Talk:Protest Warrior/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Protest Warrior. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Activities

Fair+Balanced 20:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC) I have changed the page to reflect the fact that PW did not have any significant response to the third anniversary Iraq invasion protests.

The lack of activities on March 18, 19, 2006 is well documented on PW. PW is dying as an 'activist group'

Please read Wikipedia guidelines on citation and on original research. If you want to change the article as you've been trying to do, you need to give proper citations for your claims. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If Protest Warrior is dying by your standards, then so is ANSWER, UPFJ, and all the rest. Nobody was claiming six-digit figures for protest attendance last weekend. The anti-war movement is splintering, and being quite public about it. San Francisco alone had over half a dozen rallies by various groups that didn't want to associate with each other. (The anachists don't want to put up with the Communists, UPFJ publicly disowned ANSWER, the list goes on and on.) PW has always been a smaller group, and no one's going to deny that. With only so much manpower, the chapters can only cover so many rallies, and the organization has never been at it's strongest in coastal California. I'm not surprised that few if any turned up at Hollywood. The San Francisco chapter was at the ANSWER rally there in force; see [1]. The organization might be spread out a bit, but it isn't dying. Rogue 9 13:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-LGBT?"

Let's have an explanation before slinging that around, shall we? Carla doesn't represent the "vast majority" of Protest Warriors, although she does post a very large chunk of the threads on the subject on the forums. (You'll further notice that said threads turn into flamewars as a large number of other people descend on her assertions; even more people have her on ignore.) Further, this article is about the organization last time I checked, and while the forums are a part of that, they're not the whole. Any of our opinions on social issues matter not one whit to PW, because the organization's long-established policy is not to involve itself in social issues. The social conservatives among Protest Warrior (and I won't deny they're there) can believe what they want, and the social libertarians can believe what we want, but that's not Protest Warrior. Rogue 9 13:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The only information that we have on this is the fact that Protest Warrior members express anti-gay sentiments; so does the revolutionary communist party. should i go add that to the "world can'twait" article? or would you say that that's defamatory? opposed to that is the claim that the organisation isn't the membership (which seems dubious to me, but a citation for PW's "official" position would convince me)there's no "official" position on this. there is the message board, which is open to all comers and unmoderated, and there are the people who actually counter-protest, probably most of whom are not on the forums. and an unsourced claim that some members are gay (which, even if true, is irrelevant; for example, racist organisations often have members from the races against which they speak — peculiar, but verifiably the case). provide an example. is this your theory that the republican party is a "racist" organization?

Now, at least Rogue 9 isn't deleting the "anti-communist" category, as his colleague Smegpt86 has been, but I think that more reason needs to be given if this one is to be removed. by the way, feel free to add this material. we'll feel free to add links "proving" the antiwar movement's hatred of the troops, the u.s. and support for terror. its all there in posts left on indymedia. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

i did it once! by accident! apologies --Smegpt86 19:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, for some reason I'd thought that you'd done it more times. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Communism is kind of a no-brainer.

As for anti-LGBT, there's this little thing I like to call positive proof. Some of the membership is anti-gay, and a lot more random people on the forums are likewise. Now that that's out of the way, let's see some evidence that this is what the organization is about. This article is about Protest Warrior the organization, not the opinions of some of the members that are unrelated to the organization. I happen to like pizza. Does this mean that Protest Warrior is pro-pizza? I have very little doubt that there are members of PETA and Greenpeace that aren't in favor of gay rights, fans of the naturalistic fallacy that they are. Should they be listed in the category?

Heck, if the standard of evidence we're applying is one of negative proof, anyone could start making all kinds of outrageous claims about the subject of this article and any other. After all, you cannot prove that the leaders of International ANSWER are not, in fact, directly influenced by the North Korean government, or better yet by space aliens, so by this standard anyone would be right to add that to the article. You and the broader Wikipedian community would act to stop anyone who attempted such a thing, and rightly so. But recognize that that's what this is.

I will refrain from removing the category for now so that this can be more thoroughly discussed. I'd appreciate it if the anon who made the change in the first place would come talk it out, but after three days I'm beginning to lose hope of that. Rogue 9 15:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the argument isn't from negative proof; what you're in fact arguing is that the positive evidence isn't sufficient. Your example of liking pizza, however, only goes through is pizza-liking is something discussed and widely agreed upon in Protest Warrior foums.

The reference to the naturalistic fallacy is peculiar, but seems to have been thrown in with no relevance, so I'll leave it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

And it isn't widely agreed upon. The topic invariably produces virulent disputes, to put it mildly. This post [2] put what I'm saying here about relevance very well, although his opinion on the issue itself is radically different from mine. Different people on the forums have widely differing and opposing opinions on the gay rights issue, as well as literally hundreds of other issues including immigration, fiscal policy, constitutional interpretation, and a host of others. These are all irrelevant to the purpose of an organization formed to support the Global War on Terror and to oppose leftist protesters.

As an aside, I'm fairly certain that Roscoe P. Coltrain in the thread linked to above is bullshitting; he's way too over the top for even the worst of the anti-gay lot. Rogue 9 17:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of this category. While I'm sure some members are against LGBT rights, that isn't one of the group's main purposes. Rhobite 15:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Domestic social issues

During the dispute of the LGBT matter, an editor wrote this edit summary:

Bullshit. PW is a foreign-policy oriented group. Domestic social issues aren't the organization's concern.

