yes but soap boxing is appropriate as you have not addressed any of the content suggestions presented how can you just ignore the secondary account it's well documented there is even an attempt to take the bush administration to court there are professors who claim the official story is bunk and they do so in guardian the fbi says osama was not involved this means the current article is one big lie and my questions about it go ignored every instance of the word muslim does not belong on the page i'm terribly upset by all this dishonesty how do you justify this by complaining about the format of my writing times i will then take the soap box i have every right to i'm sure you have the best of intentions here haemo but who is not talking about the article it self here you or me this sub topic is where i say the page is weasel wording and you say i'm soap boxing huh i'm talking about the article justifying the war on terror here i'm not sure how i became the subject there could you please clarify that leap of logic and how do you relate it to weasle wording i beg of you to explain what part of osama was not involved is so hard for you to understand