This clarification comes from John Perna, which is my real name. I am not personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article on Senator Lee Bright, which is found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Bright Someone is continuously editing and re-editing this page using a profile which is represented as belonging to "Paul MacDermott". The real Paul MacDermott is an Australian comedian, who was born 13 May 1962. The person who created this "Paul MacDermott" profile claims that his birthday is 2 July. The lack of neutrality in the editing is made clear by strongly opinionated terms such a "ultra" and "militant". These edits contain unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material. Senator Bright's Profession is erroneously represented as CEO of On Time Transportation, a company which no longer exists.

First of all, I'm nothing to do with the Australian Paul MacDermott. MacDermott was my grandmother's maiden name, and she was from County Down. The reason I reverted the article is because you removed the reference list and other things, which can appear like vandalism. Another editor also claimed you to be connected to Bright's campaign team. While I agree with you that terms like "ultra-conservative" aren't helpful, "committed to liberty" also has its problems. I'm happy to leave the article as it stands for now, but will keep an eye on it. What I suggest is someone with a fairly good knowledge of this topic edits and checks it for neutrality. I've mentioned it at WP:POLITICS so hopefully someone can help. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Perna continues to alter the language of the article to employ weasel words and vague language to hide true intent. For instance he describes a bill as one that would "reassert the legal, Constitutional or permit-less right to keep and bear arms." This is intentionally and dishonestly vague. The bill actually would allow open carry of firearms without a permit. He removed statements about Bright's supporting the veto that cancelled funding for a rape crisis center. He refers to Bright's church as supporting "traditional Biblical morality," which of course is highly subjective. Mr. Perna has several youtube videos promoting Lee Bright, wherein he refers to him as "a great patriot." He's hardly an objective biographer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallertaur (talk • contribs) 22:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

===

In an unsigned comment by Hallertaur (whose profile page does not exist) wrote:

John Perna continues to alter the language of the article to employ weasel words and vague language to hide true intent. For instance he describes a bill as one that would "reassert the legal, Constitutional or permit-less right to keep and bear arms." This is intentionally and dishonestly vague. Hallertaur (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC) The bill actually would allow open carry of firearms without a permit.[reply]

I respond: "the bill actually would allow open carry of firearms without a permit." SAYS EXACTLY THE SAME THING AS: "reassert the legal, Constitutional or permit-less right to keep and bear arms." Yet this is called "intentionally and dishonestly vague." Apparently this anonymous writer has never read the Second Amendment. Failing to cite the source as the Constitution makes the statement vague; which was not vague until the source is removed. The expression "weasel words and vague language" is an EXAMPLE OF weasel words and vague language.

In an unsigned comment by Hallertaur (whose profile page does not exist) wrote: He refers to Bright's church as supporting "traditional Biblical morality" which of course is highly subjective. I respond: "traditional Biblical morality" is not subjective to anyone except those who are ignorant about traditional Biblical morality.

In an unsigned comment by Hallertaur (whose profile page does not exist) wrote: Mr. Perna has several youtube videos promoting Lee Bright, wherein he refers to him as "a great patriot." He's hardly an objective biographer.

I respond: Nothing could more honestly show the positions taken by Senator Lee Bright than watching his actual words being spoken by himself. Here we have an anonymous commenter who asserts that people should rely on his interpretation of those words without ever hearing what was actually said. This obfuscation is not what an objective biographer would attempt to do. An objective biographer would put directly viewing first hand information above his own opinions.

Mr. Perna, referring to "traditional Biblical morality" is weasel terminology because it is subjective and means different things to different people. I haven't offered opinions about him. I've posted one fact after another yet you keep altering them. Your comments about how I've failed to read the second amendment, further discredits you as an objective editor. In addition you claim his company does not exist and that references to it are poorly sourced. This article from the largest newspaper in his district is the source material. http://www.goupstate.com/article/20120305/ARTICLES/203061004 Please post honest objective comments. Please stop deleting facts you don't like. Hallertaur (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I draw your attention to WP:SURNAME, a guideline that states "After the initial mention of any name, the person should be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss", or "Ms"." So we can dispense with repeating the Senator title once his office is established. I will revert this again now. Please don't reinstate it. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

=

"Mr", "Mrs", "Miss", or "Ms"." are honorific prefixs given to all, but earned by none. Senator is an EARNED TITLE which is DUE to those who have earned it. John Perna

Senator is an elected office, but still an honorific title nonetheless, just like President, Vice President, Prime Minister, Taoiseach, and so on. I suggest you take a look at a few other politician-related articles. Maybe start with John McCain, which is a featured article and should give you a good idea of how to present this information. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

