User:Bizfixer

Your intentions monitor your perceptions and guide your directions.
The following is a post I made for an edit I recommended to the article "Natural cures They Don't Want You to Know About"

Request for Neutrality
I have again made an effort to move this article to a more neutral position while still allowing for the inclusion of several points from the antagonistic contingency. By the same token, I still do not see the necessity to include wholesale reprint of the book's contents as some supporters would wish. Wikipedia is not interested in obtaining licensing to reprint portions of any book. In an effort to clarify my position on this and all matters wikipedian, please see the following statement I made in the section earlier under the subheading Revert:

Please make an effort to step outside of your emotional opposition and see the negative effect that the contributions of editors with that much passion about a subject bring to the process. The fundamental difference between contribution and contortion is what lies at the heart of this debate. If an editor feels strongly about the rightness or wrongness of an article's subject they perhaps should recuse themselves from the process due to their conflict of interest. The conflict being between an individual's ability to write dispassionately about an entry. Passion for a subject, be it in support or opposition, contradicts the basic premise of a reference project such as Wikipedia. The reason you don't go to mommy and daddy any more for your reference point is because a long time ago you outgrew the need to have someone tell you what and how to think. Now, I would wager, you simply want the data and then freedom to draw your own conclusions. Why continue to insult the intelligence of those who wish to utilize this promising resource? Regardless of what specific references you include from the text you are still removing the individual's right to find importance in the text where they want to find it. Returning to the analogy of Catcher in the Rye, if you were to include under a subheading of Criticism a singular quote from the book in which Caulfield pays to have a prostitute sent to his room, one could surmise that this particular line or subject was viewed negatively by you. It would therefore betray your passion and there you have strayed from the true intention of the resource. If I can be excused from stating this too crudely: no one comes to Wikipedia to find what how you feel about a subject. Bizfixer 20:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bizfixer 20:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)