Talk:Bushism
The bushisms.com site should go somewhere (I'm not trying to censor), but it was full of criticism and I couldn't find any Bushisms in it. I want to laugh at the funny way dat Texan dude be talkin' (like all those Reaganisms we know and love). --Ed Poor
More quotes, along with alleged locations: [1], [2], and [3]. The first seems the most promising.
- You know, when I was campaigning in Chicago, in the general election, somebody said, "Would you ever deficit spend?" I said, "Well, only if we were at war, or there was a national emergency, or we were in a recession." Little did I realize we'd get the trifecta.
The above quote, from [1], isn't a gaffe. There is not a single grammar error or misstatement of fact in it. And it's only the third of the three "Bushisms" I read at that site. The man who compiled these quotes comments, "Yes, America hit the jackpot, and Duyba has free reign to deficit spend." So, this was really an instance of someone (the website owner) exercising his right to make a political criticism -- not an instance of Bush committing a gaffe. --~~
Ideally, I think we should strive to list only Bushisms that we can verify; I'm sure people are out there making up dumb things that "Bush has said", and we should do our best to keep these out of the encyclopedia. Additionally, I think we should get as much context as we can for the slip-ups, since sometimes a lack of context can make something dumb sound even dumber; in an encyclopedia, we should not make people sound dumber than they are if we can avoid it. I'd like to hear ideas about how we can trace Bushisms back to reliable sources, and get that context.
In the mean time, I'd like to note that there are at least small discrepancies between different people's quoting of Bush.
Compare the quote at [4]
- "The folks who conducted to act on our country on September 11th made a big mistake. They underestimated America. They underestimated our resolve, our determination, our love for freedom. They misunderestimated the fact that we love a neighbor in need. They misunderestimated the compassion of our country. I think they misunderestimated the will and determination of the Commander-in-Chief, too." George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 26, 2001
to that at [5]:
- The folks who conducted this act on our country on September 11th made a big mistake. They misunderestimated the fact that we love a neighbor in need. They misunderestimated the compassion of our country. I think they misunderestimated the will and determination of the commander-in-chief, too. --"Misunderestimations" galore reported to the CIA, Sept. 26, 2001
It's mostly the same: same date, same place, same basic message. But a few words are different, and one is a more condensed version than the other. For true Bushism schollars, who, for example, would like to learn how to use "misunderestimate" in conversation, getting the details right is key.
--Ryguasu 08:30 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)
- It might be worth mentioning that the White House often rewrites official transcripts to clean up Bush's mangling of the language. The press often does this as well. I seem to recall that "misunderestimated" was rewritten either by the press or the White House or both, but I would need to look it up to find the details. soulpatch
I wouldn't trust an analysis of gaffes made by anyone with a political ax to grind. Now, if a professor of linguistics and a bunch of graduate students listened to, say, 100 hours of tapes of the last 10 presidents and recorded the "gaffe rate" for each -- that would provide food for thought. --Ed Poor
- Oh, you're no fun. We foreigners like our handy "Cut out and keep guide to the presidents..."
- Kennedy (Dead)
- Johnson (Who?)
- Nixon (Corrupt)
- Ford (Stupid)
- Carter (Incompetent)
- Reagan (Asleep)
- Bush the Elected (Incompetent)
- Clinton (Fornicating)
- Bush the Appointed (Stupid)
This is not an encyclopedia article. It is brazen political propaganda. Suppose one were to write an article titled "Crimes Bill Clinton is accused of committing".
It's stuff like this that makes me really worried that Wikipedia is slowly descending to the level of Everything2. --Larry Sanger
- "Well, its a term that exists, and that people use, in exactly the sense defined. One might argue that its too dictionary (I agree), or that there are too many examples (I agree), but I find it odd (well, actually, I don't, but I might if you didn't have form) that you feel your non-approval of the term and the sentiment expressed would disqualify it from an article. And besides, have you read the 7th paragraph of Bill Clinton recently? And hey, if the quality drops too much for as great a mind as yours, theres always Nupedia (ho, ho, ho) -- GWO
Larry, I'm also worried about the "descent" of Wikipedia. It shouldn't try to be a forum, nor allow itself to be turned into one.
