Steve Rapaport and a couple of others have argued that
my reversion of the anti-censorship diatribe is wrong,
on each of several specious grounds.
Most amusingly (but dangerously), that my reversion
amounts to "censorship". They seem to see some irony here,
but this one in a series of errors or rhetorical tricks.
Here is my response:
1. The article is not censored.
1a. The entire text of the article is at the top of the
talk page.
1b. That text, and some variations of it, are freely
available on the "Older Versions" page.
1c. The article is NOT PROTECTED.
2. All Steve and company need do is recast the diatribe
in the form of an article, a task I am willing to help
with.
3. Whether they know it or not, I hate censorship.
3a. I would L-O-V-E to see more articles on censorship in
the Wikipedia.
3b. I have no desire to hide the FACT that there has been
a lot of censorship in America.
Apparently what Steve is pushing for is an unlimited right
to put whatever he wants into an article. Well, he doesn't
have that right, and calling my efforts to frustrate his
assertion of this non-existent right is not "censorship",
no matter how delicious the sensation of branding it
"ironic" may be.
Ed Poor