User talk:JusticeIsServed/Evidence

On Reaching Concensus

 * Calls Texans for Truth Biased then does not specifically state why


 * To do.


 * Threaten to include POV:


 * "Rex, this is your fourth revert against 4 independent people and is more evidence of your disruptive editing techniques. We are watching you now, very closely. You won't get away with your antics for much longer. --Nysus 03:20, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * "I don't respond well to threats. Nor do I appreciate mass deletions of multiple links. The cabal of link deleters here has deleted multiple links which I have posted. You have addressed only one. What about the others? And also, your complaints do not address the topical connection which is National Guard and documented service. Nor does it address the set/subset issue I raised. No harm is being done by my links - there are only four of them at this point -and no benefit acrues to the article from your effort to force a very narrow vision of the topic on the reader. The links are valid and I think they should stay. Even so, if you can make a clear argument against each of the four links as to how they actually harm the article, I might be inclined to agree on a link by link basis. Bear in mind though, the story only broke today. Therefore, as links to other sources which you are unable to denigrate show up on the web, your argument will lose that (weak) leg. Therefore, you would be well advised to think long and hard before trying to send me back the the drawing board as my inclination would be to find two links for eveyone one you bump - so as to have some still standing when you are done shredding them. Are you sure that is the course you want to take? Please advise Rex071404 03:37, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)"


 * On what would make him happy on Texans For Truth, characterizing other editors opinions as "vapid shills":
 * "A cessation of attempts by those who would inject the views of vapid anti-Bush shills via links and quotes, etc., which mislead the readers."


 * On answering attempts at specificity to Rex's NPOV claims on Texans for Truth
 * "Gamaliel, since you obviously won't concede that the "question" which has been asked 14 times is loaded, I'll ask you one: "Have you stopped beating your wife"? Yes? Aha! You admit that you have beaten your wife! No? You are a wife beater! That's roughly equal to the silly "gotcha!" scam you guys are running against me at TfT. Rex071404 04:13, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)"


 * The question that was asked?


 * "If you are not claiming that there are any conflicts, does this mean you no longer have a problem with the article? Do you still consider it POV?"

Personal Attacks

 * Accuses Kizzle of being a sockpuppet


 * "Also, please take notice of user Kizzle who appears to be a sockpuppet and has not edited any pages other than those I am editing. Not even John Kerry (the article) which based on Kizzle's edits ought to interest him/her. -- Rex071404 00:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)" -


 * He then puts quotations around Kizzle's name to subtly continue his accusation...


 * "It's evident from his comments that "Kizzle" has bone to pick with me..."


 * "But if "Kizzle's" comment reflects his true thoughts, then it's clear that "Kizzle" is commenting here only to "prove" himself "right" not truly dialog..."


 * "The sentence to which "Kizzle" refers, can be found on Fred Bauder's talk page here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Rex071404_asks_you_to_read_his_comments). If anyone cares to see my dialog with Fred there, they are welcome to do so. As for "Kizzle's" complaints about Texans for Truth, I urge anyone who is interested, to review the accompanying talk page there and decide for yourself if "Kizzle's" tenacious haranguing of me about that here, is warranted. Rex071404 20:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)"


 * After complaining for the third time about his abusive behavior


 * "I have to say, Rex, I am quite impressed with your persistence in referring to me as "Kizzle"... who knew it took until the 27th time you did it to be funny. --kizzle 22:59, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)"


 * Rex responds:


 * "Kizzle" if you would simply acknowledge that you butted in on my conversation with Fred Bauder and that no actual accusation of sockpuppetry has been made against you, I would be happy to drop the "". However, until you acknowledge your error, you are and forevermore will remain, "Kizzle", so far as I am concerned. Rex071404 23:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * "The ""'s around "Kizzle" refer to the hypercritical (and false) claim by "Kizzle" that an accusation has been made. Go to Fred Bauder's talk page and see that for yourself. And if "Kizzle" had not been nosing in, "Kizzle" would not have a bug up "Kizzle's" nose. As it is, it seems that "Kizzle" does. Rex071404 04:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)"


 * "I told Kizzle of your phrase "please take notice of user Kizzle who appears to be a sockpuppet" He did no "nosing". You made a thinly veiled accusation about him to a member of the arbitration committee. Kizzle deserved to be informed. Forgot to log in at the time. Anonymously yours, Wolfman.Wolfman 05:44, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)"


 * Misc


 * "Ambi, what about editors such as JamesMLane, who (from my perspective) have mendacity as their watchword when it comes to their approach to inter-editor dealings? What do you say about someone (JamesMLane) who, on one hand, has an avowed goal of driving editor(s) off the wiki, but on the other, seems to think that others should want to dialog with him to any degree, hmmm...? Or what do you say about someone like Neutrality, who, as the edit history and talk page at Lawrence v. Texas shows, engage in an edit war with no talk page dialog, before or after? No Ambi, you have nothing to say about them, because you sympathize with their POV. And for the same reason, you are one of the lurkers who is ready to pounce - in efforts to hassle both myself and VV, whenever you can (example: your comments above). Rex071404 16:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)" -


 * Wolfman's comment


 * "I think an unqualified statement that he "broke in" would be a technical lie. That is, a statement that is technically true but intentionally misleading so as to be in effect a lie. See for example "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", or "it depends on what the meaning of is means" That is why I provided the fuller context. Wolfman 16:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC) "


 * "Har! Har! Wolfman, that's hysterical! Kicking in a door is by definition "breaking in". Now, whether or not the requisite criminal intent was there to warrant a conviction (or even arrest and charge) for breaking and enterning with intent to commit grand larceny (the actual charge) is another story. But please, do not deny that which is obviously true. It makes it impossible to converse. Rex071404 19:00, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)"