You wrote:
That's not true. I'm not interested in boring everyone with a long discussion of how my politics and yours differ, and my own critique of your work. But I can tell you how I think the article is biased. The point is that your work *is* controversial and the biography doesn't give any suggestion of that.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "controversial." The only evidence you've offered for that is the statement that your "head nearly exploded" when you read an article by me in your local newspaper.All this tells me is that you disagree with something I wrote (although I have no idea what _specifically_ you found objectionable), but that alone doesn't make me "controversial." For someone to be "controversial," I think there has to be a _public_ controversy, and your exploding head is not enough to make a controversy.
_Any_ writer's work, unless it is a textbook on some dry, technical topic, is bound to have some people who disagree with it. Of course some people disagree with my writings, and I'm sure that my work contains errors and bias. I'm a human being, and all human beings are prone to errors and bias. All I can do about that personally is make a good faith effort to look at criticisms and correct errors when they are pointed out to me. The fact of the matter, however, is that there have been very few negative reviews of my books, and even fewer cases in which people have pointed to specific errors in them.
Case in point: I'm sure that John's and my latest book is "controversial" to people who support the war in Iraq, which of course is self-evident from the title ("Weapons of Mass Deception"). However, the only specific errors that anyone has noticed in "Weapons" are trivial. (For example, we referred to the Czech Republic in one place as "Czechoslovakia.") Maybe the absence of public criticism just means we're not important enough for critics to think it's worth the debate (even though "Weapons" spent two months on the New York Times extended bestseller list). It's clear that the war in Iraq is controversial (and our book is among the works "controverting" it), but that doesn't mean our book itself is controversial. For the book itself to be considered controversial, there has to be a controversy about it, and aside from Jimbo's exploding head, there hasn't been one.
For what it's worth, though, I have added a few sentences to my article summarizing what PR industry defenders have said about my work, including a link to the ActivistCash.com web site, our only real public critic. For the record, I regard ActivistCash.com (the work of a Washington lobbyist for the tobacco, liquor and restaurant industries) as grossly unfair and dishonest. For example, they went so far as to call John and me "terrorists" on one occasion shortly after 9/11, and they have absurdly and falsely claimed that I personally channeled millions of dollars to the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.
I personally think that the article about you speaks for itself in terms of critics being reluctant to edit, out of courtesy to you, or fear of you having the same sort of outbursts that you've had at Ed Poor in the past.
Oh, you mean the "outburst" I had when Ed attacked me upon discovering that I had joined this list? (An attack that you yourself stated -- and Ed himself eventually admitted -- was unfair?) Or do you mean the recent "outburst" in which I reacted to his declaration that he was going to send out "official" warnings to other Wikipedians for engaging in what he called "junk science" and NPOV violations? Why is it OK for Ed to attack other Wikipedians, and an "outburst" when I defend them vigorously?
I think my exchanges with Ed have been blunt and persistent, but I don't they were "outbursts." YMMV.