Talk:Mankind Project/Archive 1

Cult Criticisms
66.118.223.6, it's not Wiki policy to register annoyance with an organization by destroying Wikipedia content! It's expected that you'll leave correct and relevant contents, such as the external links in this article. If you can find a way to put a link to LGAT that doesn't violate Wiki's NPOV (neutral point of view), Wiki will allow that, too -- but copying the text of one article into another isn't how we do things. These might be relevant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Best of luck with your edits.

Do you not think that people have a right to know? If they only type in mankind project, should they also not beaware of what techniques the group uses as they are "secret". I am not putting "inaccurate" information on this page. I am putting accurate information on this page.

You still aren't using Wikipedia format, anonymous. Links to other Wikipedia pages are done differently from those outside; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Link for more details.

As you know, I didn't say your information was inaccurate. It doesn't fit Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines, however. There might be a way to include LGAT information on this page beyond the bare link, but importing a huge amount of text that is not all relevant to this page isn't the way to do it -- it doesn't fit style guidelines.

I've followed a few of these off-site anti-cult links and it seems pretty clear to me that MKP does not fit the most common definitions there, particularly given the great infrequency of MKP activities and the general lack of emphasis on fundraising (some local areas where they were trying to build a center or somesuch being the "exception" to this cited). The closest I can see that MKP has to anything approaching LGAT is the New Warrior Training Adventure, which is no more strange or occultish than common male experiences such as militar boot camp. Rorybowman 16:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to Cults in our Midst (book) because the book does not mention MKP by name, only has a passing mention of LGAT's and explicity notes that the descriptive term cult "denotes a group that forms around a person who claims he or she has a special mission or knowledge, which will be shared with those who turn over most of their decision making to that self-appointed leader." (p. xx). Whatever Rick Ross (consultant) may say, MKP does not meet this definition, making mention of the book gratuitous. Rorybowman 00:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds logical. Smee 03:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Third party opinion
Hi, I got here through Mediation Cabal. In my opinion the article should not include the disputed text about LGAT. It's inappropriate for all the reasons cited above, and it's also too long, so that it overwhelms the article. If the anonymous editor thinks it's necessary to include criticism of the ManKind Project, I suggest they learn to write in Wikipedia style and then add a single paragraph citing a critical source with specific details about ManKind, not about LGAT in general. As a compromise, for now, I'd suggest adding a sentence like "It has been suggested that the ManKind Project uses LGAT methods as part of its program"--something like that, to suit the context. Include the link so that anyone concerned can go and read about LGAT in its own article, which is the proper place for that information. --Grace 12:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

...Thank you, Grace. I'll add a further opinion of my own -- that it's only reasonable to add facts about opinions if they are opinions common to a significant group or a noteworthy individual. Something like "Democrats opposed this Republican policy" or "FDR supported such-and-such," but not, "It has been claimed by some that..." as a cover for injecting the author's opinion into the article. Facts about opinion, yes, but not mere opinion. --Hooponopono 02:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're absolutely right. Though I'd add that since this isn't an extremely prominent topic, it doesn't need to be the opinion of someone as noteworthy as FDR--even something like an anti-cult watchdog site talking about ManKind would qualify as a source. Wait for the anonymous editor to find it, if it isn't just their opinion. --Grace 09:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "Criticisms"
This section is troubling to me, because it is not verifiable, or, at least, is not verified. (I understand this is an attempt to resolve a problem, and believe it's in good faith, but I dont' think we're there yet.)

Some criticize groups such as Mankind Project as dangerous LGAT cults -- who? How do we know this?

drawing men away from similar or "competing" groups such as Promise Keepers -- who says this? Those affiliated with the organization tend to dismiss such criticisms as ideologically motivated -- do we have any evidence of this?

reflecting general divisions within the men's movement, particularly those between pro-feminist men and masculists -- I know a fair amount about this, and I've never heard of any controversy involving ManKind Project being a dispute between feminist men and someone else. Evidence?

