Talk:Tort reform in the United States/Archive 4

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between DATE and DATE.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Tort reform/Archive04. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.--HelloDali 20:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

message: The article is no longer about tort reform, and 
#has been rewritten to be almost entirely about arguments against tort reform; 
#unfairly characterizes pro-reform arguments, including a number false statements claiming there is no evidence when the reform proposals are in fact well supported by empirical evidence while subjecting none of the anti-reform assertions to the same scrutiny (Example: The article states conclusively that studies do not support the contention that caps will reduce the number of medical malpractice suits -- but the CBO study cited in the previous sentence for an ostensibly anti-reform point says precisely that!);  
#oversells anti-reform arguments while failing to note the rebuttals by the supporters of reform (e.g., Gary Schwartz and Ford Pinto); 
#misrepresents other studies (such as using a study saying contingent fee reform doesn't work to rebut a contention about damages caps);
#makes a number of false statements about the law (e.g., the claim that it is impossible to bring a lawsuit for hypothetical damages: see Michael Greve's lengthy monograph on the subject proving otherwise);
#the balanced presentation demonstrating that the plaintiffs' bar does just as much lobbying as the pro-reformers has been completely deleted;
#there has been addition of insulting (and false) POV statements such as saying that objections to comparative negligence and joint and several liability reflect "an ignorance of civil procedure"; 
#there is a POV definition of "frivolous lawsuit" replacing the article's acknowledgement that different groups use the term in different ways; and  
#the article itself is incoherent. 
I don't know about  Greve. It appears he wrote a vanity published  poorly argued 42 page (approximately) tract that appears to not understand tolling of statue of limitations and how it might apply to the longterm health affects of smoking, as well as a lack of understanding of fraud and misrepresentation and damages. As for Schwartz, I confess not to have read his Rutgers article, but if the synopsis is correct he appears to be deliberately obtuse about what Ford was up to when they wrote the memo and the uses it was put to. Further an independent body- jurors- made a finding of fact regarding the memo. Again, I haven't read Shwartz's article but it strikes me as historical revisionism. Good thing he isn't in Florida! Gfwesq 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: I reverted back, so edits can be made piecemeal.  I left the corrections to only a very few of the many extremely biased entries.MollyBloom 14:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Add POV tag, but for another reason

message: The sentence as now in the article encompasses everything of the previous author's  acknowledgement that different groups use the term in different ways without going on for a paragraph and being extremely POV.  This is a clear, dry recitation of the only thing a frivolous lawsuit can possibly be.
A frivolous lawsuit is one that cannot reasonably be supported under existing legal precedent, facts of the case, or under a good-faith argument for a change in the law.  
Any other description is a POV.  What else CAN a frivolous lawsuit be?  Was it necessary to go on an on for a paragraph?  Really?  That was very biased.  This is short, and there can be nothing else to add to the definition of a  'frivolous' lawsuit, except a POV rant.  The previous comment is a political diatribe.  I left the definition of frivolous lawsuit, but for peace's sake, I left the comment about what 'tort reform' advocates believe it to be.MollyBloom 14:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A frivolous lawsuit

message: This article is extremely long, and full of citations to lobbying groups for 'tort reform'.  This is extraordinary POV, intending to legitimate groups like ATRA.  Perhaps we need to discuss what ATRA is, and who funds it.MollyBloom 15:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: As it stands now, is still a 'tort reform' POV

