Edmund.W.Poor at
abc.com wrote:
"I don't want blood. I want peace."
Heh, assuming that you're being honest here, you're not doing a good job.
Saying such frivolous niceties may allow you to get away with a lot, but
this is all about imposing your POV and nothing else.
Either I was going to keep restoring this reference to U.S. backing of the
'73 coup in Chile or VeryVerily, and to a lesser extent you, were going to
keep censoring factual content (despite the fact that an overwhelming
majority of uses who've chimed in on the talk page-- roughly 90%-- favor
keeping it).
Not only did you unprotect the Pinochet article and remove the reference to
U.S. backing immediately after I'd stopped making contributions, you
neglected to mention that the edit war continued even with me gone.
After my exit, your unprotection of the article, and your revision of the
article, User:John Kenney restored the refernece to U.S. backing; VV then
reverted him without comment right away. Later, a different user restored
it-- this time Ruhrjung-- reinserted it; and, once agian, VV again reverted
him unceremoniously, making no comment other than "stop" in the edit
summary.
I'm getting loudly and roundly condemned for "edit warring." But the only
difference between Ruhrjung/John and me was that whereas they'd given up
after one attempt, I was equally persistent as you and VV. That's why you
want me banned-- for being just as committed to fighting censorship as you
and VV were committed to censorship. Perhaps Ruhrjung, John, and many others
were wise to give up. After all, had they stood up to you and your cohorts,
they too would've been run out of town.
Oh, you and VV are sure going to have fun rewriting history with me gone.
-172
_________________________________________________________________
Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers!
http://youroffers.msn.com