Talk:Jack Abramoff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Biography     (Rated B-Class)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography portal

B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

WikiProject Judaism (Rated B-Class)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all Judaism-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Judaism-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

---

Judaism To-do:

edit purge

Here are some tasks you can do:

Requests:

Jewish and Biblical Units of Measurement or some such name, to include material of Ancient Hebrew units of measurement but also Talmudic units and use in Halacha (a la the Hebrew Wikipedia article he:מידות ומשקלות תורניי×) The Twelve Spies (or some other name) to deal with the scouts sent by Moses and their significance.

Collaboration of the week

The current Judaism Collaboration of the Week is Tikkun olam.

Translate

Please note that in many instances, projects related to Torah study proceed much faster in Hebrew than in English.

Mikraot Gedolot (rabbinic bible) at Wikisource in English (sample) and Hebrew (sample). Mishnah at Wikisource - Hebrew text with translation and commentary; there is also a Hebrew version. Shulchan Aruch at Wikisource - Hebrew text with English translation

New projects

Mikraot Gedolot Project at Hebrew Wikisource Megillot Mikraot Gedolot Eikhah

Copyedit

see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Rival Biblical views Cleanup: Three Oaths - needs a serious cleanup, and should be rewritten with reliable sources, avoiding primary sources and original research (which are currently the main sources used in the article, leading to disagreement in interpretation). Expand:

Yom Ha'atzmaut - quite short for an article of such importance

Wikiversity: School of Jewish Studies. Part of the new open content university, Wikiversity. Stubs: Category:Judaism stubs, Category:Tanakh stubs, Category:Synagogue stubs Update: Portal:Judaism is WikiProject Judaism's frequently updated portal. You can help make this the best portal on Wikipedia. Look at the talk page to see how you can help.

WikiProject New Jersey      (Rated B-Class)

New Jersey portal

Jack Abramoff is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.

B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography      (Rated B-Class)

Criminal justice portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

WikiProject Crime To-do:

v â€¢ d â€¢ e

Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Criminal Biography:

Requests: Magdalena Solis, Justina Morley, Impersonating an officer, List of major crimes in the United States, Shanghai Kelly, Tucker Prison Farm, Kendall Francois, Purgatory Correctional Facility Expand: Credit card fraud, Theresa Knorr, Marybeth Tinning, Brenda Ann Spencer, Lords of Chaos (self-styled teen militia), Stubs: Calling card (crime), Federal crime, Leslie Irvin (serial killer), Violent crime, Crime Classification Manual, Anthony Sawoniuk Perfect crime Images: Charles Ray Hatcher, Thor Nis Christiansen, Richard Cottingham, Caleb Fairley

WikiProject U.S. Congress

Jack Abramoff is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "C", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category."

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low."

??? This article has not yet been assigned a subject.
The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event."

WikiProject Texas (Rated B-Class)

This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.

B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

edit Â· history Â· watch Â· refresh To-do list for Jack Abramoff:

Here are some tasks you can do:

Other: Each paragraph needs to end with a citation.

[edit] Archives

[edit] Discussion of blocking unwanted edits/protection

Discussion of protecting article/blocking unwanted edits related to claims of anti-Semitism for mentioning Abramoff's religion is here: Talk:Jack Abramoff/Protection

[edit] Outline

I think this article needs a re-org to focus on the things of significance with regards to Abramoff. I'm going to try to form an outline on the main significant facts about Abramoff to create a better section layout from, and re-org the article to focus in on what is significant for a reader. Don't yell at me, I don't have all night to cover everything so please correct and add to this outline as appropriate, and bold the outline items so that they can be distinguished from discussion. As far as I can see, the significant things about Abramoff are: (Note: I put in a lot of quick notes below which could be considered very POV. These all need to be supported with facts and cites in the rewrite. I'm just trying to put things I have read in different places together to make more of a 'story'.) -Kwh 17:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Things which are less significant/belong in an "Other" section:

Things which belong in an "Other investigations" section:

-Kwh 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "A"

What does the "A" in Jack A. Abramoff stand for? JackO'Lantern 06:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where is Jack now?

