Talk:Controversies over the film Sicko

Merge Proposal

Simple criticisms from some sources is not a reason to have an article about the films controversy.And even despite the so-called controversy, the film recieved a 90% overall rating from rotten tomatoes [1], and that does not sound like a truly hated film.

And if movie controversy pages did exist, it should be for films such as The Da Vinci Code, or the passion of the christ,which were criticized for there general message being portrayed, regardless of how well they acted, or how well they portrayed the film . Rodrigue 15:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I also object to the creation of Controversies over the film Sicko. User:Noroton has not convincingly demonstrated the need for a separate, long-winded controversy section at this time. On Talk:Sicko it was postulated that Michael Moore is a controversial figure (several press articles were produced to support this position). In return it was pointed out that Wikipedia already has a Michael Moore controversies page and that one cannot justify starting a Sicko controversy page on the basis that the filmmaker and his work is deemed controversial by nature. Here are just a few of the preconceptions and circular arguments articulated by Noroton before Sicko was even released:

• The controversy sections of Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 and Roger and Me take up substantial portions of those articles (roughly a quarter of each article), and properly so. There's no reason not to expect a large one here. (19:56, 21 June 2007)
• [Several publications] all say that Moore is controversial, that he gets things wrong and that it's an important part of the movie that it's controversial and gets things wrong. (18:51, 24 June 2007)
• We need to describe the controversy about what it says. That means that we need to describe the criticism of what it says. (23:20, 21 June 2007)
• He has a reputation for getting facts wrong, you know (20:43, 23 June 2007)
• Again, the controversy surrounding the movie is an important part of the subject of the article and it will inevitably take up a good part of the article.(19:35, 21 June 2007)
• It isn't contestable that the film is controversial. A film that generates controversy means that the controversy needs to be mentioned in the article about the film. (23:20, 21 June 2007)
• It is not debatable that the controversy surrounding the film is an essential feature of it. (23:20, 21 June 2007)
• I'm going to rewrite the [controversy] section and put it back in so that this Wikipedia article about a Michael Moore movie is like every other Wikipedia article about Michael Moore movies. (03:47, 22 June 2007)
• The subject of the article is controversial (by its nature and design: Moore courted controversy by going to Cuba and by supporting the piracy, but even if he didn't, it would still be controversial) and requires that the controversy be addressed. (19:35, 21 June 2007)

Note: Noroton cites Moore's support of Piracy as one justification for a lengthy controversy section, but when user:Turtlescrubber duly moved the piracy section over to the new Controversies over the film Sicko page, Noroton dumped it back on the main Sicko (film) page, explaining in his edit summary: "not essentially controversies". [2] He also excluded information pertaining to the Treasury Department probe. This strongly indicates that Noroton is not genuinely interested in informing people; but in creating a page stacked with critical quotations so that it can be adduced against Michael Moore in a wider ideological debate (hence him/her first naming this section: "Rebuttals to the film").

