User talk:Mmmbop49

Mmmmbop49,

Thanks for your comments, and I am sorry that you think the additions were inappropriate. I will try to address your points below.

You correctly note that the reference to the articles as being "controversial" is uncited. You are right, and I apologize.

However, that assessment is not mine. It's Pete's.

In the 17 April 2002 issue of the Daily Princetonian, Hegseth wrote an op/ed piece entitled "Not your average publication." In that piece, Pete states:

"As to the question of the Tory's aggressive nature, the answer is simple: readership. The Tory has had a reputation for being a boring publication. . . . It is our hope that through controversial cover stories and bold headlines, Princetonians will actually read the articles. . . ."

These are his words. I shall add that to the Wiki article, in order to make the citation more fair and balanced, if you'd like me to do so.

As for the campaign finance violations, that these are common would not seem to mean they should not be cited. I am not sure I understand why doing so is an issue. They happened, and are documented and factual. Finally, Hegseth actually did admit wrong-doing in the letters cited (please have a look).

And, lastly, that the Senators resigned in response to the ads is, simply stated, an accurate statement.

Thanks for your communication, and i am sorry that you didnt understand the edits. Please let me know if I can otherwise clarify them for you.