User talk:Burningdwarf/Archive1

Deletion of external links on Treason entry
Please do not make false charges of "vandalism" and of "unconstructive" edits against fellow editors and supporters of this website. Stephen378, I, merely added an external link relevant to the page on "Treason" from a bestselling author and lawyer on a book of that title. Any objection to it, since it was backed up by cited facts, must have been borne of your own bias! Clicking the link should be the reader's option. And deleting it for no good reason seems to constitute the very vandalism of which you speak! Knock it off! --Stephen378

The link would be appropriate for the article on Ann Coulter, but seeing as it is irrelevant to the subject it would not be appropriate for the article Treason. You will also learn that just because someone backs something up with "Facts" doesn't mean that is it true. After all McCarthy backed himself up with "Facts" so did Hitler and Stalin. Burningdwarf (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

--Stephen378 17:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Stephen, You have your political opinions and I have mine, but Wikipedia is no place for them. The following quote is from an interview with the Jimbo Wales, the founder and "God-King" of wikipedia. "Yes, so one of the interesting things about Wikipedia is that people assume – you naturally assume that – particularly on controversial topics that the big debates within the Wikipedia community would be somehow roughly the party of the left versus the party of the right. It turns out on those types of topics it‘s actually the party of the thoughtful and reasonable people and the party of the jerks." Please, don't be one of the Jerks. Burningdwarf 00:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your political bias is outrageous and clouds your judgment. You substitute your own private standard of "true" without one shred of refutation of any part of Coulter's article or book in order to dismiss her not merely as wrong but as unworthy of an external link! By your silly logic, no links to McCarthy of Hilter's works would be tolerated by you either, for despite their "facts," if you deem their conclusion to be not "true," you will delete it as well, I suppose. You are guilty of the worst kind of petty Soviet-style censorship based on your own warped political bias. Unbelievable! And then you have the nerve to say I am "on thin ice" for putting up the links. You, Sir, appear to be on thin ice, if anyone is, for your own inappropriate threats and for a snap judgment of relevance that is wrong and proves you have read neither the article nor the book carefully. Shame on you for such intellectual dishonesty!

Same to you -- you stole my line!

Stephen378 02:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Grafton
Did you see Talk:Grafton, Wisconsin? I think this gentleman's story casts enough doubt on the importance of the Nazi connection to the camp, that we ought to leave it out. -Freekee 02:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC) I agree, sorry for the late response, things have been a bit busy lately
 * Not a problem. It's interesting how things turn out, huh? -Freekee 04:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)