held November 12-15, 1971, in Kansas City, Missouri, during which one VVAW member in attendance suggested that the VVAW should assassinate, among others, seven Senators who were in favor of continuing the Vietnam War, including Strom Thurmond, John Stennis, and John Tower. Most reports indicate this suggestion was soundly rejected. Nevertheless, critics suggest that Kerry, if he was present, should have alerted authorities. It is not clear whether or not Kerry was at the meeting. Some witnesses say he was present , and so does an FBI report (the FBI gathered information about Kerry until May 1972), but Kerry earlier said that he had already quit the VVAW before that meeting took place, and Scott Camil, the man who suggested using violence, also has said that he does not remember Kerry being there .
::: You are making progress, but among other problems, you are misstating Kerry's now proclaimed rationale for leaving VVAW. Kerry's web site says: "Although Kerry was a leader of the VVAW, he eventually left it after concluding that the most effective way to oppose the war was to run for public office..." Rex071404 18:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 1971 Meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW)

message: Read this here Rex071404 19:00, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kerry's spokesperson DOES NOT any longer dispute that Kerry WAS there 

message: See link here Rex071404 19:02, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some reports state that Camil has been offered a job now with Kerry Campaign 

message: The mere act of making it known that Kerry has changed his stories on these two topics (ie: Medal Tossing and '71 VVAW) is NOT in and of itself "polemical". And the reason it's not is that the mere act of stating a fact is not an argument. For your benefit, a simple outline of presenting a case:
::::::: I - Issue
::::::: R - Rule
::::::: A - Argument
::::::: C - Conclusion
Simply stating the fact that Kerry did this or did that, or did not do this or that is not argumentative. It only becomes so if and when the fact presenter then proclaims that such and such conclusion must be made as a result of the truth of the fact.  
In other words, if my suggested text for the VVAW section were something like this:
"Kerry Fact #1 blah blah
Kerry Fact #2 blah blah
Kerry Fact #3 blah blah
Therefor you must agree with conclusion x"
Then perhaps you'd have a point. However my suggested text does nothing of the sort and therefor, it's clear that it's you and the other pro-kerry editors who simply do not "get it".
As a matter of fact, on one of my earlier versions (which was reverted) I even went so far as to EXPLICITLY STATE: "The varying reports on this topic do not make clear precisely what the historical record is and for that reason, the readers are left to drawn their own conclusions about this.".
Even so, this too was reverted by the pro-Kerry crowd because the concept that there even might be any open questions about Kerry's suitability is anathema to them.
They DO NOT WANT any of the readers to ask themselves, "should I double-check Kerry more?"
Therefor, any entries that are inconclusive or otherwise not expressly positive for Kerry, must be expunged. If not, the entire purpose of the biased pro-Kerry editors, is defeated.
The pro-Kerry crowd want the readers of John Kerry read an article that has a tone of, "Oh see, this is John Kerry - nothing wrong here, nothing bad to think, no need for any further research, move along".
Each and everyone of you know this to be true, for if it were not, you would simply help me re-jigger my text until we all found it acceptable!
Rex071404 00:11, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Two points here, one of substance and one of style.  (1) The significant "anti-Kerry" aspect of the VVAW stuff is that many veterans (and others) were hostile to VVAW in the 1970s and adhere to that opinion today.  Their opinion doesn't depend on knowing who attended what particular meeting.  It depends on the basic, undisputed point that Kerry was a prominent spokesperson in opposition to the policy of the U.S. government.  People who supported the policy he was opposing held his stance against him, and still do so today.  Any failure in Kerry's judgment about a major foreign policy issue is much more important than any failure in his memory about whether he attended specific meetings.  The "cross-reference" version presents this anti-Kerry point.  You continue to charge that everyone who disagrees with you wants to exclude all anti-Kerry material from the article.  Your accusation against us is untrue.  (2) As to style, it seems that the basis of your charge of bias is that your position is so manifestly correct that no reasonable people could disagree with it, that in fact all of us know that you're correct, but we're maliciously refusing to go along with you because of our bias.  The proof of our bias is that we disagree with you.  This constant barrage of ad hominem attacks is an unhelpful approach to collaborative editing.  As I write, this Talk page, which was archived less than 24 hours ago, is already drawing the warning notice about excessive length.  If you would stop repetitiously questioning everyone else's good faith at every opportunity, the discussion would be more manageable. JamesMLane 00:37, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the crux of this dispute? 

message: The core truth about this issue, and the main one which the pro-Kerry shills cannot stand is this:
For a Presidential Candidate (Kerry) whose stated raison d'etre in the 2004 race is to save USA from (as Kerry tells us, ad nauseum) the "lies" of GWB, the fact that Kerry has a verifiable track record of changing his story about controverial issues is very germane to the current situation in America. If people want glossed over BIO's, let them go to CNN or WAPO. People come to the Internet for better control over their information flow. What good is it if you people keep censoring it? 
The painful truth about the pro-Kerry shills here is that they are censors, plain and simple!
Rex071404 04:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  You can't handle the truth! 

message: As shown above (and here), on Oct 20th, 1992 Camil himself went on record and said:
:    “My plan was that, on the last day we would go into the [congressional] offices we would schedule the most hardcore hawks for last — and we would shoot them all,” Mr. Camil told the Oral History interviewer. “I was serious.”
: Rex071404 05:21, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Kerry's anti-war associate, Camil had a serious goal of assassinating politicians