I am not against hearing counter arguments. Sicko should not be protected from criticism. My argument is that (1) Michael Moore is broadly despised across one side of the political spectrum and criticism will come whether it is warranted or not. (2) We should do away with preconceptions. (3) Because Sicko has met with overwhelming praise, we should take pause in order to help create a balanced page. To this end I suggested filtering out weak and low quality information. Noroton did not agree and rushed off to find, and create, a page full of lengthy quotes (including distortions). Arguably, this is one of Moore's least controversial films. His trip to Cuba is most noteworthy. But what else is controversial? His right to free speech? His mere opinion that US health care should be socialised? I support trimming the information on this page and merging what remains with the main Sicko (film) page. Please let us hear some other views on this matter. smb 19:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally enjoyed the quotes and information gathered on the page, and in the end there are many comments in support of him as well. I'm sure this will inevitably be merged, but personally I enjoyed it as it is.--Gloriamarie 22:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. But it doesn't even begin to address any of the issues raised here or on the sicko talk page. smb 22:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think discussions should start off with personal criticism, even if we find ourselves falling into it later, and I'm not going to respond to User:smb's personal comments, other than to say that a review of this article and of my edits at Sicko (film) shows that I'm interested in presenting a fair account of what the film is about and what people say about the film. This article shows that there is a big controversy over the movie, that there is a lot to be said about the film's politics and methods, and that there's a lot to be said in support and in opposition to the film, and in every shade of opinion in between. It touches on an important political and social topic. It seems to me it's worth having some space. Having its own article is an appropriate way to provide that space. Noroton 23:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This very article is the subject of some dispute, so it's not a good idea to adduce it in support of your position -- especially since you crafted it. Earlier, on Sicko's talk page, I recognised the 'good work' you had done. (01:49, 23 June 2007) But that was before the insistence upon including fallacious, low quality material (a reference to New York Post film critic Kyle Smith and his total fabrication that Moore did not check the statements of the people featured in his film). I disagree that "there is a lot to be said about the film's politics and methods". Michael Moore's overt political bent, his approach to movie making, is adequately detailed on various other pages. No need to tread the same ground here, especially at length. There is some fresh controversy and unique criticism, though it is seriously debatable how much is reactionary and how much is considered. Film critics note that Sicko may be Moore's "least antagonistic and most restrained effort to date" (quoted, Pete Vonder). The total sum of your edits do not reflect this. The reverse is true. This page can be accurately described as bloated and unnecessary. Compare: An Inconvenient Truth. This page, in contrast, serves as a raised platform for people to attack Michael Moore, not to truly inform. smb 01:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I copied this comment from Talk:Sicko (film) in order to paste it here:

I'm opposed to the request to merge the "controversies" article into this one. It would create a bloated and unwieldy article. Croctotheface 23:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the title "Criticisms of the film Sicko" would be more appropriate. The main article for Sicko should have a small criticisms section that links to this article for those who are interested. There are many other topics that have an article specifically geared towards criticism. How about putting all criticism related to Michael Moore in a "Criticisms of Michael Moore" article?JoeCarson 12:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: I'd like to remind everyone that merge discussions are usually held on the talk page of the proposed target article (as implied by the "discuss" links in the mergeto/mergefrom templates). I have created a respective section at Talk:Sicko (film). - Cyrus XIII 12:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE DON'T COMMENT HERE. PLEASE MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AT THE "MERGER" SECTION OF Talk:Sicko (film). Noroton 18:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute Neutrality

As no real "controversy" has been established on this page. This page has zero real controversies as they were removed by the editor and creator of this page. Examples of "controversies" are the sections on the main page (Piracy and Treasury Department Investigation). As these were removed the page now holds no controversies and only hand picked commentary on the film meant to show Sicko in the worst light possible, while still sounding somewhat reasonable. Turtlescrubber 15:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a neutrality question; this is simply an extension of the argument over whether this article should be merged or deleted. Please argue it in the merger discussion or nominate this article for deletion.

This page is disgusting. I want sources for every single bs statement, like that this film created heated public debate before release. Really?! Most people had not even heard of it. What public are you from?! q 02:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not there is a controversy over Moore's visit to Cuba and subsequent Treasury Department investigation is irrelevant to the point about whether or not there is a controversy over the points Moore makes in the film and over how he makes them. And the fact that so many commentators are quoted in the article engaging in just those subjects proves that controversy in these two areas exists. Noroton 17:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't "prove" anything unless you are operating an original research machine. Cherry picked quotes does not a controversy make. However, the two real substantive controversies are left out of this article.Turtlescrubber 17:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There are quotes that a controversy exists and there is some of that at the top of the article. Maybe I should add more of the quotes I've found. But the real proof that a controversy exists isn't that people say it exists, it's that people are shown engaging in it, and that's already in the article. And if notable commentators and/or notable publications are engaging in it, then it's a notable controversy. How else do you define "real substantive" in terms of a controversy?