message: ATRA's members are largely Fortune 500 companies with a direct financial stake in restricting lawsuits. Members have included representatives of the tobacco, insurance, chemical, auto and pharmaceutical industries. Corporate giants like Philip Morris, Dow Chemical, Exxon, General Electric, Aetna, Geico and Nationwide have all supported ATRA. Gannon, Tort Deform - Lethal Bedfellows, Essential Information, 1995, pp. 23-25. Legal Times also reported that, "most of [ATRA's] funding comes from large corporate donors. Insurance firms … are each good for $50,000 or $75,000, one unnamed lobbyist familiar with the Association told the publication." "Proponents of Reform," Legal Times, April 17, 1995, cited in Silverstein, Smoke & Mirrors, Public Citizen Congress Watch, 1996, p. 11.
The tobacco industry has supported ATRA, directly through Philip Morris, and indirectly through Covington & Burling, the law firm for the now-defunct Tobacco Institute and other major tobacco companies. Newly released documents from the Tobacco Archives show that in 1995, the tobacco industry allocated nearly $5.5 million for ATRA, more than half of ATRA's $10.2 million budget according to the Associated Press. The documents also show that Covington & Burling acted as a funnel for much of this tobacco industry money, which was then paid out to other organizations. "Report Says Tobacco Industry Quietly Backed Tort Reform," Associated Press, February 21, 1999; Tort Reform Project Budget, Covington & Burling, October 3, 1995, Document #2041201160 et seq. The budget indicates that by October 3, the project had already given about $3 million to ATRA.
Although sponsored by major industries, ATRA has worked hard to present a dramatically different public image of itself. While John Gannon reported in 1995 that not one of ATRA's 300 organizational members included an organization devoted to representing workers, homeowners or average citizens, ATRA calls its members "the average citizen looking for an end to the threat of being sued." ATRA wrote in an early fundraising letter, "ATRA is not a wealthy special-interest group backed by vast cash resources." Its literature mentions its "large and very diverse membership, consisting of … non-profits, public agencies, professional societies, trade associations, large corporations and small businesses." (For a copy of their 1989 membership list and steering committee, the latest year available, contact CJ&D).
The entire article on "Tort Reform"was a POV piece.MollyBloom 15:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ATRA

message: A fair reader of this article can tell it was written by tort reform 'advocates'.  It is still incredibly POV, with long discussion of 'reasons for' and little on reasons against.
JUST FOR EXAMPLE:  Nothing in this paragraph even mentions the argument opposing the tort reform 'complaints'
::Another common complaint of tort reform supporters is that the number of lawyers has increased at a rate which far exceeds population growth[7], with personal liability specialty practices accounting for about 25% of the legal workload in many states[8]. They believe this massive increase of personal liability practitioners has led to a system of cyclical abuse, in which litigators aggressively recruit clients in mass tort cases using extreme and coercive methods, then reinvest a portion of their profits into political candidates and organizations that further expand liability law. They believe the expansionist nature of personal liability causes many targeted industries to settle potentially frivolous or fraudulent lawsuits out of court at substantial cost to their employees, investors and society at large.[citations needed]
Of particular concern to many tort reform advocates is the present tort system's effect on the healthcare industry. ETC.
THIS is biased!  How can anyone not read this and realize it was written by someone sympathetic to the lobbyists for tort reform?MollyBloom 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tort Reform still EXTREMELY POV

message: Where is the balance here, or even the counterpoint?
Of particular concern to many tort reform advocates is the present tort system's effect on the healthcare industry. Linking the rising costs of premiums for physicians' medical malpractice insurance[9] to the rising cost of personal and group policy health insurance coverage, many tort reformists advocate imposing caps on non-ecomonic losses and punitive damages, as well as on "contingent fees", or fees set by the plaintiff's attorney as a percentage of damages awarded to the plaintiff. Tort reform advocates argue that such caps would benefit those plaintiffs with legitimate lawsuits by reducing the number of "nuisance" suits and thereby improving the overall efficiency of the system. This area of tort reform reflects a broader ideological theme of the tort reform movement; that unrestricted litigation - particularly in the realms of personal liability and class-action suits - has a widespread and damaging effect on important social institutions and services beyond the scope of individual claims.
::Capping fees or awards is a solution in search of a problem. Not everything needs to be counterpointed, especially when there is not much of a counterpoint. If one takes the time to truly investigate the facts of any so called nuisance suit, one usually finds it apochryphal  or in fact a meritorius suit. The fact is frivoulous (outside of the actual legal definition) usually depends on whose ox got gored.Gfwesq 22:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  BTW, what is truly notable is commentary by those who won't sign off on their commentsGfwesq 22:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ANOTHER completely POV paragraph

