Changes

:::I see, I thought you were talking about this page. I didn't actually replace anything with a National Enquirer cite, I mearly suggested (on the talk page) that a good place to find more stories about celebrity values would be a newspaper which focuses on the dirty details of celebrities. Apparently nobody got the joke.

:::I see, I thought you were talking about this page. I didn't actually replace anything with a National Enquirer cite, I mearly suggested (on the talk page) that a good place to find more stories about celebrity values would be a newspaper which focuses on the dirty details of celebrities. Apparently nobody got the joke.

::::Back to the issue at hand: the rule is "no gossip". If another page breaks this rule, you can't use this as a reason why you, also, can break the rule (see [[Ad_hominem#Forms_of_Ad_Hominem|tu quoque]]. You can use this as an argument to appeal the rule, but in the mean time you should still follow it. Instead, make your case (independent of the fact that gossip is allowed elsewhere) as to how this is not gossip and why it should be allowed. In this case, I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that possible abuse of power 10 years ago is relevant enough to the present for inclusion. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:59, 6 February 2008 (EST)   

:::Back to the issue at hand: the rule is "no gossip". If another page breaks this rule, you can't use this as a reason why you, also, can break the rule (see [[Ad_hominem#Forms_of_Ad_Hominem|tu quoque]]. You can use this as an argument to appeal the rule, but in the mean time you should still follow it. Instead, make your case (independent of the fact that gossip is allowed elsewhere) as to how this is not gossip and why it should be allowed. In this case, I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that possible abuse of power 10 years ago is relevant enough to the present for inclusion. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:59, 6 February 2008 (EST)   

Whats interesting here is that this is considered gossip and ignored by the conservapedia junta and considered "not serious" despite a chief of police testifying about it. However I am almost certain that if it was a claim against say, Barack Obama, it would no doubt receive criticism. Rebuttal?

Whats interesting here is that this is considered gossip and ignored by the conservapedia junta and considered "not serious" despite a chief of police testifying about it. However I am almost certain that if it was a claim against say, Barack Obama, it would no doubt receive criticism. Rebuttal?