Most of those affiliated with the organization would classify it as a mythopoetic organization, asserting that it tends to score low on most secular, non-denominational cult checklists. -- Does it show up on any secular, non-denominational cult checklists? Can we verify what its score is?

This is troublesome, because it's all opinion. Now, Wikipedia does report facts ABOUT opinions; but these aren't facts about opinions -- they're opinions about opinions.

I will check back in a while and see if anyone was able to resolve these problems. I think it's legitimate to have a criticisms section, if it can be made factual.


 * The LGAT thing I have first heard of here (aside from generic objection to all self-actualization techniques as culty brainwashing) but I've seen a few charismatic Christian critiques of MKP as new age Paganism online (and even a testimonial from a Christian man who who was sent to MKP to "cure" him of his homosexuality!). Most of these articles weren't substantive enough to remember except for one at http://www.intotruth.org/pk/pkmm1.html that I saved. There is also a fellow named Stu Weber out of Beaverton Oregon, United States, whose "tender warrior" franchise reworks the MKP material to make it more acceptable to charismatic Christians, but does not make the LGAT assertion. Given that one anonymous editor has come back in with this twice in rapid succession, it seems worth including politely in the same way one would include assertions that Jews eat babies in an article. Yes, some people assert this: look at the evidence yourself. I think with these clues someone would investigate in more detail. Most written criticisms I have seen of MKP's methodology are solidly from the charismatic Christian camp, who often seems to call most non-compliant beliefs heretical or cultish. Rorybowman 14:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment on provided links
Making some note for myself...

intotruth mentions something called New Warrior Network which is at least similar to MKP but I can't confirm it's the same organization (although MKP members sometimes call themselves "new warriors"). There is no direct criticism, although there's criticism of the books of Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette as incompatible with Christianity, and a note that New Warrior Network trains people in their model; this model is indeed popular in MKP. I may try some future edit (unless someone beats me to it) saying MKP uses this neo-Jungian stuff which is considered heretical by some Christians.

The other links don't mention MKP.

--Hooponopono 01:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct, but I think the general criticisms are good because (fundamentally) the article cited criticizes PK in much the same way some within PK have criticized MKP as "unchristian." The larger point that I think is implicit is that criticism of MKP as cult-like is usually part of a criticism of self-help groups or alternative "spiritualities" such as twelve-step_programs or "consciousness raising" generally. I'll try to find some MKP-specific criticisms, but most of what I've seen is more broadly "anti-cult" in a fairly imprecise and narrowly sectarian sense. Rorybowman 19:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Some more links for notetaking as well:


 * http://forum.rickross.com/viewtopic.php?p=1851&sid=70d3ce02b2c0fe6ba68699644d9fa691
 * http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2004/06/some_quick_thou_1.html
 * http://www.seekgod.ca/nonew.htm
 * http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/42164
 * http://watch.pair.com/asa.html

Just a quick note that The ManKind Project (MKP) was formerly known as the New Warrior Network (NWN) back when the organization had essentially just a single "product," the New Warrior Training Adventure (NWTA) intiation weekend. The organization changed its name to MKP several years ago. The moniker "new warriors" is simply shorthand for men who have completed the NWTA weekend. ArtZ 18:45, 25 Sep 2006 (CDT)

"Ideologically motivated"
I did an edit, removing the line below. I think it applies well to Promise Keepers, but not ManKind Project:

Those affiliated with the organization tend to dismiss such criticisms as ideologically motivated, reflecting general divisions within the men's movement, particularly those between pro-feminist men and masculists.

Thing is, although I am sure most -- at least, very many -- ManKind Project members are on one side of this (the feminist side), I haven't seen anything to indicate that masculists dislike the organization; or that the members of ManKind Project dismiss criticisms of the organization as ideologically motivated. (Dismiss, perhaps, but not as ideologically motivated.)

I think the criticisms section is getting close, though. The next link, about "mythopoetic," is accurate, and contains good information about ManKind Project's focus on self-help rather than political positions.

