User talk:98.14.129.101

1) Show me where I used the word "stupid"...I said puerile (hopefully I spelled that correctly), and I stand by the characterization for the reasons noted below; your citation of a non-existent word speaks to your creativity, but not your intellectual neutrality...which is the major bone I have to pick with your uncited vandalism of the article; 2) Ross's stature and wealth mean to me, outside of the context of the article, exactly nothing; 3) While I examine my motives, why don't you examine yours: a) to support your comment, you would have to know Mr. Ross's state of mind in giving the gift...I doubt that either of us have the necessary insight to make a characterization; b) to make the assertion stick, it would help your argument were the building NOT LEED certified, which it is; c) of the Ross gift, the public record suggests that a large fraction of the gift represents an endowment for the operating budget; d) this is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a collection of comments about people that you don't like...show me ANY factual basis for your comment and make your case; 4) To contribute the $100MM, a donor has to make roughly double that before tax...people that smart typically do have egos and typically do like to make their mark on the world...this is a fairly human phenomenon, and I fail to see the harm, when so many thousands of people will benefit thereby; 5) I'm always astonished by people that crawl out of the woodwork to be critical about another person whose contributions they can't hope to match; put your own mark on the world and don't worry about donors who like seeing their name in lights; 6) it is said of the architect of the Yale library that he wanted to chisel over the door "This is not the library, the library is inside". Likewise, I personally don't care if any name is over the door, the school is inside.

In sum: LEED certified; you aren't a mind reader; your negativity serves no discernible rational purpose and doesn't contribute to the commons or the common good; your edit was neither neutral, nor empirically supportable. No spell check used above, so I hope your sensibilities are not offended.

Intellectually disingenuous? Because I criticized a member of the Forbes 400? Perhaps some of the "more attention" you suggest for yourself could be devoted to why you launch into personal attacks in defense of a wealthy public figure.

Believe it or not, you can disagree with someone without assuming that the person is stupid.

--

1) Yes, I did; 2) You should read the Wiki policy on neutrality; 3) More attention or a spell checker will solve my  problem; you are intellectually disingenuous...   what will solve that problem?

1. You mis-spelled echolalia. 2. You are very amusing.

Weird edits to infoboxes
You are adding fields that doesn't exist to infoboxes. Please stop. Thanks. Erzsébet Báthory(talk 21:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Only certain infoboxes (authors, for example) contains that field. If you click preview before submitting your edit, you'll see that there's no education field popping up. Thanks. Erzsébet Báthory(talk 21:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)