You can prove that those "substantive" controversies exist about piracy and the Cuba trip by quoting people engaging in them and putting those quotes in the Piracy and Treasury Department sections, or creating those sections in this article. I haven't seen proof other than statements from Moore and the people with him that there is much of a controversy about the Cuba trip, but my mind is open. If this is your objection, why don't you add them to the article (any article)? Noroton 18:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If the controversy to you means that "people are shown engaging in it" then what isn't controversial. You seem to be including the whole gambit of human endeavors in your definition of "controversy." Is brushing your teeth a controversy? Just look at the intro of this article and tell me it is not slanted. This article is a hit piece. Turtlescrubber 00:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• [3]
• Controversy

No, a controversy is proven to exist if it can be shown people are engaging in it. A public controversy can be proven to exist if it can be shown that people are engaging in it in public. A notable controversy can be shown to exist if it meets the Wikipedia definition of notability. A significant public controversy can be shown to exist if significant organs of opinion are publishing articles representing differing opinions on it. This article meets all those definitions. Don't simply assert that it's slanted. Tell us how you would write it in a way that it would not be slanted. Noroton 02:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You just made all that up. This is not a controversy page as controversies are not allowed on this page as shown by your previous editing. This is your personal hit piece against moore. Just own up to the fact that none of these criticisms are controversies and that you created this entire page over the objection of reasonable editors because of a personal vendetta against someone you probably envy.Turtlescrubber 15:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not called "making up"; it's called logic -- I'm trying to answer your objection that you don't see a controversy. I've said why these are controversies, but even if you just want to call them "criticisms" (and I'm not conceding that there's no controversy) ≤it's a simple fact that the same criticisms are discussed among people with a variety of different points of view, and these criticisms are noteworthy, being discussed by numerous reputable publications. Is David Corn in The Nation doing a hit piece? Is the writer in The New Republic? Is the movie reviewer in The New York Times? All of these prominent writers are supportive of Moore's movie for the most part, and I've reported on that support here. So you're calling it a "hit piece" is rather exaggerated. And I notice you haven't answered the question about how the top sentence is slanted and how it could be written to your satisfaction. For all your complaining about slant and bias and this being a "hit piece", I have made many edits on this and the Sicko page that show I'm writing about all different points of view, and I obviously can't believe all of them. Can you say the same or are you just pushing your own point of view? Noroton 02:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaking subjective critiques of Sicko for genuine controversy. Notable controversy erupts and reverberates in isolation of the cinematic/literary work immediately under review. Moore's trip to Cuba and the subsequent treasury department probe, for example. The majority of information gathered here belongs in a 'reception' and/or 'criticism' section, not on a 'controversies' page. smb 03:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You're making arguments in this "neutrality" section that belong in the merger discussion. Define "genuine controversy"; I have, and I believe it is made up of "subjective critiques" that play off each other -- in which some critiques make counter arguments to points made in other critiques. (A critique is, by definition, "subjective".) I can't decipher the meaning of your second sentence. Controversy over the trip and Treasury probe is a separate subject from what this article is about. Regarding your last sentence, you seem to have changed your position: Previously you said the criticisms/critiques section should be small, now you want a "majority of information gathered here" in a section of the Sicko article. If that happened it would both overwhelm it (violating a Wikipedia principle I don't have time to look up now) and make that article too long -- so have you really changed your position now? And if so, why? Noroton 03:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the critiques section