I think this article is missing few things. One is the story of how Jack got caught, another is details on the deal he made in the plea agreement, and lastly where exactly is Jack right now, I mean he must be in a Jail or safe house or something, do you think it's in DC?--M4bwav 14:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The details on the deal he made are all in the plea agreement which is linked. It's the standard: "I promise to cooperate fully" stuff. As for your second question, I suspect, but I don't know for sure, that he was released on his own recognizance, and is walking around free, until sentencing. This is pretty typical with high profile white collar criminals. Sholom 15:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that would be wild to run into Jack, you know there are a lot of powerful people who wouldn't mind if jack happened to shoot himself. Still I think I'd like to write a little subsection about how he got caught, it was a washington Times story (I believe) that first found out what he was doing(which in turn led to an investigation by the government) is that article available online?--M4bwav 15:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When did negative public scrutiny start?

a very, very extensive collection of articles dated by year on Abramoff at SourceWatch, there is a ton of informtion here(SourceWatch)

The expert on the second Abramoff special on CSPAN said that it was an article in a Washington Post that led to the intial investigation.

Research below conducted by M4bwav, KWH, Sholom

I'll go to the library — you know, the one with the books made of paper ;) — and see if I can hunt down some more of the background that may no longer be locatable via google. KWH 20:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested to know whatever happened to the Judicial Watch threat which was almost two years earlier. Sholom 04:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there were many diaries on DailyKos about Abramoff in relation to sweatshops in the Mariana Islands and Guam, weren't there?99.245.173.200 05:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plea Agreement

Here's a PDF of the plea agreement. [8] I'm not sure if this is of use to anyone, but I found it while I was trying to find Mr. Abramoff's middle name... even the District Court just abbreviated his middle name as "A.", so maybe no one knows? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Research Notes

From a December 11, 1992 Profile in The Washington Times:

Jack Abramoff

KWH 04:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I should note that the book is not called "The Generation" it is called The Book of Generations--M4bwav 04:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Get a load of this (note the date):

"Ney received campaign contributions from partners Kidan and Jack Abramoff while they were negotiating with Boulis to buy SunCruz. He was on their guest list to the Super Bowl with his two sons this year before backing out at the last minute because of a scheduling conflict."

"Now Ney, a prime player in the campaign finance reform debate, is rejecting his connection with Kidan, whose reputation has been decimated during the aftermath of Boulis' Feb. 6 murder."

Now here's the kicker:

"Michael Scanlon, the lobbyist who asked Ney to put his comments into the Congressional Record, said he was not working for Kidan, Abramoff or Waldman during the Boulis-Kidan negotiations but for another client in the gaming industry, unrelated to the partners, who wanted the world to know about Boulis' problems. He would not name the client."

…

"Scanlon, who went to work for SunCruz in December and became its main spokesman after Boulis was killed, said his efforts on behalf of his clients in March and October 2000 had nothing to do with SunCruz, and that he regretted ever getting involved with Kidan."

"I regret the day I met Adam Kidan, said Scanlon, who no longer works for SunCruz and says he never got paid. "And I regret asking a great friend in Congress to speak out on his behalf."

KWH 05:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems pretty likely that charges are going to brought against Ney before the end of this year.--M4bwav 05:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed -- with a small caveat b/c the guy leading the entire investigation, Noel L. Hillman, chief of the department's public integrity division, just stepped down (approx Jan 27 '06), as Bush nominated him for a federal judgeship. Sholom 05:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why Abramoff's Religion Is Relevant

In a general sense, people's religious affiliation is recognized to be an important fact; see George W. Bush, John Kerry, Albert Einstein, Isaac Asimov, Pat Buchanan, etc.