======

User John Perna continues to remove relevant facts about the subject. He has removed references to bills that Bright has proposed including ones involving Bright's suggestion that South Carolina coin its own money. He has removed references to Bright's bankrupt trucking company, and removed references to Bright's attempt to further regulate abortion clinics. He has removed Bright's comments in support of seceding from the Union. He has changed language to state that bills proposed by Bright are "reasserting" a right. This is a matter of opinion. There is no right to carry unregistered firearms. Stating that a bill will "allow public schools to offer a class in firearms marksmanship" is more accurate than his wording of "allow high school students the opportunity to take gun courses as part of the curriculum" yet he keeps changing it. Allowing schools to offer a course is not remotely the same thing as "giving students an opportunity" to take the course, since many (if not all) of those schools) would never "offer the opportunity" regardless of whether they were "allowed to" or not. In addition he's posting links to local news sources but not to articles that support his statements. He's removing links to actual articles in favor or posting links to front pages of news sources. He refers to Bright's church as supporting "traditional Biblical morality." That is a very subjective term, one that is used here as a code word for anti-gay. Hallertaur (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

=

Anonymous comments, made from an alias with no profile page, are without credibility and are not actually worthy of a response. Without regard to that obvious fact, I make this clarification which comes from John Perna, which is my real name. I am not personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article on Senator Lee Bright, which is found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Bright

Financial difficulties, in this troubled economy, are common among the voters of South Carolina, who are quite exhausted with being governed by "fat cat" elitists, who have no sympathy with them. Without regard to that reality these anonymous comments, made from an alias with no profile page, have no relevance to Lee Bright's performance as a Senator, and amount to nothing more than ad hominem character assassination.

Reasserting the right to keep and BEAR arms is not a matter of opinion. This is the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is the highest law of the land, with which all others laws are supposed to conform, or be stricken down as unconstitutional. Regurgitating the usurpations that have been done does not change that reality, but instead clarifies the need to reassert that which should already be the law. Saying that guns must be registered or permitted before they are allowed is tantamount to saying that a book must be registered or permitted before the first amendment right to free speech would apply. The Second Amendment IS your gun permit. Apparently this anonymous commenter, with no profile page, has no experience with churches that teach what the Bible actually says about homosexuality, and therefore calls "traditional Biblical morality" a subjective term and a "code word".

First, "aliases" are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia and are in fact the norm. Choosing to come here and then criticising people for using them does you no favours. Secondly, you do not have a profile page either, so your comments make no sense. Thirdly, you have been asked to desist from adding "Senator" to Mr Bright's name per WP:SURNAME. We do not use any titles in the body of an article, whether they are political positions, military ranks, academic titles, knighthoods or anything else. Mr Bright is not an exception. If you do not wish to be blocked for disruptive editing then I suggest you take notice. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

=

Mr. Perna, Wikipedia is not here for you to make a name for yourself. Aliases are preferred because it's the accuracy of the content that is important, not the personality of the person posting it. No one claimed that a right to keep and bear arms is a matter of opinion. But it is your opinion that registering firearms is a violation of that Constitutional right. Your opinion is not relevant on a Wikipedia entry. Hallertaur (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

=

This clarification comes from John Perna, which is my real name. I am not personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article on Senator Lee Bright, which is found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Bright An unsigned anonymous comment using the alias Hallertaur wrote: Aliases are preferred because it's the accuracy of the content that is important, not the personality of the person posting it. I respond: There is no other reason for using an alias except to make it impossible for anyone to vet your objectivity. An unsigned anonymous comment using the alias Hallertaur wrote: No one claimed that a right to keep and bear arms is a matter of opinion. But it is your opinion that registering firearms is a violation of that Constitutional right. I respond: S 115 has nothing to do with registration. S 115 is about the right bear arms without a permit. It is a contradiction in terms to require a permit for the application of a right. The Second Amendment IS your gun permit.

Mr. Perna, my post was signed. It was not anonymous. All you need to "vet" the information is the source material. I consistently look for the most objective sources to verify my information. In the case of Bright, I'm mostly using sources from his hometown newspaper, The Spartanburg Herald, and the largest newspaper in the state, The State newspaper. Your antagonism seems to be the result of your embarrassment over the senator's statements and positions. If that's the case, then discuss it with your friend personally. Judging from the many youtube videos you've posted, you and he seem to spend a lot of time together. I'm sorry but your bullying tactics aren't going to work here. Hallertaur (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

=

Signed where? Not anonymous? So what is you real name? That is what I need to "vet" the YOUR OBJECTIVITY. If you were actually "judging from the youtube videos that I have posted, you would know that I have never been in the same room with Senator Bright anywhere else except at the South Carolina Statehouse.

