Talk:Temporal single-system interpretation/Archive 1

message: I agree to the use of the U-2 model of consensus.  I also agree, using the U-2 model of consensus decision-making, that th NPOV dispute tag should be removed.
M.posner 20:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreement on U-2 consensus 

message: The alleged watchdog has put a "NPOV dispute tag" on the TSSI article.  The policy states, "In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved."  
I would like to know if any editors disagree with my view that 
(a) there is a consensus (using the U-2 consensus model--i.e., all but 2 participants must be in agreement) that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved, and 
(b) the disputes should be resolved according to the U-2 consensus model, and 
(c) the NPOV tag should be removed.
                          Yes, I disagree with all of the above
                          and block consensus on each.
                          Watchdog07 
Nope.  One individual cannot block consensus when the U-2 consensus model is employed. Sorry.v = 0 17:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Dogtag

message: Alan XAX Freeman 20:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A big warm welcome to MarxianLurker

message: 213.86.122.5 16:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good faith and consensus

message: Alan XAX Freeman 05:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: U-1 consensus

message: Watchdog07 has recently claimed that he is a Wikipedia ADMINISTRATOR. In the charmingly entitled entry "The COPE fraud and the antichrist's latest threats" (on this page, below), he wrote:  "If the antichrist wants to appeal to my fellow administrators at Wikipedia, that is his right." 
I just checked the full list of Wikipedia administrators.  Watchdog07 is NOT among them. See .  
   I am a member of two administrative committees. You can check the 
   membership of those committees and thereby verify that I am indeed a 
   Wikipedia administrator. Please cease making baseless claims.
   Watchdog07 
v = 0 03:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Administrator Watchdog?

message: Since this is how we've been doing it for the most part, I support Alan Freeman's latest proposal to put newest contributions at the top of the discussion.
M.posner 00:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In Agreement with Freeman

message: Alan XAX Freeman 00:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ordering

message: I implore all editors of the TSSI article, and all contributors to this talk page, to abide by this official policy.  Any violation from here on out will be reported.
I quote from the policy below; the full text is .
"This page discusses personal attacks made against other editors. ... 
"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. ... [emphasis added]
"... Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. ... [emphasis added; "pluralism is about ideas, not people," as Alan XAX Freeman has rightly noted]
"Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks, for instance, stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack.
"... Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption"."
Also, at , the Wikipedia guideline on "conflict of interest", we find:
"underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. The existence of conflicts of interest does not mean that assume good faith is forgotten. Quite the opposite. Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor. [emphasis added]
I ask all editors of the TSSI article, and all contributors to this talk page, also to abide by this guideline.  Any violation from here on out will be reported.
v = 0 18:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Offical Wikipedia policy:  Comment on content, not on the contributor

message: 213.86.122.5 17:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Impending 3RR Violation by "Watchdog07"

message: The alleged watchdog has made an unsubstantiated allegation that I "trash[ed]" Jurriaan Bendien's original version of the TSSI article (see the "What and who are we dealing with here?" section, below). 
I'd like to point out that this is not Bendien's own view of the matter.  According to a very reliable source, Bendien stated that 'After I made a brief initial entry, Andrew Kliman has in fact written an extensive article on TSSI which I'm sure will be helpful to readers." See . 
And, according to the same (very reliable) source, Bendien also stated, "I'm quite happy actually if Andrew Kliman writes his bit on TSSI, I mean he's the authority," and he acknowledged that "to be honest, I have not yet read Kliman's book to which I referred" in his original version of the TSSI article.  See .  
These statements were posted by the source on an e-mail list known (officially and by supporters) as OPE-L or (by detractors) as OPE-HELL.
v = 0 13:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More on Jurriaan's Entry

message: The Antichrist:
Thank you for the reference to the OPE-L mailing list which I was not aware of previously.  If you go on to read what Jurriaan wrote in a subsequent message, he wrote that you "murdered" his TSSI entry and that you "hacked" the entry on David Laibman.  
Watchdog07 
This isn't fully correct, even leaving aside the first sentence, which everyone here knows to be at variance with the facts. 
Bendien put the word "murdered" in quotes -- so wd has misquoted him by not writing "'murdered'" -- which I construe as indicating that I significantly overhauled the entry.  I did so, I'm glad I did so, and indeed Wikipedia policy recommends doing so in cases of factual inaccuracy, bias, and absence of citation, all of which are problems that plagued Bendien's version.  
Since Bendien has acknowledged that "Andrew Kliman [is] ... the authority," and that, "to be honest, I have not yet read Kliman's book to which I referred [in my original version of the TSSI article]," I respectfully submit that any belated misgivings he may have regarding the overhaul of the TSSI article carry little weight.
Moreover, it is hard to make sense of what Bendien is saying if one interprets "'murdered'" as a negative comment.  He then seems to be clearly guilty of a glaring self-contradiction in the space of only a few days.  
v = 0 19:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What Jurriaan ''went on'' to say about Andrew Kliman's edit