Yes, but none of them earned their fame as a result of being indicted on criminal charges. --Leifern 17:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Mentioning someone's religion on Wikipedia has no bearing on whether the person was a criminal or not. --The Cunctator 19:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In particular, Abramoff's Judaism has been evidently important to him -- he founded an Orthodox Jewish school which he sent his children to, Eshkol Academy, founded the kosher deli Stacks, has been described by his spokesman as "an especially strong supporter of Israel", and regularly sent money to Shmuel Ben Zvi.

Well, one can argue how sincere his convictions were if he was committing crimes while he was upholding a facade of piety. --Leifern 17:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The article makes no claims about the sincerity of his convictions. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here . -The Cunctator 19:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

We're saying that Abramoff's religion is an important part of his life. I'm not sure that what he thinks is important should be a determining factor, but if we think his religion is incidental, then we shouldn't mention it; if we think it is important, we have to explain why it's relevant to the article. We have to go one way or another. --Leifern 19:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Abramoff's religious activities were prima facie important-- there were a lot of them. People don't just randomly start Orthodox Jewish schools and send their children there. In addition, his religious activities intersected with his public/political/illegal activities repeatedly. He funneled money to/through Eshkol Academy. He funneled money to Shmuel Ben Zvi. He asked a conservative rabbi at Toward Tradition to make up a religious award for him ("Scholar of Talmudic Studies"[9]; Toward Tradition being another organization he funneled money through. --66.237.172.226 20:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, he also did this through Native American organizations. Can we make any valid inferences about his convictions about Native American affairs based on this? I could make the case that he's a complete phony, with no religious convictions but only a distasteful opportunitist tendency; that none of these activities were the least bit "religious" - they were merely underhanded and possibly criminal. Certainly one could say his piety was fake - much of what he has admitted to doing is blatantly in violation of Jewish religious values. --Leifern 20:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything in the article that you think needs to be changed? Your analysis above doesn't seem to be relevant to the problem of constructing a Wikipedia article. For example, making a determination as to the validity of Abramoff's piety seems outside the scope of Wikipedia. Do you have any evidence that his religious convictions were completely phony? It seems to me from the known record he was both an opportunist *and* religious. Being religious doesn't make you a criminal, but it doesn't prevent you from being one, either. However, it can shape the form of your criminality. Fred Phelps is an interesting case study, as is Torquemada. 66.237.172.226 21:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Religion is worth mentioning even if the subject is only a regular church/temple/whatever-goer. It means it is part of their life, mentioning it gives us a complete picture of who they were, whether or not we know what the subject really believes. If a reader wants to conclude that someone who spent 1 hour of every week in a church had no real belief, that is really not the concern of the article. If the reader wants to assume that all church goers are good or bad based on this one instance, again, not the concern of wikipedia. All things being equal, all it says is this person participated in a dedicated weekly event that most other humans do not. If a subject has a medical condition, perhaps epilepsy, OCD, or the wikipedia favorite, Asperger's Syndrome, and it had no concrete relevance to what made the person famous, it should still be included. It is something out of the ordinary, something notable that further differentiates the person from a prototypical person. Evaluating a person's life is not such a science that things out of the ordinary should be dismissed out of hand for not having a clear direct relevance to the importance of the subject.--Paraphelion 15:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That is, his religion is not trivia or merely a cultural artifact, but an important element of Abramoff's life. Yes, he is a criminal who happens to be an observant Jew. He is not the first. Nor is he the first political criminal whose religion played a prominent part in his life; note Robert Hanssen, who was a member of the ultra-Catholic Opus Dei, and attended services with Richard Santorum and Antonin Scalia.

If you would like to discuss this issue further, please do so here or at Talk:Jack Abramoff/Protection, where extended or contentious discussion of this issue is being directed.