This short section begins with the opening line "CBS Evening News critique of Sicko relied on the premise that the U.S. public and its political leaders do not embrace Moore's preferred solution of a single-payer system". Then criticism of the CBS piece from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting is noted. I have some doubts about how noteworthy it is in an article about controversy over the movie to include a criticism of a criticism, but if it's going to be included, then information that undermines the point of the criticism of the criticism should be mentioned, which is why I added the contrary USA Today/ABC/Kaiser Foundation poll. The poll report clearly states that there is weak support for a single-payer system. I don't think re-editing it to say that there is support is justifiable for the reason given in the edit summary: Challenging a poll taker will generally have that affect. That's true for just about any poll question is well documented by social psychologists (they don't want to look dumb) Please follow the link to the Kaiser PDF Web page and look at the summary at the beginning. The polltakers simply delved a bit deeper into what people thought. The statements that the report makes about what people thought back up the CBS contention as described in the quote at the top of the section. And Moore himself agrees with it, according to two news accounts. Noroton 21:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So now they are criticisms and not controversies? Turtlescrubber 00:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Noroton, 1. The USAToday/Kaiser poll you cite is consistent with the first two polls: a majority of Americans support gov't-sponsored universal coverage. The fact that when challenged on a fairly technical proposed solution on a controversial issue such as this the layman/woman poll taker backs-down is an instance of a fairly well documented pheonomenon in social psychology. The layperson taking the poll typically has spent little time carefully weighing the alternative solutions and is answering the questions from a gut level. People assume that the conductors of the poll are experts or know more than they do about the issue and wishing to avoid appearing foolish will back-down when challenged. This is particularly true when it comes to a controversial issue such as proposing a solution for the healthcare crisis. You can try this with any similar poll. Most Americans agree that the US educational system needs major changes, and a majority would support, say, more training for teachers. But if the poll taker is challenged and asked whether s/he is sure about more training for teachers given contrary fact x (teachers in state y were given z type of additional training but better results did not obtain) then a significant number will back-down on the solution they offered. 2. According to the quotes provided, Michael Moore is pessimistic on single-payer passing any time soon given the power of the US insurance lobby (and the decades-long track record of American politicians heeding it on this issue), but Moore does not agree with the CBS report's contentions that Americans don't want it. Moore is speaking broadly about the American political class being opposed to it (by the way, this is not the only issue on which the views of most politicians is opposed to those of most Americans) but is sloppy in his formulation (sloppy because some members of Congress clearly support single-payer and have sponsored a bill).--NYCJosh 17:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You're missing a larger point, and it has to do with the approach Wikipedia takes to covering different points of view: It covers them. If we're going to have a section on this, all major, responsible points of view must be covered. The Wikipedia policy WP:Neutral point of view#Explanation of the neutral point of view goes into this very clearly in the subsection "Neutral point of view". It's only two paragraphs. Please read it and tell me if you still think the differing opinion I added from the poll should be in the article. I think under WP:NPOV it not only should be, but needs to be in order to adequately represent both sides. Nothing says you can't add some point about the statement I added, but it can't be original research either. The essential point of WP:NPOV is that we're reporting controversies, not engaging in them (at least not directly). And if we're really being neutral in reporting both sides, then we're even further from engaging in them. Noroton 20:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The section I added points out two major factual errors (Americans are against it, no elected officials support it) in a criticism of Sicko by a major source, CBS News. Further, and I cannot prove this without some research, I would wager that other reviewers of the movie have made one or both of the same errors, so therefore the errors are not the trivial peculiarities of that one CBS News report. If you can find a different view, add it. The USAToday/Kaiser poll you cite, as I've explained is not a contrary view, but in fact, is consistent (albeit with "only" a 56% majority) with the two polls cited by FAIR.

Here is part of the WP policy you cited: the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral; that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence.

I think the section I added is quite in line with this policy. It is a "fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate." In fact, so far you have not cited a contrary side (and I am not aware of any, although I have a day job and this is not something I researched in depth). It is not the case that every fact is susceptible to multiple understandings. Sometimes a report can be fairly and accurately said to be wrong. --NYCJosh 22:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

---

This section was added before I saw NYCJosh's last post:

I cited a contrary assertion about support for universal health-care which belongs in the article:

But not all polls agree. A 2006 poll conducted for ABC News, USA Today and the Kaiser Family Foundation found that while 56 percent of Americans said supported the idea of universal health care, "this support is relatively easy to shake. If supporters are challenged with possible downsides of such a plan [...] significant numbers change their minds about such a program", with support dropping to one third or lower.

