Talk:Texans for Truth/Archive 1

message: The so-called "memos" which are behind part of this story are alleged to be forgeries.
Rex071404   16:04, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Rex whether these documents are forgeries are not has absolutely nothing to do with TfT.  It belongs in the article about the controversy about George Bush's National Guard service.  I'm removing it. --Nysus 16:17, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memos 

message: Nysus, I object to you making deletions without discussing them 1st. Please discuss and wait for answer. Thank you. Rex071404   17:03, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for chipping in Gamaliel.  As you see, we both agree for the same reasons.  --Nysus 18:03, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please discuss before deleting 

message: I just reverted an addition to the links section for the following reason: This supposed "related news" item is not related to TfT and is not from an established reputable news source; cnsnews is a division of "Media Research Center," a right-wing propaganda house.  Adding this link would be akin to linking to moveon.org for a news story. --Nysus 19:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is merely a disagreement of our editor's perspectives. Please desist form removing my links. Thank you. Rex071404   20:01, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree with your assessment. And I am restoring the link on that basis. Rex071404   20:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt to seed article with bogus news stories 

message: This was on my talk page:
Reverted your links.  Nysus and Gamaliel have both given good reasons for the links not being included.  You have given no reasons for them being included.  Before reverting them for the umpteenth time please give your reasons.  AlistairMcMillan 02:11, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Three independent people, now, have reverted Rex's change.  Yet, he continues to make his change without any reasoned justification whatsoever.
I'm not going to hold my tongue about Rex anymore:  this fucking bullshit needs to stop.  Please sign below if you wish to file a complaint against Rex and agree with the statement below.  --Nysus 02:44, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, if you bothered to read the links I am posting, you will see that they are equally germane as the WAPO link you are not complaining about. Rex071404   02:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rex 

message: # Kevin Baas | talk 03:42, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC) Rex's conduct on this page is completely opposite of his conduct on Swift Boaters for Truth, which caused him to be banned from editing three articles.  His purported judgements are clearly hypocritical, and strongly biased.
# JamesMLane 04:21, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: I endorse this statement.

message: : I disagree, if you bothered to read the links I am posting, you will see that they are equally germane as the WAPO link you are not complaining about. Rex071404   02:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments and discussion

message: Good job!  I feel that Rex is finally beginning to recognize that he must justify his reverts with more than an implicit "I'm right" attitude.  He is now actually trying to justify his edits, something he has never done before.  I applaud Rex for coming around.  We need to still be diligent with Rex, however.  Thanks to everyone who has contributed.  Keep up the good work. --Nysus 04:22, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  We are making progress with Rex 

message: Let me attempt to explain this in simple terms:  The subject of this article is Texans for Truth.  Links to articles which do not mention Texans for Truth do not belong in the Texans for Truth article as they are irrelevant to the Texans for Truth article.   We already have an article discussing the George W. Bush military service controversy called George W. Bush military service controversy and any articles about the George W. Bush military service controversy and not about Texans for Truth belong in the George W. Bush military service controversy article.  
Your continued insistence on inserting irrelevant right-wing articles makes me doubt that a NPOV article is your aim here.  I notice that you have not attempted to bring over any anti-Bush articles linked to from George W. Bush military service controversy to this one. Gamaliel  04:49, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This WAPO article makes clear that TfT and Dems are acting in concert to harm GWB about Guard service. This WAPO story makes clear what I was trying to tell you all along - the links which kept getting deleted are indeed relevant Rex071404   05:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you should have added that WAPO article and not articles which don't even mention TfT.  Gamaliel  05:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevancy is the issue 

message: In my view, this statement, by JML: "this article is fundamentally different from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" is false. SBVT and TfT are both 3rd party groups attacking a presidential candidate regarding military service. Even if the articles as currently comprised are different, the adversarial relationship between group and target candidate is the same for both - and the editorial treatment each gets must therefore be similar. I've made my views clear about this. The only thing which remains to be seen is if people like JML continue to delude themselves about the groups being "fundamentally different". Rex071404   01:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Rex, among our communication difficulties seems to be a particular problem in terms of your characterizing my views.  I did not say that the groups were fundamentally different.  As you yourself quoted me, I said that the articles are fundamentally different, which is most assuredly not the same thing.  I also explained why they were different. JamesMLane 01:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Are you referring to the fact that SBVT provides detailed evidence against the charges?  If so, I'd actually like to restructure SBVT to me more like TfT.  That is, the meat of the dispute goes into a 'John Kerry military service controversy' article.  Many of the charges are already handled this way, pointing to the VVAW, & winter soldier pages.  Plus, that's how TfT is structured now, relying on the 'Bush military service controversy' page. I believe JML suggested something like this before for SBVT, but you didn't like it.Wolfman 03:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, that may be.  But SBVT is the way it is at your own insistence. It's a strange argument to first insist SBVT be one way, and then insist TfT be the same way on the grounds that's how SBVT is. Wolfman 03:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wolfman, in order for me to more fully reply to your comment, we would have to agree on what the meaning of "is" is, in your sentence. My initial reading of your sentence leads me to believe you do not understand what I mean when I say I am seeking "parity" between SBVT and TfT. Rex071404   03:49, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  SBVT vs TfT 

message: Sign below, if you want the article to be unprotected, but only after Rex is blocked from editing it TfT until after the election:
#JamesMLane 04:43, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Petition to kick out Rex071404 (modified from previous title as page is now unprotected)