`   :::No, the ``problem`` is that you choose to infer the worst possible motives from any inconsistencies in Kerry's record, then assert the criticism as incontrovertible truth, and dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as being a ``Kerry sycophant`` or of whitewashing your self-proclaimed truth. Should the inconsistencies be mentioned? Certainly, if they are substantive. But different conclusions can be drawn from such inconsistenicies and we need to clearly distinguish between speculative conclusions and bare facts. ≠   : What about the link to ABC News and NY Times stories? Both of those sources confirm a set of facts that is different from what Kerry tells us is so... Alos, if my writing style offends you, why don't YOU write the new blurb, but this time INCLUDE the links to the articles which the others kept deleting out from under me....?  :Oh and by the way, it's only your supposition that I choose to infer the ``worst``. As a matter of fact, by proclaiming my view to be the ``worst`` you betray your BIAS that anyone who highlights Kerry faults is somehow bad or wrong. What if it turns out that I am right about Kerry... that he has changed his story - that he is covering up for a guilty conscience, then what? Is it still the ``worst`` to believe something that's true?  : Additionally, I can turn your comment around and ask, why is it that YOU prefer to believe the ``best`` about Kerry. Credulity does not impress me as a hallmark of a good editor. Frankly, if you can't see the glowing pro-Kerry tone of the total article, you are not very perceptive.  : Not only that, but the disputed sections: 'Medal-Toss' and '1971 VVAW MTG', in the forms they stand now, are extrremely tilted in favor of Kerry. In particular, the VVAW secion is so chopped and convoluted in it's strain to only allow in quotes that help Kerry, that it's farcical.  : You do see that, don't you?  : `