I'm not sure that is correct. The PW Manifesto, here, seems to include many domestic social issues, like healthcare, education, and welfare, not to mention internal political matters like constitutional interpretation. Since a manifesto is usually a core founding document for a group, I assume that the maifesto accurately reflects the group's concerns. -Will Beback 21:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Public healthcare, education, and welfare are fiscal issues, and the problems PW has with them are fiscally based. Opposition to welfare, for instance, isn't based on some problem with people being able to eat (a socially-based argument, and a screwed up one at that); it's about the drain on the federal budget and the resulting increased taxes and drain on the economy. If no domestic issue was the organization's concern then it wouldn't exist; the protesters being protested are, after all, domestic. :p Rogue 9 12:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

None of those are foreign policy issues. All domestic social issues have a fiscal component. These matters don't seem so much fiscal as anti-liberal and anti-government:

As long as America is free and just, we can't be defeated. But it's those very principles which are under assault by the Left which has enshrined that our Constitution is a 'living, breathing document', and then have the nerve to claim to be defenders of civil liberties.
They are the ones who with their schemes create all the social problems and racial balkanization and government dependency and people being sued for anything and everything, and then stand back and denigrate America for the problems they create.
They are the ones who will not stop until we have socialized health care, despite the fact that it's been an unmitigated failure everywhere it's tried, with people dropping dead in waiting lines.
They are the ones fighting to preserve a government monopoly on education that is dumbing us down and corrupting our spirit.
Will there ever be enough government, enough programs, enough rules, and we can stop fighting and start living? It's too bad we never study the Founders in our schools, because we would have learned what effort they devoted to writing a Constitution that would hold the line for freedom. As Jefferson famously wrote, "It is the natural tendency for government to grow and liberty to yield." How his warning rings true now more than ever.

It is clearly incorrect to say that PW is a foreign-policy oriented group when so much of their manifesto is devoted to domestic issues. -Will Beback 00:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

source for us please an instance where "family values" issues, or even the issues listed above, have been translated into a protest action under the protest warrior imprimatur.

i should also point out that the critisisms of radical programs listed above are discussed in the manifesto completely within a foreign policy context; as they stand as domestic applications of radical principles, contending against liberal republicanism and within a historical frame encompassing the global cold war. it discusses them by way of discussing the depth of the schism between the anti-iraq-war movement and supporters of u.s. foreign policy. and then only to segue into "how the desert could bloom" if liberal republican principles were applied in that foreign policy's geographic area of concern.

PoV notice

flagged The "Reactions" section: "This is due to the fact that their signs portray anti-war protestors as hypocrites. The Protest Warriors are usually greeted with verbal attacks such as name-calling, but on rare occasions, the anti-war protestors have been violent.[2] The Protest Warriors often engage in informal debate with the anti-war protestors while countering their rallies."

-it is an opinion, not a fact that the only possible reason one may have a negative reaction to protest warrior signs is a portrayal of protestors as hypocrites, or that all of their signs even fit that description. this section also gives a false impression that anti-war protestors attack and become violent, while protest warriors simply engage in informal debate. - either the author has never been physically near a small pocket of pw's in person and has never seen one of their videos - or is being intellectually dishonest. --applecrumble 24:00, 29 March 2006

While I'll agree with the first objection (that it is opinion, not fact), and know that not all the signs portray the protesters as hypocritical (though enough of them do), I have to take issue with the last as I have been physically in a small group of Protest Warriors several times, and can state that while not nearly all anti-war protesters become violent, enough do to be notable at least to us (of course, even one person attacking you is notable enough to you, but you get the point), and that I have never seen a Protest Warrior strike anyone. My word isn't good enough for the article, but neither is yours. If you have something to say concerning the behavior of Protest Warriors then say it and source it, don't start insinuating that anyone who doesn't know what you're talking about has never seen them. Rogue 9 13:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Future prospects category

ProtestWarrior's founders have never expressed that they want to protest gays or gay marriage in any instance that I have seen. I've talked with Protest Warriors, and they have said that there was no instance of protesting anything mentioned in the article (that was dated about 9 months ago). There is no substantiation or proof for this, nor do I consider the article credible (it is from a source that I'm sure that only a few or even none of us have heard of). For this reason, and for the reason that anotherbob (friend of Alan and Kfir) has expressed in the fallout from the bannings of forum spammers, that Kfir and Alan do not intend to divide ProtestWarrior on the lines of sexuality; I am now removing the category. If anyone needs links to what anotherbob said, I could find them, but it will take some time. Jdh 24 03:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

ok?

""We staged a counter-protest this spring in Washington, D.C., when they had that huge march for abortion. We're going to be protesting abortion more and more, and we'll probably get involved in the defense of marriage, too."

All of these issues, he said, are connected. "The antiwar groups use the Iraq War issue to attach to all the other issues they push — abortion, gay rights, socialized medicine. They're communists, anarchists, and they want to overthrow the current government of the United States."

That is what's in the source. That's not what you said in the article. --Tbeatty 03:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

ok then edit it don't erase it. 132.241.246.111 03:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be there as it is pretty generic account of what they do. It's sort of like saying the 'sky is blue' and then further down saying "blue, the sky is". If you do think it is necessary, please create an neutral, accurate and sourced account of what you are trying to say. --Tbeatty 20:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Another anti-PW trying to make us look bad - Kfir came to that thread and personally said that it was MISQUOTED and they did not plan to "defend" marriage or protest abortion, so don't try that here, troll. --Neverborn 08:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Motivation source removal, along with material attributed to source

Kfir, co-founder of ProtestWarrior, has discredited this as a misquote. He has said that these issues are not a big issue for him, they are not issues of ProtestWarrior, and PW membership extends to people on both sides of this issue. Kfir's post about this "source" on this page. --Neverborn 00:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I will continue to delete vandalism by whoever is doing it - the two users that are vandalizing do not have a Wiki account, just IPs. They continue to use a source that quotes Kfir Alfia, co-founder of ProtestWarrior. Kfir has said this is a misquote, and this publication fabricated what he said.