--User:Hooponopono 01:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think categorizing these critics as "Christian" is broadly wrong, as they are a pretty darn narrow sect within American Protestantism: Evangelicalism is the closest descriptor I could find, and certainly there are no Russian Orthodox or Coptic criticisms of MKP I've heard of. I still think apostacy best captures the spirit of the criticisms, but evangelicalism is the most lucid article on their general worldview. "Christian" here seems a vague dodge. Rorybowman 02:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This group is a cult type group and I think you were wrong to remove the information in regards to this fact. If you keep removing factual information I will have to assume that you are promoting a cult with this knowledge. Mankind Project is an LGAT, do your research a bit more before you jump to the conclusions that only "christians" have problems with them. I know someone who was talked into going to the weekend initiation and this person agrees this is an LGAT cult. Emails are received trying to get him to take more classes (for a fee), and trying to get him to recruit. If you research this group you will find that they have some questionable ethical activities. The following is from the International Cultic Studies association. Talk to them! http://www.csj.org/infoserv_groups/grp_lgat/grp_mankindproject/grpindex_mankind.htm Cultic Studies: Information about Cults and Psychological Manipulation
 * That link provides virtually no information. &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism is not limited to Protestants, and Russian Orthodox and Copts (a very small population in the US) are hardly the only alternatives to evangelical Protestantism. There is substantial Catholic criticism of MKP, and at least one diocese has forbidden its priests to staff MKP weekends.

Repeated Vandalism
An encyclopedia must be objective. Every attempt to provide details of the Mankind Project, or to balance the presentation, has been met by vandalism. The vandals are apparently advocates of MKP who do not want there to be discussion of the objective content of the weekend or links to critics of it.

Wikipedia is not a place for infomercials! Keep this objective, and stop vandalizing all attempts to bring in an element of objectivity and accountability.

We still have MKP advocates vandalizing this site and removing pertinent information.

Question, if this group was as "legit" as they claim, why the deleting of information that brings objectivity, thought and questioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.66.45.66 (talk • contribs)

Sources, here are some sites, do your own research, you will find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.203.71 (talk • contribs)
 * http://rickross.com
 * http://csj.org/
 * http://www.csj.org/infoserv_groups/grp_lgat/grp_lgat_index.htm
 * http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/LGAT
 * http://www.factnet.org
 * http://www.myownmind.com


 * Sources, sources, sources. Provide the sources to back up the information. &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Brace for some more anonymous edits. The whole LGAT thing seems a pretty broad brush, with various camps claiming to be "experts" and calling the others "apologists" or whatnot. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, but I found some other links that seem more within the mainstream of APA-style commentary and research, which I'll note here for folks who wish to explore the "cult" aspects of MKP. I place them here of course only as a witless pawn... 8^)


 * http://perso.orange.fr/eldon.braun/awareness/
 * http://perso.orange.fr/eldon.braun/awareness/choosingx.htm

It seems to me that Singer's original concept of LGAT is being stretched a bit to fit MKP but there is probably more money in it for that way. In the interests of objectivity I'm not going to touch this article for a bit. Verifiable or substantive crits of the organization absolutely should be noted, but much of this stuff seems a bit fringe. Rick Ross, for example, lists the arts festival Burning Man Rorybowman 06:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced information
Listen, I'm no advocate of the Mankind Project. I've done my own personal research unrelated to Wikipedia and I have my own personal doubts about the group. But continually adding unsourced allegations and information from unreliable sources goes against one of the standard principles of Wikipedia (WP:V). So please, unless you have verifiable information from a reliable source, please stop adding this junk to Wikipedia. &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability Concerns
First, my bias for full disclosure: I had bad experiences with this organization - I was a potential recruit that was pushed into joining but never did so, having backed out at the last minute, with severe concerns about the ethics of the organization. Nonetheless, I am an editor.

