Submitted to Talk page in the article on "Sarah Palin" in wikipedia

I welcome response from someone who is not partisan. A fan of Palin is not a valid responder to my questions (nor is one of her hater's for that matter).--Dstern1 (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"For having begun to build their tower of Babel without us, they will end, of course, with cannibalism. But then the beast will crawl to us and lick our feet and spatter them with tears of blood. And we shall sit upon the beast and raise the cup, and on it will be written, 'Mystery.'"

Excuse me, pard, but who is not a partisan? Sarah Palin was selected, irresponsibly IMO, precisely because the Rovian strategy to which John McCain subscribed to ten days ago is to run a polarizing figure such that members of the electorate neatly partition themselves into people that love the polarizer and people who hate her.

This makes the job of a political-consultant-ho bag like Rove easier even in the mathematical sense! Political consultants need political intelligence inversely to the way in which they destroy, like coal companies destroying mountains, voter intelligence, and the response to the polarizing figure contains less "dark matter" in the form of the undecided voters produced by the more nuanced politician.

Predictability, control, and stage management are what the political hos want.

Anybody who pretends to be "objective" about Palin (which is NOT the same thing as writing NPOV) has crawled out from a trailer or from under a rock, works in a convenience store, handles snakes on Sunday, and is aliterate and dyslexic. Of course, many wikipedia editors fit this description to a "T". But, as soon as they bone up on that mad bitch, they will like her because she represents the large and growing ignorant dirtbag element in American culture and life, an element that has long since taken wikipedia over.

You can be, and the wikipedia guidelines on NPOV affirm, partisan in your political views and still WRITE npov. NPOV is (or was) NOT a pretense to a pseudo-scientific ignorance which is by definition impossible if you're an editor reading a text with editorial attentiveness, or a writer writing with his brain turned on, it is a ''writing style'' which gives due weight to fact, and opinions (considered as the fact that they are held by certain people) and especially lies when in fact they are lies.

A "fan" of Palin ''can'' be "a good responder" in your clumsy phrasing. See the NPOV guidelines. Your "reasoning" has destroyed good journalism because while pretending to be used against the right-wing "fan", its substance is the attempt to disempower progressive politics on the left on behalf of wealthy private media owners.

"Liberal" reporters on balance and even in America probably produce far more good and NPOV copy for respected organs all the time. Hell, there's even some conservatives can do that, and who don't have to wangle a promotion to the op-ed page. Whether or not the "responder", your correspondent, the contributor (god your scrap of writing makes me ill) is or is not a "fan" or enemy of Palin ''is not material, does not apply, and is fucking moot''.

Your foolish statement is precisely wrong, and precisely the sort of personalization/daemonization that is driving real contributors out, but not before ruining reputations in meatspace. It's an invitation to a witch-hunt in which a cybernetic mob hunts out people with "bias" as opposed to the very different, and to the ignorant just boring, issue of a ''text''.

And the fact is that in dirtbag online culture, consisting as it does of academic failures and out and out criminals because of anonymity, simple tests indicate "bias" in a person.

Any gentleness or solidarity is "bias" of the left-wing sort. The ability to write a complex thought is "bias". These people are then hounded and harassed as having "agendas" by people whose ''only'' claim to freedom from an agenda is their ignorance, an ignorance that having been "soured by true miseries and maddened by false promises" in C. S. Lewis' phrasing, a ''brutalized'' ignorance, comprises the shock troops of Fascism, and biases this and many other articles to the bonehead boneyard right wing.

It's much, much harder to demonstrate right-wing bias. Your prose in fact has to drag its knuckles on the floor.

You can take the Dosteoevsky quote as read, pard. Wikipedia is a latter-day tower of Babel, and today resembles the concentration camp barracks being built in Schindler's list, right down to the engineer who's shot for criticising the foundations, whose suggestions are then adopted. Wikipedia was started as a form of legal fraud to steal content, and is now crawling with aliterate "editors" bearing stupid barnstars whose purpose is to privatise the content and make Jimmy Wales rich by driving out genuine contributors on flimsy and ridiculous charges.

The Sarah Palin page went right to a lock because trailer trash, including today's wikipedia editors, are trying to use their witless reading of NPOV to make this similar in REAL objectivity to the article about Joe Stalin in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.

Edward G. "spinoza1111" Nilges

p.s.: you're an editor, and you can't even form a plural from a two-syllable verb? Hater apostrophe s?

pp.s.: People who pretend to be above politics are usually people who are completely uninformed.