User talk:68.230.42.210

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Hi. I'm Func. I would like to extend an invitation to you to start a discussion on the talk page of the article on Jeffrey MacDonald. Many contributors find that they are better recieved by the Wikipedia community when they discuss their points of view on the talk pages, rather than engaging in edit wars on the articles. Thanks. func(talk) 15:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there something in your nature that prevents you from engaging in intelligent, or any, conversation whatsoever? I added your link to the article, and your response was to once again delete the existing link to crimelibrary.com. This is known as vandalism, and it isn't appreciated. If you continue to edit the article without discussion on the talk page, I will ask that Jeffrey MacDonald be protected from any editing at all, until we can get a dialog started. func(talk) 17:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please read and understand Wikipedia:Neutral point of view before editing Jeffrey MacDonald again. Under no circumstance is it acceptable for Wikipedia to conclude that someone was "justly convicted" of a crime. I have reverted your edits to the article. Rhobite 21:40, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Also, please don't create "alternate version" articles in order to advance your point of view. I edited Green Beret murders so it would redirect to Jeffrey MacDonald. Rhobite 21:44, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Impartiality not observed in your original article

"Func," actually, this article contains factual evidence drawn upon from the original trial transcripts, grand jury transcripts, and letters to and from Kassab and other principals in the case, as well as many other factual documents. I believe what you are protesting is that the truth does show MacDonald was the sole murderer. If nothing else, even putting all physical evidence aside, MacDonald has repeatedly demonstrated the consciousness of his own guilt. Your original "article" was one-sided and biased, without showing impartiality. I do not believe that is the intent of this encyclopedia.

Instead of attacking the messenger, why not study the documents and see the truth for yourself? You claim, for example, that Fatal Vision was "pretty much" shown to be a fabrication, when nothing could be further from the truth. Aren't you greatly misleading people about that, when you know as fact that the vast majority of the book is taken directly from court transcripts, polygraph exam results, grand jury testimonies, and MacDonald's own words? You also claim that the crimelibrary website has a "very complete" picture of the case, when in fact, it is completely one-sided, describing few, if any, of the very damaging items of evidence which proved MacDonald's guilt.

It was easy to tell by your original "article" that you were not familiar with many evidentiary items and rulings in the case. That's okay, but why not take the time to study what is known and proven before you put up an "article" so obviously biased towards innocence? In the revised article, for example, you talk about psychiatrists coming to the conclusion that MacDonald was "sane" and "normal," but you fail to say that all the doctors at Walter Reed, with the exception of Sadoff who was hired by the defense, concluded that MacDonald certainly did possess personality traits that could incline him to murder. You mention candle wax (that old, old standby of supporters), but fail to say that some of the wax was birthday-candle-type wax, and that the wax on the underside of the coffee table was found to be old and full of household debris. You praised Fatal Justice without telling the reader of the countless documented factual errors and misrepresentations in that book. How is that unbiased? The revised article is much more factual, and, by the way, contains many of your original statements as well as additional statements that show the other side of the story. You also noted in your link to The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site that the site contained documents showing MacDonald's guilt, leading the reader to believe that that website is predisposed towards guilt. Yet if you had studied the site, you would see quite a few documents that are favorable to MacDonald. The goal of the owner of that website is to present the factual documents and let the reader make up his or her own mind. If you disagree with the truth, you need to be talking to Jeffrey MacDonald and the witnesses about it...not arguing with those who disagree with you, and not arguing about factual evidence.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/8/2E/User_talk%7E68.230.42.210.html"