Talk:Neal Horsley
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] If anything it's pro-Horsley biased
I recalled the incident where he told Alan Colmes he had sex with animals in his youth, and was looking for the reference. I was surprised to see the content of that dialog here had been toned down, and given an impression that Horsley was joking when he said it. That was not the impression that most people had when they heard the interview.
I just checked the wiki entry for Mohammed Atta and it has numerous references to terrorists. Why the white glove treatment with Horsley? He's no different.
[edit] Complaints of bias
Could this be any more biased? The President of Planned Parenthood herself must have written this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.77.73.78 (talk • contribs).
Well, anonymous user, why don't you contribute to a more neutral tone?Serodio 03:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] What can you do with this entry?
It is highly speculative that it is. Definitely does not conform with NPOV, as it is used in a slandering manner to say the least, and adds nothing to the article.
- Highly speculative? He admitted fucking a mule on national radio!
Shouldn't he change his name to "Kneel, Mulesy"?
[edit] Terrorism
I have removed allegations of terrorism and provided verifiable evidence of Horsley's activities. I have toned down the bestiality component considerably. Capitalistroadster 23:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- why?
[edit] Message from Neal Horsley
The content of this article is not only patently false on numerous details of fact (for example I was born in Bremen not Bowdon, Georgia; I was in the USAF, not the Army), but contains libel per se when it accuses me of advocating terrorism. I have on two occasions contacted Wikipedia and told them to remove the libelous statement. I have been ignored. It is a matter of public record that in the recent past, I spent over three years suing Planned Parenthood, NOW, and Geraldo Rivera when they libelously accused me of assassinating the abortionist Barnett Slepian. Even though I lost, it cost the various parties well over $1,000,000 to deal with the litigation. Wikipedia and the authors of the libelous statements on this "encyclopedia" should prepare to deal with the same process unless they retract the libelous accusation that I have advocated terrorism. I will give them (whether the "them" be Wikipedia staff or the lying author of the article about me) two weeks to get that statement out of this article. If it's still there in two weeks from March 27, 2006, I will initiate a defamation complaint in federal court.
Neal Horsley —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nhorsley (talk • contribs).
- Welcome to Wikipedia. It's been fixed, but in the future, you can fix it yourself, just go ahead and click the "edit" button. WP:AUTO comes into play most often when you start an article about yourself, not when you correct information that other people have written about you. RasputinAXP c 12:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- You should be aware of our No Legal Threats policy. *Dan T.* 13:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Libelous- Point of View
I think this is an inflamatory article written by one of Mr. Horsley's ememies, perhaps someone who lost a legal battle or money $$ because of his views.
Perhaps an enemy like Planned Parenthood, an organization that slaughters American babies faster than Hitler could possibly imagine exterminating the Jews and more effeciently too.
Ideas in the USA of Succession are not Terrorism... Only in dictatorships, suppression of opposing points of view are encouraged.
- This article is malicious and does not conform to NPOV....Steve N. cpusftwre@gmail.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.97.150.194 (talk • contribs).
- Please edit it yourself to your liking as opposed to complaining about it. Talk pages are not soapboxes. Thank you. --Sodium N4 08:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Terrorism
There has been a complaint about the use of the word "terrorism" in this article, so I've removed it. It's best to avoid this word in areas like this, because it's essentially meaningless except as a term of abuse. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Use of "terrorist"?
Mr. Horsley, in the future, I will respect your wishes and not refer to you as a terrorist. I trust "mule-fucker" will be an appropriate substitute?
Also, I am aware that your admittance of bestiality is possibly your way of satirically equating said act with homosexuality. In that case I will cease referring to you as a mule-fucker and instead use fanatical, zealotous hatemonger.
Yours truly, -- James 21:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)