If you feel that the article as currently stands does not make it sufficiently clear that Judaism a) it plays an important part in his life and b) is not why he became a criminal Republican operative, please make suggestions on how to better indicate the above two points.--The Cunctator 14:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

How do we know that he sent money to this friend? Or that the Sniper thing even exists. It's conjecture. It is suggested in the emails but is not conclusive at all. Even after investigation by the FBI They still don't have evidence that it is true or that it isn't some laundering scheme. He sent TONS of money to friends, organizations, family members and Cousins and he was bank rolling his other partner Ben Waldman for years and evidently still is.

Why doesn't it say that he was raised by a SECULAR Jewish American family. It seems like that would be more appropriate and the whole Intifada thing and Sniper school is complete conjecture seemingly designed to attack Israel by saying that Jacks crimminal activity is somehow connected to it. That conjecture should be edited out of that paragraph. 85.250.55.249 09:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added "secular".

I think the reference to his secular parents is fair and accurate, and as such should be allowed to stand. --M4bwav 14:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's another reference:

I have to get going now but I'll tackle this later. Or maybe someone else? List the information from the Newsweek article that's not based on unnamed sources? --The Cunctator 14:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the Category:Lobbyists article, I find that of the 14 first people (alphabetically) listed as lobbyists, the religious affiliation is not mentioned. The three articles that list the religion are those for Robert Foster Bennett (inference because his father was president of LDS), Tom Daschle, and Douglas Feith. It seems pretty clear to me that listing a lobbyist's religion is not at all common. --Leifern 17:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Most lobbyists did not start religious schools. Do you have any issues with how the article now stands? The Cunctator 19:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Logically, every person who is well-known as Abramoff or most of the lobbyists should have their ethnic background/religion mentioned under "Early life". I'm really bored by articles that say "person B was born in 1948 in Wisconsin" and then just move on, not even mentioning their parents' names, occupations, etc. Stephen Harper, the new PM of Canada, didn't even have his father's name or profession listed until last week, and we still have no info on his mother (until now, I just added her name). People don't just grow on trees in Wisconsin, everyone comes from somewhere, and in my opinion it is just as interesting to find out from where as to know where they went to college - a person's upbringing is definitely an important part of their life. So, obviously, if we do have something, like we do in Abramoff, deleting it is pointless, unless we make some kind of rule to not mention the religion/ethnicity of any criminals out there, because it mind slander these groups. JackO'Lantern 21:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There has to be some consistency here. Jack Abramoff is not famous for his level of religious observance, certainly not famous for his philanthropic work, not famous for his contributions to Jewish life or religion, etc. He is famous for things that have absolutely nothing to do with his religion. Is there any indication that has involvement in Jewish organizations is the least bit related to his alleged corrupt ways? Are we supposed to list every charitable contribution alleged criminals made? This makes no sense. --Leifern 19:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is indication that his involvement in Jewish organizations related to his corrupt ways (not alleged--he pleaded guilty). Also, why does this article have to only mention his illegal activities? Albert Einstein isn't famous because he was born in Germany or took violin lessons as a child or because he married Mileva Maric, but we mention that. --66.237.172.226 20:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the emails that the Senate Indian Committee put together, Abramoff and a friend literally talk about the Intifada, so no it is not conjecture at all, it is documented and reported on by dozens and dozens of news sources. Please read them--M4bwav 21:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I downloaded them. It's still not evidence. It might not even show probable cause. In other words a federal Judge might not issue a warrant just based on this. It might not be encyclopedia material. As far as "news sources" go, well, they have to fill pages. They very often print material that they know they will have to retract later. All the more good for them. Fills more space. Until there is a shred of evidence that any of it is true it's still conjecture. 62.0.120.97 22:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately you or I alone do not get to decide, I think there is more than enough evidence to support that assertion, I think you are trying to present a false case in order to pursue an unreasonable agenda, and that you are not acting in 'Good Faith'. But I'll let consensus decide that.--M4bwav 22:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability. Quoted, (emphasis added):

""Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false."