I am concerned about the availability of independent sources of information on MKP, as it seems that the only things available online are websites sponsored by them or affiliate organizations of, or concerns of their cultist nature of questionable legitimacy. While it is not necessary to know their every behind-closed-doors activity, the only evidence we have that they are who they say they are is their claims. Public records indicate they have significant cash flows, however 990s do not make an encyclopedia article for many reasons. Has anyone been able to find news articles or other independently verifiable mainstream signs of activity? skrshawk (  Talk  |  Contribs  ) 22:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In a similar interest of full disclosure, I attended an MKP NWTA in 2001 and found it very useful. As a 501(c)3 and not-for-profit corporation in several states, I would assume that the same techniques one would apply to other organizations would work for them. I followed one of the links from this article to the Rick Ross "cult education forum" threads on MKP but those are heavily moderated and tend to shut down counterpoints to Rick Ross' universal view of MKP graduates as brainwashed pawns. Because the words "mankind" and "project" are so common, generic "google" searches are unlikely to be fruitful. I would suggest trying to research them as you would any other 501(c)3 but doubt you'll find anything of use. The Rick Ross site had various nuggets from such public-records searches as the salaries of their three highest-paid employees ($40-$70K if memory serves), but I just don't think there is much "dirt" or anti-MKP stuff out there outside of the evangelical concerns about them being an unchristian cult (whatever that means). Rorybowman 17:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Through some digging what I've found is a number of scholarly papers, none of which are freely available to use in an article. Without anything in the mainstream media or in a reputable source to verify the claims of the organization, all we can do is cite their claims in the article, mention the proven links to other organizations, the established biographical and notable information of its founders, and give mention to the criticism that has been levied (for what it's worth - all I've seen is the Rick Ross forum and a Yahoo group, and they sort of speak for themselves in terms of credibility). Assuming nothing can be found of use I intend to edit the article according to mention unverified claims and delete items as I see necessary, but I didn't want to do that without discussion seeing as this is a difficult article and given previously stated potential bias.  skrshawk  (  Talk  |  Contribs  ) 02:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can appreciate that! (and appreciate the response). If you check my edit history on this (or other articles) I tend to have an editorial bias toward including criticisms of an organization or subject with as much reference to the original sources as I can find. I agree that it would be good to get more publicly-verfiable stuff, and wish you luck with that, but I suspect that there isn't much stuff. I didn't really know much about Rick Ross (consultant) until just now, but since he is one of the most substantive and persistent critics I think it is important not to remove those criticisms. The whole LGAT thing and how far Ross has gone from her book and the whole APA taskforce on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control seems a bit of a stretch, but I think it is important to keep that information out there for those who want it. I originally touched this article because I was concerned about NPOV and think that removing criticisms risks it tending back toward being a puff piece. Wikipedia readers are mostly adults, and should be given as many research tools as possible. Thanks for your response! Rorybowman 01:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My concern isn't in weighing your personal bias - again, it has to do with this article in and of itself. In regards to Rick Ross, what he personally has had to say about MKP is worth including in the article, but I am questioning the value of the forum itself if it does not include his commentary itself. I went through the massive threads many many months ago and saw a considerable amount of flames back and forth between supporters and critics, most of which have no scholarly credentials, and I presume often exaggerated their experiences. Other than saying that forums sponsored by his website indicate considerable criticism, I'm not sure how much more can be obtained from them than a very general synopsis of the types of allegations.  As far as you claim that Wikipedia readers are mostly adults, that is absolutely an invalid assumption (sit on recent changes patrol for a day and you'll see how many youths and childish adults patronize Wikipedia!).  Nonetheless, we are not censored and should write to the community consensus of standards as best we can as we see them.  skrshawk  (  Talk  |  Contribs  ) 01:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Rick Ross' comments in the forum are as "rrmoderator" and he is pretty assertive in closing threads and banning what he calls "apologists." I thought that your concern about Rick Ross' fora was around him having a business which depends on making himself (and other anti-cult activists) appear more professional to command higher speaking and expert witness fees. In any case, I hope that you can find more verifiable and substantive criticisms. I just don't think they're out there except on the fringe "anti-cult" sites. Financials would be the most logical place to look, but that is pretty obscure and specialized stuff which might violate the no original research policy. Rorybowman 04:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Headquarters and Structure
Poking around, it seems that MKP is pretty decentralized, and the main corporation (currently in Indiana) is just that. The various "centers" are presumably domestic corporations in their own states, provinces or countries and not foreign corporations or subsidiaries. I would assume that these license intellectual property from the original corporation, but this might explain how "headquarters" are reported in such different places, particularly by non-technical (non-business and non-legal) reporters. This seems a pretty standard model for non-profits, no? This may be useful for folks who are searching for financial numbers, as reports for each corporation would presumably be in its "native" jurisdiction. Rorybowman 16:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Very very intersting. Do you know of anywhere where this type of info is cited?  Smeelgova 16:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
 * No, I don't know of any public records, but this structure is explicitly noted at their "sister organization" and would be consistent with many other non-profits. It is essentially the same sort of structure that many churches and non-profits such as the worldwide scouting movement uses. I just wasted a lot of time looking on state websites for corporations that did not exist in that particular state. Financial research on non-profits is pretty darn jurisdiction-specific, and outside of my bailiwick. I note the info here to make it simpler for others to pursue. My personal view is that the organization is benign and that further research will show that, which is why I want such research done, in honest and verifiable ways. With no charismatic leader, no rigid doctrine and no clear financial gain, I believe all this anti-cult nonsense about MKP is garden-variety moral panic. Rorybowman 19:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Term "initiates" for members or participants
Looking at Pistonian revolution's substantive new edits, I am thinking that perhaps the term "participants" or "attendees" is more approriate and would make the article read less like an advertisement. Looking at the phrasing of the cheeky Montreal Mirror piece with bits about "grand poobahs" and "circle jerks" and so forth, it only now occurs to me that internal terms such as "initiate" may not be best for a general encyclopedia article. Certainly there should be a link somewhere within the article to the initiation article, but the term "initiate" does seem slightly out of tone for a general encylopedia, however anthropologically appropriate or inappropriate. Rorybowman 16:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Rorybowman, I had to revert some of your last 4 minor edits due to removal of material and vandalism from other editors and anon-ips. Please restore.  Sorry bout that.  Smee 16:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
 * No problems. Since Pistonian revolution registered I suspect s/he will be back. I've included the main material below, as I think there is a LOT of stuff which can be productively folded in. It hadn't occurred to me that "initiates" was such a loaded word for a general article. Rorybowman 17:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Pistonian Material
Howdy, Smee! I can see why such a large edit may have seemed like vandalism but I think there were some very good bits in the removed material. I'd like to place it here so that it can be drawn upon (and hopefully Pistonian will return to take part).