Here is a cut-and-paste of what Kfir said in response to this article: "This is a misquote. Though it's been a while, I do remember this interview. The interviewer asked me about our involvement with regard to the abortion issue, and I mentioned that some PWers attended the anti-abortion rally in DC that spring. It was by no means an official PW operation.

It did seem that the interviewer was interested mainly in our stance on religious issues, and I did tell him that the PW membership is made up of conservatives of all stripes.

I can't directly speak for Alan, but abortion and gay rights is not a burning issue for me. Obviously this is not the case for some conservatives, but it certainly isn't a litmus test for PW membership.

If you want to get a good idea of the issues PW has taken a stance on, the PW sign gallery is a good place to start."

Please stop vandalizing this entry. I will continue to correct it. --Neverborn 18:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The passage in question is cited;your reason for calling its addition "vandalism" is that the person quoted has since denied its accuracy. First, even if you're right, the addition of the passage isn't vandalism, and you should stop calling it that. Secondly, in any case, the correct approach would be to add text giving the claim that the quotations are inaccurate, not simply to delete what you don't like. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

MOTIVATION - Violent acts - documentation:

"IMMEDIATE RELEASE. PROTEST WARRIORS - U-PENN BATTALION

DAVID KLINE Sergeant Major and Officer In Charge.

"Private First Class Scott Robinson to be promoted to Corporal and awarded Order Of The Boot with Yellow Ribbon for a brave attack on a Liberal Combatant. He took this brave action despite the hostile presence of Enemy Cameras and other Hostiles (Liberal Press). "Without regard for his personal safety, PFC Robinson saw an opportunity and rendered assistance to members of the Security Forces, rendering powerful kicks to the Combatant who was down, but still moving". Afterwards, he endured interrogation by the Hostiles (KABC) but did not disclose his operational orders or even his rank and serial. Later, he told other Protest Warriors "She could have bit someone. I wanted to make sure".

Staff at HQ"

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=1314

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/007794.html

http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/lofiversion/index.php/t65749-50.html

NBGPWS 02:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

NBGPWS, please learn to edit properly, use NPOV, and provide sources that are not biased, far-left blogs and discussion boards. Thank you. Jinxmchue 18:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

External Links

The external link, "Right and Right" is critical of Protest Warrior, and should not be considered an "external link," but one that criticizes PW.

Please sign all your posts on the "Talk" page when discussing edits. It makes it much easier and focused. Thanks. --Neverborn 04:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It fits the definition of external link: A link that leads to a page outside the site that has the link, in this case Wikipedia. There's no rule that says external links have to all support the subject of the article. 216.49.121.119 14:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh* I'd hoped to not have to give this speech again, but here goes.

Listen, guys. This site isn't Protest Warrior's space for publicity or whatever it is some of us are trying to do with it. The purpose here is to give an objective accounting of the organization. I know none of you like dealing with criticism of PW from the leftists we oppose. But such viewpoints are a relevant part of the article. How people react to us is very much a part of what defines the organization, especially so for PW because getting that reaction is partially what the counter-protesting system is designed to do.

Or if you don't or won't see it that way, try this: We spend all day dishing it out. If you can't take it, I suggest staying on the boards and never going to a rally, because it's not all fun times and easy pickings. If you can't take a few snide comments on an online editorial page then you're not likely to stand up to an anarchist threatening to gut you like a fish for daring to exercise your freedom of speech. As for me, I will do my best to maintain a neutral article, if nothing else because the last thing we need is interference from and overcorrection by an admin trying to curb an edit war. This article overall does more good intact and containing some criticism than protected in an inaccurate version, or worse simply deleted because it was too much trouble. Rogue 9 14:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of Rogue 9's comments, readding the "Pwned" external link. Ekoontz 08:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Also added the "Pwned" link ([3]) to the relevant part of the "Reactions" section. Ekoontz 08:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Rev's site has long since been determined inappropriate as an encyclopedia cite. A childish rant by someone who got banned from an Internet forum and carries a grudge over it is hardly a reliable source. Rogue 9 15:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Now seriously, stop taking off the Democratic Warrior link. It is entirely accurate and gives a good example the response. Whoever is taking it off is simply doing it to say "this is MY article." It belongs there, so leave it - Andishouldabeengone

http://www.democraticwarrior.com/forum/showthread.php?t=183 Anyone mentioning the site will be given one warning. If the it happens after that the user will be banned. Furthermore no links are to be posted to that site either ans regular part of the post or an avatar coming from the the site.

This site was not meant as a play on words to that site.

Straight from the Site Admin so please stop spamming your link. --Scorkie 04:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me if I call bullshit

Deleted 2nd link to Protest Warrior site. One is sufficient, two is blatant spamming. NBGPWS 18:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Bannings

69.249.195.232, please source your anti-Semitic Christian banning and it will be left alone. Thanks. --Neverborn 05:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Who's The GOP Sugar Daddy Behind The Protest Warrior Curtain?