Some people collect quotes from their political opponents, so they can bash them. Reaganisms, algorithms, Bushisms. Hmm, is algorithm an "EdPoorism"? I'd like to rewrite this article not as a list of gaffes (we can link to any number of such lists) but as an explanation of why partisans and others like to compile lists of malapropisms. And whether these lists indicate a desire to poke fun (healthy), a desire to discredit (understandable), or represent a genuine level of "stupidity" on the part of the quoted person.
I bet it ties into the "Gore as policy wonk" thing. Gore is smart, therefore his policy views must be correct, therefore vote for him. Bush is stupid, therefore his policy views must be incorrect, therefore don't vote for him.
Are people going to take a stance on global warming or the ICC based on how many mangled words the media can collect on a politician? We may as well judge Yogi Berra's performance as a baseball team manager on the basis of saying things like "90 percent of this game is half mental". --Ed Poor
- This article is no more "political propaganda" than, say, the article on terrorism is, or any other article that deals with a political subject. Bush's gaffes and questions about his intelligence are a matter of considerable political discourse in the United States, not the mention the world at large, and a such it is perfectly deserving of an article here. By the way, there is also an article on "Goreisms", or at least there used to be the last time I checked. Any attempt to suppress this article would be simply a case of whitewashing to please those who are embarassed by calling attention to the things Bush says; and that in and of itself would be a case of political propaganda winning out by censoring a politically embarassing article.. soulpatch
Who are you talking to, Larry or me? I said I love the article, because I think it exposes Bush's opponents' use of ad hominem. We question his intelligence, because we can't defeat his arguments on their merits. I love it! --Ed Poor
- I was responding to Larry. As I pointed out in the Talk page on Bush, it is completely appropriate to discuss the personal qualifications of an individual for president. To claim that this is simply "ad hominem" argumentation is nonsense. Politicians are always subjected to scrutiny on their personal qualifications. Things like personal character, intelligence, and so forth, are absolutely fair game as part of political discourse when it concerns a politician. Or are you also suggesting that one should never identify a politician as being corrupt because that would also be an "ad hominem" argument? Is it "ad hominem" to discuss Jim Trafficant's scandals, or Whitewater, or Abscam, or Watergate? Calling attention to the personal characteristics of politicians is not "ad hominem"; it has everthing to do with evaluating the fitness for office of a politician. And, as I also pointed out, Republicans themselves constantly brought up "character" as an important issue in the 2000 election in the wake of Clinton's personal behavior--so they have admited that personal characteristics matter, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. soulpatch
"Is our children learning?" has been explained as "Is -- Are children learning?" That is to say, that Dubya was about to say something beginning with "is", then changed his mind to ask "Are children learning?" Bush's accent, they say, doesn't make the distinction between the pronunciations of "are" and "our" that some speakers do. --FOo
What about the "Major League ..." incident, referred to in a "Tom the Dancing Bug" cartoon?
Is there any connection between (A) eloquence in public speaking and (B) being right on policy issues? --Ed Poor
"A Bushism is a public verbal gaffe by United States President George W. Bush." -- Misleading; the term was first used in reference to his father George Herbert Walker Bush (George Bush). The earliest Google hit I find is from 5 Aug 1992.
The term was used as the title of a 1992 book by the editors of New Republic magazine.
Amazon.com books on Bushisms by *both* Bushes
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/ref=s_sf_b_as/102-8714274-3771321
Replies all around.
GWO: duh, I know it's a term that exists in the sense defined. Who cares? First, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary; second, making a list of Bushisms under the title "Bushisms" implies that Wikipedia officially endorses the view that George Bush is to be condemned for his Bushisms. The biggest problem with the article is that the title makes it impossible for the article to be neutral. I would have hoped that you all would have the intellectual honesty to see that immediately, without someone having to interrupt your party to tell it to you.
Ed: two things that are not in Wikipedia's brief, though they might be in Everything2's: (1) collections of damaging quotations from people, arranged specifically so as to damage those people; (2) exposing political hacks' use of ad hominem.
"soulpatch": OK, since you can't figure this out for yourself: "terrorism" (the word) is known and used by all manner of people. It has inherent interest to people even who do not like the use of the term in any circumstances. Accordingly, one of the things we say in the "terrorism" article is that some people don't want it used ever. "Bushism" and "Goreism" by contrast are merely terms of opprobrium used by political hacks such as yourself (I'm sure). It's admittedly quite important that we report on Bush's gaffes since they're politically important, and on Gore's alleged fibs, since ditto. But an impartial encyclopedia doesn't do so under the title used by the silly political hacks! It's all about neutrality, soulpatch. On Wikipedia we go out of our way to write from the neutral point of view.
- Speaking of ad hominem attacks...I am sorry that Larry Sanger is resorting to personal insults against Wikipedia contributers to make his point. I have no intention of participating in this project if you are going to engage in personal attacks against me, such as your clever little comment that I am a "political hack". Perhaps that is your intention--to drive me away. If so, then you got your wish. After you eventually manage to antagonize every person you disagree with by insulting them, we'll see who is left to work on your project. I am sorry I spent all that time salvaging articles in Wikipedia from vandalism, editing articles so that the title is in bold or putting little square brackets around years, correcting spelling and grammar, or all the other efforts I have made to help this project. I am sorry I wasted any of my valuable time working on a project when the thanks I get is to be personally insulted. Good bye and good riddance. soulpatch
- Let's just say that he made an ad hominem attack on some wikipedians. This is a talk page, so ad hominem attacks are ok (in theory), just not in an article which is the important thing. -- -RM-
OK, I've moved both Bushisms and Gore-ism to meta.wikipedia.org. If you insist on having articles like this, I strongly suggest that you find a title that does not smack so strongly of idiotic partisanship, and that you treat the subject in a way that could be equally agreed upon by all sides as fair. See neutral point of view. --Larry Sanger
Larry, with all due respect, could you rein in your irritation? Sarcasm and denigrating people (however cleverly) is not going to help your argument. We get your point; we just don't necessary agree with you. I, for example, am not a Bush fan, but I do realize that Bush -- like Dan Quayle -- is a savvy politician who's much more effective one-on-one than he is in front of large groups. But the fact remains that he makes many verbal gaffes, and these have come to define his presidency in the eyes of some people just as Clinton's sexual indiscetions defined his. The term exists; why shouldn't we include it here? In addition, I don't think unilaterally deciding to move the entry to meta.wikipedia.org is either fair or logical. It smacks of intellectual snobbery and arbitrariness -- "I don't agree, so I'm gonna move this. So there." Isn't that one of things we're fighting against here? Yes, you're a founder, but I was under the impression that Wikipedia has no real heirarchy.
Please don't respond with the tired old argument about Wikipedia descending to the level of Everything2. We've heard it. Believe it or not, there are people here who do attempt to keep everything clean and on an even keel. We don't always succeed, but we do try, and we don't appreciate you repeatedly slapping our wrists for just not being good enough.
Thank you, I'm done. Stormwriter
I will no longer apologize for chastizing people for their lapses into idiocy. You have no excuse. This sort of thing--what's neutral and what isn't--should be obvious by now. It's not like we haven't been working on this project for over two years. Anyway, it takes way too much effort to restrain myself. We've got to maintain standards here, and shame has been underutilized. I agree with Julie Kemp who said she believed in shame culture.
So, to your shaming. ;-) You didn't address my argument. (You wrote, "The term exists; why shouldn't we include it here?" as if I had not actually answered the question. That wasn't very nice.)
You're free to move it back, Stormwriter. But I'll move it back to meta unless I see a really good reason not to.
By the way, I'm fed up with being accused of throwing my nonexistent weight around. I have precisely as much weight as you give to me. If you think I have a lot of weight here, I'm delighted. I'll use it, then.
- A few things. I'll not put it back, though someone else might, because frankly, I don't care about the subject that much. My point was that I did not like the fact that you're acting as if you have executive fiat in this matter, by arbitrarily deciding to censor things. Any Wikipedian can do that, sure, but it results in edit wars. Also, I never said you didn't answer the question about the existence of the term; obviously you did, but I just don't agree with your brushoff. Finally, I understand your desire to police Wikipedia. However, do you have to be such a butthead about it? Many of us don't agree that some of contributions are "lapses into idiocy." Your saying so reminds me of the Ackroyd comeback in the old Saturday Night Live Point:Counter skits: "Jane, you ignorant slut!" These aren't incidences of junior high kids posting grafitti, you know. Are you trying to drive people away, or what?