message: There is one sentence here that runs counter to the argument, and that finishes up by a tort reform claim.
Tort reform supporters argue that these numbers are misleading. Supporters note that most liability costs come from pre-trial settlements caused by the threat of trial, so the number of trials is irrelevant. Supporters further note that the number of "filings" is a misleading statistic, because modern filings are much more likely to be class actions with many more joined claims than the cases of decades ago. They also note that the choice of the 1992 start date is misleading, because the largest increase in the number of tort cases occurred between 1970 and 1992. They also argue that the use of the median, rather than the mean, is a misleading statistic for measuring the magnitude of the litigation problem. Supporters point to a study by Tillinghast/Towers Perrin, a major consultant to the insurance industry, that claims the cost of liability litigation is outpacing the rate of inflation consistently over the last half century, representing 2.2% of GDP in 2004 vs. just 0.6% in 1950 and 1.3% in 1970.[13] Tort reform opponents dispute these numbers, which have been controversial; tort reform supporters note that the Towers Perrin numbers are underestimates in many ways.[14], [15]
[edit]
:::Tillinghast/Towers Perrin, a major consultant to the insurance industry NOW THERES a point of view that wasn't bought and paid for! Oh Anonynous, thou art naiveGfwesq 22:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet ANOTHER POV paragraph

message: A discussion on civility is in order.  Also, this baiting needs to stop.  Now.
1.  The person using HelloDali and other aliases should try to use one name, to avoid confusion and sockpuppetry.
2.  Strawman arguments will be exposed.
3.  HelloDali (or whatever other name he is using) is the one making threats to delete and revert - nobody else.
:Actually when I scrolled up, I noticed that you wrote a headed section entitled "Entire article should be scrapped".  It seems as if that's what touched off this entire debate, does it not?--HelloDali 20:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree, but I'm not sure what was uncivil about the above?  Please explain??--HelloDali 16:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Civility

message: I.  Including TTP in the intro section to the article and not in the debate, means a rebuttal is in order.  This will make the article unduly long.
II.  The definition of 'frivolous'.  
Rhetoric, by definition, is to persuade someone of the righteousness of a cause.  Therefore, a paragraph of your rhetorical understanding of 'all' tort reform critics is not the way to introduce this article.
Now, please take a look at this, before you change back the definition of 'frivolous'.  A plaintiff's attorney must make a reasonable investigation into the merits of a case, to avoid an FRCP11 (frivolous lawsuit motion) or the state equivalent.  One does not have to prove the case, and not even tort reform advocates suggest one would have to prove the case before they have an opportunity to prove a case.  
The trial is the venue to prove a case.  The vast majority of tort cases are negligence claims, and require the plaintiff to prove 4 things:
:1. Duty of Care - does the defendant owe a duty of some sort to the plaintiff (this includes the general duty to not harm the public)
:2.  Breach of Duty - was that duty breached
:3.  Causation - is there a link between the defendants act and the harm done.  Case law back to the 1920s states that the link cannot be too tenuous.
:4.  Damages - There must be some harm to the plaintiff, caused by defendant, that can be defined in monetary terms.
The real point, then, that you seem to be arguing is that the jury has not determined causation or damages.   But the whole point of the jury is to determine this.  That is, unless you want to throw out jury trials altogether and completely change our three branch structure of government.   
That is the problem with your overly broad definition, that is much more confusing than a concise definition of frivolous.MollyBloom 00:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consider these things

message: You wrote:
Tort reform is a controversial subject, and has been one of the most debated policy issues in recent times.
That's perfect.  Better than mine.  Thanks.MollyBloom 00:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First paragraph

message: Historical revisionism. Factually incorrect.  Reccomend those who do not know the history  read Jerome Auerbach's Unequal Justice which traces the use of lawsuits beginning in the 1920's to overturn Plessy. See also Fox News commentator Juan Williams' biography of Thurgood Marshall. It was a deliberate strategy. One that was so successful that it has been copied by the anti-abortion movement. To say the lawsuit strategy is overstated is to not know the facts. The legislation that followed was primarily after Brown. This will not do. I am willing to leave it up with a facts needed for a couple of weeks, but if the best tort reformers can do is a highly controversial book cited in Wikipedia that is not academically accepted, the line needs to go. Frankly I am being charitable, this is just simply incorrect and to leave it in invites other factually deficient assertions.  Gfwesq 02:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loser Pays and Desegregation 