There's been a lot of deletion war-faring with the Protest Warrior article, but one topic that no one seems to have argued about -- or even brought up -- is the crucial question of exactly WHO in the GOP apparatchik community has been financing and/or advising the two wannabe-apparatchiks who founded PW. Is it the Club For Growth? ? Vin Weber? Ralph Reed? Who said what and when and to who? Any former Protest Warriors want to fill in the details?J.R. Hercules 04:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That'd be nobody. Protest Warrior is a grassroots movement in a way that MoveOn and the like will never be. Rogue 9 15:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Putting aside the issue of financing -- no GOP operatives or the like outside of Protest Warrior has ever advised the organization? Never coordinated activities with Protest Warrior, or got them connected with GOP operatives, helped them with public relations, got them connected to the media? Or anything along those lines? Is that a qualified "No" on all the above?J.R. Hercules 03:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, care to open the books, then? BenBurch 15:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If Protesting Warrior is so small and insignificant and uninteresting as to warrant deletion from wiki, then thier finances are even more insignificant and uninteresting. I don't know how interesting or significant Protesting Warrior really is, but you, BenBurch, seem to have an significant interest in them. Evensong 23:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope we find out who the sugardaddy is so I can write to him and request a grant. I'm a member of the South Florida chapter and I could put the money to good use. Lawyer2b 23:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Part of leadership, Chicago chapter here. I don't know what BenBurch thinks goes on at PW rallies, but protesting on the streets is not an expensive venture. Are you implying some mysterious shadowy figure in the background is subsidizing my CTA fees to get downtown? --Neverborn 23:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If I had the books, I gladly would. But what reason do you have to suspect corporate backing, or is it the tired old CIA handwaving that you're referring to? (I wish that were so; my paycheck would be way the hell overdue if it was.) I head up a university chapter myself, and have never spent more than a few dollars for signs. Why would we need some sort of sponsorship? After all, we're not the ones who pay for buses to ship people across the country to protest (though I have hitched a ride with ANSWER before). Or hire people to stand around with signs, for that matter. Rogue 9 01:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Current edit attempts by NBGPWS

There have been some very questionable edits made by this user, whose only contributions have been to the Protest Warrior article and its AfD discussion. This user does not follow editting guidelines, does not use NPOV, and does not provide reasonable sources. I have rv'd his edits twice now and if he rv's it back again, I will ask that the article be locked. Jinxmchue 18:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The well documented violent attack on a female protester at the 2004 RNC by Protest Warrior Scott Robinson, and his 'promotion' within the organization after is germaine to the article and I request that it be included.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/007794.html

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=1314

http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/lofiversion/index.php/t65749-50.html

IPrivate First Class Scott Robinson to be promoted to Corporal and awarded Order Of The Boot with Yellow Ribbon for a brave attack on a Liberal Combatant. He took this brave action despite the hostile presence of Enemy Cameras and other Hostiles (Liberal Press). "Without regard for his personal safety, PFC Robinson saw an opportunity and rendered assistance to members of the Security Forces, rendering powerful kicks to the Combatant who was down, but still moving". Afterwards, he endured interrogation by the Hostiles (KABC) but did not disclose his operational orders or even his rank and serial. Later, he told other Protest Warriors "She could have bit someone. I wanted to make sure".

NBGPWS 20:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

They may be germaine, but you still need to (a) edit your additions to match standard Wiki formatting (e.g. a list of URLs is not standard formatting), (b) use wording that portrays a neutral point-of-view, and (c) use reliable sources for facts (e.g. not blogs, online forums, and things of that nature - if any of those reference a reliable source, use that source instead). As to this Scott Robinson, whatever connection he has/had to PW is/was tentative, and all the information you provided and I could find amounts to rumors. Rumors don't belong on Wiki. Jinxmchue 23:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Jinx, NBGPWS most likely stands for "NeoconsBeGone ProtestWarriorSucks" - he has been banned repeatedly from the PW forums. The "promotion to Corporal" thing he most likely made up all on his own. It is obviously not from PW. --Neverborn 04:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You're a paranoid nutter! The PW atricle talks about violent antiwar protestors beating them up with NO documentation, but I provide documentation of Protest Warrior Scott Robinson whose violent attack on a woman ON THE GROUND (kicks to the head) were captured on the NETWORK NEWS, and they are deleted????

Here is a link to the DOZENS of sources documentiong Protest Warrior's violent actions, AGAINST A DEFENSELESS WOMAN ON THE GROUND.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22scott+robinson%22+%22protest+Warrior%22&btnG=Google+Search

I demand that this be included somewhere in the article NBGPWS 05:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Scott Robinson was promptly and unceremoniously kicked out of the organization on his ass for that little stunt. He was not "promoted," there is no "Order of the Boot," and nobody is proud of what he did. You can include the incident in the article if you absolutely insist, but any lies about him being lauded for it will be shot on sight. Rogue 9 14:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So you admit that Scott Robinson while still an active protest warrior, kicked said woman while she was laying on the ground at the 2004 RNC! THANKS! Please document where he was expelled from PW. Link please. NBGPWS 21:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no firsthand knowledge; I only know what I heard about it. I wasn't a member of Protest Warrior until after the RNC. No one has ever denied that Scott Robinson was a member that I'm aware of; you hardly needed me to tell you that. And if you want to go there, I can document multiple violent acts by as many individuals in the anti-war movement. Your house is constructed of glass; I wouldn't be chucking rocks around, especially after making up that Order of the Boot hogwash. Protest Warrior's protest guidelines, found here, strictly forbid even losing your temper during an op, to say nothing of assault and battery. What's most telling is that Robinson wasn't in the company of other Protest Warriors when he attacked the woman. He was inside the Convention; the protest, and hence the PW operation, was outside. He was in the convention as a representative of the Penn College Republicans, not Protest Warrior, and he acted as an (idiotic) individual, not at the behest of Protest Warrior or anyone else. All you've got is someone who happened to be a member doing something unrelated to the organization, and you know that. Otherwise, I doubt you'd have felt the need to fabricate some sort of stupid commendation. Rogue 9 15:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

oh for the love of wiki, why are you talking about yourself in the 3rd person?--152.163.100.66 05:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Demand? You know, your attitude here really needs improvement. You don't waltz in here (or anywhere else, for that matter) and demand things. That's incredibly rude. Instead of throwing temper tantrums, why don't you try asking politely? If you're not sure that what you want to add conforms to WP:NPOV and has reliable sources, ask. Post your desired text here before you edit the PW article again and people can talk about it. If the information you have is meaningful and verifiable, I would have no problem with it being added to the article. What I've seen so far is not good, however. I did the exact same Google search earlier, too, and found nothing that showed this Scott Robinson to be directly linked with PW. All I saw were unverifiable rumors, which don't belong in the article. Even if it were verifiable, I still don't think that incident belongs in the article unless it can be proven that Robinson was acting on behalf of PW. One lone nut who may or may not be linked to PW does not a notable addition make. It would open up a huge can of worms for the entirety of Wiki, in fact. Jinxmchue 07:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Added paragraph

