User talk:GabrielUrsa

Buffalo Arch
Please list on either my talk page or on the "Arch" article talkpage your concerns about the article as it existed before your "edit." Together we can improve the article instead of throwing away the work of several authors and hurling accusations. --Cjs56 19:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, thank you for adding the word "Tendentious" to my vocabulary. --Cjs56 19:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that you can find some merit in the article of which I was the primary author. There were technical descriptions of the proposal, there were details of fundraising plans, a general chronology of the idea of the arch and references to groups both in favor of its construction (the Common Council) and opposed (The Buffalo Snooze). So it seems that when you say there is no merit to my "sniping," "tendentious" article what you are saying is that you disagree with its "clinical" description of abortion. I invested a lot of effort in trying not to use any politically loaded terms in this article, and I think that I achieved that. I myself have opinions on abortion, but I do not think that a reader of this article can safely infer them. You made an assumption and have since labeled me very unfairly on several fronts. I think that if you asked medical professionals of varied opinions on abortion whether my description was scientifically accurate they would agree that it was.

Also, I am most definitely not Bruce Jackson. I have never met him, and after just having googling him, I am pretty sure that I have never before read anything written by him. Several editors have worked on this article sincve I originally wrote it and I am sure that they had as many opinions on abortion as there were authors, yet we were all able to work collectively and civilly. I would appreciate if we returned to that tradition. --Cjs56 02:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have added your talk page to my watch list, so if you wish to continue this discussion, you can respond directly below me, making it easier to reference earlier comments and to continue the thread conversationally. --Cjs56 02:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jan 31 07:

CJS56, if this reaches you (I am new to this), several points in response:

1, Your Arch article clearly discloses your liberal position on abortion, though you may think not. Pro-lifers do not EVER talk about fetuses terminated through abortion, they hate euphemisms for this grisly and barbaric practice. Why did you choose to write an article about this project, if you would explain that please? Also, FYI, only liberals do as you did, claim that their position on abortion is not discernable from their conduct. Despite all their efforts to blind their consciencess, they habor an irreducible residuum of moral shame, that impels them to such self-deception. God sees all, so its no use.

2. Your page is untruthful or at least inaccurate as to the Buffalo News, which never to my knowledge said anything against this project. Letters to the editor ran on both sides, a feminazi columnist spewed venom, but the editor herself never dissed it. I am quite sure she favors it in fact.

3. Are you  responsible for the murder James Kopp being named and linked right below your article? To whomever did, that is truly reprehensible and unacceptable. If you are a person of intellectual integrity, you would remove it.

4. Do you object to the content of my own posting, which is highly informative about the project? If not, will you allow it to be added to your own so we can stop striving?

5. I did not call your article sniping or sarcastic, that refered to attached comments, esp. Bruce Jackson's bombastic rantings and the people who commune with him. His link is also unacceptable.

6. Most unborn babies are killed in their embryo stage, not fetal. So much for your scientific description.

As you may have wondered or guessed, I am the originator of this project. Call me Larry. I should have some say about the article, wouldn't you think so?

Larry

Larry,

I will respond to your message point by point:

1.) You know what? I've got no response.  It's a waste of my time to discuss this with someone with such a closed mind.  I will only say that you should read some of the information on abortion on wikipedia which has been edited by hundreds of people of all opinions on abortion and you will find that pro-choicers and anti-abortion advocates can agree on the use of language similar to that which is in this article.

2.) The News editorial said exactly what the article said it said. In fact, I will edit the section on the News response to make it more to your liking. There once was a link to this editorial but it died when the News archived it.  I agree that letters to the editor expressed a variety of opinions on your project, and if you would like this to be in the article, please feel free to add it. As for your use of the term "feminazi": grow up, you're making yourself look like a jackass, and that's far from necessary.

3.) The original article which I wrote lacked focus and went on tangents about the abortion debate in the Buffalo-Niagara region. At that time, the Kopp link made sense, but the article evolved leaving that as residue.  You are right, that that link doesn't belong in the current article and I will remove it.

4.) You are right, the article that you added was very informational.  In fact, almost all of the information on the wikipedia article is directly lifted from your website.  However, your article was not written in an encyclopedic manner or from a neutral viewpoint.  Simply cutting and pasting your own press releases will do more to ridicule your efforts than a thousand vicious wikipedia editors.  There were plenty of facts on your press release that are worthy of inclusion in this article and if you want, you should write them into the article.

5.) Jackson's link stays. There is a bias in the external links section, but that is not through any effort at balance on my part.  If I found more links to people in favor of your project I would add them, and I will add that your website has copies of a lot of praise for your project.  So, on the whole, the link to your website is equal to several links to Jackson and his ilk.

6.) I will adjust the opening sentence to reflect this information.

So, Larry, I think that we're making progress on this. We've alread agreed on several edits that will improve this article considerably. I have a suggestion. I think that you'll give yourself a coronary if you keep this level of involvement. Go to your CYO or another youth organization, and ask if any of the youngins edit wikipedia. I'm pretty sure that there will be at least one. He or she will know all the technical standards and whatnot on how to edit and format articles. Ask him if he will spend a few hours on this article and add it to his watchlist. I think you'll see a marked improvement in this article, and you'll save yourself a lot of stress. Just some thoughts... --Cjs56 15:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is a dead link to the non-existent article about you. Congratulations, you are worthy of an article on wikipedia! (This is a distinction for which I am yet unworthy, alas). If you want, you can write it yourself or get someone you know to write it. --Cjs56 15:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

............ I wrote a detailed answer and the dumb site lost the data when I tried to save. I noted I am not stressed by this, being a trial lawyer and a married man; that true feminists do not approve of abortion, see http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/foremoth.htm., only women duped by godless nazi and communist philosophies embrace it; that you would admit it if you were not liberal on abortion instead of accusing me of being close-minded (which, yes, I am, will not agree to kill unborn babies to suit the convenience of women's boyfriends, or their own convenience). I ended saying that when I have time I will add to your article instead of tearing it off.

Larry

Excellent.