The New Warrior Training that would later become the NWTA was founded in 1984 by three men: Rich Tosi, a former Marine Corps officer; Bill Kauth, a therapist and member of the "mythopoetic" men's movement; and Ron Herring, Ph.D., a therapist. Designed to compress a large amount of material into less than forty-eight hours, NWTA purports to be a "radical departure" from the modern male psyche. The NWTA mirrors the three phases characteristic to the Hero's Journey of Joseph Campbell, and virtually all historic forms of male initiation: Descent, Ordeal and Homecoming. Unlike initiations of old, these passages are navigated internally, through a man's personal exploration of his emotions and the dysfunctional and healthy patterns within his life. The NWTA is grounded in the principle of bringing back a healthy form of initiation into our culture. Since the time of the industrial revolution, western culture has for the most part lost meaningful rituals to honor the transition that boys make into manhood. Consequently, many men may still feel like boys on the inside, having never received a blessing of their masculinity from their fathers. Our modern culture has tried to fill that void with things varying from fraternity hazings, to getting drunk on one's 21st birthday. Men who have typically been drawn to do the NWTA weekend have likely begun to struggle with the western definition of masculinity and its limitations.

The Mankind Project offers trainings which support men in developing lives of integrity, accountability, and connection to feeling. The trainings challenge men to develop their abilities as leaders, partners, fathers, and elders in order to offer their deepest gifts in service to the world.