The following pro PW assertions have NO doumentation:

"Anti-war protestors who have come in contact with Protest Warrior usually have a negative reaction towards their signs. Those in agreement with Protest Warrior tend to find their signs and slogans humorous.'

So I added back in this similar paragraph:

"Those in conflict with Protest Warrior generally perceive the organization as provocative or aggressive towards leftist protestors, and that the Protest Warrior signs are offensive. Some claim that Protest Warriors are deliberately confrontational and hostile, and antagonize the otherwise peaceful protestors. Some see Protest Warrior's criticism of Islam as bigoted, but typically fail to engage in dialogue with members. Others think that Protest Warrior, by choosing as targets groups likely to be agitated by its rhetoric, is causing the very problems it intends to demonstrate. Some believe that its organizers troll anti-war rallies out of animosity because the pro-war side, unlike their opponents, has been unable to generate mass numbers of people to rally for their cause."

NBGPWS 05:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can document it and get the weasel words and POV out of it, we'll talk. Check out Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Neverborn 07:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

then I am deleting the non documented 2 sentences about the signs. I'm an anti war protestor and we think your signs are jokes, and the immature bumblings of a bunch a teenage misfits The are too lame to provoke a 'negative reaction' as you boast.. NBGPWS 08:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please remember to follow WP:CIVIL at all times. They certainly do provoke a negative reaction, as I've seen personally and on video many times. Whether that belongs in Wikipedia is different. I will leave your edit for someone else to decide. Please don't mark "minor edit" on things that aren't, such as removing sentences, though. Thanks. Neverborn 16:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Deleted following from article for lack of documentation and weasel words

"Anti-war protestors who have come in contact with Protest Warrior usually have a negative reaction towards their signs. Those in agreement with Protest Warrior tend to find their signs and slogans humorous.'

NBGPWS 08:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

added sentence re racism and threats of violence

"Unlike many other far-right boards racism and threats of violence are permitted on PW. " I will gladly link to posts by Big Pickle, a confirmed racist who has been posting racist comments on PW for years, and to Howarta's death threats against Al if so desired.NBGPWS 19:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

So do you, asshole. PW does not delete trolls-no matter how noxious they might be-simply because its founders believe in free expression, no matter how messy. That's why your fetid ass lingered for so long, NeoConsBeGone. Get a life, loser. 71.125.240.18 20:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

BS! You banned Blue Dog Liberal because he PWNED you juvenile tards on PW all the time. Same with Rev! (who is this neconsbegones you keep speaking of?)

Just because you got banned, doesn't give you the right to defame an entire website. Hworta's issues were more personal, due to the fact he had a loss of a close friend weighing heavily on his mind, and Al was merely a convinent target. Big Pickle is either ignored or mocked by many of the posters on the forums, and on top of this it's already covered under "the group prides itself on permitting people of any ideology to join in on the discussions" and as such is a merely childish attempt at defaming the organisation --Smegpt86 21:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

afd nomination/debate

When is a consensus going to be reached on the afd tag?

71.125.240.18 20:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone's screwing with the afd tag...again.

I know this is going to fall on deaf ears, but could whoever is doing this-whether they bear PW ill will, or are attempting to help, in their own misguided way, please cease the mischief?

The usual process for these things-from what I've been told-lasts five days, so a conclusive decision should be reached by tomorrow.

71.125.240.18 21:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit: It's been reverted.

Please, whoever is doing this, stop.

71.125.240.18 21:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

consensus reached as KEEP - burch withdrew his nomination (which is funny, considering it seems to contradict WP:NOT (wikipedia is not a battleground)--Smegpt86 21:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What's odd about it? I became convinced of this page's notability. BenBurch 21:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

not funny as in "odd" but funny as in "ha". at first glance, it seemed the deletion was politically motivated.--Smegpt86 22:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope. In the CU relist attempt that I voted relist in, 007 raised several pages that he though less notable than CU, and I checked them out. At first glance only this page appeared to actually BE less notable than CU. Finally, I paid for a Lexis/Nexis search and found that PW does indeed have press mentions (and CU does not.) White Rose only has one press mention I could find on there. BenBurch 22:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The wonders of the Internet Age.

-__-

71.125.240.18 21:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

added 2 sentences with documentation

The group's primary method of activism is trolling other online forums[4] which is a much more popular activity that their stated goal of infiltrating left-wing events, chiefly anti-war protest marches, and counter-demonstrating within their ranks. Their 'command and control' forum shows that most of counter protests planned are never attended.[5]

NBGPWS 22:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

NeoConsBeGone is a notorious troll, who-for some inexplicable reason-is fixated upon the PW forums.

Please revert anything he adds-or deletes, as the case may be-until it can be independently verified.

You've already been warned not to add anything before posting it here first.

Do you want to try your luck?

71.125.240.18 22:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Follow the links and count. They have trolled forums much more than they have counter protested. That's how PW got the sloagn ' FANTASIZING ABOUT FIGHTING THE LEFT - FROM OUR COMPUTERS - WHEN WE'RE NOT PLAYING DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS"

LOL !