I'm willing to change "not all polls agree" to "not all observers agree". It is a contrary opinion from what appears to be a reliable source, and that opinion should remain in the article. Noroton 23:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Response to NYCJosh's last post:

Please review the original language that I posted on the main page in response to yours (it's just above). Your post reported an assertion, my post reported a contrary view. It was the contrary view that you removed. That contrary view is what needs to go back, under the clear mandate of WP:NPOV. It doesn't matter that you can poke holes in it -- it's still a contrary view and it's still a reasonable view that asserts a lack of public support, even if it's only a weakness in public support.

Please review the last paragraph of your post above. To say that there's no contrary side to whether or not the American public supports universal health care just flies in the face of the quote I posted just above.

It's quite true that "It is not the case that every fact is susceptible to multiple understandings." And one of those facts is that the quote I have above is something that exists, is a reasonable point of view and is worthy of inclusion in the article. We're going to have to have a contrary view in that section of the article and whether or not you and I think pollsters can warp the results of polls, in the absence of proof that that particular poll was warped, the statement in it needs to go into that section. Noroton 03:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I cannot do research to prove that it is misleading to add after the KFF poll cite that some change their minds when pressed (misleading because of the well-known effect I discussed above), I cannot stop you from adding it. However, since the thrust of the KFF poll is in agreement with the other two polls, your sentences should be something like: These polls, finding that most Americans favor the single-payer approach articulated in Sicko, are consistent with the KFF poll which found 56% of Americans in agreement. According to the KFF poll, if supporters are challenged by researchers with arguments about the possible downsides of such a plan then significant numbers change their minds about such a program. --NYCJosh 18:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The following paragraph was added notwithstanding our discussion above: But not all polls agree. A 2006 poll conducted for ABC News, USA Today and the Kaiser Family Foundation found that while 56 percent of Americans said supported the idea of universal health care, "this support is relatively easy to shake. If supporters are challenged with possible downsides of such a plan [...] significant numbers change their minds about such a program", with support dropping to one third or lower.

I don't want to take up more space by repeating what I wrote above about why this is inaccurate as currently formulated. I even provided an edited version (see above paragraphs) that I could live with, even though I still think it is misleading. Please do not pretend to engage in discussion here, not answer my comment, and then repost ignoring what I wrote. --NYCJosh 20:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

NYCJosh, first will you please start using colon marks (":") at the beginning of your paragraphs in order to make reading easier? Please add one extra colon mark than the immediately preceding comment from another user. That way we can all read them easier. I think I made a mistake by not changing the first sentence in what you just quoted ("But not all polls agree."). I disagree with your proposed language because the point of the additional passage is to show a difference of opinion. You say the 'thrust of the KFF poll' was in agreement, but clearly the additional questions cited in the summary of the KFF poll were also part of the poll, and the poll sponsors thought the thrust was NOT in agreement, which is the point of the passage I added. The passage as I wrote it clearly states that 56 percent, a majority, say they favor universal health care when asked. And that passage says it up front. Then the contrary statements come in, which is the whole point of the passage. We don't have to say "are consistent" especially since the immediate next sentences are about contrary information. Proclaiming consistency just muddies the waters. I would call that misleading. A fair presentation states things clearly. Don't assume that you're the only one trying to be fair and don't accuse me of pretending anything. I didn't say one thing and do another, I disagreed with you. I'll rejigger it a bit right now to reflect your concerns and mine. Tell me what you thnk. Noroton 20:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed some of the editorialing and made the second section (about challenging the poll takers who express a preference) shorter (one sentence) but easier to read (by including who is doing the "challenging").--NYCJosh 22:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Kyle Smith cont.

I am again removing one piece of low quality, fallacious criticism from Kyle Smith. [4] The contention that Moore didn't attempt to check the accuracy of the statements in his film is based on a blatant misreading of Daniel Fierman's Entertainment Weekly interview. [5]

Q: You don't go banging on doors in this movie. Did you even try to get an interview with the insurance companies?

A: No. I had no intention of doing that, so it was funny to watch the insurance companies make all these preparations for [my health-care film]. All these internal memos and training sessions in the companies for how to handle Michael Moore ...

