User talk:98.14.129.101

1) Show me where I used the word "stupid"...I said puerile (hopefully I spelled that correctly), and I stand by the characterization for the reasons noted below; your citation of a non-existent word speaks to your creativity, but not your intellectual neutrality...which is the major bone I have to pick with your uncited vandalism of the article; 2) Ross's stature and wealth mean to me, outside of the context of the article, exactly nothing; 3) While I examine my motives, why don't you examine yours: a) to support your comment, you would have to know Mr. Ross's state of mind in giving the gift...I doubt that either of us have the necessary insight to make a characterization; b) to make the assertion stick, it would help your argument were the building NOT LEED certified, which it is; c) of the Ross gift, the public record suggests that a large fraction of the gift represents an endowment for the operating budget; d) this is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a collection of comments about people that you don't like...show me ANY factual basis for your comment and make your case; 4) To contribute the $100MM, a donor has to make roughly double that before tax...people that smart typically do have egos and typically do like to make their mark on the world...this is a fairly human phenomenon, and I fail to see the harm, when so many thousands of people will benefit thereby; 5) I'm always astonished by people that crawl out of the woodwork to be critical about another person whose contributions they can't hope to match; put your own mark on the world and don't worry about donors who like seeing their name in lights; 6) it is said of the architect of the Yale library that he wanted to chisel over the door "This is not the library, the library is inside". Likewise, I personally don't care if any name is over the door, the school is inside.

In sum: LEED certified; you aren't a mind reader; your negativity serves no discernible rational purpose and doesn't contribute to the commons or the common good; your edit was neither neutral, nor empirically supportable. No spell check used above, so I hope your sensibilities are not offended.

Intellectually disingenuous? Because I criticized a member of the Forbes 400? Perhaps some of the "more attention" you suggest for yourself could be devoted to why you launch into personal attacks in defense of a wealthy public figure.

Believe it or not, you can disagree with someone without assuming that the person is stupid.

--

1) Yes, I did; 2) You should read the Wiki policy on neutrality; 3) More attention or a spell checker will solve my

  problem; you are intellectually disingenuous...
  what will solve that problem?

1. You mis-spelled echolalia. 2. You are very amusing.

Weird edits to infoboxes

You are adding fields that doesn't exist to infoboxes. Please stop. Thanks. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 21:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Only certain infoboxes (authors, for example) contains that field. If you click preview before submitting your edit, you'll see that there's no education field popping up. Thanks. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 21:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

---