message: Alan XAX Freeman 06:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Watchdog’s question on Jurriaan’s entry

message: Diverting the discussion from the issue at hand -- here, the repeated requests, which have been ignored, to provide arguments so as to justify proposed changes to the encyclopedia article -- is a standard Jerry Levy move.  Please be aware, folks, and keep the discussion on track.
v = 0 02:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: keep the discussion on track 

message: Speaking of personae:
The Watchdogs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
"... The Watchdogs claimed to be an organization dedicated to restoring and preserving traditional American culture and values, and fighting against indecency, immorality, and sexual perversion. The Watchdogs believed in strict enforcement of family values, and were violently opposed to pornography, sex education, abortion, and the teaching of evolutionary theory. Their terrorist activities, which included vandalism, arson, assault, kidnapping, brainwashing, and murder, were targeted primarily at people who produced material which the Watchdogs considered pornography, including nude art and sexually explicit music. 
"The Watchdogs imprisoned their kidnapping victims at a large compound in Vermont, where they forced them to wear "dog collars" which the Watchdogs could use to administer a painful electric shock as punishment for undesirable behavior. The prisoners were forced to participate in group activities such as singalongs, and exposed to constant televised Americana imagery such as baseball games, American flags, fields of flowers, and happy children."
v = 0 the antichrist 17:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Watchdogs

message: Watchdog07 is confused and dismayed by the responses of Andrew Kliman, Alan Freeman, M.Posner and Anne Jaclard.
What am I supposed to make, for instance, of Andrew Kliman's new persona as "theantichrist"?  That morph, coupled with the instrangience and obstinence of theantichrist and his supporters 
(for instance, asking over and over again for explanations which have already been given) is troubling.  The inability of theantichrist's supporters to display criticism towards his edits smacks of apologetics.
Feedback from non-interested parties is welcome. 
Watchdog07  
No one is "asking over and over again for explanations which have already been given."  We're asking for arguments that justify the claims ("explanations") that the alleged watchdog has been making about alleged defects in the TSSI article, arguments and justifications that he has NOT given us yet.
There's a difference.
v = 0 the antichrist 16:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What and who are we dealing with here?

message: I support the report of WatchDog07 by theantichrist.
Also, in regards to the issue of "self-promotion": this is a ridiculous.  I also inserted this, and since I'm in no way affiliated with the journal, it makes no sense to call this "self-promotion".  In addition, there is no reason that this journal should not be mentioned, since it does in fact pertain to TSSI.
Also, please substantiate your claim that including a reference to the COPE journal is "fraudulent."
M.posner 03:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support of recent actions 

message: The Anti-Christ's [Andrew Kliman's] wife and political associate has reverted to the highly prejudicial, biased account authored by her husband. Enjoy it tonight.  
Thanks.  I did. v = 0 the antichrist 16:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Anti-Christ's Wife

message: Watchdog complains, in "Still waiting for reply about COPE,": 
"I began earlier today with an explantion for my reasons for removing the section on COPE and I am still awaiting responses."
Huh?
I responded at great length in "Response to False Allegations by Watchdog07," below.
the antichrist 02:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Huh?

message: I just posted the following on Watchdog's user talk page, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.
the antichrist 02:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Impending 3RR Violation by "Watchdog07"

message: Much of the edits of Andrew Kliman concerned living persons and hence fall under the biographies of living persons policy. This policy states that a poorly sourced or unsourced statement concerning a living person must be removed immediately, especicially if potentially libelous.
The persistent use of loaded terminology is in violation of the WP:NPOV policy.  In every other way, entries must conform to the NPOV policy.
Wikipedia's Verifiability policy must be respected.  
Reliable sources must be used.  
Facts must be established in a reliable third party source.
Fraud is unacceptable.
Watchgdog07 
This is just a bunch of words.  There is no specificity as to what's being referred to, and no arguments as to why wd contends that the content he keeps removing isn't respectful of "basic wiki principles."  Provide some arguments, wd.  If and when theres' consensus that your reasoning is valid, the changes you suggest will certainly be made.
the antichrist 02:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Basic Wiki Principles Which Haven't Been Respected by AKliman & Co.