I think it's clear that 62.0.120.97's objection runs counter to Wikipedia's established policy on

You will have to go a distance to claim that Newsweek is not a reliable source. You will have to go an even further distance to claim that Abramoff's own emails obtained under subpoena are not a reliable source. 22:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can get this documented by a reliable source outside of Wikipedia, it would make total sense to edit the article to reflect that information. Right now you're anonymously arguing against a record of emails, news stories, and testimony under oath on a site that doesn't engage in original research or reporting, which seems counterproductive to your interests. --The Cunctator 01:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Would we even be having this discussion if Abramoff were a Christian let alone a Muslim? Any way, see below. --DieWeibeRose 12:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Before his legal troubles began, Abramoff was one of the chief pillars of the budding political alliance between Orthodox Jews and Evangelical Christians. …

In the Jewish community, Abramoff promoted a conservative Republicanism based on a strong association with evangelical Christian politicians such as DeLay, who hold strongly pro-settler views on Israel. …

Of his relationship with DeLay, Abramoff once told the Washington Business Forward: "He's a religious Christian, I'm a religious Jew."

"He's very actively pro-Israel. I'm rabidly pro-Israel," Abramoff said. "We had a lot of mutual friends, as well."

Source: E.J. Kessler. "Senate Probe Of Lobbying Puts Heat On DeLay Ally." Forward. November 26, 2004.[11]

In addition to his close ties to Christian conservatives, DeLay has worked with the Zionist Organization of America, which vehemently opposes Israel's Gaza disengagement plan and regularly criticizes Israeli and American efforts to support Abbas. DeLay was also close to Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, an Orthodox Jew with hawkish views on Israel, until Abramoff's recent legal troubles involving claims that he overcharged Native American tribes involved in casino gambling.

Source: Ori Nir. "House Sets Limits on Palestinian Aid As DeLay Defies Calls of Bush, Rice." Forward. March 18, 2005.[12]

Abramoff's main contribution to national Jewish communal causes was a stint in the 1990s as chairman of Toward Tradition, a social conservative group based outside of Seattle that frequently criticizes the Jewish community's liberal majority and many of its more-established organizations. Toward Tradition, led by a South African-born Orthodox rabbi, Daniel Lapin, made its mark by becoming a leading proponent of the idea that Jews should return to a "biblical faith" and ally themselves politically with Evangelical Christians because of their moral qualities and support for Israel.

It was Lapin, in fact, who introduced Abramoff to DeLay, according to press accounts.

Source: E.J. Kessler. "Felony Plea of GOP Lobbyist Sets D.C. Players Scrambling." Forward. January 6, 2006.[13]

You just cited three articles from The Forward. The Forward is Jewish paper, so of course they are going to write any of their stories from a religious angle. If you're trying to make an argument, it'd be a lot stronger if you can cite material from non-religious media. Sholom 19:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why The Forward wrote about it. What matters is that it Abramoff's religon was relevant to his life and politics, and, thus, relevant to an encyclopedia article about him.--DieWeibeRose 05:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Religon is probably the most important factor over everything else in one's life if it is allowed free reigns. The German idea is "weltanschauung". Jack Ruby also professed Judaism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ruby to add to your list of the infamous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdailey1 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Abramoff Describes Relationship With President Bush

I thought someone might want to integrate this latest dispatch into the article:

EXCLUSIVE EMAILS: Jack Abramoff Describes Relationship With President Bush

ThinkProgress has obtained emails written by Jack Abramoff in which the fallen lobbyist personally describes his relationship with President Bush. They depict a relationship far more extensive than has been previously reported.

The emails written by Abramoff were addressed to Kim Eisler, the national editor of Washingtonian magazine. The Washingtonian recently reported on the existence of several photographs showing Abramoff and Bush together. Eisler is also the author of Revenge of the Pequots, a book about tribal politics for which Abramoff was interviewed.