- Enough. I'll waste no more effort on this issue. I'm getting angry. Stormwriter
- I'm getting angry, too. That's twice in a row you ignored what Larry said. THis time it was you're acting as if you have executive fiat in this matter as if Larry hadn't just said above that he was fed up with being accused of throwing his nonexistent weight around. (Deputy Ed) --Ed Poor
- Jane, you ignorant slut! ;P But seriously, I'm not ignoring anything -- I'm just calling things as I see 'em, Mr. Dep'ty. (OK, so obviously I lied about not wasting anymore time on this effort). Let me emphasize this: I know what he said about his "non-existent weight." I didn't ignore his statements in either case. But I do think he's more influential than he realizes, and I don't agree with him about other things, which is, of course, OK -- especially here. Why else are there talk pages? Stormwriter
No, no, no! Let it out!! Heeeeeeeeee's back!!!!
There's been too much nice, passive acceptance of bull**** during Larry's sabbatical. I'm too inexperienced to be the sheriff. --Ed Poor
Maybe so, but I take exception to his attitude. One can be firm without being abusive. One can be gentle in disagreement rather than confrontational. It's much easier to listen to a person who says, "I don't agree with your thesis for this reason..." than with another person who says "Hey asshole, your entry sucks, so I'm gonna put it where no one can see it!" Not that I'm saying that Mr. Sanger said exactly that, but that's certainly how I took it. I don't think I'm too different from many others in that regard.
Yes, we all want Wikipedia to succeed (hey, I do, and I've only been on it a week or so!), but I think there's plenty of latitude within the NPOV to post all sorts of things. If we put too many limits on posting, we'll end up with something that's no fun anymore. Seriousness is important, but some folks need a sense of humor. 'Ware the slippery slope. Stormwriter
- I just went and had a look at Everything2 for the first time. Now I see Larry's point. And maybe you'd be happier there, if you came to have fun. Okay, you don't like being roughed up. But Larry didn't actually call you a name. To paraphrase Robert Heinlein, expressing contempt for an idea or a practice is not the same thing as heaping abuse on a person. Ironically, the creation of these -isms articles does heap abuse on a person. Think about it, when you've calmed down.
- I'm calm now. Allow me to rebutt. First of all, I'm serious about my contributions to Wikipedia. Check 'em out if you want to see what I've written. Many of my contributions are minor edits, but I've also contributed about 20 pages or so that I think are significant. Now, they're all in my field -- archaeology -- so few people look at them, but I think they're important all the same. And I do not believe one should check his or her sense of humor or sense of joy at the door whenever they enter Wikipedia. You insult me if you think I come here merely to have fun! That's not it at all. But I do enjoy contributing and discussing things with other Wikipedians, and what's wrong with enjoying what you do? However, these personal attacks, as mild as they are in the big scheme of things, are souring my experience. I don't see the need to descend to ad hominem attacks on a person because of their views. Sure, Mr. Sanger didn't insult me, but he sure savaged a few other people who have made significant contributions to the project. Why? Because he disagreed with them, that's why. To paraphase the '80s, that so not cool, man. Stormwriter
- This isn't about me; you can try to make it about me, but that will be your problem, not mine. As far as I'm concerned, this is about a small instance of abuse of a fine encyclopedia project, and saying forthrightly what we think about that abuse. --Larry Sanger
- We'll have to agree to disagree, then. I'll say only this before signing off: I also think abuse is occurring; the origin and type of abuse is something we differ about. See ya. Stormwriter
- I don't grasp the particular impact of "-ism". (But I'm not in the US, and am unaware of the particular derogatory load the term may have there.) Methinks it's the subject itself that lends to biased POV (and meanness of argumentation). So, despite what I may have written elsewhere, I would not feel bad if these articles were to disappear from mainstream Wikipedia. FvdP 00:02 Nov 8, 2002 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed. --Larry Sanger
- You're welcome. And if soulpatch or others want to play the old I'm leaving unless you are always nice to me and let me do whatever I want game, good riddance to them. For every idiot who tries that gambit, we'll get 5 solid contributors back. --Ed Poor
- Oh please, spare me your moronic comments. I am not leaving because I want anyone to "let me do whatever I want", I am leaving because the person in charge of this project has resorted to a personal attack against me. And now you have joined him by calling me an "idiot". If you think that personal attacks against other participants in this project is acceptable behavior, then bully for your. Have fun in your little Wikipedia clique. soulpatch
- If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, what do you want blisters for? --Ed Poor
How can this possibly be made NPOV?