Q: Don't you have an obligation to at least give the insurance companies the chance to say no to you? Don't you owe them a call?

A: Absolutely not. They already have their forum. It's called the nightly news. Their story is told over and over again. You never hear the other side.

The above question is a clear reference to Michael Moore's on-screen antics. And here is a near-identical question from Seattle Times staff reporter Mark Rahner. [6]

Q: You don't show any Roger & Me style attempts to interview health-care or pharmaceutical mouthpieces. Did you try?

A: No, the networks do such a good job of giving a lot of time to the pharmaceutical industry and to the health-care industry. Every local news now has "Tonight's Health Report" brought to you by Lipitor. The nightly news seems like every other ad is a pharmaceutical ad. Their story is told over and over again every single day. This is an attempt for two hours during the whole year — two hours, the length of this film, to say here's the other side.

And should there be any lingering doubt...

Q: Even when I tend to agree with your overall point of view, sometimes I think I need an independent fact-checker to find what's anecdotal and what isn't.

A: That's a fair question. All of the facts in my movie are 100 percent accurate. I have a team of fact-checkers that come in, I have a team of lawyers then that tear the film apart. I have to do this in part because it's the right thing to do, and secondly I need to convince you of my argument. And if you don't trust the facts then I'm never going to get you to think about agreeing with the argument. So because I do such a good job of making sure what I say is true, it's why I rarely if ever get sued. If I was reckless about this you can bet ...

Please see previous discussion for further information. smb 16:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As argued previously, it is hardly clear from this interview that "interview" meant only "filmed interview actually put in the film". This is another ideologically tinged criticism of a neutral article. Noroton 23:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I added back the information with a final sentence that may meet your objection. See what you think (new, final sentence in boldface):

Smith makes a more pointed criticism of Moore for using anecdotes without the perspective of statistics and for not attempting to check the accuracy of the statements of the people featured and interviewed in the film. Concerning the description in the film that one woman gave about her experience with a health insurer, Smith writes: "There is no way to know whether this claim is true because Moore’s style is to present whatever information he likes without checking it." Smith noted that Moore told Entertainment Weekly "absolutely not", when asked whether he felt any need to get the other side of the story by asking the insurance companies for their explanation of what happened in individual cases. Smith said that Moore's lack of fact checking has resulted in stupendous inaccuracies in his other documentaries as well. "So, over time, his work rusts out from within as the facts eat away at it."

In an Entertainment Weekly interview, Moore was asked: "Don't you have an obligation to at least give the insurance companies the chance to say no to you? Don't you owe them a call?" He replied: "Absolutely not. They already have their forum. It's called the nightly news. Their story is told over and over again. You never hear the other side." In the context of this interview, it is unclear whether Moore was referring to whether he or his staff did any fact checking at all with the insurance companies or whether he was only referring to including responses from the insurance companies in the film. Noroton 21:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of Daniel Fierman's question, and Michael Moore's answer, remains crystal clear. "You don't go banging on doors in this movie" is an unambiguous reference to Moore's on-screen antics. A number of Fierman's questions touch upon Moore's decision to drop his confrontational interviewing style (as illustrated by this picture). Moore's "kinder, gentler" on-screen approach does not prevent him (or a member of his staff) from attempting to check the accuracy of the statements included in the film. Indeed, Moore states explicitly that a team of fact-checkers and lawyers assisted him. [7] There is no longer any room for doubt. And so it is improper to describe Moore's answer as "unclear". The insistence upon including this fallacious piece of criticism means the page currently serves to misinform. It needs to go. There is nothing to stop editors from adding genuine criticism to replace it. smb 00:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:OWN

Noroton you do not own this page. Do not remove real controversies and fact tags from this page. Turtlescrubber 15:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedia talk page is for discussion of the article, not personal attacks. If you have a point to make rather than an ad hominem attack, make it. Please review Wikipedia talk page guidelines.Noroton 23:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)