At the end. Like everyone else, except you. Add four tilde marks to sign your posts. Hallertaur (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

=

So what is you real name? Johnperna (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really any of your business is it? But I was wondering if you could shed some light on why your friend Lee uses an image of downtown Greer as the masthead on his official Facebook page. Seems an odd choice since he supposedly lives the next county over. He does actually live in the district he represents doesn't he? Hallertaur (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

=

This clarification comes from John Perna, which is my real name. I am not personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article on Senator Lee Bright, which is found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Bright An anonymous comment using the alias Hallertaur wrote: Aliases are preferred because it's the accuracy of the content that is important, not the personality of the person posting it. I respond: There is no other reason for using an alias except to make it impossible for anyone to vet your objectivity. Johnperna (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John you're clearly not very objective. Are you suggesting that you should not be allowed to contribute to Wikipedia? Why does Lee use a photo of a town he doesn't represent as the masthead for his official Facebook page?Hallertaur (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

==

This clarification comes from John Perna, which is my real name. I am not personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article on Senator Lee Bright, which is found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Bright An anonymous comment using the alias Hallertaur says his posts are not anonymous but refuses to give his real name There is no other reason for using an alias except to make it impossible for anyone to vet your objectivity. Why ask me for reasons for Senator Bright web design? Johnperna (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for you to keep telling us that John Perna is your real name. We have no way of knowing if that is true or not, but even if it is, it's completely irrelevant. You seem to be confused about how to vet objectivity. My name does not establish it one way or another. What is relevant is the truthfulness of the facts presented, not what your personal opinion is of the person posting those facts. I realize that in this sensationalistic Fox News culture you might have been led to believe that facts change depending on who presents them, but that isn't so. Facts are facts no matter who says them. Falsehoods are falsehoods no matter who says them. As evidence, you've stated several things that are inaccurate. So using one's real name does not ensure that the material they are posting is objective. If you are the John Perna that shows up in countless Google hits supporting Tea Party politics, then you're clearly not very objective. That doesn't mean you can't offer objective information should you desire to do so. But deleting facts you don't like is not acceptable. I was asking you about his Facebook page (not web design) because as a representative of a Spartanburg district, it seems odd he would show himself standing in front of a town he doesn't represent. You've acted previously as if your knowledge of Lee is superior to others so I thought you might know the answer. Don't worry about it though, I've got some other folks looking into it. Hallertaur (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

==

This clarification comes from John Perna, which is my real name. I am not personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article on Senator Lee Bright, which is found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Bright An anonymous comment using the alias Hallertaur says his posts are not anonymous but refuses to give his real name. There is no other reason for using an alias except to make it impossible for anyone to vet his objectivity. This anonymous poster may be personally or professionally connected to a political adversary of subject of the article on Senator Lee Bright, which is found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Bright Johnperna (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. Nice try though. Hallertaur (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

==

I will assume that this statement is false until you provide your real name, making it possible to learn the truth. Johnperna (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well if logic is irrelevant to you then I'll assume you are Lee Bright's personal secretary until you prove otherwise. Hallertaur (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

=

I have provided you with my real name. That is all that anyone with an IQ above room temperature would need to determine the truth about that. Your real name is all that I have asked of you. Johnperna (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask for your real name as it would be inappropriate to do so. Your sense of entitlement is peculiar. Hallertaur (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

==

Was it you that said something about "weasel words"? So now you describe simple honest transparent accountability as "a sense of entitlement." No one would type one message to avoid simple honest transparent accountability except a person who has something to hide. How many key strokes would it take to give the honest answer? How many key strokes have you already used to AVOID giving the honest answer? Johnperna (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Words Hallertaur (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

=

How many key strokes would it take to give the honest answer? How many key strokes have you already used ON Weasel Words to AVOID giving the honest answer? Johnperna (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

==

This clarification comes from John Perna, which is my real name. I am not personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article on Senator Lee Bright, which is found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Bright

To whoever wrote:

"The Club for Growth is a far Right political action group that opposes mainstream republicans such as Karl Rove."

Thank you for this example of totally opinionated editing. I would suggest that your judgements about who is "far Right" and who is "mainstream" might be replaced by the simple presentation of facts.

Johnperna (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an accurate description of the group. Considering oneself more conservative than mainstream republicans is by definition the far right. Why do you have so much contempt for the far right that you consider it a biased description? Most of your edits seem to be based on your false assumption that terms like right and left, conservative and liberal, are insults. Hallertaur (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

=

This clarification comes from John Perna, which is my real name. I am not personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article on Senator Lee Bright, which is found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Bright

To whoever wrote:

"The Club for Growth is a far Right political action group that opposes mainstream republicans such as Karl Rove." Thank you for this example of totally opinionated editing. I would suggest that your judgements about who is "far Right" and who is "mainstream" might be replaced by the simple presentation of facts. This description is your anonymous opinion and nothing else. Each person describes who is "far Right" and who is "mainstream" based on their OWN position on the political spectrum. The use of such terms reveals more about the person who uses them, than about the entity that is described.

Johnperna (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are a far right group. That's not an opinion. That's how they market themselves. Why do you have such animosity for the far right? Hallertaur (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

== I know people in The Club for Growth and I have read things from them including on the internet. I thanked you for an example of totally opinionated editing. Now I thank you for this example of total utter falsehood; total utter falsehood: "They are a far right group. That's not an opinion. That's how they market themselves" I did a google search using: "The Club for Growth" far right. I found NOTHING that came from "The Club for Growth". Every use of the term "far right" that showed up along with "The Club for Growth" came from communists, socialists, "progressives", or other types of "far left". Although you remain anonymous your identity is becoming known.

Johnperna (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]