Specific details of NWTA trainings are kept confidential by both new initiates, and the initiated men who staff the training. The reason for this is to ensure that every man who experiences the training does so without clouding his expectations with the perceptions, experiences, and hear-say of previously initiated men. Confidentiality is maintained in order to ensure that each man has his own unique experience. Confidentiality also serves men who share intimate emotional details of their lives and wish not to have them repeated.

The initial workshop costs USD$600, with some weekends prices varying, and is attended by anywhere between 20 and 200 participants. Scholarships and payment plans are offered to any man who wants to do the training but cannot afford to pay the full price up front. The relatively high cost per participant goes to cover the expenses of renting the campsite and buying food for staff and initiates. Uniquely, Staff also pay a fee between 60 and 100 dollars to participate in order to lower the fee charged to initiates. The course typically takes place at a campsite over a 48-hour period although some centers offer workshops in urban areas. "Men are invited to participate in a variety of processes and highly experiential exercises that lead them to a place of safety. The weekend is, essentially, a male initiation ritual. All the noise of a man's life, like cell phones and radios, are removed so the man is separated from what he is comfortable with. The man is given the opportunity to take a deep, dark look into himself with the support of the group, and ultimately steps through his fears of going to that place." The weekend is a "male initiation ritual", where the "noise of a man's life" is removed. This includes cell phones and radios, the removal of which is explain by the Mankind Project as a way of separating the man "from what he is comfortable with"

To avoid confusion with regards to the term "initiation", one must note that men who participate in the NWTA are not initiated into a given dogma or secretive group. the word initiation is used to give effect to the emotional transformation that many men report experiencing. The word "initiation" is frequently associated with religious cults or fraternities. Contrarily, the NWTA encourages each man to find his own truth and way of living, instead of adhering to some central dogma or leader. Although the NWTA is neither therapy, nor a 12-step group, men are given the opportunity to explore their deepest emotions, their definitions of masculinity, and how their relationships play out in their lives. one of the primary principles of the NWTA is providing emotional safety and support- to create a place where many men feel safe for the first time in their lives to actually feel and talk about their emotions, be it sadness, anger, fear, joy or shame. These men cut down the confining, dehumanizing rules that society puts on them; rules such as "Men don't cry", or "men have to be tough", or "men only hug other men if they're gay." The NWTA balances nurturing of emotions with a rigorous masculinity of integrity, where each man can learn how to be responsible for the life he creates for himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rorybowman (talk • contribs) 16:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Wyler reference
I have cut this because I'm not sure what it adds to the article. Should it perhaps be folded in to a section on the reparative therapy debate within MKP? Given that this article is just getting its references squared away and the cult stuff under control, I'm not sure I want to open that can of worms, especially given the general lack of citable materials. Rorybowman 04:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"The training is designed to 'challenge men to develop their abilities as leaders, fathers, and elders' and to 'support men in developing lives of integrity, accountability, and connection to feeling.'"

Advert tag
About a year ago I first came here to complain that the article read like a press release and someone put up the current advert tag. What more needs to be done before taking this one down? My recent edits make me blind to certain flaws so I won't take it down, but encourage others to clarify what else needs to be changed. Rorybowman 16:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps more citations from secondary sources unaffiliated with the article subject.... Smee 18:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Removed advert tag
I cleaned up the article a little, removed the cost of the training, condensed some press-release sounding material. I also placed the criticisms in the more appropriate spot within the article: at the bottom.

DISCLOSURE: I am a member of the mankind project, but was not acting on their behalf or with their input in any edits I have done on this article, and I have not added my own nor protected or preserved or removed anyone elses POV.

Jerry lavoie 04:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh oh. Well, thanks for the disclosure, and so far your edits look mostly okay.  Smee 07:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I hope by mostly okay you mean no problems at all. If this is not the case, please discuss on my talk page.  You can put it here, too, but this article is not on my watchlist.  I do not intend to be a major contributor to this article due to my obvious potential COI.  I am certain I can keep my own POV out of the article, but I belive as a general rule that if the mere suggestion of POV based on a potential COI could be made, then I should avoid it altogether.  Appearance is 90% of reality.  Jerry lavoie 04:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)