In a message dated 10/29/2008 7:46:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time, arromdee@rahul.net writes:

So you're seriously suggesting that the line about him being a director should *not* have been removed, even though there was no source for it and he sincerely objected to it?>>

---------------- You're overstating the issue. The entire article has no footnotes. Or rather, the article has no footnotes.

So we cannot know that "there was no source for it". The most we can say is that we "do not know certainly which, if any, source was used for it."

And "HE" did not object. That's the crux of the point. We do not know who the editor who objected was, simply because we cannot know. Self-identified editors get no special priveledges.

Why are we still going in circles here? We do not, as a matter of course, remove statements simply based on anonymous objections. We remove then, consistent with our practice, as stated, under certain circumstances. **************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals! (http://travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav00000001)