message: .,,but this last exchange got my dander up again.  Dali, listen up.  You seem okay (basically sane, sober, clean-shaven, etc), but you're completely and totally nuts.  Why are you even having a conversation with these beautiful, amazing, flawlessly reasoned people? After all, isn't it clear that the TTP,  since it was contracted by insurers, is hopelessly biased (as opposed to trial attorneys and their consultants, who have no vested financial interest in tort reform whatsoever, and therefore are free to quote studies as they please?)
A slice of advice, my friend - this arguement is completely absurd.  With a straight face, they are arguing that civil trial lawyers and their backers don't have any financial interest in enforcing strict caps on punitive damages and contingent fees, then in the next breath, say that insurers and their countless minions do.  Ga-huhhh???  
(Actually I don't know if they have a straight face.  They may be giggling psychotically.  In a bathtub full of tobacco money.)
The point is, at least one has already admitted to being a trial lawyer, and therefore probably has more money then 6 rooms full of me and you.  She argues for a living, and will argue, inanely and illogically, forever.  Her condescension is emblematic of why we need tort reform.  Trial lawyers have forgotten that all citizens in a free society create law.  They just practice it.  So stop being so sycophantic and start kicking some tail, buddy.  A mildy special third grader could dissect the nonsense about "factoring in the value of life" (of course its an editorial comment Molly - are you even SERIOUS?)  
Now watch this magic trick.  I'm serious watch...  In about forty-five seconds, what I just wrote is going to be interrupted at least four times, and will include howling appeals to censor me, claims that I'm  a Republican operative or a child and at least one sentence with a subtext of I know much more about everything than you.  It's their livelihood their fighting for.  I get it - even respect it - but that respect is not mutual my friend.  This is why you must stop sitting on the fence and fight.  Love, Jarod--65.135.43.33 02:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Sorry to interrupt'' '

message: Some friendly suggestions:
# Remove the  tag from the article;
# Add the template  to those sections about which there is an NPOV dispute;
# Take one section at the time, starting from the first section downwards, discuss, reach consensus via proposals, edit and then and move on to the next section;
# Edit the article's lead so that it summarizes the manin points of the article (readers often only pay attention to the lead, and only if it is interesting, they explore further);
# Finally, move to another article that can benefit from your expertise.
Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 03:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: Hi.  If no one has a strong objection, I'd like to archive this page and put all this ugliness behind us.  Despite getting a little sidetracked (and I'll take a healthy share of blame for that), I think we were actually making some progress.  
I do think we could collaborate.  When we continue, I want to continue slowly.  I'm going to refrain from any rhetoric or personal opinion in this discussion from here on out, and hoping everybody does the same.  I'm also going to try to be more concise (mainly, because my fingers hurt)
On the next page I'd like to start with the four items that I think are currently on the table:
 Whether or not it is a fact that the English Rule could in some cases benefit a plaintiff.
 The structure of the "Debate" section 
 Whether or not the sentence "The value of human life was not factored into the equation" is a statement of fact, or an opinion.
 Also just realized that the "laundry list" complaint needs to be addressed. (I might need further explanation of what is meant by this before I can comment)--HelloDali 19:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, is that okay?  Thanks--HelloDali 14:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds fine, Dali.  Thank you!  I am out of town right now, and may not be able to help discuss this for a few days...I will check in as I can, and be home next week. jgwlaw172.147.54.243 15:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive? 

message: Let's deal with one thing at a time.  The 'laundry list' is a list included in the beginning of the article, of individual proposals that are not addressed below in the debate.  This is simply not a good structure for any article, since the introduction should spell out what is discussed in the body or here, the 'debate;' section.  I fear that the length of the article will become unwieldy if each of those points is discussed in the debate.  So perhaps a better way of organizing the article is to list only those points in the introduction that can reasonably be discussed in the body. In other words, the intro could say, "Some of the proposals include..." and list the top few proposals.   I am open to suggestions.  It looks like Gfwesq added some about 'loser pays', which is a pretty good history of the English rule.  jgwlaw 20:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure of article

message: In assessing any argument it is necessary to have all pertinent facts. Accordingly,  I have added information from Tillinghast-Towers Perrin's web site as to the nature of its business and legitimate criticism of the unverifiable nature of its claims. I tried to keep this as NPOV as possible.  Let readers armed with knowledge decide for themselves Gfwesq 22:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tillinghast-Towers Perrin 