In the emails, Abramoff describes meeting Bush “in almost a dozen settings,†and details how he was personally invited to President Bush’s private ranch in Crawford, Texas, for a gathering of Bush fundraisers in 2003. Abramoff did not attend, citing a religious observance.

Abramoff emailed Eisler about his invitation to Crawford and his decision not to attend:

NO, IT WAS THAT I WOULD HAVE HAD TO TRAVEL ON SATURDAY (SHABBOS). YES, I WAS INVITED, DURING THE 2004 CAMPAIGN. IT WAS SATURDAY AUGUST 9, 2003 AT THE RANCH IN CRAWFORD.

The White House has continually downplayed the relationship between Abramoff and President Bush. At a January 26 press conference, President Bush said “You know, I, frankly, don’t even remember having my picture taken with the guy. I don’t know him.â€

But according to Eisler, Abramoff told him that the two have met almost a dozen times, shared jokes, and spoke about details of Abramoff’s family:

HE HAS ONE OF THE BEST MEMORIES OF ANY POLITICIAN I HAVE EVER MET. IT WAS ONE IF [sic] HIS TRADEMARKS, THOUGH OF COURSE HE CAN’T RECALL THAT HE HAS A GREAT MEMORY! THE GUY SAW ME IN ALMOST A DOZEN SETTINGS, AND JOKED WITH ME ABOUT A BUNCH OF THINGS, INCLUDING DETAILS OF MY KIDS. PERHAPS HE HAS FORGOTTEN EVERYTHING. WHO KNOWS.

Check back with ThinkProgress for more details about Abramoff’s relationship with Bush and other high-profile figures.

More: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/08/exclusive-abramoff-emails

Feel free to delete my message from the discussion page once it's been integrated into the article if you want. NiftyDude 21:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon corrections

After careful discussion, deliberation and exhaustive reading and rereading of the entire history of the writing and editing of this page we will accept the article as it stands now. We don't feel that the article is totally unbiased toward Jews and Israel however since we are dealing with different degrees of anti-Jewish/Israel sentiments this is probably the best we can get, short of really hacking the site which you all should know was a viable option but unacceptable to us. You can't destroy an entire encyclopedia because of a few bad sentences.

You speak about assuming "good faith" on this site but much of the things that you have written about this man are caustic and seemingly vengeful. We wonder what the real agenda is. Is Jack "Shylock"? are you Jealous. We wonder about what thoughts and emotions are driving you to write this page. One only has to read the history of the page to see what we mean by "degrees" of Antisemitism. One writer would write a sentence containing conjecture and spite and another, more intelligent writer realizing how bad it sounded would edit the sentence in a clever manner, without really changing the meaning. We'll sit back and monitor for now.

62.0.134.2 11:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________

It'd be sure easier to have a discussion with you if you were not anonymous. -- Sholom 13:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Note the implicit threats regarding hacking are still present. I fear that another day will come far too soon when he will go on a blanking, subtituting, and calling everyone a nazi spree again. If he was a registered user he would have probably earned a few weeks ban by now. --StuffOfInterest 13:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying hard not to bait the anon, but petty threats are going to get you nowhere. This isn't wikipedia, the encyclopedia with only one editor and one POV.--M4bwav 14:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________

If you will. then you see that M4bwav is making our point for us. "trying not to BAIT" US(READ: Jew Baiting). HIS TRUE COLORS ARE SHOWING. And "Stuffofinterest" What we say stands. We aren't making any threat. We plan to monitor and let the insults go. We simply hope that you will appreciate that we didn't take that road for good reasons. If you had any inkling as to who we are, you would appreciate it all the more so. 62.0.134.2 15:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Truth hurts I guess. Probably the best way to avoid anti-semitic comments is to stop making threats such as "We'll sit back and monitor for now." It inflames the situation and really doesn't help.

[edit] Postal?

I see the article now includes: