On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 12:13:47AM -0400, Rex wrote:
[snip]
For example, it's been almost a year, but JamesMLane has NEVER answered the question
which I posed to him on at least 10 occasions; yes or no, is it true that John Kerry's
first wound was "minor"? The amount of fighting I was forced to endure trying to
get and answer to that (or alternatively, get that word into the article) was enormous.
Frankly, I don't see how one can care about all the irrelevant minutiae which is
included in the Kerry article, but still be so opposed to allowing the word
"minor" in to describe an injury which required no stitches and caused no loss
of duty. How much less consequential of an injury can one get?
[snip]
I can't really comment on the circumstances to which you refer, in
general, because I've not been privy to them and, frankly, I'm not
interested in investigating it at this time (though I well might at a
later date). That said, I do have a question for you:
Have you tried inserting the word "minor" by way of stating that the
wound in question has been called "minor" by some people, with
corroborating sources ready to back this claim up? I ask this only
because calling it "minor", no matter how accurate in practical terms,
is a judgment call. I happen to agree that what you describe is a
"minor" wound, but I would not call it such as a statement of fact in a
Wikipedia article because it's a statement from personal perspective.
--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite |
http://ccd.apotheon.org ]