NBGPWS 23:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I do play D&D. Got a problem with it? Take your trolling somewhere else. Rogue 9 23:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on reverting more than three times, Burch. I know better than that. But this is getting ridiculous. 1.) The fact that some people on the forums decided to go to some liberal-leaning websites to debate/argue/possibly troll/whatever does not suddenly make such activity the primary activity of Protest Warrior. 2.) The link to his second claim is so nonspecific as to be worthless. The reason for this, of course, is that the claim is false, but I digress. I might as well head over to the DU article, link to the forum index, and claim that everyone on the site is a raving lunatic and call that my citation. Why don't I? Well, first, because you're not all raving lunatics and I try not to make a habit of lying. But secondly, because such a nonspecific reference is so vague as to be absolutely worthless. If you disagree, I'd love to hear why. Rogue 9 23:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out the actuall links. One is a link to the Command and Control forum, which doesn't prove the point it's citing (that hardly any of the cp's planned are attended) and the other links to the Hit Squad, which is something outside of the actual PW activities, and something started and carried on by the Forum members. As noted earlier in the discussion topic, Forums do not equal the actual organisation. Many of those who take part in events do not post on the forums, and vice versa.--Smegpt86 00:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

When PW's trolling activities are much more frequent than real life protests WHICH THEY ARE, and you even a have a private forum called The Protest Warrior Infiltration Crew, then THAT BECOMES YOUR PRIMARY METHOD OF ACTIVISM.

I will count the number of forums that you have OPENLY bragged about infiltrating and disrupting (should I list the the racial taunts by PW members on the African American forums for my section documenting PW racism?) since that thread was started on 03/16/06 and compare that number to actual protests that PW have counter protested. (The PWIC forum is hidden - why don't you publish the results of your constant trolling and hacktivism for the world to see ) How can you assert that trolling and hacktivism are not an integral part of PW when you have a whole forum devoted to these unseemly race-baiting activities? ---

when you're referring to "you" are you referring to me, or to protest warrior? You are ripe for ban, Neocons. All of your contributions are vandalisms of this entry! WHAT PWIC FORUM? The primary method of activism for protestwarrior is counter protesting. Again, you're mud slinging in an attempt to "get back at" a website which has BANNED you from its FORUMS. GROW UP. --Smegpt86 00:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Smegpt86 - when WP:AGF fails, sometimes it's better to walk away. ProtestWarrior is an organization to counterprotest. We know that despite what NBG says, there have been operations since 2003. Gil's J20, Chicago's M19, the national Sept24 Defend the White House, and mini operations all over the country. If NBG continues to vandalize, he will find himself blocked from Wikipedia. --Neverborn 03:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"Racist Speech" bit

"....but racist speech and threats of violence against others not members of the group are not bannable offences."

Unsubstantiated, unverifiable smear.

Will someone please delete this, so I don't have to?

71.125.240.18 23:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me simplify.

That is not NPOV-compliant.

It flagrantly violates Wikipedia guidelines.

By leaving it up-which evidently some leftist Wikipedian feels is absolutely necessary-you are violating your own standards, and making a mockery of this process.

My 2 cents.

71.125.240.18 23:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I will gladly link to posts by Big Pickle, a confirmed racist who has been posting racist comments on PW for years, and to Howarta's death threats against Al if so desired. SHOULD I????

NBGPWS 23:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Anon user - that is perfectly NPOV compliant. It's truth. Racist hate speech and death threats are not grounds for banning on the pw forums. they may be at some point, but currently they arent. Neocons be gone should be banned from editing this article. reason? VANDALISM!--Smegpt86 23:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've already explained this to you, head-case.

Pickle is a troll, much as you, NeoConsbeGone, are.

He no more represents PW, or PW positions, than Socialist, or Communist, or you for that matter.

PW does not ban racists, Communists, socialists, or anyone-no matter how despicable their particular ideology might be-simply for expressing themselves, regardless of the content of their speech.

People who do engage in real crimes, e.g. RWZ, Jeremy Hammond, are pursued, and legal action taken to prevent them from harming anyone within or outside of Protest Warrior.

It's that simple.

What part of this is too difficult for your extremely obtuse, vapid little brain to comprehend?

71.125.240.18 23:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he should be.

Where is the counter-vandalism patrol that was so ubiquitous when their favorite son, Ben Burch, had his vanity page defaced?

71.125.240.18 23:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

ROUGE 9 IS VANDALIZING MY WORK! HE DELETED THIS IMPORTANT LINK! I REQUEST THAT HE BE BANNED FROM THIS PAGE! (don't you have ti be over 13 to participate here anyway?)

Protest Warrior Harmful to Campus Right

I'm 21, first of all. As for the link, quote the server, 404. The entire Daily Cardinal website is down. Feel free to put it back if and when it comes back up. Hell, if you don't I probably will. Rogue 9 01:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your link is working again. I would put it back now, but the article's locked. So let's get this over with so we can get it unlocked and resume without the silly edit war. Rogue 9 13:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

he deleted your link because it doesn't work. All i get is 404. --Smegpt86 00:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, everyone here is over 13 years-old, although I'm beginning to question the sanity of NeoCons.

Why is he allowed to transfer his demented vendetta-which is only occurring in his own warped mind-to Wikipedia?

Could a Wiki editor please explain that to me?

I would be much gratified.

71.125.240.18 01:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so do we want this unlocked or not?