Having a list of "Bushisms" is like having a list of "Subhuman Races". Saying that Jews are "allegedly" on the list doesn't make the list any more appropriate for wikipedia.
Such a comparison is absurd. There is nothing wrong with noting that Gore, Bush, and Quayle are highly criticized for the things they say, or rather, fail to say. Besides, if there isn't a list of "subhuman races" I will be adding it soon so that everybody can understand what the Nazis, Russians, Americans, etc. have been up to throughout history. Lir 23:49 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)
I'd have to agree that the term seems to be loaded with bias. The article is humor with some people attempting to make it NPOV. I don't think it belongs in an article by itself. It may fit on an article discussion the image of the Presidency or whatever, but not as its own article. For instance when TV was introduced, it changed the face of the presidency. People who didn't look right didn't win. These things have political significance, but this article is biased. -- RM
Why not have a single page on presidential gaffes? Address the whole lot and the phenomenon of observing and commenting on them? jat --Jeff 23:57 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)
- Maybe! --LMS
I removed the article and again, I have to say it's unnecessary and highly biased to put the actual useful content that the article contains in an article under this title. If you really actually do care that much about having this stuff said, then by all means, say it somewhere else (e.g., under George W. Bush). And lose the list of actual Bushisms and Goreisms. They just aren't necessary. You could always put up an external link to them. --Larry Sanger
Removing the article just because of a supposedly biased title is wrong. Then you would have to remove Axis of evil and Rogue state as well. Wikipedia should be NPOV in content, but not in titles. If you can't help, please start with these more serious offenses! --Elian
- The cases aren't parallel. --Ed Poor
Yes, of course they aren't. There's a huge difference between "Bushism" and "Goreism" on the one hand and "Axis of Evil" on the other. The latter occasions serious observations on the current foreign policy of the United States, how it sees fit to describe it, and how others respond. "Bushism" and "Goreism" are silly epithets lobbed by political hacks in an effort to make ad hominem arguments. --Larry Sanger
- Ah, once again Sanger resorts to an ad homimen attack in the service of the cause of condemning so-called ad hominem attack. soulpatch
- Oh, stop being a sourpatch, soulpatch. He's not singling you out. He's talking about politicians, journalists and other ax grinders out there. Not you. Why do you insist on wearing a shoe that doesn't fit? Do you like blisters? --Ed Poor
- Larry to soulpatch (above): ""Bushism" and "Goreism" by contrast are merely terms of opprobrium used by political hacks such as yourself (I'm sure)." I don't know if the "I'm sure" is supposed to make the comment ironic, or whatever, but it isn't clearly so to me. --Camembert
Don't you know what "ad hominem" means? No part of my argument depends upon calling anybody a political hack. I said that purely out of contempt for political hacks, because I think they should be ashamed of themselves and they should leave as long as they want use Wikipedia to propogate their political point of view--and for no reason otherwise! --Larry Sanger
- You should be ashamed of yourself for your inability to hold a civil discussion in a Talk page, but instead resort to name calling. And trust me, speaking as one of those you smear as a "political hack", you can rest assured that the contempt is mutual. soulpatch
I'm not ashamed in the least, soulpatch. Calling spades spades is an excellent strategy to get to the bottom of things. "Speak the truth and shame the devil." --Larry Sanger
- Oh, I have no doubt whatsoever that you consider your use of smear tactics and name calling to be a virtue. You are hardly the first person I have ever run across on the net with such beliefs. soulpatch
Soulpatch, what I am engaged in here is hardly smear tactics. Calling the use of Wikipedia for partisan purposes, by putting up a list of damaging quotes under the titles Bushisms and Gore-isms, idiotic, is hardly a smear tactic. It also hardly deserves the name "name calling": that implies that what I said was pointless and unfair. But what I said had a very specific point, namely to help protect what vestiges of Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality might still exist. It was also perfectly fair. That sort of thing really does deserve to be called idiotic--you mean, you actually disagree?