message: I agree with Freeman and Kliman about the priority of reverting the page to the version used immediately prior to the WatchDog07's revert.
I will also add that WatchDog07 is quick to reply on this page (he has posted seven times on this page within 24 hours -- check history to verify this), but still has not responded to the vast majority (if any) of the points raised by Alan Freeman, Andrew Kliman, and myself.  His latest post, "I have received no warnings", adds nothing to the discussion.  WatchDog07 seems to have all the time in the world to accuse Kliman's entry of being biased ad nauseam but no time to respond in any substantive way to the points raised.  If Kliman's page does not adhere to the Wikipedia neutrality policy then the burden is on WatchDog07 to demonstrate why.  He can cry wolf over and over again but his claims only get more and more difficult to believe.  It seems to me that we are fighting a lost cause in trying to get WatchDog07 to deal with our points in any substantive way.
M.posner 23:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Agree with Kliman and Freeman 

message: WatchDog07 said "I see that you now realize that there is a Wikipedia Cleanup Taskforce. I have been a member throughout."
According to the Cleanup Taskforce page history as well as to your user contribution page, this is not the case.
If you can prove that you were a member throughout I will retract my claim, but I see no evidence of this.
M.posner 20:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to WatchDog07 

message: In an earlier post on this discussion page I said:
"It also will note that WatchDog07 is posing as a member of the Wikipedia staff. See for example the first version of his personal page where he claimed to be a member of the Wikipedia "Cleanup Taskforce", which does not exist. His Edit summaries also strongly suggest that he is a Wikipedia staff member, which is not the case."
I now see that there is in fact a Wikipedia Cleanup Taskforce.  So I retract that statement.  
But WatchDog07 was not a member of the Wikipedia Cleanup Taskforce until 16:43 today (23 April 2007).  He has also joined the Wikipedia Neutrality Project at 16:51 of the same date (23 April 2007).  But nearly all of his edits were made before he was a member of these task forces, so I stand by my earlier claim that his edit summaries were therefore misleading.
M.posner 19:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partial Retraction 

message: Someone claiming to be Rich Farmbrough -- an administrator at Wikipedia -- has edited the TSSI entry several times.  I asked
him about this and he denied making any changes. See UserTalk:Watchdog07.  
Impersonating a Wikipedia administrator is a very serious breach of ethics!   Whoever is responsible for this fraud should immediately remove herself or himself from editing any further Wikipedia subjects.
Watchdog07 
Reply:
This is truly bizarre.  Reread your exchange with Rich Farmbrough as well as the history page of TSSI.  On Rich Farmbrough's talk page you say that he reverted the page to the Andrew Kliman version.  The history of the TSSI page does not show anything like this.  Rich Farmbrough's edits consisted only of changing capitalization and spelling.  When he replied to you, saying, " Not me ", he linked the page to an edit not performed by him.  Clearly he was saying that he did not revert the page, as you had claimed.  He never claimed that he had not made any edits, nor that there was any impersonation of him.
See the whole exchange here
M.posner 18:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Rich Farmbrough" Hoax

message: If you say that you are planning to write a book, that does not mean that the book exists.
If you say that you are a major league baseball player when you are in high school and want to be
a major leage baseball player that is not correct.  
If you say that you want to build an automobile, that does not mean that merely by that wish have created an autombile.
There is nothing controversial about this, contrary to Andrew Kliman's claim.
*COPE does not (yet) exist as an online journal.  
It is merely a HOPE. 
Since you know that COPE is not (yet) an online journal, it is fraud to say that it does.  
Watchdog07 
Two comments:
(1) I just googled "new journals" and the 1st hit is "Taylor & Francis Journals: New Journals new journals. New Titles for 2007 | New Titles for 2008."  There are many, many journals listed.  So a (the?) major publisher of journals considers them to be "New Journals," not "Nonexistent Journals" that exist only in the fevered imaginations of its editors, even though the 1st issue hasn't yet appeared.  
So, does wd really want to accuse Taylor & Francis of fraud?  
If not, I call on Watchdog07 to retract and apologize for the charge of fraud against the editors of COPE, which I believe might be actionable.
(2) It is fraud to claim academic credentials that one does not in fact possess. 
v = 0 20:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "controversial" issue of when something exists?