message: I removed the list from th e introduction of the article.  We wont ignore it - we just need to talk about structure.  I am thinking we put this in the debate, and adress 'pro' and 'con' of each point:
A few of the changes commonly advocated in the United States include: 
:Caps on non-economic damages (e.g., monetary compensation for pain and suffering), punitive damages;
:Limiting or eliminating the collateral source doctrine 
:Use of court-appointed expert witnesses and elimination of elections for judges  (In other words, mandatory appointment for both judges and expert witnesses) ;
:Limiting the applicability of joint and several liability in favor of proportional liability;
:Reducing appeal bond requirements for defendants who file appeals when faced with potentially bankrupting judgments;
 :Adopting the English rule of "loser pays"
:Limits on contingency fees
 :Requirement that class actions that have a nationwide class of plaintiffs be tried in federal courts.
All of these measures benefit defendants, and are intended to discourage lawsuits.  A few, such as sanctions for delay, and early-offer settlement requirements, could benefit plaintiffs.
Not all tort reform advocates support all proposed tort reforms. For example, there is a split over whether the collateral source doctrine should be abolished.  There is also a growing debate over the wisdom of further restricting the ability of attorneys to charge contingent fees.,
I am open to discussion about how we want to do this.  But we should consider how a good article is structured, with an introduction, then an explanation of what was outlined in the introduction.  Also, we must consider length.  We won't be able to go into extensive detail on each of these points, or this article will have to be bound and published.  ;-)
The next question is - is this really appropriate for an encyclopedic article?  The point of Wikipedia is not to present a thesis, but a concise definition  and explanation of the subject.  This doesn't appear to do that.  Instead, it appears that this is developing into a political argument which isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia - although it may be the purpose of the original author.  Frankly, I don't think 'tort reform' warrants an inclusion at all.  But that's just my opinion.jgwlaw 00:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Laundry List & Structure of the Article

message: ::If I may weigh in here... the trick is to write the history in a NPOV manner. What exactly is tort reform? Its not a scientific theory. Its not an historical event. What it is, is a part of the modern conservative political movement of the late 20th century (and now the early 21st century). I don't have a problem with describing it as such, because it is accurate. However, I suspect "tort reform" advocates will object to that. Generally speaking, you will find that most of these socalled "reforms" are merely turning the clock back to the law as it existed before the 20th century. Most of these "reform" ideas were tried and found wanting as a matter of justice. However, a "turn back the clock to the 19th century" movement doesn't have the rhetorical appeal as a "reform" movement.  Reform usually means to improve. How do these proposals improve the law of torts? Do they improve the law of torts? What is the standard we are measuring improvement by?    I have no problem discussing the proposed "reforms" and perhaps that is the way to go. For example, we could discuss the collateral source rule- what it is, why it came about, why ultimately the majority of the jurisdicitions adopted it. Then we could discuss the "reformers" complaint. A tortfeasor, is by definition one who has been found at fault. Should a tortfeasor escape personal liablitity (paying damages) even though s/he is at fault merely because the plaintiff's medical bills were paid for by medical insurance?  On the surface it sounds like double compensation to the plaintiff and unfair to the defendants and thus eliminating thee collateral source doctrine sounds like an improvement (a reform) until you learn that the medical insurer has a right to be repaid- subrogation- and yes they do pursue subrogation claims. Which means if the award is reduced, the tort victim (the plaintiff) goes undercompensated for his injury and the party at fault, gets what amounts to a slap on the wrist. So much for the conservative value of personal responsibilty. Is this good public policy? Is it even conservative? Would a laundry list of so called reforms enlighten the average reader? Would it be NPOV? Or would a laundry list of reforms serve as a propaganda tool for one side? These are reforms! Reforms are improvements. Ergo these reforms need to be enacted! I don't think the average reader of this article would be enlightened by a mere laundry list. I also don't think a mere laundry list would be encyclopedic, nor do I believe it to be NPOV.  I suspect it would be wise to limit the topic to a specified number of  commonly cited "reforms" and discuss them fully, rather than a complete laundry list. A complete A to Z list would be a book in itself. Gfwesq 23:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem is that good writing generally has an introduction that describes what will be discussed in the body.  Here, there is a list of proposals, and then a discussion about a couple of those but also 'tort reform' topics that are not in the list, without ever discussing some of the list. As a result, it sounds POV, although I don't think Dali, you did intend it that way. Therefore, we need to consider what an introduction should say, and what can reasonably be discussed in the body of the paper.  I also suspect that in such a political topic, the use of political organizations as reference can not be avoided.  For this reason, we need the section "The Players in the Debate" or something like that, as I had started.jgwlaw 23:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting a new discussion at a different point