Again, as much as you'd like to make it, this isn't about me. --Larry Sanger
Today is a controversial day. Maybe November 8 should be designated official Edit War Day. Seriously, though, just to my two cents in: everyone should go take some bong hits. Tokerboy 00:37 Nov 8, 2002 (UTC)
Can't it all fall under Humor? Christopher Mahan
If Wikipedia were a collection of humorous anecdotes, jokes, quotes, and the like, then yes! --Larry Sanger
Why has this page and Gore-ism been protected? Maybe Larry is right in his assertion that there can never be a worthwhile page here, but a lot of people don't think he is, and in protecting the page you're depriving them of the ability to prove him wrong. If I'd been an admin for more than three days I would unprotect them myself, but as it is I'm very wary of using my powers. --Camembert
Yes, I'm not sure I'd want to protect them myself, if I had the power. --Larry Sanger
I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, I agree that the topic heading, regardless of content, is not NPOV. On the other hand, wikipedia is already full of non-NPOV headings, so why should this one be any different?
Which others? Let's go to work. --Larry Sanger
- That isn't going to happen. Bias is inherent in the categorization of every controversial issue.
- That doesn't make any sense to me. What does it mean to say "Bias is inherent in the categorization of every controversial issue" in the context of Wikipedia?
- Look at Holocaust denial, as an example. Why does this view of the holocaust get shunted aside to its own topic?
- Why not?
- Why is there a topic called holocaust, instead of just a redirect to something like holocaust debate? Simply put, because the bias of the editors is showing in the very selection of the topics.
- Why not all three, or even more? I am totally unconvinced. This is, after all, a huge area.
- The editors believe that the holocaust happened, and that denial is wrong, and even though lip service is played to NPOV by presenting the denial, the bias shows in how the information is organized.
- No. The whole point is that the article represents the leading view about the Holocaust; at some point in the article, that should be made clear.
- Look at gun control, which gets its own topic, while gun rights is just a redirect to gun politics.
- That's supposed to prove something?
- Redirecting death penalty to capitol punishment shows one bias. Not redirecting abortion to feticide shows another bias.
- These look like total nonstarters to me. I see no bias whatsoever in redirecting death penalty to capital punishment (capitol punishment must be what we endure when we step inside the Capitol! ;-) ). And why would we put information about a topic usually called "abortion" under any other name?
- I don't personally think that Bushism is worthy of having its own topic. But that is my personal bias. FWIW, "bushism" yields 6,840 hits on google and "bushims" yields 10,800. So the phrase clearly has a meaning to the mainstream.
- That's entirely beside the point. The words (to pick an example out of my hat) "Clinton's alleged rape victims" also have meaning, but we sure as heck don't want to have an article about that.
- Maybe the big problem here is that there is no strong community sense of what is "worthy" to be in the wikipedia, and it is frowned on to run around deleting entire posts. I think that bushism doesn't belong here, because in general trivial lists of factoids that are critical of an individual don't belong in an encylopedia. But if wikipedia is going to pander to triviality like Schurz, Nevada, then I certainly can't see banning bushism for being pointless.
- Tell the 721 people living in Schurz that they are trivial. This information *is* useful and it harms no one. On the other hand, this article has bias and after this discussion I am more convinced that it should disappear or as I suggested above moved to an article more suited for this information. For instance, someone living in my hometown of Akron, Pennsylvania searching "Akron Pennsylvania" on google would hit the Wikipedia page as a first hit. It is relevant information that generates important traffic for Wikipedia. Every encyclopedia has this kind of information, this one just expands to add it to *all* places, even obscure ones. I see this as a strength. -- -RM-
- That's not why I want to get rid of it, though.
- I tend to disagree with the notion that there is no strong sense about what belongs in Wikipedia. In most cases, there is perfect agreement. It's only on the borderlines that there's any disagreement.
- So, wikipedia is already full of bias. It is already full of trivia. And even though I don't like bushism, I can't justify banning it.
- To the extent that Wikipedia is in fact full of bias--according to the definition in neutral point of view, as opposed to some vague, impossible-to-fulfill notion--I deplore that fact. I don't mind trivia. --Larry Sanger
I wrote a 375-word article on discrediting tactics and redirected Bushisms and Goreisms to it. --Ed Poor 14:28 Nov 8, 2002 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ed. Stormwriter