message: On this page and elsewhere, wd claims to be a "Professor of Economics."  This claim is highly relevant, since it goes to the question of his qualifications to make certain judgements about the content of the TSSI article. 
This brings to mind the the recent (in)famous "Essjay controversy" (see ).  Until a few months ago, "Essjay" was an anonymous Wikipedia editor and (unlike wd) administrator, who used phony credentials in order to gain advantages in content disputes. Specifically, he "claimed to hold doctoral degrees in theology and canon law," and claimed to be "a tenured professor at a private university," but "he was in fact a 24-year-old community college dropout." 
In light of the Essjay controversy, I must ask Watchdog to provide evidence for his claim to be a "Professor of Economics," and to specify and provide evidence of his precise academic rank and degrees.
I know he holds the D.O.G. degree, but what else?
If he cannot or will not provide us with the necessary evidence, it is appropriate to discount what he says about all matters in which professional expertise is relevant, such as when a scholarly journal exists.
v = 0 19:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Watchdog's Credentials and Essjay

message: You say that "you know" I hold a D.O.G. degree?  How do you know that?  
You do not know who I am.  Do not pretend that you do.  I must preserve anonymity to prevent harassment.
You don't know who I am and I have no idea who M.Posner is.  Perhaps you or he could enlighten, if either one of you wish.
You seem to be suggesting that one has to have a specific degree to know when a scholarly journal exists.
If so, then that's simply silly.  I don't have a degree in computer science but I know that there's a difference between wanting a computer and having a computer.  You clearly want COPE to exist but it doesn't exist as a journal unless and until it has published its 1st issue.  
You say that you want to build consensus.  But, how can we hope to build consensus if you can't recognize simple, obvious commonsense issues like this?
Watchdog07 
The issue here is possible misrepesentation of who one is, the possible claiming of academic credentials one does not in fact possess, in the midst of a content dispute in which credentials and expertise are extemely relevant.  (See my "Watchdog's Credentials and Essjay" on this page.)  
It is incumbent upon the alleged Watchdog either to provide authentic evidence that he is in fact a "Professor of Economics" or drop said claim.
Unless he quickly complies, I and those who agree with me will discount everything he says in matters where expertise is needed.  This includes the expertise that would enable one to know that the "simple, obvious commonsense" notion that a journal "doesn't exist as a journal unless and until it has published its 1st issue" is just plain wrong.  This is just not how the term "journal" is used among professionals.  See my response to the alleged Watchdog, in "'controversial" issue of when something exists?,'" on this page.  
I call on Watchdog07" to retract and apologize for his charge of fraud.
v = 0 20:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What does Andrew Kliman ''think'' he knows?

message: You must be joking!
What we have here, on the part of Andrew Kliman, is an inability to accept any criticism, 'no matter how air tight the logic is'.
He says that he needs to know my credentials to determine the validity of what I had to say about whether a "journal" that exists in name only  is actually a journal.  This is, I repeat, just silly.  It's like asking siomeone to show you a PhD in math before accepting the claim that 2 + 2 = 4.  
This is utter nonsense.  I said nothing of the sort.  I said we need to know your credentials in order to determine your competency to make judgements on technical matters.  The bases for determining that what you allege is not valid are evidence and logic. v = 0 23:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apologize for charge of fraud?

message: 1]  What are the facts which have been put forward by reliable third parttes which support the claim made that there was "censorship" against Marx and "suppression" of the TSSI? 
2]  If you think it's okay to use "Bortkiewiczian" then is it also okay to refer in the entry to "Klimanian" , "Freemanian" and "Posnerian" interpretations?  If not, why not?
I would appreciate simple, straight-forward replies to the above questions.
Marxian Lurker 
Hello ML,
Please see my new book, Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency, for information on the censorship of Marx's value theory.    
You have misread the TSSI article.  (Alan Freeman noted yesterday that you misread his question about whether you approve of him being facilitator.  Please try to read more carefully.  Thank you.)  It does not claim that the TSSI has been suppressed (though Watchdog07's actions with respect to this article are indeed facts, no?).  It claims that there's been suppression of current research based upon Marx's value theory and law of the falling rate of profit.  This claim is documented in a footnote.  The third party John Cassidy, writing in The New Yorker, is cited.
I prefer "standard" interpretation, but the alleged watchdog had an objection to it.  So I identified this interpretation (or the genus to which all its variants belong) as Bortkiewiczian.  Some such procedure needs to be used, because the genus doesn't have a name of its own.  This differs from the TSSI, which does have a name, so that use of "Klimanian," "Freemanian," and "Posnerian" is inappropriate.
Now I have a question for you, to which I too would appreciate a simple, straight-forward reply:  do you support the proposal that Alan Freeman serve as facilitator?  Thank you in advance for answewring.  Your cooperative spirit and behavior are greatly appreciated. v = 0 15:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Questions for Kliman, Freeman, and Posner

message: Several editors are having disagreements over whether significant portions of material in this article are worthy of inclusion and follow the WP:RS guide. 19:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: Alan XAX Freeman 20:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A litte warm welcome to MarxianLurker

message: All one has to do is read this discussion page in its entirety to grasp the folly of believing that Freeman is or can be fair and impartial.  He has taken an entirely uncritical perspective on the edits of Andrew Kliman and indeed has been an accessory and accomplice to those one-sided and biased edits. 
There is one thing that I can agree with him on: welcome to this discussion page, Marxian Lurker.  
Watchdog07 
: Can we please Assume good faith for a little bit please? MrMacMan Talk  02:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can Alan Freeman be fair and impartial?