I requested the article lock to let everyone cool down for awhile and hopefully get everyone to the table. Now that it's locked, I don't see any real dispute resolution going on. The article is probably going to stay locked until we get over this impasse, so let's start talking. As I'm simply in favor of the status quo for the most part, I'll let someone advocating major change say his piece first. Just please, let's sit down and hash this out so we can go back to our normal editing. Rogue 9 13:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've got one question. I recently had this article called to my attention by a friend, and could not help but notice some of the questionable external links. For example, the link regarding the hacking attempt on Protest Warrior's site needs to either refer to an actual recounting of the event or be removed. According to Wikipedia's External Linking Guidelines, blogs are not acceptable to link in the external links section of an article, and certainly not tendentious blogs with inflammatory articles. As I said, the incident itself is concerning to the subject, but if it is sufficiently notable, then there should be no problem at all finding a reputable source to refer to; one whose first line is not "LEFT-WING MOONBAT COLLUDES WITH HACKERS...", etc. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The actual recounting of the event was included-from the Protest Warrior website-but for some reason was removed.

Considering the fact that it was written by someone who was one of the chief parties to this incident I don't see why it shouldn't be included with the other relevant links.

Plus, I don't see how the fact that it is a blog-tendentious or otherwise-plays into this decision.

Michelle Malkin is a best-selling author, widely-read columnist, and one of the most famous, and popular, conservative female commentators in the country.

Are you implying that she does not have either the credibility or notablity to be included in this subject?

72.68.185.158 17:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that blogs are strongly discouraged to be linked in the external linking guidelines. It's all well and good that she's syndicated, etc., but a neutral recounting of what happened would be far more acceptable than the article which is currently linked. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Michelle "Send 'em to the Camps" Malkin is definetly not a neutral voice (and I think not a credible one either). Makgraf 23:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem against Michelle aside, she is a credible source. Neverborn 01:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So you agree she's not neutral? Also, if one writes a book called In Defense Of Internment I don't think it's an really an ad hominum to point that out in a nickname (unless of course the subtitle of that book was something like Nah, I'm Just Joshing You in which case I apologize to use and Ms. Malkin. Makgraf 03:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly glad to remove blog links; that's a very recent addition and one that I had nothing to do with. My problem isn't with any of the external links for the most part, but with NBGPWS' rewriting of the methodology section. His statements are demonstrably false, not to put too fine a point on it, yet he insists on continuing for reasons that are, at least for me, hard to fathom. Rogue 9 08:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case, i suggest (http://www.protestwarrior.com/newsletters/05_26_06.php )is a good link to add after removing the two blog links. covers the view from PW on the hacking. Oh, and is there a way to ban NCBGPWS from editing this article? it would instantly stop the edit war.--Smegpt86 11:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, some of the vandalism (i.e. claiming that one of this group's mottos is "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuehrer") to this article would merit a block for said user if he continued when the article is unprotected. However, the user does appear to have at least some legitimate edits, so in the case that he doesn't show up on this talk page (which he doesn't appear to be doing), someone should try to contact him via his own talk page and see if smething can't be worked out. A demand for consensus can often result in good things if both sides are genuinely interested in the encyclopedia. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also note that the user hasn't made any edits at all in the past three days, so as a habitual troll deprived of his trolling method, he may have moved on. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

NeoConsBegone is a perennial troll, and all of his edits-without exception-have been worthless. There is no point discussing anything with someone whose only goal is to muck up this process. --72.68.176.238 12:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism is wildly different from trolling, I remind you. His last edits in the article before the protect were all legitimate criticisms (if not put in the correct section), and were reverted as vandalism. I would, as an aside, like to remind all editors that content disputes are NEVER vandalism. The one instance I have seen where NBGPWS vandalized the page, I have listed above. You call his edits "worthless", but that is just evidence of your unwillingness to tolerate criticism about the article's subject. Just because there are those who disagree with you certainly does not mean that they do not have the right to voice that disagreement, as you seem to be advocating. What his actions have demonstrated (excepting the nazi-slogan vandalism) is that he has an incomplete understanding of Wikipedian style standards. What the response to his actions have shown me is that there are a large number of editors who are incapable of tolerating criticism in any form, and will go out of their way to collude and ensure that such criticism is never heard. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism I can take. What we're discussing here is not legitimate criticism but outright lies. Might he have some legitimate edits? If so I missed them, but whether he has or not, he is so far shaping up to be a net negative contributor. Not to say that I expected anything different out of dear ol' NeoconsBeGone/ProtestWarriorSux, but I think he's had his chance. Rogue 9 17:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

honestly, kuzaar, his edits aren't any good. the mass majority of his edits are factually incorrect, NPOV and riddled with stupid little typo's and errors. some of the others are acceptable, but honestly, he's unaware of any of the basics of Wiki. I think that it's quite harmful to an article to add factually incorrect article (in an attempt to change people's opinions of an organisation, no less), and in my eyes, thats vandalism, plain and simple.

My edits are great! ( my ONE transgression was adding 'Ein volk.." and I realized that this was not appropriate and removed it MYSELF!) I ask that the article be unlocked so that I can document that PW's main activity is trolling other forums, not counter protesting. The fact that a PW lied and denied the existence of the Protest Warrior Infiltration Crew is very telling. (Google PWIC and use the cached view) PW as a counter protest group is almost dead and dying fast, and they are liars. One PW claimed in the discussion page on Kifer that they have 12,000 members. HAH! (that page should be merged into PW as well - what a waste of electrons!) There are less than 25 protest warriors who regularly attend counter protests, and when they have NO activity in city as large as L.A. where there are 1000's of college Republicans, their specious attempts to spin their dying organization as a viable counter protest group with real affect on the body politic are laughable. The majority of the suggested counter protests draw NO interest from other PW's. They are too busy trolling other forums. These lies must not go unchallenged. THEY are vandalizing the article, removing a perfectly good link to the Daily Cardinal article documenting how they are viewed as harmful to the conservative movement on college campuses. NBGPWS 20:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Documentation:

"I'm forming a new PW hit squad for the purpose of coordinated posting on liberal forums / weblogs. It's a pretty simple operation: if any member of the hit squad reads something particulalry annoying/idiotic on a liberal forum or 'blog then they can link to it here in this thread, and all the members of the hit squad will then go to that thread/'blog entry and flood it with conservative viewpoints.