message: I am not going to continue to respond to each of your heated & inflammatory statements.  This is absurd (and if you don't like the word 'absurd', that's your problem, not mine).  You've had the last word.  Now I suggest you stop yelling and start collaborating, if indeed that is your intent.jgwlaw 15:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed this unnecessary section; I believe you're attempting to advertise to the casual reader that KihOshk is being unreasonable again with reference to my comments in your equally unnecessary “Please stop reverting” section. “STOP” what exactly? Stop responding to your attacks? You claim that my comments are “heated and inflammatory”, that I am “yelling” instead of collaborating. By the way, I have no idea what you meant by implying that I might have a problem with the word “absurd”; have you been accused of overusing it? As for your refusal to respond to my statements, which is your prerogative, remember that all of my statements were made in response to yours and G’s; you decided to respond piecemeal throughout, and I responded to your assaults. I must also point out that you have left many of my refuting questions unanswered. I don’t appreciate being publicly cast as unreasonable and overly emotional; I expect that readers can come to their own conclusions. And as far as emotions affecting opinion; I believe your own writings demonstrate this clearly. May I suggest something to you as you have to me now? If yes; perhaps you should consider my previous request that you temper your language; write less dogmatically and keep the superlatives to a minimum. This style of communication can make collaboration much less contentious, and when your arguments have a basis in fact instead of emotion, it is harder for others to refute them in the audience of reasonable and intelligent people. --KihOshk 15:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: STOP, KihOshk

message: I have moved the bullet pointed laundry list to a separate section on indiviudal reforms.  It should not be in an introductory paragraph to the article, without any discussion as to what the points mean.  The bullet point 'format'  is retained, until they are expanded.  I have removed two of them, since they are already expanded.   Clearly this will not be resolved in any other way.jgwlaw 05:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, though I don't agree with its placement, intro re-writing, or the retitling. Still, thank you for maintsining the link in the intro. --KihOshk 06:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm open to the title.  But 'reforms' should at least be 'proposed reforms'. Let's discuss the intro.  I didn't rewrite it, so I;'m not sure what you mean...I just moved the individual proposals to their own section.  I don't know where else the placement would be.  The artilce still needs reorganizing, and I fear it will become unwieldy.  It is going on 3 Am here.  Let's discuss on another day.  Okay? jgwlaw 06:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate section on laundry list

message: Can we all agree NOT to reply to comments by inserting the replies piecemeal in other users' comments? I for one find this extraordinarily disruptive to the flow of discussion, also it makes it nearly impossible to respond to each point without having to add to the history-list nightmare. Also, please try to make sure you're happy with your comments BEFORE committing them...these multiple commits are really making it hard to follow any threads.
:Yes, that is a good idea.  And please sign with 4 tildes.jgwlaw 06:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DAG NABIT!!! I forgot to log-in...all my comments are IP addresses...now you guys can track me down! --KihOshk 07:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and thanks for agreeing to the above. I appreciate it. Can I go to bed now? --KihOshk 07:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Commenting withing other users' comments

message: I added a tag, mainly to draw attention to the need for proper citations (references are not cited and the previous reference list did not link to anything in the text.  Instead of removing that list, I retitled the section 'references uncited' and added a section for references that are cited.  I have started the process of properly citing, and then 'marking off' those sources from the "references uncited" section, but there is still a lot of work to do.  Some of the links that had been in the text had dead links. jgwlaw 19:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, just a note in article writing, one should not cite a reference that does not support the claim or argument made, or the main point.  This is misleading.jgwlaw 19:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References