message: The following claims in Kliman's edit constitute claims of consensus:
" ... no longer seriously cahallenged ..."
"even critics of Marx and/or the TSSI have come to accept this claim"
which were not reliably sourced WP:RS and were removed by this editor for that reason.  Those who are familiar with the literature on the TSSI are aware that there is nothing even remotely approaching consensus on these claims. 
Watchdog07 
Prove it. v = 0 03:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims of Consensus

message: Watchdog07's contribution 'Claims of consensus' is stuck in the same groove: deletion. 
Therefore, he gets 'reliable sourcing' back to front. The purpose of editing a Wikipedia page is to improve, not remove. The evidence that the referenced TSSI claims 'are no longer seriously challenged' is that there is no serious challenge. 
One cannot have a reliable source for the absence of something - if I state 'The United States has no Monarch' it would be ridiculous to have to substantiate this by finding a reliable academic to testify to this. The evidence that there is no challenge is that nobody challenges it.
What Watchdog07 should do if he believes there is a serious challenge is find it. and having found it, insert it - first, of course, discussing with the other page editors and attempting to establish a consensus.
If Watchdog wishes to improve the quality of the edit is to find a reliable source that has challenged TSSI claims and insert the challenge into the page
On a different matter Kliman did exactly that. He inserted the reliably sourced challenge of Laibman (to the effect that TSSI was an orthodoxy) and he inserted the challenge of Veneziani. On the principle of balance he then inserted a resposne to each from a reliable TSSI source.
Watchdog deleted this.
I personally would greatly welcome an expansion of the existing text to include any and all of the serous challenges which Watchdog07 can find. Then Wikipedia readers would be fully informed and could evaluate for themselves whether these challenges are in fact 'serious'
Go to it, Rover. 
Alan Freeman
Alan XAX Freeman 05:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: fetch don't kvetch

message: Claims of consensus are exceptional claims and require exceptional sources WP:RS
This is NOT what the guideline says.  What we have here is yet another false allegation from the alleged watchdog.  The guideline says, "Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source."  The consensus article cites a reliable source, Andrew Kliman's Reclaiming Marx's "Capital":  A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency (Lexington Books, 2007), when claiming (something somewhat similar to) consensus. v = 0 16:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More on claims of consensus

message: In the entry there is the expression 
riven with internal inconsistencies
without it appearing in quote marks.  
If you look at footnote 1 in his entry, you will see that those exact words were written by someone else!
Yeah, but I used them before Cassidy's article appeared.  Quoting oneself isn't plagiarism. ... 
                Are you saying that you wrote the exact 
                expression "riven with internal 
                inconsistencies before  Cassidy? 
Yep, "riven with internal inconsistencies". v = 0 22:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does Andrew Kliman know the meaning of plagiarism?

message: M Posner: you say you support the removal of the tag.  What reasoned argument can you make for why the following is not valid?
"The neutrality of this article is disputed"
Are you counter-factually claiming that there is no dispute?  If so, I want to hear the rationalization for that claim.  If not, I expect you to withdraw your support for removing the tag.  That, after all, would be the only logically consistent action to take.
Watchdog07  
No offense intended, WatchDog, but I advise you to read more carefully.  
                     No offense taken, but I re-read what you wrote
                     which was "I also agree, using the U-2 model of 
                     consensus-making, that th NPOV dispute tag should 
                     be removed."  There you have it: I read what you
                     wrote correctly:  you supported removing the tag
                     (but wanted to follow the U-2 model to remove 
                     it).  This leaves unanswered my question:  why 
                     do (or did) you dispute the claim that "The 
                     neutrality of this article is disputed"?
                     So long as the neutrality of the article is 
                     disputed the tag has to remain.
                     Watchdog07 
Akliman said that he "would like to use the U-2 consensus model to decide on whether to remove the tag, and to decide on the procedure to be used to decide on whether to remove the tag, and to decide ... all the way down."
My support of removing the tag was clearly a response to this, and therefore clearly applies to the case in which we apply to the U-2 consensus model (which I support).  Obviously I do not deny that you dispute the neutrality of this article.  You have made that clear enough!
M.posner 22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Tag