If you'd like to sign up to be on the hit squad then say so here, and I'll keep a list in this post, and maybe in my sig as well. I might even make a custom sig banner for this if it catches on. "

"Dude, this is a wonderful idea, and I would give you a lot more praise if it hadn't already been done. PM martyr_machine for details about Protest Warrior Infiltration Committee (is that right? I know the acronym is PWIC).

He's got his shit pretty together, and I'm not sure how many leftist minds it has changed; but it sure is hilarious to watch. And take part in! We did Ironside's laughable excuse for a forum a year or so ago. That was fun."

[6] NBGPWS 21:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. THIS is why the article should remain locked, at least for the short term. This guy's MO is dealing in half truths and lies to make people look bad! Simple As. Nowhere have i seen in this article someone saying that the PWIC does not exist. So far, all i have seen is me saying "what PWIC forum". There isn't one! all ther is a group of those who frequent the PW forums who DO go off and troll forums. But they are NOT the main way that the organisation runs, and it is more an off-shoot of the group. --Smegpt86 00:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you lying about PWIC? Here is a link to just one of the PWIC forums! PWIC link NBGPWS 00:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I assumed you ment one run by Protest Warrior. I certainly didn't know there were forums for PWIC, due to my not being involved in said group. Besides, PWIC isn't part of the organisation, but an offshoot of the Forums, started by MEMBERS OF THE FORUM (note, not actual protest warrior founders, Kfir or Alan) and resurrected by The Joker. I stand by what i said earlier. THE organisation's *MAIN* form of activism, IS COUNTER PROTEST. IF you want to refer to the PWIC, Mention it in passing in the forums. THATS WHERE IT BELONGS.--Smegpt86 01:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't discount that there are those who are using this as a propaganda peice (or attempting to), but these exist on both sides. I'm all for banning some of the random IP's who keep fucking up the NPOV on this article in FAVOUR of protestwarrior, to be honest.--Smegpt86 15:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So much for Wikipedia bing politically neutral. Just let it end. Everything deserves a place on Wiki. Just like toasters and tea cozies deserve a place on Ebay TunnelRat 0425, 21 June 2006 (KWT)

More proof that trolling in their main activity

"Hit Squad debriefing: christianalliance.org

"This was our first big mission. We’d monkeyed around a bit with feminista.com huffintonpost.com and www.democrats.com but these we’re all either poorly designed or barely trafficked. Christian alliance on the other hand, was a small Mecca of elitist left wingers. Operating under the pretension that their bizarre set of policy positions are born of their Christian “spirituality” (a term left-wingers conspicuously substitute for “religion”) they’re the preening personification of arrogant “holier-than-thou” elitism. Thus their reactions to conservative dissent could be particularly amusing.

The people who participated in this hit are:

Myself (also posting under the name Ice Wolf) AbNo SNGMKG (who posted as Outsider) and wrathbone (who posted as Gerard)"

Trolling - PW's most popular form of 'activism'

NBGPWS 01:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, shut it.

We know your tendentious spin already, which you have spammed this entire page with.

Protest Warrior "sucks" blah, blah, blah.

You're looking for some sort of validation from PW-for some inexplicable reason-and haven't found it.

Whether or not you have legitimate, constructive critiques of PW-and I don't believe you do-is irrelevant.

Those critiques can be added by someone else-who is not a troll, who can approach this article from a balanced, NPOV perspective-so your input is essentially useless.

In fact, it's worse, because you're simply stirring up emotions that could be put to better use.

Just give it up already.

72.68.171.50 05:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't even sign in with a user name. You have no credibility!. Most likely you are yet another of the gutless cowardly Pretend Warrior trolls who is upset that their serial trolling of other discussion forums amounting to blatant acts of hacktivism has been exposed. Get lost loser! (wrathbone, right?)

NBGPWS 08:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hacktivism is not invading forums and starting debate topics. That isn't hacking by any stretch of the imagination. What Jeremy Hammond advocated at DefCon - taking down Republican sites before the RNC, getting delegates' information illegally, and the Indymedia-based attack on the PW site... THOSE are hacktivism. Not this. Neverborn 02:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No witty retort for my argument? no clever comeback for my earlier point? What a surprise.--Smegpt86 12:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that an IP is less anonymous than a username, not more. We now return you to your regularly scheduled flaming. Rogue 9 12:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Yes, an IP can be used to glean a great deal of information about a user, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it can change and you end up with an entirely different person from the old IP, unless said user is working from a static ip. So, it's not entirely correct to say that an IP, at least on Wikipedia, is less anonymous than a username, by which you can be easily remembered and make a name for yourself. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is the same person, the same IP-as far as I know-as well as the same laptop.

That's why there is such a striking continuity between the comments I have posted here and those replies I made to the afd discussions surrounding the Ben Burch and WRS Wikipedia articles.

Also, I would like to know how an anonymous user-and despite the fact that he registered with this website he is essentially anonymous, since he's using an unverifiable online handle that is a variant on his ubiquitous, and utterly puerile, troll name, i.e. NeoConsBeGoneProtestWarriorSux-who gives us no inkling as to his actual identity, save some cryptic allusions to his location-which hasn't been verified-is less anonynymous than myself.

72.80.106.250 18:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)